Reply to comment

Professor Grobstein's reflection on what has been hinted at in class - that depression may in part be productive - is a really interesting thought, particularly in the context of cultural variation. It is certainly a contentious suggestion; there seems to be a certain visceral repulsion to the idea that a condition that causes so much discomfort could in any way be framed so callously, but maybe that is precisely the problem: that our notion of "productivity" is a calloused one.

To assess something for its "productive" value implies a certain end to be fulfilled, where the subject at hand is described relative to his/her/its ability to contribute towards that end. That end, however, may, and in fact is likely to, differ drastically between cultures. The Western idea of productivity, as someone in class so eloquently put it, seems to be a lot about "making stuff," or improving the efficiency of the "machine" that is our goods-producing culture. The very English word "productivity" contains within it the notion of manufacturing or creating products. Thus, in this context, depression seems to be an inherently unproductive condition: to lose energy and motivation to work for this cultural machine is to slow its progress, hinder its ends, and therefore to be a "malfunctioning unit." As has been mentioned in other discussions, this notion appears to permeate the current psychiatric paradigm; patients with depression are often assessed in terms of and treated with the goal of improving their "functionality," or ability to rejoin society as a contributing member.

But might productivity be defined differently in alternative cultures? As the readings indicated, many Eastern cultures harbor much more collective mentalities. It is not clear from this, however, that those with depression in these societies wouldn't suffer from many of the same problems as those in Western cultures. Although perhaps less individualized, there remains a focus on becoming integrated into culture, and thus someone with "low motivation" may feel similarly excluded and alienated.

Is it feasible to imagine a culture in which the ends of "productivity" were defined on an individual basis? Where to be the most productive is to deal with problems and personal tragedies in one's own way, and to the fullest extent necessary? In this case, depression as a coping mechanism may in fact play a productive role: to recuperate energy in recovering from emotional trauma. What if the end of a culture was for its members to attain the most accurate, objective view of the world possible? Then the realism that accompanies depression may also play a productive role. But it seems like the question then becomes: are these worlds that we would want to live in? Would we feel comfortable assuming the responsibilities of sustenance (e.g., hunting and gathering food) while others cope with a death for years after? Would we want to live in a world where our perceptions and estimates were accurate but bleak? Or more generally, would we want to live in a world where depression is a productive construct?