This article is very “inside baseball” for the far left. As far as I could understand, the article basically says: depression is caused by the world being terrible, and the world is terrible entirely because of capitalism, so depression is mostly capitalism’s fault. Therefore, we on the left (the article is explicit that it is only for “we on the left”), must learn that therapy is a kind of important political collective act to help us recover from our depression so we can fight capitalism, and not be fooled into thinking it’s something that our depression is something we have individual agency over.
I guess.
I don’t have a deep understanding of depression, except that it is a very real and difficult thing that many people struggle with. So let me caveat that first.
But I have to say, my gut reaction is that it’s rather sad to take a worldview that makes things so dire as to say one’s own depression and the apparent increase in depression around the world is entirely due to the politics you oppose.
To me this reads as the tragic consequences of ever escalating polarization. Instead of seeing the politics around you as merely diverse ideas held by your friends and neighbors, you see it as something more like a species differentiator - and “they” are in control. Well, yes, that would be dire.
But out in the real world it turns out the vast majority of people on the right and the left are not so far out to the wings of their ideology, and that if they sat down over a nice meal they could have a great conversation and really enjoy each other’s company, perhaps even learn from each other and positively influence each other.
The political world around us is indeed depressing, but I would argue we shouldn’t wish that we could get out of bed so we can “throw a brick through a window,” but perhaps instead so we can work toward understanding and reconciling with our neighbors instead.
You’re taking a rather crudely reductionist view on the article, and one the article directly admonishes the reader not to do:
> It would be an offense to say, well, it’s just politics... to understand depression through political frames does not mean that the problem of depression can be immediately solved by political means. There is a horror to depression that cannot and must not be translated too quickly into the sphere of politics, regardless of our critical and revolutionary aspirations.
The article is suggesting we should eschew the hyper-individualization of our understanding, diagnosis, and response to depression—and do so by contextualizing it within the political economy in which it lives. It’s a call specifically to not reduce it to chemicals, subjects, and personal responsibilities—and, instead, recognize the impacts of capital, structures, and collective responsibilities which capitalism (and the defensive and capital-protecting ideology and politics it gives rise to) wishes us to ignore. This is the capitalist “realism” the author states runs in tandem with depressive realism—that there are no alternatives, that there really is nothing to be done about the current state of affairs.
The article is calling attention to the possibility—no, the need—to reject this false narrative. There are alternatives, but, the article suggests we instead find comfort in increasingly diagnosing and pathologizing what could be normal effects of capitalism on those who live under it. Instead of recognizing the ways in which our social, political, and economic structures impact subjects, we instead say it’s the subjects who have a chemical imbalance or defect:
> In this way, the diagnosis provides momentary meaning to meaningless misery. The suffering gets a name and a cause: a lack of serotonin. But this cause has causes which in the diagnostic system — and in the capitalist world as a whole — remain undiagnosed and untold.
Whether or not you agree with such a possibility, the very question is, I think, provocative and worth considering and discussing.
To be honest I’m not so bothered by the idea that depression could be extrinsic, or at least partially extrinsic.
What I find “crudely reductionist,” in the article is the very idea of “capitalist realism,” and the idea that some notion called “capitalism,” can be the cause of all depression.
Are we to think that depression did not exist in the Soviet Union? Or perhaps in the mercantilist kingdoms of the colonial era? Or perhaps not in the Roman Empire? Or what about ancient China or India?
There’s some irony in saying “capitalist realism tries to fool us that this is all there could ever be,” when the article itself is declaring that capitalism (or any -ism) can only be some kind of evil force which naturally causes depression.
It doesn’t read to me like a thoughtful scientific article, but like a religious text decrying another religion.
I find the real world is not nearly so black and white. Certainly the “capitalism” as practiced in the United States is far different than that practiced in Norway, as well as the statist system in practice in Cuba and currently falling apart in Venezuela.
It’s hard for me to see this author as doing anything other than taking a victim mentality and trying to prescribe it for everyone else, laying Universal blanket blame on the authors preferred heresy.
You seem to have a rather viscerally negative response to the article. I’m not advocating either way for the article’s premises or conclusions, I’m merely trying to present a rephrasing of the strongest form of its argument, in an effort to help intellectually engage with it.
> What I find “crudely reductionist,” in the article is the very idea of “capitalist realism,” and the idea that some notion called “capitalism,” can be the cause of all depression.
No, that’s your same reductionist interpretation of the article’s complex claims. You’re just re-stating your initial reaction to the article, while saying it’s what the article is arguing.
The article does not argue or suggest that capitalism “can be the cause of all depression”. Instead, it argues that, because capitalism is the political economy within which our current notion of depression is framed, the act of individualizing depression, while ignoring extrinsic factors as potentially causal and/or contributory, is something we should reconsider.
> Are we to think that depression did not exist in the Soviet Union? Or perhaps in the mercantilist kingdoms of the colonial era? Or perhaps not in the Roman Empire? Or what about ancient China or India?
This is a rather disingenuous bit of whataboutism. The article made no such claims. Given the article’s actual claims, I’d wager the author would suggest we should be looking to the social, political, and economic structures of those specific societies and systems to better understand and contextualize the depression that undoubtedly did exist.
Again, you’re being extremely reductionist here—you’re attempting to turn the article’s grappling with a complex problem, and attempts to contextualize it within the social, political, and economic structures in which it arises into some form of Universal Theory of Capitalist Depression. That’s your argument, not the article’s.
There’s some irony in saying “capitalist realism tries to fool us that this is all there could ever be,” when the article itself is declaring that capitalism (or any -ism) can only be some kind of evil force which naturally causes depression.
The article doesn’t quite declare that. That seems to be your own reaction to the article placing capitalism and the material conditions under which it subjects people (and the impact that may have on mental health) under its microscope. However, this irony you seem to see is quite unclear to the point of not seeming ironic at all.
> Certainly the “capitalism” as practiced in the United States is far different than that practiced in Norway, as well as the statist system in practice in Cuba and currently falling apart in Venezuela.
The author points this out directly on multiple occasions. The author is primarily concerned with Danish society, but alluded to the great differences in the US and elsewhere, and wonders aloud about what impact the different material conditions in which people live might have on their mental health individually and collectively.
> It’s hard for me to see this author as doing anything other than taking a victim mentality and trying to prescribe it for everyone else, laying Universal blanket blame on the authors preferred heresy.
That seems to be your interpretation, and clearly explains why you’re so completely missing the article’s point. The article is directly arguing against the hyper-individualistic pathology of depression as it exists in current discourse. The article is suggesting that what we call depression could very well be a normal reaction to the material conditions within capitalist political economy. If it is, the article thinks, that’s a game-changer.
It really sounds like you’re offended by taking a critical look at capitalism, as if you believe capitalism (or any other kind of ism) does not engender social, political, and economic structures that both serve and reinforce it—or that humans might not have universally positive reactions to such structures and conditions. From crippling, life-long reliance on debt, extreme competition, increasing inequality, and social expectations to be always happy, coupled with always laying the blame for failing to navigate such structural pressures directly on individuals, the author suggests perhaps we should be careful about absolving the structures themselves of any responsibility for their impact on people.
Again, it’s fine to disagree with the author’s conclusions. But I think you should be engaging with the strongest version of the article’s arguments, not reducing them to overly simplistic forms that make it feel easier to dismiss without consideration.
Hah! This got downvoted in the first second after posting, which to me says the down-voter couldn’t have read past the first sentence. Come on now, HN downvotes are for unconstructive or inappropriate comments. If you disagree you’re not supposed to downvote, you’re supposed to reply :)
People are also brigading comments from other accounts despite them being substantive. HN guidelines say not to comment on voting but something sure seems up here.
Yes, I saw that after another commenter pointed me toward the guidelines. I would delete the parent comment, but then I wouldn’t get to offer an apology. Thanks for flagging this to me.
Thanks for that clarity on the rules. I’m neither upvoting or downvoting... I think the first half of the comment is very well written and something I would have liked to have written myself. The second half, the idea that we must all sit down together and have lunch, I struggle to accept. In my opinion, regardless of part of the political spectrum you are, i don’t think you should have to shed your guiding principles. However, that said, I don’t think your organizing principle should be to get everyone to agree with you or to implement your system as the only system. Just as there are thousands and thousands of plant species and what? Millions of insect species, I think it’s important to reflect on the fact that our individual minds in a way make each of us an individual species. While we may from time to time see beauty in collective acts, humans are not meant to be starlings flying in a well orchestrated flock. I cannot begin to suggest I understand depression but I can say that I resist psycho-labeling what goes on in my mind or in yours. Every thought is a gift.
Well, I re-read the guidelines, and I have to admit they do say to reply but don’t specifically say not to downvote. Not sure where I got the idea that was one of the rules.
I see it also says don’t comment on votes, which I hadn’t noticed before. I would go back and delete that comment but then your reply would make no sense, so oh well.
Thank you for posting your explanation and helping set me straight on HN etiquette, I appreciate it!
@mattrp, looks like we’re at the max thread depth. Thanks for your comment.
I certainly don’t mean to say people should shed their ideas, or that we should be starlings that flock together.
But I do think it’s important to see humanity as one species, one people, who have most things in common and thrive by working together constructively.
That’s why I feel it’s important to seek to understand the people who see the world differently than you, rather than just exist in blind opposition to them.
When we let our ideology define who we are it becomes a religion, and world history has plenty of examples of people taking religious ideology as a reason to blindly oppose and eventually wage literal war on “the other.”
Meanwhile, healthy mutual tolerance comes from seeking to understand and then arranging life in such a way that each person can have their own ideas and worldview without needing to quash the others.
To me that feels like just a description of liberal philosophy, so it’s surprising I most often have this conversation with friends leaning far left who are so angry they are thinking more in terms of how to wage a war than how to find a workable mutual tolerance.
I'm surprised that you're surprised. As far as I understand it one of the fundamental differences between what we generally call 'leftists' and 'liberals' is that the latter think we should solve problems by talking and trying to understand, whereas the former considers this as silly as expecting a slave to sit down with his masters and discuss the inconvenience of the beatings and workload.
Better for the slaves to sit down and write complex analyses on what is wrong about slavery and bicker amongst themselves about the details (I joke)!
But anyways, obviously most 'leftists' wouldn't equate slavery with their own situation, and I'd argue most of them do want to go as far as possible through understanding and conversation. But to some degree I'd say that's the basic point of view.
> The political world around us is indeed depressing, but I would argue we shouldn’t wish that we could get out of bed so we can “throw a brick through a window,” but perhaps instead so we can work toward understanding and reconciling with our neighbors instead.
Reasoning from this perspective, wouldn’t this require a society that is more collectively and communally-oriented that one based around extreme competition with each other as the means of survival?
I don’t see how you resolve this antagonism in a society like the US, where failing to ruthlessly compete against others can mean losing healthcare for your family and children, slipping into homelessness, etc. Obviously, other countries mitigate this more with robust safety nets, but you seem to be mistaking a symptom for a cause.
I guess.
I don’t have a deep understanding of depression, except that it is a very real and difficult thing that many people struggle with. So let me caveat that first.
But I have to say, my gut reaction is that it’s rather sad to take a worldview that makes things so dire as to say one’s own depression and the apparent increase in depression around the world is entirely due to the politics you oppose.
To me this reads as the tragic consequences of ever escalating polarization. Instead of seeing the politics around you as merely diverse ideas held by your friends and neighbors, you see it as something more like a species differentiator - and “they” are in control. Well, yes, that would be dire.
But out in the real world it turns out the vast majority of people on the right and the left are not so far out to the wings of their ideology, and that if they sat down over a nice meal they could have a great conversation and really enjoy each other’s company, perhaps even learn from each other and positively influence each other.
The political world around us is indeed depressing, but I would argue we shouldn’t wish that we could get out of bed so we can “throw a brick through a window,” but perhaps instead so we can work toward understanding and reconciling with our neighbors instead.