I have two opinions on the relevance of depression/medication to the futurework list. I do think that the topic is relevant and in support of that would mention the recent report from the Business and Economic Roundtable on Mental Health regarding the relationship between workplace stress and depression. The European Section of the World Health Organization has also published strong arguments for linking health and working conditions. However, I also agree with Sally and Arthur that some of the discussion tends to veer off-topic. Unfortunately, that may be a characteristic of an issue that evokes strong emotions. By posing the question of "workplace-friendly 'families'", I hoped to nudge the topic back from the chems vs. environment precipice. Back in the 1950s Gregory Bateson and his colleagues developed a theory of schizophrenia based on family dynamics and a communicational "double bind". On the basis of this work, Bateson predicted that there might be a genetically transmitted chemical imbalance, which was later confirmed by medical research. As a consequence of the confirmation of the chemical imbalance, "meds" have become the primary way of treating schizophrenia. Ironically, attention to family dynamics and communication has waned. We have this tendency to reduce complex social and psychological issues to a simplistic either/or dichotomy. EITHER there's a physiological problem OR a social dysfunction. There's no room in such a view for interaction between the physiological and the social. That's too bad, because the rubber hits the road in the interaction. But it's more than too bad -- the dichotomy is also a function of the way the economy is structured and how that sets the priorities for knowledge development. The chemical fix can be linked to markets and profits and thus can generate private sector research funds. The prevailing model of "private/public partnerships" tends not to complement the narrowness of profit-oriented research but to reinforce it by funding a correspondingly narrow basic research infrastructure. The family dynamics/communications issues become research funding orphans. Bateson's double bind could now become a description of the dynamics of research funding. Verbally the message is "be scientific or we won't fund you," but non-verbally the message is "be marketable or we won't fund you." Teasing out the metaphor, we might expect to find an increasingly rigid and conformist "research family" that stabilizes itself around, and in contrast to, the problematic behaviours of a few extravagant cranks and quacks. To challenge the conformism is to risk being regarded as a weirdo or at least a potential weirdo. Temps Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant
