Reply to comment

On “Neuroanthropology”:

I appreciate the references to cognitive enhancement, psychiatric treatment, and the issue of inequality – would have really liked to see some specifics! Which brain differences have we found for different cultures and occupations? What particular activities might they be related to? The general idea that brain structure and function reflects its “owner”’s activities makes a lot of sense and is well-established.

It is a fact that humans are homogenous to a degree that is rare among mammals. We are only just beginning to realize that the people who live in the next valley are not blood-sucking ghosts, and I would hate to see this cultural approach misapplied to exaggerate the differences between individuals, as might have been said of phrenology and earlier endeavors. I am tempted to say that this is a silly thing for me to worry about, given the many differences in frame and backing between neuroscience and phrenology, but also recall individuals such as Watson and countless less-known authors misusing valid data in supremacist arguments.

On “Americanization of mental health”:

I skimmed this article when it was published and really liked it. The author was careful to describe substantive issues without edging into Scientology territory, always important when addressing the numerous problems in modern psychology. The most important message that I took away was the discussion of cultures which approach mental illness (e.g. schizophrenia as possession) in a way that appears to reduce anxiety in the patient and family.

I find the "Dr. Lee" example re: anorexia convincing, but would not go as far as to point at a report on one death by anorexia as a hinge point. Rather, I would imagine that the influx of capitalism and consumerism in China has produced some of the pressures we think are responsible for anorexia in America. When Lee reports that in 2007, 90% of his anorexic patients reported fat phobia, it is also notable that at this time China has a massive emerging consumer class and a previously unknown visible incidence of obesity. It may also be that the underlying features that make an individual susceptible to anorexia are independent of what might trigger the condition, just as a psychotic break might occur from losing one’s job or because of graduating college.

With respect to the later discussion of "victorian psychologists" and "veiled pity" towards them, I am reminded somewhat of Zizek's commentary on the monetization of social relationships. That is, we tend to confide in therapists and not (or in addition to) close friends. (Zizek does not imply that therapy is bad or does not work, only an observation on how people have come to handle emotional distress.) In that context, it might be supposed that even an unscientific and misled Victorian practitioner might be effective in certain ways on a Victorian patient.

What Psychologists need, I think, is a way to contextualize illness without descending into complete relativism - it must be possible to evaluate whether a cultural context of prescribed treatment is best for the patient. For example, cultures that deal with trauma by not discussing it strike me as unlikely to promote good outcomes, if we are to believe any of the earlier premises about repression.

On “Culture as Disability”:

I really dislike some aspects of capital-D Deafness. There are those who insist that their child should not be given a chochlear implant because they've lived their entire lives without music and gotten along just fine, and there are those who seek to use IVF to deliver Deaf children. Many of the parents featured in Deafness articles and film have outright said that they want deaf children because they do not want to lose their children to the hearing world. No amount of good intentions and blissful, well-adjusted ignorance will make that right. If you are born deaf, you have perhaps five years to be fitted for a cochlear implant. If that happens, an individual has as much of a choice about their culture and community as any of us does - if not, they are forever shackled to the culture of their parents, however thriving it might be. We are not accepting of honor killings and arranged marriages, and I feel that this particular notion of Deafness should be viewed in the same light.  If we are to find a way to characterize deafness without BEING disabling, it must be done in a way that also allows us to prevent parents from deafening their children.  I'm not sure if I can think of a coherent way for that to work.

My notes on the learning disability discussion are pretty scattered, so what I think it comes down to is this: there are many ways in which our education structure might be changed to accommodate some of what we call disability without detriment to “normal” people. There are other ways in which the educational system does not reflect the skill set needed for much of everyday life. However - I am glad that we have a culture that requires literacy. I am glad that we have a culture that requires some associative and mathematical ability. If we did not, we would probably not be able to post at each other about the constraints of our culture! I will accept that people who cannot do these things are disabled because our culture requires them to do these things, and not necessarily because of some other factor, but have no idea what should be done with that understanding.  I am wary, for example, of simply laning students into forms of education that fit their capabilities, as I understand educational outcomes to be heavily influenced by expectations.