-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-
>From www.wsws.org
WSWS : News & Analysis : North America
Mental illness and the American Dream: Part 2
A comment by Frank Brenner
25 March 2000
Back to screen version
This is the conclusion of a two-part series. The first part appeared on March
24.
The American dream
Let's say what the Surgeon-General's report could not: the underlying cause of
mental illness is desperate unhappiness. This is so obvious (at least to the
ideologically unblinkered) that it almost seems to cry out from the report's
findings. Add to this the fact that the epidemic of mental illness is global
(with the statistics for other industrialized countries much the same as US
levels or else quickly catching up to them) and something else becomes
clear�that the underlying cause of the unhappiness is capitalism.
But probably nowhere else in the world is unhappiness a more unpopular subject
than in the land of the American dream. Everywhere you are surrounded by images
of happiness and success�TV sitcoms and Hollywood happy endings and Calvin
Klein billboards and celebrity faces staring at you from virtually every
magazine cover and tabloid front page. Of course bad news gets lots of
attention, but only after it's been sensationalized (or demonized or
trivialized) by the mass media�that is, after it's been stripped of its
relevance to most people's lives; sensibilities get so deadened in this way
that a basketball game can be more involving than watching a city get blown up.
This kind of unhappiness does little to disrupt the veneer of happiness that
envelops American society.
In official ideology, social classes don't exist in America, only "winners" and
"losers" do, and the promise of the American dream is that everybody can be a
"winner." That dream was always a mirage; 150 years ago, Thoreau already saw
the unhappy truth: �The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.�[1] Since
that time, the mirage has become much more sophisticated and alluring: the cult
of success and celebrity lets everyone be a "winner" vicariously. But the
desperation has also intensified. Consider, for instance, the misery contained
in these facts: America now has the longest work year of any industrialized
country in the world. The average American married couple now works 6 weeks
more each year than it did in 1989 (and 15 weeks more than it did in 1979).[2]
What's left of life after a 50- or 55-hour workweek and another 25 to 30 hours
of unpaid work at home? People are worked like machines and run into the
ground�until their hearts stop or their minds snap. And, for all that
sacrifice, they have less and less to show for it, as living standards fall and
the class divide broadens into a chasm. It almost goes without saying that most
people are condemned to mind-numbing (and eventually soul-destroying) jobs,
which nevertheless they're terrified of losing. And family life, which used to
be, at least to some extent, a haven from the misery of the outside world is
now more likely to be itself a source of pain and distress that is often
emotionally devastating.
For many people it keeps getting harder to bear their desperation quietly. But
what can they do? Who can they turn to? The traditional channels for social
discontent�the Democratic Party, the trade unions, protest movements�are all
dead ends, and widely perceived as such. Besides, in a world that just seems to
stare back at you with a blank smile, it's difficult even to see what
connection your desperation has with reality. And then there is the immense
pressure to conform that makes itself felt in every corner of American life, so
that it isn't just those with diagnosable mental illnesses who are
"stigmatized" but all too often anyone who "acts weird" or who simply doesn't
"fit in." Under these conditions, it isn't any wonder that millions of people
break down, dealing with an unbearable reality by what Freud called a "flight
into illness." Millions more are almost as miserable, but because they go on
functioning, their condition passes for "normal." And finally there are those
who, instead of internalizing their despair, lash out in explosive rage, most
often at their loved ones but increasingly in horrifying spasms of
indiscriminate carnage which the media persists in characterizing as
"meaningless" violence.
People and things
So we confront a stark contradiction�so much unhappiness in a country that was
founded on the principle of "the pursuit of happiness." True, this principle is
deceptive since what it promises isn't happiness but just the chance to pursue
it, and what most people get is endless pursuit and precious little joy. Still,
the identification of American society with happiness played an enormous role
in the political and ideological struggles of the twentieth century: in
contrast to the grim repressiveness of Soviet society, America seemed a "free"
country where individuals could live any way they wanted. And with the postwar
boom and the rise of consumerism, happiness was on sale everywhere. Never have
the pleasures of the marketplace been more mesmerizing�the glitter of the
shopping mall, the seductiveness of advertising, the magical aura that seems to
surround every new commodity; companies like Nike don't sell mere products
anymore, they sell embodiments of dreams. But for all the hype and flashiness,
the basic message is as old as capitalism: possessions are what make you happy.
Here we have the "common sense" of the marketplace in all its crudeness:
everything (and everyone) is dealt with in terms of buying and selling, every
relationship is reduced to what Marx once called a �cash nexus.� This idea is
so commonplace under capitalism that we rarely notice how perverse it is,
because what it really amounts to saying is that happiness derives not from
people but from things. In other words, this is a kind of happiness that has
been dehumanized.
The question is�is it still happiness? Obviously, the great majority believe it
is: consumerism is incredibly popular. But the epidemic of mental illness shows
that there is a terrible gulf between what people think they feel and what they
really do. Assaulted by the non-stop propaganda machine of advertising, people
can convince themselves for a while that they are happy. But eventually
happiness has to bear some relation to the satisfaction of real needs and
desires or else it is an illusion, a kind of euphoria not so different from
what one can get out of a bottle or in a church. A dehumanized happiness is a
contradiction in terms: genuine happiness can only come from people, not from
things. This isn't to deny that happiness requires a certain level of material
comfort: nobody can be happy if, say, they are starving or homeless. But things
can only provide the preconditions for happiness, they aren't a substitute for
it. A full belly and a roof over one's head isn't happiness but subsistence,
and if that is all there is to life, then life is a misery.
In capitalism, the forms of happiness are constantly passed off as its content.
Food is a good example: the attention lavished these days on cooking and going
out to restaurants is extraordinary, and yet very little of this has to do with
the pleasure of eating. Mostly it has to do with the social cachet to be gained
from cultivating a refined taste in food and wine�or to put it more
indelicately, snob appeal. Instead of a celebration of eating, we get the
fetishizing of food. If happiness were the main concern, then it would quickly
become apparent that there are two conditions that make for a good meal�good
food and good company. But no attention is paid to the second of these
conditions because capitalist society is organically incapable of doing
anything about it. Pretentiousness and arrogance are the rule in fancy
restaurants, which almost always leaves a bad taste in your mouth no matter how
good the food is; meanwhile, in the fast food chains across the social divide,
people mechanically eat denatured, assembly-line food in a cheerless
environment where the only sign of happiness is the plastic smile on the Ronald
McDonald dummy.
Why is the pleasure of good company such a rare experience? Because friendship,
camaraderie and community are all marginalized within capitalism: to the extent
that they exist, they do so in spite of the society, not because of it. In a
system that only recognizes individuals as buyers and sellers, what common
ground can there be between them? People live in "communities" but without any
shared bonds or common interests between them, and this void expresses itself
in the "heart" of these communities which is typically the shopping mall, a
place where nothing communal goes on. Each person is reduced to a self-
enclosed, atomized existence. You go to work every day on a crowded bus or
subway and you never speak to anyone or even look them in the eye. You live for
years on a street or in an apartment without so much as saying a word to your
neighbors. You attend a movie or a concert with other people, and when it's
over everyone walks away without any discussion or interaction. Millions of
people go for days or even weeks at a time without any human contact
whatsoever, sitting at home alone at night in the blue glare of a TV set. (This
is especially true of the elderly whose suicidal thoughts the Surgeon-General's
report claims are �a natural facet of old age.�) All of this is such an
ingrained part of our lives that we rarely even give it a second thought.
Sexual misery
But an atomized existence is an inhuman one: to be estranged from other people
is to be estranged from one's own humanity. This kind of individualism isn't
freedom but a prison in which the individual is walled up within himself. And
the toll this takes, the wounds it inflicts, are most painfully felt in the
most intimate relationships between people. If happiness comes from things, if
every relationship is determined by its cash value, then what becomes of love?
It too becomes a thing to be possessed. As with food, so with love: the forms
of happiness are separated from their human content and then fetishized. In the
case of love, it is sex that becomes the fetish, once it has been divorced from
tenderness. Outwardly we live in a sexual cornucopia: everywhere (ads, TV,
movies, the Internet, magazines) there are images of bodies�young, seductive
female ones�shoved in our faces. No image is too graphic to be portrayed, and
the more taboo the behavior, the trendier it is. Since the sixties, a major
shift in attitudes has taken place, a pendulum swing from puritanism to a much
more "liberated" sexuality. And what could be a more palpable manifestation of
the happiness of the American dream than this easy access to the pleasures of
the flesh?
But the change is much more superficial than it looks: underneath, there is
still the same sexual misery that prevailed in earlier, more puritanical times.
That becomes evident from a study published a year ago in the Journal of the
American Medical Association that found that 43 percent of women and 31 percent
of men in America suffer from sexual dysfunction.[3] Again we confront some
staggering numbers, as disturbing as the ones on mental illness. For all the
apparent freedom and openness about sexuality, nearly half of all women and a
third of all men aren't having any sex at all. Some of this is due to
physiological problems, but a major factor is emotional distress, and the main
causes for that, the study found, are stress due to deterioration in economic
position and sexual trauma, i.e., rape or abuse suffered in childhood. Or, to
put this another way, the cause of this distress is violence�both economic and
sexual�that leaves its victims so badly mauled that they are left sexually
numb. In general, the study finds a �strong association between sexual
dysfunction and impaired quality of life,� which is an important point because
it underscores that, contrary to all the fetishism, sex doesn't exist in a
vacuum: either it flourishes as part of a fulfilling life or else it is mangled
(or repressed entirely) as part of an �impaired� one. And this in turn suggests
that as bad as the figures in this study are, the reality is probably worse
because there are a lot of people who, while they aren't sexually dysfunctional
in a clinical sense, are still deeply unhappy in most aspects of their lives
including their sexuality.
Sex without tenderness is as dehumanizing�and as unsatisfying�as sexual
repression. One sign of this dehumanization is in everyday language, in the use
of terms like "hormones" instead of desire and "chemistry" instead of falling
in love. Human relationships are reduced to a biological mechanism, and what
gets lost, for one thing, is the element of protest in love, the insistence on
the primacy of feelings over all the social and family pressures to conform and
in effect accommodate oneself to a life without love.
To give in on that is the start of giving in on many other things. In this
biochemical landscape, sexual relationships look like the chance encounters of
molecules: two people collide, go to bed because of some kind of "chemistry,"
and then "split" when the chemistry is "gone," veering off in different
directions until they each collide with someone else. People can go through
dozens of relationships in this way, blind to their own feelings and oblivious
to the feelings of their lovers. Nothing changes in these relationships�and
nothing changes from one relationship to the next�because nothing is revealed.
The art critic John Berger once made a useful distinction between nakedness and
nudity: he saw the first as being oneself �without disguise,� while the second
was being �on display,� where one is �seen naked by others and yet not
recognized for oneself.�[4] In the matings based on "chemistry", as opposed to
romantic love, people are never naked, only nude: they never open themselves up
emotionally and so they can never break down the wall that separates them from
the other "body" in bed. Even the sex is often only "intercourse" in a
technical sense because there isn't any real commingling of pleasure, only an
exercise in mutual masturbation. (Freud once described every sexual act �as a
process in which four persons are involved,�[5] by which he meant, among other
things, the fantasy that each person takes to bed along with his or her lover.
In sex without tenderness, you never escape that fantasy because you never have
any contact emotionally with the other person: you are making love, not to
them, but to an image in your head. You are locked up inside yourself, as is
your partner, and so it helps if you don't have to look at his or her face,
which accounts to some extent for the growing popularity of oral sex.)
It isn't surprising that people come away from such "relationships" more
lonely�and more unhappy�than they were before. It also isn't surprising that
women are more hurt by the lack of tenderness than men: one of the findings in
the JAMA study was that sexual dysfunction was especially common among young
women. This doesn't make any sense from the standpoint of "hormones" and
"chemistry," which would assume that women in the prime of life would also be
in the prime of their sexual activity. But that activity is actually one of the
key causes of sexual dysfunction, according to the study: �Since young women
are more likely to be single, their sexual activities involve higher rates of
partner turnover as well as periodic spells of sexual inactivity. This
instability, coupled with inexperience, generates stressful sexual encounters,
providing the basis for sexual pain and anxiety.� Things improve markedly as
women get older, largely because they tend to enter into long-term, stable
relationships, where there is more of a chance of having a measure of
tenderness.
Men, or at least young men, don't seem to have the same problem with the lack
of tenderness in sexual relationships. This isn't because "men are from Mars
and women are from Venus" (as pop psychology currently has it), but rather
because they are raised differently from childhood, and bond with their parents
in different ways. This is territory first charted by Freud, and it would take
us too far afield to follow him there. But the inhuman coldness of contemporary
sexuality still leaves its mark on men, if not in the quantity of their sexual
activity, then certainly in the quality. You see that particularly in the
tremendous growth of pornography. The Sunday Times of London ran an article 18
months ago headlined �US is addicted to porn� which reported that during the
Clinton era �adult entertainment has grown into a business worth $10 billion
annually. As much as $4.2 billion is generated by hard-core videos alone, up
from just $10 million 25 years ago. Americans spend more on hard-core
pornography, telephone sex and strip clubs than they do at cinemas. Porn videos
account for a quarter of all those rented or sold in America, while strip clubs
generate more money than all other live entertainment in the country, including
rock concerts and Broadway theaters, put together.�[6]
Again, it's hard not to do a double-take when reading this. (That we can be
shocked so often is itself shocking: it shows that the mass media blacks out
virtually anything to do with the real lives of most people, especially their
unhappiness.) The picture it paints is of a deeply sick society, but we need to
be clear about the nature of the sickness involved. Inevitably, right-wing
moralists (and anti-pornography feminists) seize on facts like this to bolster
their arguments for a return to puritanical repression.
But it isn't sex as such, but a dehumanized sex, that is the sickness here. In
Victorian London, world capital of prudishness, the streets were crowded with
thousands of prostitutes: an inhuman morality and an inhuman sexuality
complemented each other. Today, for all the changes in sexual attitudes and
social life, things are not so very different: pornography is the sordid side
of the prevailing loveless sexuality. What is the appeal of pornography? It is
sex made-to-order: the clothes are off, the beautiful (or, more commonly,
beauti fied) body is lying there, ready, willing, available. You don't have to
do anything, you certainly don't have to get to know her or even try to seduce
her, because she already comes pre-seduced, as it were. And that of course is
the whole point: pornography is a running away from real sexuality to a passive
voyeurism, and it has more to do with fear than with sexual desire. (It's also
a running back�a retreat�to an adolescent attitude to sexuality, the gist of
which is that sexual fulfillment is having as many orgasms as often as
possible. This retreat is evident, as a psychoanalyst astutely observed
recently, in the very name of that quintessential sex magazine Playboy,
�composed as it is of "play" and "boy" as opposed to Eros and man.�)[7]
Pornography is essentially just another kind of sexual "dysfunction", another
kind of sexual misery. Love isn't a thing and there isn't anywhere it can be
bought�not in a porn store or a strip club and not even in a marriage license
office. Love can only be exchanged for love, as Marx once noted, and to be
loved you yourself have to be lovable, i.e., capable of inspiring love in
someone else.[8] This would be taken for granted in a truly human society, but
in capitalism what prevails are inhuman relationships in which people treat
other people like things, and so the connection between loving and being loved
falls apart. Sex becomes a commodity for sale, and in a way pornography, even
more than prostitution, epitomizes the alienation inherent in that exchange
because what's being sold isn't a body but merely an image or a voice, sex
reduced to an abstract "value". What a measure of despair those billions spent
on pornography are! Think of how threadbare the illusion is and how hard the
"customer' has to work to make it convincing, to "buy into it' long enough so
that he'll get his "money's worth"�a few seconds of relief. This isn't
happiness but a wretched counterfeit.
We are living in the twilight of the American dream. The epidemic of mental
illness, the pervasiveness of sexual misery�these both show that the rift
between the happy surface of society and the despair underneath is becoming too
great to sustain. Millions of people are losing any hope that life will ever
get better. But the fading away of a false dream can also be the beginning of a
revival of hope. Society needs to find a new road forward so that the mass of
humanity isn't condemned to misery, and the desire for happiness needs to find
a new dream, one that isn't a mirage. Happiness can become a reality only if
its human content is restored to it, and that means that the happiness of one
is inseparable from the happiness of all. This is a dream that only socialism
can realize. With the dawning of the twenty-first century, happiness is once
again becoming a revolutionary longing.
Notes:
1. Henry David Thoreau, Walden (1854) in Walden and Other Writings (New York:
1981), p. 111
2. Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America 1998-99. This report
is available on line at www.epinet.org
3. Edward O. Laumann, Anthony Paik, Raymond C. Rosen, �Sexual Dysfunction in
the United States,� Journal of the American Medical Association, Feb. 10, 1999,
v. 281, pp. 537-544
4. John Berger, Ways of Seeing (London: 1972), p. 54
5. Sigmund Freud, The Origins of Psychoanalysis: Letters to Wilhelm Fliess (New
York: 1977), p. 289
6. Toronto Star, Sept. 6, 1998 (reprinted from The Sunday Times, London)
7. Norman Doidge, �Hugh Hefner got it all wrong�, Toronto National Post, Dec.
1, 1999
8. Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (Moscow: 1977), p.
132
Copyright 1998-2000
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Integrity has no need of rules. -Albert Camus (1913-1960)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said
it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your
own reason and your common sense." --Buddha
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut." Ernest Hemingway
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
