by Steve Rose | Jun 30, 2023 | Addiction and Recovery, Identity, Purpose, and Belonging, Suicide and Mental Health
Human nature, a subject of deep fascination and intense study throughout the history of human thought, encompasses a spectrum of views about what fundamentally drives human behavior. While some argue that humans are inherently selfish or aggressive, others present a more optimistic perspective, suggesting an innate predisposition towards goodness, altruism, and compassion.
As an addiction counselor, my steadfast belief in the fundamental goodness of human nature underpins the very fabric of my counseling practice. It is this belief that echoes in Anne Frank’s stirring words: “I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.” It is this belief that resonates with the humanistic psychology of Carl Rogers, who posited that individuals inherently strive towards self-actualization. It aligns with Victor Frankl’s logotherapy, which asserts that human beings are fundamentally oriented towards the pursuit of meaning, even in the face of adversity.
In this article, I will explore the profound implications of these perspectives on human nature, delving into how these beliefs can shape our approaches towards facilitating behavior change, and the far-reaching societal impacts of these perspectives. Together, let us traverse this exploration of human goodness, unearthing its foundational role in personal growth, societal progress, and the continued evolution of our shared humanity.
Exploration of Anne Frank’s Perspective
Born on June 12, 1929, in Frankfurt, Germany, Anne Frank was a Jewish teenager who gained posthumous fame through the publication of her diary. The Frank family moved to Amsterdam in 1934 to escape the escalating persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. However, following the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands in 1940, they went into hiding in a secret annex in her father’s office building in 1942. Anne, her sister Margot, and their parents lived in this clandestine space with four other Jews until 1944, when they were discovered and transported to concentration camps. Anne and her sister died of typhus in the Bergen-Belsen camp in 1945. Anne’s father, Otto Frank, the only survivor of the family, later published Anne’s diary entries, providing the world with a poignant glimpse into her life in hiding.
Anne’s statement, “I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart,” comes from one of her diary entries written on July 15, 1944. This was less than a month before the Secret Annex’s inhabitants were discovered and arrested. Her quote reveals a resilient optimism and belief in human goodness, even as she faced severe oppression and lived in constant fear. It symbolizes an unwavering hope that underlines a human capacity for goodness, irrespective of the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis.
Despite the inhumanity surrounding her, Anne Frank maintained an extraordinary belief in the goodness of people. She viewed her oppressors not as representations of all humankind but as deviations from it. Her optimism, embedded in the most dire of circumstances, attests to the resilience of hope and the capacity for individuals to perceive and believe in the fundamental goodness of humanity, even when confronted with its darkest aspects.
Anne’s perspective also points towards a universal human potential: the ability to maintain a view of human goodness and to use this belief as a source of strength and resilience. As such, her quote is not simply a statement of belief, but a testament to the power of optimism, hope, and belief in the face of overwhelming adversity.
Victor Frankl’s Perspective on Human Nature
Victor Frankl, born in 1905 in Vienna, Austria, was a psychiatrist and neurologist who survived the Holocaust, enduring the brutal conditions of Auschwitz and other concentration camps. Post World War II, Frankl became a professor of neurology and psychiatry at the University of Vienna and wrote numerous books. His most influential work is “Man’s Search for Meaning,” an autobiographical account of his experiences in concentration camps that underpins his psychological theory – logotherapy.
While enduring the abhorrent conditions of the concentration camps, Frankl observed that those who were able to hold onto a sense of purpose and meaning in life were more likely to survive. These experiences profoundly shaped his understanding of human nature. Despite witnessing some of the most despicable acts of human cruelty, he maintained a belief in the possibility of human goodness. Frankl proposed that even in the direst situations, individuals could choose their attitudes and find meaning, thereby affirming their humanity.
Frankl’s logotherapy is predicated on the belief that the primary motivational force for humans is not power or pleasure, but a “will to meaning” – the desire to find purpose in life. This perspective suggests that humans are fundamentally oriented towards the good, as they are driven by the pursuit of meaningful and purposeful goals, which often involve service, love, and acts of compassion and creativity.
Central to Frankl’s perspective is the concept of “tragic optimism,” the ability to maintain hope and find meaning in life despite its inevitable suffering. Frankl asserted that humans are always free to choose their attitude, regardless of their circumstances, and with this freedom comes responsibility. This belief in human freedom and responsibility underscores his faith in inherent human goodness. Despite the potential for evil, humans have the capacity for change, growth, and choosing to act in ways that affirm life and its inherent value.
To articulate Victor Frankl’s perspective on human nature, consider the metaphor of a sailor navigating through a tempestuous sea. Just as a sailor at sea has the freedom to steer his vessel, no matter the storm, so too does each individual have the power to navigate their life’s journey, irrespective of external circumstances.
The rough, unpredictable sea represents the external adversities and challenges we face in life. These adversities can be fierce, and at times overwhelming, akin to the mighty waves that crash against a solitary ship amidst a storm. Yet, Frankl believed that despite these adversities, individuals retain the freedom to choose their response. Much like a skilled sailor who maintains the course, adjusts the sails, or seeks safe harbor, individuals have the power to shape their response to life’s trials, guided by their inner compass or their ‘will to meaning.’
The inherent goodness in human nature, according to Frankl, is found in our freedom and responsibility to seek meaning, even in the face of adversity. This can be likened to the sailor’s innate desire to find their way, to survive, and to reach their destination. Despite the most formidable storm, this pursuit never ceases.
Frankl’s logotherapy proposes that our primary motivation is the pursuit of meaning, akin to the sailor’s unwavering focus on the guiding stars, which provide direction amidst the chaotic sea. This drive towards meaning, towards a purpose greater than oneself, signifies the essential goodness and nobility in human nature.
Thus, Victor Frankl’s perspective on human nature presents a portrait of resilience, freedom, responsibility, and an inherent orientation towards meaning and goodness, much like a sailor who, despite all odds, navigates the stormy seas with the faith that calm waters and safe harbors lie ahead.
Carl Rogers’ Humanistic Psychology and the Idea of Innate Goodness
Carl Rogers, born in 1902, was one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century, and a founding figure of humanistic psychology. This branch of psychology posits that humans are not merely the product of their environment or dark unconscious urges, but have an inherent desire for self-actualization, growth, and the expression of their unique potential. Rogers is particularly known for his person-centered approach, emphasizing empathy, unconditional positive regard, and the therapist’s authenticity as critical components of effective psychotherapy.
At the heart of Rogers’ theory lies the “actualizing tendency,” the innate drive in all organisms to grow, change, and strive towards fulfillment and potential. For Rogers, humans are inherently inclined towards positive, constructive ends. This aligns closely with the idea of innate goodness. Even though individuals may deviate from this path due to adverse circumstances or conditions of worth imposed by society, at their core, they maintain this intrinsic impulse towards growth, positivity, and ultimately, goodness.
Consider human nature as akin to a garden. In Carl Rogers’ perspective, every person is like a seed with the innate potential to grow and flourish into a vibrant, unique, and robust plant. This inherent capacity for growth and self-actualization is the natural state, much like a seed instinctively knows how to germinate, to push its sprouts towards the sun, and to unfurl its leaves for photosynthesis.
Rogers emphasized the ‘actualizing tendency,’ which can be likened to the inherent genetic blueprint within the seed, guiding its growth and development. This blueprint nudges the seed towards becoming the best version of the plant it is meant to be. Similarly, in every person, there lies an innate tendency towards growth, development, and the realization of their potential.
However, just like a seed needs the right conditions to thrive, humans too require an environment conducive to growth. This includes ‘good soil’ or a nurturing and accepting social environment, ‘sunlight’ or unconditional positive regard from those around us, and ‘water’ or empathy to nourish our self-understanding and personal growth. With these conditions met, humans, like plants, can flourish, growing into the best versions of themselves.
Nevertheless, it is essential to recognize that sometimes, despite having the inherent potential for growth, a seed might fail to sprout or a plant might wither if conditions are unfavorable. Similarly, external adverse circumstances or internal psychological barriers might hinder an individual’s path towards self-actualization. However, this doesn’t negate the inherent goodness and potential within; instead, it underscores the importance of creating environments that nurture this inherent goodness and facilitate growth.
In essence, Carl Rogers’ view of human nature is one of optimism and potential, firmly rooted in the belief that, like a garden filled with a multitude of diverse and beautiful plants, each person possesses the inherent potential to grow, flourish, and contribute uniquely to the rich tapestry of human experience.
The Belief in Human Goodness and Behavior Change
When it comes to understanding and influencing human behavior, our underlying beliefs about human nature can significantly shape our approach. Our views about whether people are fundamentally good, neutral, or inherently flawed can influence everything from our interpersonal interactions to our larger societal interventions designed to foster behavior change.
Believing in the inherent goodness of human beings can drastically change the perspective towards and methods of behavior change. It shifts the focus from the lens of deficiency or flaw that needs correction to the view of untapped potential waiting to be nurtured and fostered. This optimistic view of human nature encourages an approach to behavior change that builds on strengths rather than merely trying to eliminate weaknesses.
A Strength-based Approach to Behavior Change
The belief in human goodness invites a strength-based approach to behavior change, which emphasizes strengths, potentials, and existing capacities for goodness in individuals. Instead of identifying deficits and seeking to remedy them, a strength-based approach encourages the exploration of what is already working well and how this can be amplified to support positive change.
This approach might involve helping individuals recognize their innate capacities for empathy, cooperation, and altruism, or nurturing qualities such as resilience, creativity, and ethical reasoning. The focus is on unleashing the inherent potential and goodness in individuals, empowering them to harness these qualities in the service of personal growth and positive change.
Understanding Negative Behaviors
Believing in human goodness also offers a compassionate framework for understanding negative behaviors. If one holds that people are essentially good, negative behaviors are seen not as evidence of inherent evil or pathology but as expressions of unmet needs or adaptive strategies developed under adverse conditions.
For example, an individual who engages in aggressive behavior might be trying to meet an unmet need for security, respect, or autonomy. Such behaviors, while problematic, can be seen as the individual’s best attempt to navigate their circumstances, given their current resources and skills. This understanding can foster a more empathetic and compassionate approach to behavior change, focusing on understanding and addressing the underlying needs and fostering the development of more adaptive strategies, rather than blaming or punishing the individual.
The Power of Unconditional Positive Regard
Another implication of the belief in human goodness for behavior change is the power of unconditional positive regard, a concept introduced by Carl Rogers. This concept refers to accepting and valuing a person irrespective of their behaviors. If we believe in the inherent goodness of individuals, we can separate their core worth as human beings from their behaviors.
Practicing unconditional positive regard can have a powerful impact on behavior change. When individuals feel deeply accepted and valued, they are more likely to feel safe to explore their behaviors, feelings, and thoughts, fostering self-understanding and growth. Moreover, this unconditional acceptance can reinforce individuals’ belief in their own worth and potential, enhancing their motivation and capacity for positive change.
Humanistic Psychology and Behavior Change
Humanistic psychology, as represented by Carl Rogers’ theory, provides a rich framework for considering behavior change. At the heart of this perspective is the belief in an individual’s inherent capacity for growth and self-actualization, a propensity towards realizing one’s potential and inherent goodness. Rogers posited that every person has a “real self” and an “ideal self,” and that wellness and positive behavior are fostered when one’s self-image and ideal self are congruent. This view encourages an approach to behavior change that values empathy, positive regard, and congruence.
For therapists, coaches, or any professionals assisting others in behavior change, this perspective implies creating an environment that promotes personal growth and self-discovery, allowing the person to move closer to their ideal self. This might involve providing unconditional positive regard, empathetic understanding, and genuineness, thereby fostering a sense of safety and acceptance that enables exploration and change. This helps individuals recognize and remove conditions of worth, societal or self-imposed expectations that hinder their self-actualization by fostering a lack of self-acceptance.
Logotherapy and Behavior Change
Victor Frankl’s logotherapy also offers insightful implications for facilitating behavior change. Central to Frankl’s approach is the “will to meaning,” the innate human desire to find purpose and meaning in life. According to Frankl, behavior change can often be facilitated by helping individuals discover or rediscover the unique meanings in their lives. This process might involve helping individuals understand their values, passions, and strengths, or supporting them in making sense of and finding meaning in difficult experiences.
Frankl’s emphasis on the capacity to choose one’s attitude, even in the face of unavoidable suffering, is another crucial component of this perspective on behavior change. This suggests that interventions can focus on fostering individuals’ sense of personal agency and responsibility, helping them recognize their freedom to choose their reactions and attitudes, even in challenging circumstances.
Building Environments That Foster Goodness
The belief in fundamental human goodness can shape not only individual approaches to behavior change, but also societal and institutional approaches. If we accept that humans are fundamentally good and motivated by an inherent tendency toward growth, we can develop systems and policies that reflect this understanding, encouraging healthier, more productive, and more compassionate societies.
Educational Systems
In educational contexts, the belief in human goodness can shape how we view students and the purpose of education itself. Rather than seeing education as a process of ‘filling vessels’ with knowledge or ‘correcting’ deficiencies, it can be viewed as a process of nurturing inherent capacities for learning, curiosity, creativity, empathy, and ethical reasoning.
This approach might involve creating learning environments that foster curiosity and love for learning, rather than focusing primarily on grades or standardized test scores. It could also emphasize socio-emotional learning, cultivating students’ capacities for empathy, emotional literacy, cooperation, and conflict resolution. Recognizing the inherent potential in every student can also lead to greater emphasis on equity in education, ensuring that every student, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to realize their potential.
Criminal Justice Systems
The belief in human goodness can also significantly influence approaches to criminal justice. If we see individuals who commit offenses as fundamentally good, this can shift the focus from punishment and retribution towards restoration, rehabilitation, and reintegration.
This perspective invites a restorative justice approach, which focuses on healing the harm caused by crimes, holding offenders accountable in a way that fosters their growth and integration, and restoring relationships and community harmony. It might also involve investing more in rehabilitation programs that address the underlying issues contributing to criminal behaviors, such as addiction, mental health issues, or lack of education or employment opportunities.
Social Policies
Believing in human goodness can also shape social policies, affecting how society addresses issues such as poverty, homelessness, inequality, or mental health. Rather than blaming individuals for their circumstances, this perspective emphasizes creating conditions that allow individuals to realize their inherent potential and goodness.
This might involve implementing policies that meet basic needs for food, shelter, healthcare, and education, reducing the stressors that can hinder individuals’ capacity to realize their goodness. It could also involve creating opportunities for meaningful work and community engagement, recognizing the human desire for purpose, contribution, and connection.
Healthcare Systems
In healthcare systems, a belief in human goodness can foster a holistic and person-centered approach. Rather than focusing solely on disease or dysfunction, this perspective encourages seeing patients as whole persons with inherent capacities for health and well-being.
This might involve integrating mental and physical healthcare, recognizing the interconnection between mind and body health. It could also involve incorporating practices that foster patients’ active participation in their health care, enhancing their sense of agency and empowerment. This approach can lead to healthcare that not only treats illnesses but also promotes overall health, well-being, and flourishing.
In conclusion, a belief in human goodness can significantly influence societal and institutional approaches to behavior change, fostering systems and policies that are more compassionate, empowering, and effective. By creating conditions that nurture human goodness, we can help individuals and communities to thrive.
Conclusion
The view of human nature as fundamentally good, as expressed through the lives and works of figures like Anne Frank, Carl Rogers, and Victor Frankl, has far-reaching implications for our understanding of behavior and how we facilitate change. By adopting an appreciative approach, acknowledging the innate potential within each individual, and affirming our collective capacity for goodness, we can significantly alter the landscape of personal development, therapeutic interventions, and societal transformations.
The lens of inherent human goodness offers a compassionate understanding of negative behaviors, viewing them not as signs of inherent evil, but as the products of unmet needs or adaptation to challenging circumstances. Such a perspective opens the door to empathy, understanding, and effective means of behavior change that underscore the value of nurturing inherent capacities for empathy, cooperation, altruism, and moral reasoning.
Moreover, the belief in human goodness has substantial societal and institutional implications, shaping our approaches to education, criminal justice, social policies, and healthcare. By building systems that foster human goodness and meet basic human needs, we create an environment conducive to the flourishing of individuals and communities.
In essence, the belief in fundamental human goodness is more than an optimistic assertion; it’s a powerful foundation for fostering positive behavior change, both at an individual and societal level. While acknowledging the complexities of human behavior and the darker aspects of human nature, this perspective offers a hopeful vision of what we can become, a beacon guiding us towards a more empathetic, compassionate, and just society. It encourages us not only to believe in human goodness but to act in ways that make this goodness visible in our world.
by Steve Rose | May 31, 2023 | Addiction and Recovery, Identity, Purpose, and Belonging, Suicide and Mental Health
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, more commonly known as the DSM, has been the gold standard for the classification and diagnosis of mental disorders for over half a century. Published by the American Psychiatric Association, the DSM is widely adopted by mental health professionals globally as a guide for diagnosing and treating mental illnesses. Its categories of mental disorders and their criteria are used in a myriad of ways, from guiding therapy to informing insurance coverage.
However, despite its significance and widespread acceptance, the DSM has been subject to critique. In this article I will provide a critique based on the humanistic perspective of Carl Rogers. As one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century, Rogers’ viewpoint emphasized the inherent worth and self-determination of individuals. His perspective challenges the dominant medical model underpinning the DSM, which leans heavily towards categorizing and pathologizing individuals’ behavior and experiences. This critique is especially relevant in today’s world, where mental health issues are on the rise, demanding a more inclusive, empathetic, and individualized approach to mental health care.
In light of this critique, I propose the concept of “contextual pathology” as a potential alternative. Contextual pathology shifts the focus from an individual-centric perspective to an interactional perspective, taking into account the interplay between an individual and their environment. It challenges the established notions of pathology, suggesting that weaknesses or traits considered pathological in one context may actually be adaptive or strengths in another.
This approach offers a novel lens through which we can reexamine and redefine our understanding of mental health. In the following sections, I will delve deeper into these ideas, illuminating the shortcomings of the DSM, the humanistic critique, and the transformative potential of contextual pathology.
The DSM and Its Limitations
The DSM, now in its fifth edition, traces its roots back to the early 20th century when mental health professionals sought a common language and standard criteria for classifying mental disorders. Over the years, it has undergone several revisions to reflect evolving understandings of mental illnesses. The main purpose of the DSM is to facilitate diagnostic accuracy and treatment consistency among professionals in the field. It provides a common language that allows practitioners to communicate effectively about their patients’ mental health.
Despite its widespread use and significance, the DSM has been subject to criticism, particularly for its emphasis on individual pathology. Critics argue that it encourages a reductionist view of mental health, distilling complex human experiences and behaviors into neat categories and labels. This perspective overlooks the complexity of human experiences and the influences of societal, cultural, and environmental factors. By focusing primarily on individual symptoms and disorders, the DSM inadvertently neglects the person behind the pathology and the unique context in which they exist.
Several studies have also pointed to the limitations of an individualized diagnostic approach. For example, the phenomenon of high comorbidity rates, where individuals are diagnosed with multiple disorders, raises questions about the validity of clear-cut categories in the DSM. Moreover, many have noted the DSM’s lack of attention to cultural variations in the expression of distress, with the risk of overdiagnosing or underdiagnosing certain groups. Furthermore, a narrow focus on pathology may lead to an over-reliance on pharmaceutical interventions, possibly at the expense of addressing other meaningful aspects of an individual’s life. These concerns collectively highlight the need for an approach to mental health that goes beyond mere categorization and embraces the complexity and diversity of human experiences.
Carl Rogers and the Humanistic Approach to Mental Health
Carl Rogers was a prominent figure in psychology, particularly known for his humanistic approach to psychotherapy. Rogers’ theories revolutionized the field by shifting the focus away from the therapist and diagnosis, towards the client’s experiences and perspectives. His ‘Client-Centered Therapy’ highlighted the value of empathy, genuineness, and unconditional positive regard, significantly influencing the practice of psychotherapy.
At the heart of Rogers’ humanistic approach is the belief in the inherent goodness and potential of individuals. He posited that people are essentially self-actualizing; they strive for growth, fulfillment, and the realization of their potential. This perspective also emphasized the importance of individual experiences and subjective perceptions, as opposed to diagnostic categories and norms. The humanistic approach acknowledges the complexities of human existence, placing significant value on personal experience, autonomy, and the innate striving towards self-improvement and personal growth.
Focus on the Intrinsic Worth and Potential of Individuals
Rogers’ humanistic approach starkly contrasts with the pathology-focused framework of the DSM. The DSM’s emphasis on identifying and classifying disorders may detract from the inherent worth and potential of the individual. Rogers, on the other hand, viewed individuals as more than a collection of symptoms, underscoring the importance of understanding and supporting the person’s subjective experiences and inherent potential.
Critique of the Pathology-Oriented Approach
The DSM’s pathology-oriented approach also contrasts with Rogers’ positive view of human nature. By focusing on diagnosing and treating disorders, the DSM potentially overlooks the individuals’ strengths and capacities for growth. Rogers’ perspective encourages therapists to see beyond the diagnosis to the person behind it, understanding their experiences, and supporting their self-actualizing journey.
Emphasis on the Subjectivity and Complexity of Human Experiences
Finally, Rogers’ emphasis on the subjectivity and complexity of human experiences contrasts with the DSM’s objective, categorization-based approach. While the DSM attempts to distill complex human experiences into defined categories, Rogers acknowledged the richness and diversity of these experiences. His approach encourages a more nuanced understanding of mental health, viewing it as a complex interplay of personal experiences and interpretations, rather than a list of symptoms to be ticked off a checklist.
Proposing the Concept of Contextual Pathology
In order to highlight the crucial interplay between the individual and society to avoid an over-emphasis on individual pathology, I propose the concept of contextual pathology. This is a novel approach to understanding mental health that emphasizes the interaction between an individual and their environment. This is not merely shifting the locus of pathology to the social context (social pathology). Rather, it considers the specific fit between the individual and their social context.
I postulate that what may be considered a pathology within one context may not necessarily be so in another. Instead of viewing mental health issues solely as individual failings or dysfunctions, this approach considers how various contexts can influence an individual’s mental health.
The conventional approach, represented by the DSM, emphasizes individual pathology, focusing on diagnosing and treating mental disorders based on symptoms manifested by the individual. In contrast, contextual pathology does not concentrate solely on the individual’s symptoms but also takes into account the external factors impacting the individual’s mental health. These factors can include social relationships, cultural norms, economic conditions, and other environmental influences.
The benefit of a contextual approach is that it provides a more holistic view of mental health. By considering the broader context, it offers a deeper understanding of the conditions contributing to an individual’s mental health issues. It helps to uncover systemic and environmental issues that may contribute to mental distress, paving the way for more comprehensive and potentially more effective interventions. Additionally, it can help to destigmatize mental health issues by acknowledging the role of external stressors and societal pressures.
Consider an individual exhibiting traits of hyperactivity and impulsivity, traits typically associated with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). In a traditional classroom setting, these traits might be disruptive and viewed negatively. However, in a different context, such as in an energetic startup environment or creative pursuit, these traits could be seen as advantageous, fostering innovation and quick decision-making. The contextual pathology perspective encourages us to consider these situational factors before rushing to pathologize behaviors or traits.
The following examples highlight the concept of contextual pathology. Although the names and details of each example are fictionalized, they highlight real and common problems.
A Tale of Contextual Pathology: The Story of Sofia
Sofia, a vivacious and creative young woman, always found herself at odds with traditional academic structures. From an early age, she displayed a deep sense of empathy and emotional intelligence, often understanding and interpreting the world through her feelings rather than through the dry facts and figures that school emphasized. The educational system’s focus on objective knowledge, logic, and standardized testing felt stifling to Sofia, making her feel out of place and unsuccessful.
Frustrated by her inability to conform to these academic expectations, Sofia began to see herself as incapable or deficient. Her teachers labeled her as ‘disruptive’ because she often asked unconventional questions or made remarks that strayed from the curriculum’s strict content. Her report cards frequently mentioned her ‘difficulty focusing’, and she was referred to a school psychologist for potential attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
When Sofia turned sixteen, she took a part-time job at a local nursing home, assisting with activities and day-to-day care for the residents. The nursing home environment was markedly different from school. Here, Sofia’s empathy, emotional intelligence, and creativity were not only valued but crucial. She quickly formed meaningful relationships with the residents, understanding their needs and feelings, often without them having to say a word.
In this environment, Sofia’s ‘disruptive’ nature became a strength as she proposed and implemented innovative activities that significantly improved the residents’ quality of life. Her ‘difficulty focusing’ on dry academic materials turned into an ability to multi-task efficiently, keeping track of multiple residents’ needs and the dynamic demands of her role.
Sofia thrived in this context. What was once pathologized as a ‘weakness’ in the educational system became her greatest strength in the nursing home. She was not ‘disordered’; rather, the traditional school setting was not a suitable environment for her unique capabilities and perspective. This shift in context perfectly illustrates the concept of ‘contextual pathology’—when the problem is not inherent within the individual but arises from a misalignment between individual traits and societal roles or contexts.
Another Tale of Contextual Pathology: The Journey of Alex
Alex, a man in his mid-twenties, found himself adrift in a sea of uncertainty. Having graduated from a prestigious university with a degree in finance, he secured a lucrative job at a top consulting firm, fulfilling what he had been told was a path to success. Yet, despite his achievements, Alex felt a gnawing emptiness, a lack of purpose and fulfillment that he couldn’t quite articulate.
In his corporate job, Alex felt like a square peg in a round hole. His work environment valued analytical thinking, competitiveness, and long work hours. Despite his best efforts, Alex struggled to keep up with the demands of his job. He was often criticized for being ‘too sensitive’ or ‘too slow’, as he preferred to think deeply about the tasks at hand and was greatly affected by the high-pressure, cutthroat corporate environment.
He often questioned his capabilities and self-worth, and as his mental health declined, he was diagnosed with depression and anxiety. Society seemed to suggest that his struggles were a result of personal weaknesses or flaws – his inability to cope with the ‘real world’.
However, things took a turn when Alex’s friend introduced him to a local non-profit organization seeking volunteers for a community project. Deciding to take a break from his corporate job, Alex joined the non-profit and quickly discovered a context in which his perceived ‘weaknesses’ were actually strengths.
In the non-profit environment, Alex’s sensitivity was a valuable asset, allowing him to connect with the community members on a deeper level and understand their needs and concerns. His preference for deep thinking was appreciated as he brought thoughtful insights into the planning and execution of the projects. The slower pace and collaborative, meaningful work brought him a sense of purpose that had been missing in his corporate job.
In this new context, Alex was no longer ‘too sensitive’ or ‘too slow’ – he was empathetic and contemplative. His depression and anxiety started to ease, not because he had ‘fixed’ himself, but because he had found an environment that nurtured his natural traits instead of stifling them.
Alex’s story further illustrates the concept of ‘contextual pathology’. His mental health struggles were not inherent flaws but rather a reaction to a context that did not align with his natural abilities and needs. When he found a suitable environment, he was not only able to function but truly thrive, underscoring that the problem often lies not in the person, but in the context.
A Third Tale of Contextual Pathology: The Story of Anne
Anne, a sprightly and spirited woman in her seventies, found herself struggling to adjust to the constraints of her retirement home. Having led an active life as a school teacher, she cherished her independence and often found joy in small, spontaneous adventures like exploring new walking trails or trying out new recipes.
However, the retirement home she moved into had a rigid daily schedule and minimal activities that she found engaging. The staff often mistook her desire for independence and spontaneity as ‘rebelliousness’ or ‘difficulty adjusting’. Despite being physically healthy, Anne began to feel depressed and stifled, her vibrant spirit gradually dulled by the mundane routine and lack of autonomy.
Concerns about her mental health led to a series of assessments, and she was soon diagnosed with late-onset depression. The narrative quickly turned to her ‘inability to adjust to aging’ or ‘refusal to accept her new lifestyle’. Anne began to question herself, wondering if she was indeed flawed or ‘difficult’.
But a change came when her granddaughter introduced her to a community gardening project in her neighborhood. Eager to break free from the monotony of her retirement home, Anne joined the project. She found joy in the dirt under her nails, the nurturing of plants from seedlings to full bloom, and the satisfaction of creating something with her own hands.
The garden offered flexibility and the opportunity for spontaneous discovery that she craved. Her natural teaching abilities resurfaced as she guided young volunteers in the garden. The ‘rebelliousness’ that the retirement home staff frowned upon turned out to be her unique zest for life, now sparking joy and learning in the community garden.
In this context, Anne was no longer a ‘difficult’ elderly woman but a valuable mentor and vibrant community member. Her depression eased as she regained her sense of purpose and autonomy.
Anne’s journey highlights ‘contextual pathology’, demonstrating that her struggles were not personal failings but rather the result of an unsuitable environment. By finding a setting that embraced her spirit and strengths, she was able to reclaim her mental well-being and truly thrive. This reinforces the notion that we must consider the broader societal and environmental contexts when addressing mental health.
A Fourth Tale of Contextual Pathology: The Case of Lucas
Lucas, a man in his thirties, had always been deeply analytical. From a young age, he was fascinated by patterns, systems, and abstract concepts. He had a knack for dissecting complex ideas and problems, often losing himself in hours of thought and analysis. However, he struggled to express his thoughts verbally and found social interactions demanding and exhausting.
In his job as a sales manager, Lucas often felt out of place. His role demanded high levels of social interaction, quick decision-making, and a focus on interpersonal relationships. Lucas’ analytical mind and introverted nature were seen as drawbacks in this context. His difficulty with small talk and tendency to over-analyze were often mistaken for aloofness or indecisiveness.
Consequently, Lucas’ mental health started to deteriorate. He felt anxious, overwhelmed, and inadequate. The job he was supposed to be good at felt like a daily struggle. He was diagnosed with social anxiety disorder and recommended cognitive behavioral therapy to ‘improve’ his social skills.
Things began to change when Lucas joined a local chess club as a leisure activity. In this new environment, his analytical mind was not only welcomed but greatly valued. Chess offered Lucas the opportunity to apply his pattern recognition skills and strategic thinking without the pressure of social expectations that had plagued him in his job.
Furthermore, Lucas later found employment as a data analyst. In this role, his ability to discern patterns and analyze complex data was highly appreciated. His perceived ‘weaknesses’ in the sales job turned out to be his greatest strengths in a context that valued his analytical skills. He found his work fulfilling and was able to excel without the constant dread of social interactions. His ‘social anxiety disorder’ was significantly alleviated, not because he had become more sociable, but because he was no longer in an environment that stressed his weaknesses.
Lucas’ story is another example of ‘contextual pathology’. His struggles were not due to inherent flaws or a disorder, but rather a misfit between his individual traits and his job. When Lucas found an environment that appreciated his strengths, he was able to thrive, further illustrating the importance of considering context in understanding and addressing mental health.
The Shortcomings of Individualized Pathology
While individualized approaches to mental health, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) or medication, play a critical role in managing mental health issues, they can inadvertently overlook the broader social and environmental context that significantly impacts an individual’s mental well-being. This section highlights how these approaches may neglect unhealthy social environments, challenging workplaces, economic realities, and the lack of fit between the individual and their role.
Unhealthy Social Environments
Unhealthy social environments, characterized by things like lack of social support, prejudice, discrimination, or toxic relationships, can profoundly affect an individual’s mental health. While CBT or medication can help manage symptoms and improve coping strategies, they may not fully address these external factors. Without addressing these toxic environments, the individual may continue to experience distress, and the impact of the therapy may be compromised.
Challenging Workplaces
Workplace stressors, such as high job demands, low job control, and lack of workplace support, can lead to anxiety, depression, and burnout. While individual-focused approaches can help employees manage their stress responses, they do not necessarily change the challenging work conditions. Efforts should also be made to promote healthier work environments that foster well-being and resilience.
Economic Realities
Economic factors, such as poverty, unemployment, and financial instability, are well-known to be associated with a wide range of mental health problems. However, individualized treatments like CBT or medication do not directly address these economic realities. While these treatments can help individuals cope better, they may not be enough to alleviate the psychological distress caused by economic hardship.
Lack of Fit Between the Individual and Their Role
The lack of fit between an individual and their societal role or expectations can lead to significant distress. For instance, a person with a highly creative personality might feel stifled and unhappy in a rigid, monotonous job. While individual-focused approaches can help the person cope with their feelings of dissatisfaction, they do not address the underlying issue: the mismatch between the person and their environment.
The recognition of these limitations does not diminish the value of individualized approaches, but rather underscores the need for a more holistic approach that acknowledges and addresses the broader societal and environmental context impacting mental health. It highlights the importance of integrating individual-focused treatments with efforts to improve social environments, workplaces, economic conditions, and the alignment between individuals and their roles.
Contextual Pathology and Its Challenge to the Current Economic System
Contextual pathology as a concept has implications that extend beyond the realm of mental health and into our broader economic structures. This perspective presents a challenge to the current economic system, which often prioritizes productivity, efficiency, and uniformity over individual well-being and the complex interaction between an individual and their environment.
The Pressure to Conform
Our current economic system often creates an environment that places high demands on individuals, requiring them to conform to specific roles, behaviors, and expectations. These expectations may not align with an individual’s unique abilities, interests, or values, potentially leading to stress, burnout, and mental health issues. The concept of contextual pathology argues that these symptoms are not just personal failings but may also be indicative of an unhealthy or unsuitable context.
Neglect of Environmental Factors
The current economic system can also neglect environmental factors that contribute to mental health issues. This can include poor working conditions, economic inequality, and lack of access to basic needs like healthcare, nutrition, and housing. By pathologizing individuals without acknowledging these contextual factors, the system can shift the blame onto individuals and overlook systemic issues that need to be addressed.
The Paradigm Shift
Adopting a contextual pathology perspective challenges the economic system to shift its paradigm. It encourages a move away from a one-size-fits-all approach to a more flexible system that acknowledges and accommodates the diversity of human experiences and capabilities. This shift could involve rethinking work environments, workloads, and expectations to promote mental health and well-being.
The Role of Policymakers and Stakeholders
For this shift to occur, policymakers, employers, educators, and other stakeholders would need to acknowledge the role of environmental factors in mental health and make the necessary changes. This could include implementing policies to improve working conditions, reduce income inequality, and ensure access to basic needs. It could also involve promoting mental health education and providing support services for individuals experiencing mental health issues.
Towards a More Inclusive Economic System
Ultimately, the concept of contextual pathology envisions a more inclusive economic system that values individual well-being and mental health as much as productivity and efficiency. This system would not only help individuals flourish but could also lead to healthier, happier societies and more sustainable economic growth.
Vision for a More Inclusive Approach to Mental Health
Our vision for a future mental health approach goes beyond individualized diagnostics and embraces a more holistic perspective. This approach would not solely rely on categorization of symptoms but would seek to understand individuals in their specific contexts, acknowledging the complexities of their lived experiences and the unique interactions between their traits and their environment. It would prioritize empathy, unconditional positive regard, and the belief in individuals’ potential for growth, reflecting Rogers’ humanistic principles.
The adoption of contextual pathology could significantly impact mental health practice and research. For mental health professionals, it could shift the focus of interventions from solely reducing symptoms to enhancing adaptability and resilience in various contexts. It could encourage professionals to consider environmental changes and societal interventions alongside individual treatments.
In research, it could shift the lens from searching for universal psychiatric truths to exploring the richness and diversity of human experiences across different contexts. It might also facilitate more interdisciplinary collaboration, with researchers from areas like sociology, anthropology, and environmental science contributing to a deeper understanding of mental health.
The integration of the humanistic approach and contextual pathology could transform mental health into a more individual-centered, compassionate, and context-sensitive field. This approach would value personal experiences and the pursuit of self-actualization, while also acknowledging the influence of context on mental health. It could lead to more personalized and effective therapeutic interventions that respect and respond to individuals’ unique experiences, environments, and pathways to growth.
Ultimately, this integration could foster a more nuanced, empathetic, and inclusive understanding of mental health, one that celebrates the complexity and diversity of human experiences, rather than reducing them to diagnostic labels.
Conclusion
The current framework for diagnosing and treating mental health disorders, represented by the DSM, has played a significant role in standardizing mental health practice and facilitating communication among professionals. However, this approach has limitations, especially when viewed from the perspective of Carl Rogers’ humanistic psychology and the emerging concept of contextual pathology.
An overemphasis on individual pathology often obscures the influence of environmental factors and reduces the complex, nuanced experiences of individuals to mere diagnostic labels. This reductionist view can inadvertently contribute to stigma and neglect the systemic and societal factors that can significantly impact an individual’s mental health.
Rogers’ humanistic approach, with its focus on the inherent potential of individuals and the subjectivity of human experiences, offers a valuable counterpoint to this pathology-oriented perspective. Meanwhile, the concept of contextual pathology brings attention to the influence of the environment and context on mental health, challenging us to consider how traits that are pathologized in one context may be strengths in another.
Adopting a mental health approach that integrates these perspectives can have profound implications not only for mental health practice and research but also for our broader societal and economic structures. It calls for a shift away from a one-size-fits-all approach towards a more inclusive, flexible system that values individual well-being and mental health as much as productivity and efficiency.
In closing, it’s important to remember that mental health is not merely the absence of mental disorders. It is a complex interplay of individual traits, experiences, and the context in which they exist. Embracing this complexity, rather than reducing it to labels, can pave the way for a more nuanced, empathetic, and inclusive approach to mental health.
by Steve Rose | Apr 9, 2023 | Addiction and Recovery
When it comes to addiction, we are often inclined to point fingers at the individual, labeling them as weak-willed, irresponsible, or morally flawed. This tendency to view addiction as a purely personal problem not only oversimplifies a complex issue but also undermines the crucial role that structural forces play in fueling addiction.
As the devastating impacts of addiction ripple throughout families, communities, and entire nations, it is high time we challenge our preconceived notions and recognize addiction as a societal problem.
In this article, I will delve into the myriad of factors that contribute to addiction, from socioeconomic disparities and the pharmaceutical industry’s role in the opioid epidemic to the War on Drugs and environmental factors.
By shifting our perspective and acknowledging the structural forces at play, we can foster a more compassionate, effective, and holistic approach to addiction, ultimately promoting a healthier and more equitable society for all.
As a former academic sociologist and current addiction counsellor, this article dives into the intersection between my two areas of expertise, highlighting the need for a broader structural approach to addressing addiction, in addition to individual support.
Socioeconomic Factors and Addiction
Socioeconomic factors are among the most influential drivers of addiction, contributing to a vicious cycle where individuals grappling with poverty, income inequality, and unemployment face an increased risk of developing addiction issues. In this section, we will explore how these factors intertwine with addiction and perpetuate a cycle of vulnerability and dependency.
Poverty and addiction
Limited access to healthcare and addiction treatment
Poverty often restricts access to quality healthcare, limiting individuals’ ability to receive appropriate medical care, mental health support, and addiction treatment. Financial constraints can make it difficult to afford insurance coverage, copays, or out-of-pocket expenses, preventing people from accessing timely and effective care.
Furthermore, underfunded public healthcare systems may struggle to provide sufficient resources, leading to long waiting lists, a shortage of specialized care providers, and inadequate facilities. As a result, those living in poverty may be unable to receive the support they need to prevent or treat addiction, perpetuating a cycle of suffering and dependency.
Higher stress levels and mental health issues
Poverty is closely linked with chronic stress, as individuals and families must constantly grapple with financial insecurity, housing instability, and limited access to basic needs such as food, education, and safety. This chronic stress can exacerbate mental health issues like anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which are known risk factors for addiction.
People struggling with mental health challenges may turn to substances as a means of self-medication, providing temporary relief from emotional pain and distress. However, this coping mechanism can lead to dependence and addiction, further compounding the challenges faced by individuals living in poverty.
Lack of social support networks
Poverty can also weaken social support networks, as people may experience social isolation due to stigmatization, limited resources, or living in underprivileged neighborhoods with high crime rates.
Strong social connections are essential for emotional well-being and can serve as a protective factor against addiction. Without a robust support network, individuals may be more susceptible to turning to substances for comfort or as a means of escape from their difficult circumstances.
Income inequality and addiction
Social dislocation and isolation
Income inequality contributes to addiction by exacerbating social dislocation and isolation. As the gap between the rich and the poor widens, communities become increasingly segregated, with wealthier individuals residing in affluent areas while those with fewer resources are concentrated in disadvantaged neighborhoods. This socioeconomic divide can lead to feelings of exclusion, resentment, and hopelessness, which can contribute to addiction as people turn to substances to cope with these negative emotions.
Marginalization of vulnerable populations
Income inequality can further marginalize vulnerable populations, such as racial and ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ individuals, by limiting their access to resources, opportunities, and social capital. These marginalized groups may face additional stressors, including discrimination, prejudice, and systemic barriers, which can contribute to increased rates of addiction.
By addressing income inequality and promoting greater social and economic equity, we can reduce the disparities in addiction rates and improve overall public health.
Unemployment and addiction
Loss of purpose and self-esteem
Unemployment is a significant risk factor for addiction, as it often leads to a loss of purpose, self-esteem, and financial stability. Individuals who are unemployed may experience feelings of worthlessness, shame, and guilt, which can contribute to mental health issues and make them more susceptible to addiction.
Moreover, a lack of structured time and increased idle time during periods of unemployment may provide more opportunities for substance use and abuse.
Economic stressors
Unemployment can also contribute to addiction through economic stressors, such as financial insecurity, housing instability, and the inability to provide for oneself and one’s family. These stressors can exacerbate mental health issues and increase the likelihood of substance abuse as a coping mechanism. In addition, the financial strain caused by unemployment may lead individuals to resort to illegal activities, such as drug dealing or theft, to make ends meet, further entrenching them in the world of addiction.
The impact of unemployment on communities
Unemployment does not only affect individuals but also has broader implications for communities. High unemployment rates can contribute to increased crime, decreased community cohesion, and a lack of investment in local resources and infrastructure. These factors can create environments where addiction is more likely to flourish, as individuals living in such communities may experience a heightened sense of hopelessness, disconnection, and lack of opportunity.
Socioeconomic factors such as poverty, income inequality, and unemployment are significant contributors to addiction, creating a complex web of vulnerability and dependency. By addressing these structural issues and promoting social and economic equity, we can work towards reducing the prevalence of addiction and supporting individuals on their path to recovery.
This requires a multi-faceted approach, including improved access to healthcare and addiction treatment, investment in community resources and infrastructure, and robust social welfare programs that provide a safety net for those in need. By recognizing and addressing addiction as a societal problem, we can create a healthier, more resilient, and inclusive society for all.
The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Opioid Epidemic
The opioid epidemic has ravaged communities across the United States and around the world, claiming countless lives and leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. While multiple factors have contributed to this crisis, the role of the pharmaceutical industry in promoting the over-prescription of painkillers and fueling addiction cannot be overlooked.
In this section, we will examine how the pharmaceutical industry has driven the opioid epidemic, discuss the need for greater regulation and accountability, and explore potential solutions to address this pressing public health issue.
Aggressive marketing and over-prescription of painkillers
The rise of prescription opioids
The opioid epidemic can be traced back to the late 20th century when pharmaceutical companies began aggressively marketing new opioid painkillers, such as OxyContin, as safe and effective treatments for chronic pain. At the time, there was a growing recognition of the need for better pain management, and these drugs were seen as a promising solution. However, the risks of addiction and overdose were significantly downplayed by pharmaceutical companies, leading to a dramatic increase in the prescription of these medications.
Misleading marketing tactics
Pharmaceutical companies employed various tactics to promote their opioid products, including offering financial incentives to physicians, sponsoring continuing medical education courses, and disseminating misleading information about the safety and efficacy of opioids. These tactics were successful in convincing many healthcare providers that opioids were a low-risk treatment option for pain, resulting in a sharp increase in prescriptions and a corresponding rise in addiction and overdose rates.
The consequences of over-prescription
The widespread over-prescription of opioids has had devastating consequences, with millions of people becoming addicted to these powerful drugs. In many cases, individuals who were initially prescribed opioids for legitimate pain management purposes found themselves struggling with dependence and addiction.
As prescription opioids became harder to obtain due to increased awareness and regulation, many individuals turned to illicit opioids, such as heroin or fentanyl, to satisfy their cravings. This shift has led to a surge in overdose deaths and a worsening of the opioid crisis.
The role of pharmaceutical companies in promoting addiction
Profiting from addiction
The pharmaceutical industry has reaped massive profits from the sale of opioid painkillers, often prioritizing their financial interests over public health. In some cases, pharmaceutical companies have been found to engage in unethical and illegal practices, such as bribing doctors to prescribe their products or deliberately targeting vulnerable populations, such as military veterans or individuals with a history of substance abuse. These actions have contributed to the widespread availability of opioids and the normalization of their use, making it easier for addiction to take hold and spread.
Corporate accountability
In recent years, there has been growing awareness of the role of pharmaceutical companies in the opioid epidemic, and several high-profile lawsuits have been filed against these corporations. Some companies have faced significant financial penalties and legal settlements, while others have declared bankruptcy or been forced to restructure. While these legal actions represent a step towards holding pharmaceutical companies accountable for their role in the opioid crisis, there is still much work to be done to prevent future harm and ensure that those affected by addiction receive the support they need.
The need for greater regulation and accountability
Strengthening prescription guidelines
One of the key factors contributing to the opioid epidemic has been the lax prescription guidelines that allowed for the widespread over-prescription of painkillers. To address this issue, there is a need for stricter, evidence-based guidelines for opioid prescribing, with a focus on limiting the duration and dosage of prescriptions, as well as exploring alternative pain management options. Physicians should also be provided with ongoing education and training to ensure that they are aware of the risks associated with opioids and can make informed decisions about their patients’ care.
Monitoring and tracking prescription practices
Implementing robust prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) can help identify patterns of over-prescription, “doctor shopping,” and other potentially harmful practices. PDMPs should be accessible to healthcare providers, pharmacists, and relevant authorities to facilitate better coordination and oversight of opioid prescriptions. By monitoring and analyzing prescription data, healthcare providers can make more informed decisions, and authorities can identify and address potential issues before they escalate into a larger problem.
Increasing transparency in the pharmaceutical industry
Greater transparency in the pharmaceutical industry is essential to prevent the unethical marketing practices and misinformation that contributed to the opioid epidemic. Regulations should be put in place to ensure that companies disclose their financial relationships with physicians, medical organizations, and patient advocacy groups. Additionally, promoting independent research and unbiased information about the safety and efficacy of medications can help counteract misleading marketing tactics and ensure that healthcare providers and patients have accurate information when making treatment decisions.
Holding pharmaceutical companies accountable
As the opioid epidemic continues to take a devastating toll on communities, it is crucial to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for their role in the crisis. This includes pursuing legal actions against companies that have engaged in illegal or unethical practices, as well as advocating for stronger regulations and oversight of the industry. Financial penalties and settlements should be used to fund addiction treatment and prevention efforts, ensuring that those affected by the opioid epidemic receive the support and resources they need to recover.
Potential solutions to the opioid epidemic
Expanding access to addiction treatment
Addressing the opioid epidemic requires a comprehensive approach to addiction treatment, including increasing access to evidence-based interventions, such as medication-assisted treatment (MAT), counseling, and behavioral therapies. By investing in addiction treatment infrastructure and removing barriers to care, such as insurance coverage limitations or lack of available providers, we can help those struggling with opioid addiction access the support they need to recover.
Emphasizing harm reduction strategies
Harm reduction strategies, such as needle exchange programs, supervised consumption sites, and naloxone distribution, can play a critical role in reducing the harms associated with opioid addiction. These approaches prioritize the health and well-being of people who use drugs by reducing the risk of overdose, infectious diseases, and other negative consequences of drug use. By adopting harm reduction strategies, we can save lives and support individuals in their journey towards recovery.
Addressing the root causes of addiction
Finally, to effectively combat the opioid epidemic, we must address the underlying societal issues that contribute to addiction, such as poverty, unemployment, and mental health stigma. By investing in social programs, education, and community resources, we can create a more equitable society where individuals have the support and opportunities they need to thrive.
The pharmaceutical industry has played a significant role in driving the opioid epidemic, with aggressive marketing and over-prescription of painkillers contributing to widespread addiction and suffering. To address this crisis and prevent future harm, we must implement greater regulation and accountability within the industry, expand access to addiction treatment, and promote harm reduction strategies. By taking a multifaceted approach to the opioid epidemic, we can work towards healing our communities and creating a healthier, more resilient society.
The War on Drugs and Addiction
The War on Drugs, a decades-long global campaign aimed at reducing the illicit drug trade, has had profound implications for the nature of addiction and its impact on society. While well-intentioned, the War on Drugs has often had counterproductive consequences, inadvertently exacerbating addiction and perpetuating the stigma and marginalization of those who struggle with substance use disorders.
In this section, we will explore the shortcomings of the War on Drugs, discuss its impact on addiction, and consider alternative approaches to drug policy that prioritize public health and harm reduction.
The unintended consequences of the War on Drugs
Criminalization and stigmatization of drug use
One of the central tenets of the War on Drugs has been the criminalization of drug possession and use. This approach has led to the stigmatization of people who use drugs, casting them as criminals and moral failures rather than individuals in need of help and support. This stigma can deter individuals from seeking help for their addiction, as they may fear judgment, discrimination, or legal repercussions.
Moreover, the criminalization of drug use can exacerbate existing social and economic inequalities, as marginalized populations, such as racial and ethnic minorities, are disproportionately targeted by drug enforcement efforts.
Overemphasis on punitive measures
The War on Drugs has often prioritized punitive measures, such as arrests, incarceration, and asset forfeiture, over public health interventions and harm reduction strategies. This focus on punishment has led to overcrowded prisons, strained criminal justice systems, and the diversion of resources away from addiction treatment and prevention efforts. Moreover, research has shown that punitive measures are largely ineffective at reducing drug use or addiction rates, suggesting that the War on Drugs may be doing more harm than good.
The rise of dangerous synthetic drugs
Another unintended consequence of the War on Drugs has been the proliferation of dangerous synthetic drugs, such as synthetic cannabinoids (e.g., Spice or K2) and synthetic opioids (e.g., fentanyl). As law enforcement cracks down on the production and distribution of traditional illicit drugs, manufacturers and dealers have turned to synthetic alternatives, which are often more potent, more addictive, and more challenging to detect and regulate. This shift has led to a surge in overdose deaths and increased the risks associated with drug use.
The impact of the War on Drugs on addiction
Barriers to addiction treatment and recovery
The War on Drugs has created numerous barriers to addiction treatment and recovery. The criminalization of drug use can make it difficult for individuals with substance use disorders to access the help they need, as they may be hesitant to disclose their drug use to healthcare providers or enter treatment programs for fear of legal repercussions.
Additionally, the punitive focus of the War on Drugs has led to a lack of investment in addiction treatment infrastructure, leaving many communities without adequate resources to address the growing addiction crisis.
The role of the War on Drugs in perpetuating addiction
In some cases, the War on Drugs has directly contributed to the perpetuation of addiction. For example, the emphasis on punitive measures can lead to the incarceration of individuals with substance use disorders, who may be unable to access appropriate addiction treatment while in prison. Upon release, these individuals may return to their communities with untreated addiction issues, increasing the likelihood of relapse and recidivism.
Furthermore, the criminalization of drug use can push individuals into dangerous and unstable environments, such as underground drug markets or homeless encampments, where addiction may be more likely to take hold and spread.
Alternative approaches to drug policy
Decriminalization and legalization
Many experts and advocates have called for the decriminalization or legalization of certain drugs as an alternative to the War on Drugs. Decriminalization involves removing criminal penalties for drug possession and use, while legalization involves
the regulation and taxation of drugs within a legal framework. Both approaches aim to reduce the harms associated with the criminalization of drug use, such as stigma, discrimination, and the overburdening of criminal justice systems.
By shifting the focus from punishment to public health, decriminalization and legalization can help create an environment where individuals with substance use disorders are more likely to seek help and access the resources they need to recover.
Harm reduction strategies
Harm reduction strategies prioritize the health and well-being of people who use drugs by reducing the risks and negative consequences associated with drug use. Examples of harm reduction approaches include needle exchange programs, supervised consumption sites, and the distribution of naloxone to reverse opioid overdoses.
These strategies have been shown to be effective in preventing the spread of infectious diseases, reducing overdose deaths, and promoting engagement with addiction treatment services. By adopting harm reduction approaches, we can support individuals with substance use disorders in their recovery journey and create safer, healthier communities.
Investing in addiction treatment and prevention
Rather than focusing on punitive measures, drug policy should prioritize investments in addiction treatment and prevention efforts. This includes expanding access to evidence-based treatments, such as medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid addiction, and providing comprehensive support services, such as counseling, job training, and housing assistance, to help individuals achieve lasting recovery.
In addition, drug education and prevention programs should be evidence-based and focus on promoting healthy behaviors and reducing risk factors for addiction, rather than relying on scare tactics or moralizing messages.
The War on Drugs has had significant unintended consequences, contributing to the stigmatization and marginalization of people who use drugs and diverting resources away from addiction treatment and prevention efforts.
To address the complex issue of addiction, we must move away from punitive measures and embrace alternative approaches to drug policy that prioritize public health, harm reduction, and social justice. By shifting our focus from punishment to support, we can create a more compassionate and effective response to addiction and work towards building healthier, more resilient communities.
Environmental Factors and Addiction
Environmental factors play a significant role in the development and perpetuation of addiction, shaping the conditions in which substance use disorders can take root and flourish. These factors encompass a wide range of social, economic, and cultural influences that can either increase vulnerability to addiction or provide protective buffers against it. In this section, we will examine the complex interplay between environmental factors and addiction, highlighting the need for a multifaceted approach to addressing addiction that takes into account the broader social determinants of health.
The influence of family and social networks
Family dynamics and childhood experiences
Family dynamics and childhood experiences can have a profound impact on an individual’s susceptibility to addiction. Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), such as abuse, neglect, or witnessing violence, can create a heightened sense of stress and vulnerability, increasing the likelihood of substance use as a coping mechanism. Additionally, growing up in a family with a history of addiction or mental health issues can normalize substance use and create a genetic predisposition to addiction.
Peer influence and social pressure
Peer influence and social pressure can also contribute to the development of addiction. In some cases, individuals may begin using substances in response to social pressure from friends or peers, with the desire to fit in or gain social acceptance. Over time, this initial experimentation can evolve into addiction, as the individual becomes increasingly dependent on the substance to cope with stress, anxiety, or other negative emotions. Furthermore, social networks can shape attitudes and beliefs about substance use, either reinforcing or challenging the stigma and stereotypes associated with addiction.
The role of community and neighborhood factors
Neighborhood socioeconomic status
Neighborhood socioeconomic status can influence the prevalence and nature of addiction within a community. Individuals living in areas characterized by high poverty, unemployment, and crime rates may experience increased stress and a lack of access to resources and opportunities, making them more vulnerable to substance use and addiction.
Furthermore, disadvantaged neighborhoods may have higher availability of illicit drugs, as well as limited access to addiction treatment and support services, creating a challenging environment for those seeking to recover from substance use disorders.
Social cohesion and community support
Social cohesion and community support can act as protective factors against addiction, providing individuals with a sense of belonging and connection to their community. Strong social networks and community resources, such as recreational facilities, educational programs, and social services, can promote resilience and reduce the risk of substance use and addiction.
Conversely, communities characterized by low social cohesion, high levels of crime, and a lack of investment in public infrastructure and resources may foster a sense of isolation, disconnection, and hopelessness, increasing the likelihood of addiction taking hold.
Cultural factors and addiction
Societal attitudes and norms
Societal attitudes and norms play a crucial role in shaping perceptions of substance use and addiction. In some cultures or subcultures, the use of certain substances may be considered socially acceptable or even encouraged, leading to increased rates of experimentation and addiction. Additionally, societal attitudes towards addiction can either promote or hinder recovery efforts, with stigma and discrimination often serving as barriers to accessing treatment and support.
Media and advertising
Media and advertising can also have a significant impact on addiction, shaping public perceptions of substance use and normalizing potentially harmful behaviors. The portrayal of substance use in movies, television shows, and music can glamorize and romanticize drug use, creating an appealing image that may entice individuals to experiment with substances. Similarly, the marketing and promotion of addictive substances, such as alcohol, tobacco, and prescription medications, can contribute to increased rates of consumption and addiction.
Addressing environmental factors to combat addiction
Investing in community resources and infrastructure
Investing in community resources and infrastructure can help to address the environmental factors that contribute to addiction.
By improving access to education, healthcare, employment opportunities, and social services, we can create more resilient and supportive communities where individuals have the resources and opportunities they need to thrive. Additionally, investments in public infrastructure, such as parks, recreational facilities, and community centers, can foster social cohesion and provide alternative outlets for individuals to cope with stress and adversity.
Promoting positive social norms and attitudes
Promoting positive social norms and attitudes towards addiction can help to create a more supportive environment for individuals struggling with substance use disorders. This includes challenging stigma and discrimination, as well as promoting greater understanding and empathy for those affected by addiction. Public awareness campaigns, educational programs, and community-based initiatives can all play a role in shifting societal attitudes and fostering a more compassionate response to addiction.
Regulating media and advertising
Regulating media and advertising can help to reduce the glamorization and normalization of substance use and addiction. This may involve implementing stricter guidelines around the marketing and promotion of addictive substances and gambling. By creating a more responsible media landscape, we can help to shape healthier attitudes and behaviors around substance use and addiction.
Strengthening family and social support systems
Strengthening family and social support systems can play a crucial role in preventing and addressing addiction. This includes providing resources and support for families affected by addiction, such as family therapy, parenting classes, and support groups, as well as investing in early intervention and prevention programs that target at-risk youth. By fostering stronger connections between individuals, families, and communities, we can create a more supportive environment for those struggling with addiction and promote long-term recovery.
Environmental factors play a significant role in shaping the development and perpetuation of addiction, highlighting the need for a comprehensive approach to addressing substance use disorders that takes into account the broader social determinants of health. By investing in community resources, promoting positive social norms, regulating media and advertising, and strengthening family and social support systems, we can create a more supportive and resilient environment for those affected by addiction.
This holistic approach recognizes that addiction is not merely a personal problem, but a complex societal issue that requires coordinated efforts from individuals, communities, and policymakers alike.
Rethinking Addiction as a Societal Problem
The recognition that addiction is a societal problem rather than merely a personal issue is crucial for developing effective interventions and policies that address the root causes of addiction and promote long-term recovery. By acknowledging the complex interplay of structural forces, environmental factors, and individual vulnerabilities, we can shift our approach to addiction from one that focuses on blame and punishment to one that emphasizes support, prevention, and treatment.
In this section, we will discuss the importance of rethinking addiction as a societal problem and explore potential strategies for creating a more compassionate and effective response to addiction.
The limitations of viewing addiction as a personal problem
The blame and stigma associated with addiction
Viewing addiction as a personal problem often leads to blame and stigma being placed on those struggling with substance use disorders. This perspective can reinforce stereotypes of individuals with addiction as weak, morally flawed, or lacking self-control, rather than recognizing the complex interplay of factors that contribute to the development and perpetuation of addiction. This stigma can create barriers to treatment and recovery, as individuals may be hesitant to seek help for fear of judgment or discrimination.
Inadequate policy and intervention efforts
When addiction is viewed solely as a personal problem, policy and intervention efforts may focus on punitive measures or individualized treatments rather than addressing the broader social determinants of addiction. This approach can lead to a lack of investment in prevention, treatment, and support services, as well as an overemphasis on criminalization and incarceration. Ultimately, this narrow perspective on addiction may be ineffective at promoting long-term recovery and may even exacerbate existing social and economic inequalities.
The benefits of recognizing addiction as a societal problem
Shifting the focus from blame to support
By recognizing addiction as a societal problem, we can shift the focus from blame and punishment to support, understanding, and empathy. This perspective acknowledges that individuals with addiction are not solely responsible for their substance use, but rather are influenced by a complex interplay of factors that are often beyond their control. By focusing on providing support and resources, we can help individuals overcome their addiction and build a healthier, more resilient life.
Developing more effective policies and interventions
Viewing addiction as a societal problem allows us to develop more effective policies and interventions that address the root causes of addiction and promote long-term recovery. This includes investing in prevention and early intervention efforts, expanding access to evidence-based treatment and support services, and addressing the structural forces and environmental factors that contribute to addiction. By adopting a holistic approach to addiction, we can create more effective and sustainable solutions to the addiction crisis.
Strategies for addressing addiction as a societal problem
Implementing comprehensive prevention and early intervention programs
Implementing comprehensive prevention and early intervention programs can play a critical role in addressing addiction as a societal problem. These programs should be evidence-based and focus on reducing risk factors for addiction, such as adverse childhood experiences, poverty, and mental health issues, while promoting protective factors, such as social support, coping skills, and positive community engagement. By investing in prevention and early intervention, we can help to reduce the prevalence of addiction and support the well-being of individuals and communities.
Expanding access to addiction treatment and support services
Expanding access to addiction treatment and support services is crucial for addressing addiction as a societal problem. This includes increasing funding for evidence-based treatment programs, such as medication-assisted treatment and cognitive-behavioral therapy, as well as providing comprehensive support services, such as counseling, job training, and housing assistance. By ensuring that individuals have access to the resources and support they need to recover from addiction, we can promote long-term recovery and reduce the societal costs associated with addiction.
Addressing structural forces and environmental factors
Addressing the structural forces and environmental factors that contribute to addiction is essential for creating a more effective response to the addiction crisis. This includes tackling poverty, income inequality, and other social determinants of health, as well as investing in community resources, infrastructure, and social services. By addressing the root causes of addiction, we can create a more equitable and supportive society in which individuals have the opportunities and resources they need to thrive.
Promoting harm reduction approaches
Promoting harm reduction approaches can help to reduce the negative consequences associated with substance use and addiction. Harm reduction strategies, such as needle exchange programs, supervised consumption sites, and naloxone distribution, prioritize the health and well-being of individuals with addiction by focusing on reducing the risks and harms associated with substance use. By adopting harm reduction approaches, we can support individuals in their recovery journey and create safer, healthier communities.
Reducing stigma and discrimination
Reducing stigma and discrimination is crucial for creating a more compassionate and effective response to addiction. This includes promoting greater understanding and empathy for those affected by addiction, as well as challenging stereotypes and misconceptions about substance use disorders. Public awareness campaigns, educational programs, and community-based initiatives can all play a role in shifting societal attitudes and fostering a more supportive environment for individuals struggling with addiction.
Conclusion
In conclusion, addiction is a complex and multifaceted issue that extends far beyond the individual, deeply rooted in the societal structures and environmental factors that shape our lives. By examining the various structural forces, such as socioeconomic factors, the pharmaceutical industry’s role in the opioid epidemic, the War on Drugs, and environmental factors, we can better understand the broader context in which addiction develops and persists. Recognizing addiction as a societal problem rather than merely a personal issue allows us to shift our focus from blame and punishment to support, prevention, and treatment. This holistic approach paves the way for more effective and compassionate policies and interventions, addressing the root causes of addiction and promoting long-term recovery. By working together as individuals, communities, and policymakers, we can create a more just and inclusive society that supports those affected by addiction and fosters resilience, well-being, and lasting recovery for all.
by Steve Rose | Jun 12, 2020 | Suicide and Mental Health
With recent protests surrounding the death of George Floyd and calls to defund the police, I have been carefully collecting my thoughts on how to contribute to the conversation.
As a course instructor in Sociology at Eastern Michigan University, I covered race relations several times in my courses on conflict and violence in society.
The discussions we had about race were always productive and in-depth, given the diversity of students in these classes, spanning the political spectrum. There were a significant number of students of color, and many students were also preparing for a career in the military or law enforcement.
Over the last few weeks, I didn’t quite have the right words for an article on the recent events. I wanted to avoid writing an article as an obligatory political-style gesture for the purpose of virtue-signaling.
I’ve been listening, following recent developments, and finally came to a point where I’m inspired to meaningfully contribute to the discussion.
Given my background instructing criminology courses on violence and conflict and my current focus on mental health, I’ve been inspired by recent calls for police reform. These calls for reform go by the popular slogan, “defund the police.”
What does it mean to defund the police?
When I first heard the slogan, I was skeptical. I initially thought they were calling for the government to stop funding the police, effectively abolishing the public policing system, turning it into a privately run service.
This sounded like a pretty outlandish idea since such a radical move would result in a significant risk to public safety and far worse social inequality.
Without a public policing system, the wealthy would buy private security, and those without means would need to turn to gangs and vigilante justice. Private prisons in the US are a prime example of how privatizing criminal matters is a bad idea. See more on that issue here.
Although the word “defund” typically means “to prevent from continuing to receive funds,” the current slogan does not generally refer to this definition. So, what does “defund the police” mean in the current context?
Defunding the police means cutting government funding to policing and reallocating these funds to preventative measures in addition to funding social workers, crisis intervention staff, and addiction counselors, to take over mental health responsibilities.
Defunding the police does not mean simply making cuts. It means reinvesting in mental health and other programs to address poverty and reduce social inequality.
The goal is to remove aspects of policing that are ineffective and reallocate the funding where it can better serve the health and safety of the community.
How defunding the police addresses systemic racism
There are many layers involved in this discussion: race relations, class relations, policing practices, and mental health. Since they are intertwined, the call to “defund the police” must be viewed from a holistic perspective.
Put simply, the history of race relations in America resulted in disproportionate poverty among People of Color. Along with this came biased policing practices and deviant subcultures within these communities to cope with poverty and distrust of authorities. These biased policing practices perpetuate generational and racialized trauma, negatively affecting mental health.
It is important to note that systemic racism does not necessarily mean any particular individual is overtly prejudice. It means the system as a whole unconsciously produces unfair outcomes for specific groups.
Throughout America’s history, police departments have generally neglected poor black communities when it comes to homicides and have taken a heavy-handed approach when it comes to petty crimes. This resulted in unnecessary violence and disproportionate wrongful police killings in these communities.
In a 2016 study on Deaths Due to Use of Lethal Force by Law Enforcement, the researchers found the victims were:
“…disproportionately Black (32%) with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among Blacks than Whites. Most victims were reported to be armed (83%); however, Black victims were more likely to be unarmed (14.8%) than White (9.4%) or Hispanic (5.8%) victims.”
Another 2016 study titled An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force, analyzed data from the Houston Police Department, controlling for aggravating and mitigating circumstances that might affect police interactions. The study found:
“On non-lethal uses of force, there are racial differences – sometimes quite large… even when officers report civilians have been compliant and no arrest was made, Blacks are 21.2% more likely to endure some form of force in an interaction.”
Although this particular study was unable to find a difference in rates of police-involved shootings, the disproportionate non-lethal uses of force are concerning.
It is important to remember that officer-involved shootings are not the only lethal form of force. In the case of George Floyd, no weapons were required for a fatal interaction.
This is not only an American issue. In Toronto, the data shows that in more than a third of deadly police encounters, the victims are Black (36.5%). This is particularly disproportionate since Black people only composed 8.3% of the population in Toronto between 2000 and 2017.
Also, data shows 70.3% of all victims of deadly police encounters suffered from a mental health or substance abuse problem.
The recent death of Regis Korchinski-Paquet, a Black Toronto woman, following a mental health call to police, highlights the need for police reform. The circumstances are currently under investigation, and even if racial factors are not involved in this particular case, having specially trained mental health personnel would be a more effective use of resources.
Police are the designated first-responders to mental health crises, being called to enact skills that go beyond the bulk of their training. Although training does exist, and many officers are skillful at de-escalation, the social service sector is better suited to the task thanks to their extensive education and training in this specific area.
Consider this data on police training from a report by the Police Executive Research Forum:
This data shows how in the US, recruits receive as much training on de-escalation as they do on how to use a baton, which is very little in comparison to other areas.
There has been recently growing interest in police Crisis Intervention Teams (CITs) for mental health calls. Since there is some optimistic preliminary research on CITs, perhaps integrating the roles of police, social workers, crisis intervention staff, and addiction counselors on these specialized teams may be another way to reinvest funds going forward.
How does defunding the police address systemic racism?
Defunding the police addresses systemic racism by reallocating resources to social workers, crisis intervention staff, and addiction counselors to fill the role of mental health first-responders. This would, in turn, reduce the impact of deadly police encounters that disproportionately affect Black individuals and individuals experiencing mental health crises.
Also, with fewer police-involved killings, mental health in Black communities is improved. A 2018 study in The Lancet analyzed the impact of police killings on the mental health of Black Americans, finding:
“Each additional police killing of an unarmed Black American was associated with 0-14 additional poor mental health days (95% CI 0·07-0·22; p=0·00047) among Black American respondents. The largest effects on mental health occurred in the 1-2 months after exposure…. Mental health impacts were not observed among White respondents and resulted only from police killings of unarmed Black Americans (not unarmed White Americans or armed Black Americans).”
The study concludes programs should be implemented to reduce these kinds of killings to mitigate adverse mental health in these vulnerable communities.
Beyond police killings, perceived racism is comparable to other forms of trauma. A report published by the American Psychological Association summarizes the results of a 2012 study on Perceived Racism and Mental Health Among Black American Adults, stating:
“Black Americans’ psychological responses to racism are very similar to common responses to trauma, such as somatization, which is psychological distress expressed as physical pain; interpersonal sensitivity; and anxiety, according to the study. Individuals who said they experienced more and very stressful racism were more likely to report mental distress…”
These findings are especially relevant, given recent events, in addition to the escalating racial tensions in America since the study was published.
Calls for police reform are not new, but the most recent call to defund the police goes beyond simple band-aid solutions. These more radical reforms are reimagining the role of police by addressing root causes. It may not address all of the issues, and racially biased individuals will still exist, but it is a strong start.
To use a metaphor, if your sink keeps overflowing, are you going to mop up the floor indefinitely? Or are you going to try turning off the tap?
Police are like the mops of society, cleaning up the water overflowing from the sink. Instead of putting most of our resources toward cleaning up the mess, we should start to consider better ways to turn off the tap.
When it comes to defunding the police, the purpose is not to simply use fewer mops; the goal is to use the mops more efficiently, in addition to addressing root causes. This is where education and social programs come in.
Toronto Police Chief, Mark Saunders, affirms this perspective after his recent announcement that he will be stepping down on July 31st. He states:
“I see a lot of young Black boys getting killed by young Black boys. Law enforcement deals with those symptoms and I want to help with the cure for the disease…”
We may never be able to solve every social issue, but chipping away at these root causes can result in long-term social and economic stability, reducing crime and creating safer, happier communities.
Since the shift away from community policing toward a more militarized approach, police reform has been much needed, as the consequences are becoming hard to ignore. A popular comment by Calabash4 under this YouTube video demonstrates how even police in the US Marines are not as militarized as the civilian police:
“I was an MP in the Marines and it shocks me how policing in the civilian sector, is more militaristic than it was for me as an actual military policeman. We were taught that we were protecting our brother and sister Marines and their families. We had a “police your neighbor” approach whereas civilian police are trained with an “us against them” mentality, and have been give ordinance and taught tactics used by actual occupying forces.”
This “us against them” mentality is most robust in the most impoverished areas where the criminological Broken Window Theory has been misapplied under zero-tolerance policing and stop-and-frisk policies.
Broken Window Theory suggests creating a sense of order through frequently policing minor offenses changes the culture of an area, preventing more serious crimes. The evidence suggests that this theory did not translate into effective practice. Research on this form of policing in New York City found:
“…NYPD’s aggressive law enforcement since the 1980s has added to race/ethnicity and class tensions in NYC.”
Simply defunding the police might sound like an easy fix to decades of much-needed police reform, but there are also risks.
How many resources should be reallocated? Which areas should be cut? Will public safety be affected during the transition?
The risks of defunding the police
There are significant risks involved in defunding the police. The most immediate and apparent concerns are job loss and stretching existing officers too thin, resulting in burnout.
Transitioning to a new model of policing needs careful consideration, since an abrupt shift in funding without a plan could result in risks to public safety, especially for the most vulnerable communities.
In the book, Ghettocide, Jill Leovy tells a compelling story of how the LAPD neglected murder investigations in poor, Black areas, resulting in significant risks to these communities where violent crime ran rampant. She writes:
“This is a book about a very simple idea: where the criminal justice system fails to respond vigorously to violent injury and death, homicide becomes endemic.”
This book demonstrates how “…gangs are a consequence of lawlessness, not a cause.” In neglected poor Black areas around LA throughout the ’80s and ’90s, gangs developed as an alternative form of security and commerce. She offers the following thought experiment to illustrate this situation:
“Take a bunch of teenage boys from the whitest, safest suburb in America and plunk them down in a place where their friends are murdered and they are constantly attacked and threatened. Signal that no one cares, and fail to solve murders. Limit their options for escape. Then see what happens.”
Leovy likens the criminal justice system to a “schoolyard bully”:
“It harasses people on small pretexts but is exposed as a coward before murder. It hauls masses of Black men through its machinery but fails to protect them from bodily injury and death. It is at once oppressive and inadequate.”
This nuanced view suggests structural racism is the result of over-policing minor infractions and under-policing homicide in these poor Black areas.
A recent popular tweet illustrates this tendency toward racialized over-policing:
“George Floyd died accused of using a counterfeit $20 bill. Remember when Brock Turner ACTUALLY raped an unconscious girl behind a dumpster, got 6 months of jail but only served 3 months bc of his “good behavior”? Yeah. White privilege is real.”
When considering defunding the police, it is essential to make sure resources are not taken away from homicide investigation in communities that are the most vulnerable.
A report by Harvard Economist Roland Fryer argues Good Policing Saves Black Lives. The key is to allocate resources to forms of policing that are the most effective while defunding areas that are the least effective.
A 2017 study on policing in New York in 2014 and 2015 analyzed the NYPD’s step back from proactive policing. Instead of going out to look for crime and stopping individuals for minor offenses, the department primarily waited for calls before responding.
Interestingly, this step back did not lead to increased crime rates, as one might expect. Instead, the 2017 study found:
“…civilian complaints of major crimes (such as burglary, felony assault and grand larceny) decreased during and shortly after sharp reductions in proactive policing.”
Although correlation does not equal causation, and this is only focused on one department over a brief period, the results are worth considering.
This move by the NYPD is the exact opposite of the case previously described in Ghettocide. In those poor Black areas plagued by gang violence, the police were harsh on petty crimes but unresponsive to major ones. The step back from proactive policing in New York stopped actively seeking out petty crimes and instead responded more readily to major ones.
Simply reducing police capacity altogether could result in increased gang activity in the most vulnerable areas to fill the void in social regulation. To reduce the risk of constraining police capacity to respond to violent crimes, it is crucial to consider only cutting specific forms of policing.
Since most crime is concentrated in a small number of hotspots, resources could be allocated in a targeted way, taking direction from the “law of crime concentration.”
Criminologist, David Weisburd, suggests “hot spots policing” is the most effective use of resources since 50% of crime occurs in 4% of street segments, with 25% of crime occurring in less than 1.5% of street segments. Reallocating resources accordingly could reduce the risks involved in defunding.
Is defunding the police a good idea?
Defunding the police may be a good idea if resources are effectively reallocated to preventative measures and mental health first-responders. Defunding the police may also come with risks to public safety if funds are not sufficiently reallocated.
We are in the midst of a unique moment where long-needed police reforms are actively being considered. With Minneapolis council members vowing to disband its police, the political motivation to go beyond band-aid solutions finally exists.
Although the words “defund” and “disband” are powerful, they can also be misleading. The general call for defunding refers to budget cuts for police departments and reinvestment in communities, not blanket abolition of all forms of policing activity.
Disbanding a police department is nothing new. In Camden, New Jersey, in 2012, the entire police force was laid off and reformed with a new mission toward community policing. The culture of that department was radically transformed. Since then, there has been a steady drop in crime and increased public trust in the police.
Here is a powerful short documentary on the story of Camden, New Jersey: Camden’s Turn: a story of police reform in progress.
I am optimistic that the recent protests have sparked real change, many of which are already being deliberated by city councils. Although these are challenging times, there is hope. The “defund the police” movement gives policymakers a specific, actionable goal: more effectively allocating policing budgets.
We must then carefully consider how to reinvest the funds to build healthier communities, increasing mental health first-responder capabilities, and supporting community policing initiatives to rebuild public trust.
Adjusting budgets will not solve everything, but it is a start. It forces departments to take a look at the research on what works, evaluate what is not working, and reallocate resources to best serve the goal of public safety.
Like this article? Join the mailing list to receive email updates when new ones are published:
by Steve Rose | Sep 10, 2019 | Suicide and Mental Health
On the go? Listen to the audio version of the article here:
Today is World Suicide Prevention Day, so I thought I would take the opportunity to share some insights into rising rates of suicide among youth.
After writing my dissertation on suicide among veterans, I’ve been focused on providing counselling for internet and gaming addiction. Although these look like very different areas, the topics overlap significantly when considering the root causes of suicide.
What do veterans and today’s youth have in common?
Both experience a heightened sense of social isolation.
Veterans experience social isolation due to the transition from a highly integrated social context to an individualistic civilian world. Beyond an individual problem, this is a social problem.
So why is youth suicide a social problem?
Youth experience social isolation due to the increasing dependence on technological communications at the expense of in-person interactions.
Although the details and experiences vastly differ, the experience of social isolation affects everyone the same. Social connection is a universal human need and one of the major protective factors against suicide.
In addition, there are many other individuals factors that contribute to suicide, such as trauma, mental health conditions, and feeling like a burden, but here I will focus on how suicide is a broader social problem linked to technological developments.
Suicide Surpassed Homicide Among Youth
More youth between 15-19 are killing themselves than each other. Homicide is on the decline as suicide is on the rise, surpassing rates of homicide after 2011. The Centre for Disease Control (CDC) published the following statistics:
The increasing rate of suicide also correlates with the increasing rate of anxiety and depression among youth. The CDC also published the following findings on youth mental health:
“’Ever having been diagnosed with either anxiety or depression’ among children aged 6–17 years increased from 5.4% in 2003 to 8% in 2007 and to 8.4% in 2011–2012.”
Statistical changes among a demographic suggest there is something going on beyond the individual. Therefore, we need to consider the broader sociological issue and look at how technological changes may be affecting youth.
Does Social Media Isolate Us?
It depends on how you use it.
Facebook’s mission is to “Give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.” But is social media actually bringing us together?
As a sociologist, I took a look at the research, and here is what I found:
Social media use is correlated with depression and low well-being.
Yes, this conclusion itself sounds depressing, but let’s take a look at the data.
A 2016 study surveyed 1787 19-32-year-old men and women, finding social media use was “was significantly associated with increased depression.”
Another 2016 study found the following:
“Taking a break from Facebook has positive effects on the two dimensions of well-being: our life satisfaction increases and our emotions become more positive.”
Internet use is correlated with decreased loneliness among older adults.
So it’s more complicated than the above studies might suggest.
According to this 2015 study looking at individuals 65 and older:
“Higher levels of Internet use were significant predictors of higher levels of social support, reduced loneliness, and better life satisfaction and psychological well-being among older adults.”
How you use social media makes a difference.
According to another 2016 study on the correlation between Facebook and well-being, the researchers found:
“Specific uses of the site were associated with improvements in well-being.”
So what made the difference?
Individuals who used Facebook to build relationships with strong ties received the benefits, while those who used it for wide broadcasting did not. Therefore, they concluded the following:
“People derive benefits from online communication, as long it comes from people they care about and has been tailored for them.”
Another 2016 study found the same for Instagram:
“Instagram interaction and Instagram browsing were both related to lower loneliness, whereas Instagram broadcasting was associated with higher loneliness.”
Antisocial uses of social media can be addictive.
Neurological research used functional neuroimaging data to uncover the impact of Facebook use on the nucleus accumbens, the brain’s pleasure-center within the reward-circuitry.
The researchers found “gains in reputation” to be the primary reward stimulus. The brain’s mechanism for processing self-relevant gains in reputation through Facebook use mirrors the reward circuitry activated through addiction to psychotropic substances.
This reward circuitry applies to digital addictions such as Facebook through the stimulus of unexpected gains in perceived reputation when sharing a piece of content.
Likes, comments, and shares are all potential sources of these unexpected gains, stimulating the nucleus accumbens, activating the dopamine response from the VTA.
Over time, the nucleus accumbens adapts to the dopamine response, requiring increasing stimulation. This may come in the form of seeking more likes, comments, shares, or spending an increasing amount of time using social media technologies.
Social Media does not necessarily make us more ‘social’.
It can further isolate us from family, friends, loved ones, or co-workers when abused as an addiction, spurring us to spend ever-more time constructing our carefully curated online identities, constantly seeking out more ‘likes’ to validate our self-worth.
Although social media can isolate us through voyeurism and identity-construction associated with social comparison and reputational enhancement, this is not the full story.
There are many non-addictive ways social media can be used.
Social media can be social when used in social ways.
It can bring together international families grieving the loss of a loved one, connect soldiers in combat with their families back home, rekindle long-lost friendships, or as Facebook itself says:
“…help you connect and share with the people in your life.”
Social media is social when used in ways that help build deeper connections between us.
Facebook is a social media platform, but that does not necessarily mean it makes us more social. It can further isolate us from family, friends, loved ones, or co-works when overused.
In her recent book, IGen, Jean Twenge writes about the generation born after 1994, finding high rates of mental health issues and isolation:
“A stunning 31% more 8th and 10th graders felt lonely in 2015 than in 2011, along with 22% more 12th graders”…[.] All in all, iGen’ers are increasingly disconnected from human relationships.
She argues the increasing level of screen-time and decreasing level of in-person interaction leaves Igen lacking social skills:
“In the next decade we may see more young people who know just the right emoji for a situation—but not the right facial expression.”
This lack of in-person interaction leaves Igen vulnerable to mental health issues:
“iGen is on the verge of the most severe mental health crisis for young people in decades. On the surface, though, everything is fine.”
This idea that everything is fine on the surface comes from the need to present an ideal version of oneself online:
“…social media is not real life. Her photos, which looked like casual snaps, actually took several hours to set up and up to a hundred attempts to get right…”
Social media platforms encourage rampant voyeurism, drawing us into someone else’s constructed world, spurring us to spend ever-more time constructing our own carefully curated online identities for others to see.
Our friend-lists are paper-trails of past acquaintances, giving us a little window to voyeuristically peer into their lives, casually connect, or rekindle a friendship.
Paradoxically, we can feel alone in a sea of social media connections.
Like the Sociologist David Riesman’s concept of the “lonely crowd,” we are perpetually other-directed, scanning and finger-scrolling screens, searching for a kind of stimulation that never seems to fulfill our sense that we are good enough.
How Social Media Affects Self-Esteem
Picturesque portraits in Machu Picchu, selfies in the sand in Santorini, engagements, children, and new homes remind us of how we always seem to be missing out on life’s milestones and adventures.
We curate our online identities, attempting to live up to an impossible standard, ever-more concerned with our digital reputation.
According to a PEW Research report on Teens, Social Media & Technology they report the following experience of a 15-year-old girl:
“It provides a fake image of someone’s life. It sometimes makes me feel that their life is perfect when it is not.”
This perfectionism is amplified by new technology on social media platforms that automatically edit your photos. Dr. Hamlet, from the Child Mind Institute states the following:
“…there’s a so-called “pretty filter” on Instagram and Snapchat. Beautifying filters are used almost reflexively by many, which means that girls are getting used to seeing their peers effectively airbrushed every single day online. There are also image altering apps that teens can download for more substantial changes. Facetune is one popular one, but there are many, and they can be used to do everything from erase pimples to change the structure of your face or make you look taller.”
Rae Jacobson, from the Child Mind Institute, presents the experience of a young woman in the following passage:
“Look,” says Sasha, a 16-year-old junior in high school, scrolling slowly through her Instagram feed. “See: pretty coffee, pretty girl, cute cat, beach trip. It’s all like that. Everyone looks like they’re having the best day ever, all the time.”
The article goes on to describe the problem with this perfectionism is negative social comparison:
“Kids view social media through the lens of their own lives,” says Dr. Emanuele. “If they’re struggling to stay on top of things or suffering from low self-esteem, they’re more likely to interpret images of peers having fun as confirmation that they’re doing badly compared to their friends.”
The negative emotion produced by this social comparison can result in an attempt to bolster one’s low self-esteem by attempting to gain more likes on their own photos.
The problem with this short-term solution is that it creates long term problems, like any other addiction. Rae Jacobson goes on to state:
Teens who have created idealized online personas may feel frustrated and depressed at the gap between who they pretend to be online and who they truly are.
Social media is addictive because pretending to be someone else online further reinforces the idea that you are not enough. Receiving several likes is a temporary solution, but genuine self-esteem suffers in the long run.
As selfies gain popularity on Instagram the research findings from a 2017 study on the topic reveal some important lessons. Here are the highlights:
• Selfie viewing was negatively associated with self-esteem.
• Groupie viewing was positively associated with self-esteem.
• Frequent groupie viewing led to increased life satisfaction.
• Frequent selfie viewing led to decreased life satisfaction.
• Need for popularity moderated the relationship between selfie viewing and self-esteem.
• Need for popularity moderated the relationship between selfie viewing and life satisfaction.
In our selfie-obsessed Instagram culture, findings like this are important to consider. Mindlessly scrolling through Instagram selfies may be affecting us more than we think.
What Makes New Social Media Different?
I grew up in the era of MSN messenger, chat rooms, message boards, and MySpace. I remember feeling heavily drawn to connecting with my friends online, often communicating more online than in person. But these online social platforms are fundamentally different from today’s platforms.
Today’s social platforms are more than a neutral space to communicate with friends. They are miniature broadcasting platforms.
I still remember a time before the Facebook ‘like’ button. The button was introduced in 2009 and made the platform more than simply about commenting and sharing. In 2016, the ‘reactions’ button came out, further allowing users to share their emotional reactions to your content.
The ‘like’ button amplified the social comparison potential. In an article featuring an interview with Dr. Max Blumburg, he states:
“…you’re making yourself vulnerable to the thoughts of others, so it’s not surprising that if it doesn’t elicit the reaction you’d hoped for your pride takes a hit. We’re seeking approval from our peers and it’s not nice when we don’t get it – you want people to think your ‘content’ is funny/interesting/likeable. ‘If you have low self-esteem and you don’t do well on social media, you’re going to feel particularly bad.
We are all miniature media companies, in a sense. The responsibility to manage one’s reputation online has skyrocketed since the development of these advanced technologies.
The thought of having a career as a social media celebrity was unthinkable not too long ago. Now, social media influencers are a key aspect of mainstream marketing.
We’re all having to become our own marketers online. This is something I think about quite a bit, given the fact that I created this website for the purpose of sharing my ideas in non-traditional ways.
Although you can use social media to further your professional career and build connections with like-minded people, it is important to be mindful of when it is having a negative impact on your life.
If you suspect your internet use may be having a negative impact, you can try the free Internet Addiction Test here.
Getting Reconnected
As described throughout this article, social media can be an addiction, like any other substance. For those struggling with an addiction to social media, you are not alone.
This is a very common issue that can be treated through self-help activities, psychological treatments, counseling, and support groups.
If you are simply looking to prevent any issues, it could be helpful to be mindful of the way you are relating to social media. If you find you are constantly seeking likes and validation, perhaps taking a break might help you clear your head.
Finding hobbies or new activities to engage in could help build your sense of self, in addition to building an in-person peer group.
If you decide to return to social media use, it is important to set limits on how long you intend to spend on it, how often you intend on checking it, and considering whether or not you are using it in a meaningful way to connect.
It could also be helpful to turn off your push-notifications so you are not getting constant beeps or buzzes. See my article on 5 Powerful Ways to Spend Less Time on Social Media (with pictures), for some helpful tips.
If you are still having difficulties, treatment may also be helpful. Internet addiction is becoming increasingly recognized and can now be formally diagnosed in the DSM.
Treatment looks different for each individual, based on their unique experiences. Based on my research into evidence for psychotherapeutic treatments, mindfulness-based cognitive-behavioral approaches seem to have the highest level of evidence supporting their effectiveness. In addition, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy is quickly becoming an industry standard and is a personal favorite of mine.
These approaches are also effective for several other mental health conditions, including anxiety, depression, and OCD.
Conclusion
Youth experience social isolation due to the increasing dependence on technological communications at the expense of in-person interactions.
This social isolation increases the risk of suicide since the need for social connection is not being fulfilled.
Although I have focused on broader social/ technological developments here, there are many individual factors contributing to suicide as well. Mental health issues and a history of trauma are some major individual contributors.
If you want to read more on these individual factors and subjective experiences, I’ve written an in-depth article here: Inside the Mind of a Suicidal Person.
If you or someone you know is suffering from suicidal thoughts, it is important to talk to your doctor and seek psychotherapy from a qualified practitioner.
If it is a crisis, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (in the US) or seek out your local Crisis Centre and speak to someone who can help.
