Blog Archives

Crazywise

1/19/2020

I have shown this documentary in class and engaged in discussion around the core themes articulated in it. According to the description:

Through interviews with renowned mental health professionals including Gabor Mate, MD, Robert Whitaker, and Roshi Joan Halifax, PhD, Phil explores the growing severity of the mental health crisis in America dominated by biomedical psychiatry. He discovers a growing movement of professionals and psychiatric survivors who demand alternative treatments that focus on recovery, nurturing social connections, and finding meaning.

Beyond that description, the film describes how our current interpretive frame for "mental illness" is deeply problematic. For one, the medicalization of mental health precludes political activism or diagnosing social trends as significant factors impacting people's psyche.

If we examine mental health as a response to a social order that is increasingly de-humanzing and technocratic, new vistas of "treatment" emerge. These include, alternartives which often take the form of communites of care, listening, factiliating deeper meaning of crises as potentially transformative experiences. Much of this falls under what has traditionally been described as "spirituality". That does not mean to support quackery or superstition but it does mean to recognize that to "recover" means to find something deeply human; namely belonging, meaning, and purpose.

These are created through vital relationships and the bonds of connection we find in shared spritual communities. And the development of these bonds, that is the development of what it is to be human is an important political aspiration.

Ivan Illich wrote in Tools for Conviviality that

Society can be destroyed when further growth of mass production renders the milieu hostile, when it extinguishes the free use of the natural abilities of society's members, when it isolates people from each other and locks them into a man-made shell, when it undermines the texture of community by promoting extreme social polarization and splintering specialization, or when cancerous acceleration enforces social change at a rate that rules out legal, cultural, and political precedents as formal guidelines to present behavior. Corporate endeavors which thus threaten society cannot be tolerated. At this point it becomes irrelevant whether an enterprise is nominally owned by individuals, corporations, or the slate, because no form of management can make such fundamental destruction serve a social purpose.

This same sentiment is echoed by many critics of institutionalized mental health and many are on display in this documentary. The documentary provides a good springboard into a different perspective on mental health which is as important now as when it was created.

As a related aside, the documentary was made without appeal to any corporate funding. It was directly funded through individual crowd sourcing appeal. From production to prescription of how to move forward, the orientation is deeply grassroots.

0 Comments

Analysis of Oppression

1/15/2020

0 Comments

In an essay entitled “The Analysis of Oppression” Simone Weil asks “why the oppressed in revolt have never succeeded in founding a non-oppressive society, whether on the basis of the productive forces of their time, or even at the cost of an economic regression which could hardly increase their misery; and lastly he, (Marx) leaves completely in the dark the general principles of the mechanism by which a given form of oppression is replaced by another” (Weil, An Anthology, 1986, p. 130).

An answer to her question involves inserting the philosophical tradition of human rights into the equation - something Marx failed to adequately account for. The human rights tradtion is a tradition of the individual positioned AGAINST the state. The classic liberal position based on Kant is that individual possesses inherent dignity and this property led to his ethical foundation of the “categorical imperative”. This categorical imperative was translated in politcal terms by John Locke and positions human rights as an individualistic enterprise and makes the state subordinate to the individual. In many ways, this is a triumph and an important distinction that facilitates human flourishing. It does not however lend itself easily to a notion that the state, or collective has any role in redistributing goods from "each according to their ability to each according to their need".

As the industrial age was in full swing, Marx analyzed the forces of history and saw capital as disconnected from labour, requiring collective intervention to redress this wrong. Again, this was a strong position based on the empirical evidence that he saw. His idea resonated with many activists and with it came the birth of unions, worker rights movements, guaranteed income, and a host of other socio-political movements.

The problem is as Weil points out, this dialectal principle does not produce egalitarian results. Critics of Marxism and its political offshoot communism, appeal to “dignity” as an anti-Marxist concept that has economic and politcal applicability that lends itself, (although I would argue not necessarily), to a capitalist and individualist paradigm. Marx understood the dignity of workers, at least implictly, but never developed a systematic aritculation of how to conceive dignity. Instead, he tended to follow Hegel's dialectical theory that saw history as a determinative process and workers would inevitably be swept up into its dialectic (as Trotsky famously said, you may not be interested in the dialectic but the dialectic is interested in you!). But the very determinism of history as Marx interpreted it, has been critiqued by scholars such as Foucault who see no such inherent historical determinism.

In an essay, entitled, A critical legal conception of human dignity, Matthew McManus (2019) takes a middle position arguing that human dignity needs to be defined as “self-authorship” and self- authorship is defined as ability to “to transform the world… by transcending and shaping the sociohistorical contexts (we) inhabit” (p 63). This is an appealing concept as it goes beyond the scientific necessity and determinism of history that undergirds classic Marxist theory. It also resonates, in my view, with Berdyaev’s philosophical/theological conception as creativity as the imago Dei of humanity.

Nobody can argue that we are not a product of our socio-cultural contexts and this context shapes does indeed how we think and behave in the world but not necessarily. As, McManus (2019) writes: “we often conflate sociohistorical contexts with scientific necessity. Because we are influenced by all external features in the world, it can be easy to think that, as all individuals are to some extent unchangeably determined by biological laws, so too is who we are necessarily determined by the political, cultural, legal, and economic arrangements particular to the sociohistorical context we inhabit. Unger called on us to reject this “false necessity” and recognize that all sociohistorical contexts, as the product of deliberate human activity and even design, are ultimately characterized by their plasticity. We can deploy our “context-transcending” powers to reshape them according to our will and interests” (p. 63).

In my view, the process does not end there, provided we are deeply informed by the corpus of human rights both philosophically and politically. And here, the Kantian tradition of inherent dignity IS a useful concept to predicate a moral and legal tradition of human rights. Political liberals such as Locke, saw the political implications of this idea. The Lockean idea that, at least in principle, we all possess natural freedom and natural rights broke down the former history of political systems built on monarchy and inherited privilege (Goodhart, 2018, p. 407). Locke's idea gave birth to modern democracies which while imperfect, created the philosophical impetus for all manner of rights claiming. These rights claiming activities by various groups and minorities became an emancipatory act in which appeal to dignity was utilized as a moral claim and ultimately enshrined in law; thereby shaping the cultural mores of society. In a previous post, I referenced an earlier article, Constructing dignity: Human rights as a praxis of egalitarian freedom by Michael Goodhart on the emancipatory nature of human rights. I will continue with his thought as it now comes full circle to address Weil’s question of "why the oppressed in revolt have never succeeded in founding a non-oppressive society.

The reason is that we must abandon the view that there is some kind of egalitarian, Utopian promised land towards which the march of history is lurching. As Goodhart (2018) concludes: “It is impossible to “get it right” with respect to egalitarian freedom. New and changing forms of subjection will continually emerge through the dynamic social processes that structure our world; the meaning of egalitarian freedom and the bundle of rights necessary for its realization, therefore, can never be settled or fixed…Those struggles in turn shape our understanding of those values and what they require in changing circumstances. The account’s emphasis on dignity as a political aspiration in constant and productive (generative) tension with the ongoing reality of domination, oppression, and exploitation clarifies what might be done to achieve dignity in the domain of real politics” (p. 415).

That doesn’t mean we don’t work in history or become too detached but it does prevent us from inevitable social justice or activist fatigue understanding that our perspectives can never become fixed.

0 Comments

Is the environmental movement an expression of “Nature’s God”?

1/10/2020

1 Comment

In the US Declaration of the United States, Thomas Jefferson famously wrote that, ““When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

To justify a new political reality, and forge and new institutional entity, Jefferson drew directly on the thought of the English philosopher John Locke predicating liberty, and self-determination on the natural state of human beings (laws of nature). The reference to Nature’s God was a deist, non-revelatory, predication that the natural state of human beings is something not endowed by the state but is an integral aspect of the created human person. However, the predication of natural law was not necessarily contingent on the existence of God. As Leslie Thiele writes in his article “Human Rights at the end of Nature", “Thomas Hobbes and the seventeenth-century Dutch republican Hugo Grotius (2012: 4) famously maintained that natural law would remain valid, “even if we should concede that which cannot be conceded without the utmost wickedness: that there is no God, or that the affairs of men are of no concern to Him.” Grotius made no effort to defend this novel claim. And along with Hobbes, John Locke, and the Founding Fathers, he maintained that natural law supported the moral dictates of Christianity”. The foundational principle of the Enlightenment era was “nature”, and it was this principle that buttressed revelation and religion and not the other way around. As evidence of the power of nature and natural reason, the egalitarian, and even secularist, thought of Locke was, with the American revolutionaries, now being manifested in the birth of an entire country. But, Jefferson correctly intuited that one cannot reside without the other and his inclusion of “Nature’s God” was inspired.

The Jeffersonian “Law of Nature and Nature’s God” carry with them compelling and poetic flourishes that adds to their moral imperative irrespective of whether one believes in God or not. However, as “nature’s God” (or “God” as spiritual force binding us together in some fashion) becomes more contested so too does the concept of “nature” as a transcendent principle residing in matter.

This brings me to the phenomenon of the environmental movement which is increasingly taking on the trappings of a quasi-religious movement with politicians and media figures dutifully acknowledging the threat it poses and seeking prophets to point the way to salvation. As Madeline Grant writes concerning the Greta Thunberg phenomenon, quite apart from her message and the crowds accompanying her “is their quasi-religious reverence. She is portrayed as a child-prophet, a modern-day Joan of Arc in her ability to inspire a movement. Senior broadcasters call her “Greta” as though they enjoyed a direct connection with the teenager.” San Francisco unveils public frescoes with her image painted in iconographic detail.

The effect of this popular devotion is the galvanizing of a political consensus with respect to climate change and the environment. The debate around the science of climate change has been around for decades. The “Greta” phenomenon points to the next stage of the movement as it stirs the passions and begins to seep into the consciousness of the public. We are not, as human beings, pace the rationalists and positivists, driven by science and empirical reasoning. Emotion, feeling, and passion are outgrowths and drivers for political change. And as Hume thought, foundational in our decision making.

Popular movements, especially, when accompanied by religious fervour are always in need of careful, and respectful discernment. Clearly the environment is important and it is now taking center stage as the paradigmatic locus for all manner of political conversation.

I am a fan of Ivan Illich and am in the process of reading up on his notion of conviviality as a principle that can support “harmony with the natural world and with each other” - see Henry Eyres article on conviviality. From what I have read of Illich’s “conviviality”, it seems like a solid principle that can help navigate our new environmental politics by addressing head on our addiction to consumption. There is a certain asceticism required but it is not just individual asceticism but corporate asceticism that “limits to the size and structure of institutions, countering what he called radical monopoly”. More on lllich and conviviality to come in the near future!

1 Comment

The Crack-Up - F. Scott Fitzgerald

1/3/2020

0 Comments

In 1936, F. Scott Fitzgerald penned and article entitled "The Crack-Up" for Esquire Magazine; the entirety of which you can read by clicking the foregoing link.

In that article he wrote the now famous line that, "the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise"

The article describes Fitzgerald's sense of personal failture as not beng counted among the giants. He would likely be diagnosed as depressed or at least experiencing dysthymia. However, that does not mean there are not flashes of profound insight and even prophecy. He writes: "I saw that the novel, which at my maturity was the strongest and supplest medium for conveying thought and emotion from one human being to another, was becoming subordinated to a mechanical and communal art that...was capable of reflecting only the tritest thought, the most obvious emotion. It was an art in which words were subordinate to images...". In the digital age, even though the written word is still a medium of communication (e.g Facebook, blogs, and twitter), images are now supplanting even these with Instagram, Pintserest, and even You Tube. Thus, Fitzgerald's crack up is coupled with the devaluation of the novel and by extension novelists. The novel as a medium has not disappeared but it does not have nearly the currency it once does. And even in Russia, I am not sure that the novel is the glue that binds culture.

After abandoing all pretense, making a clean break, he finally writes that he has "now at last become a writer only".

That brings us to his famous quote about holding two opposing ideas in the mind at once. One should see that things are hopeless and yet still be determined to make them otherwise. That is indeed a first rate intelligence. To acquire such an intelligence, one has to be prepared to enter the arena and run the emotional gauntlet required to break through, or "crack-up", to that other side. Many of us are on, and in, that journey and while we may not be where F Scott Fitzgerald was, we but can see glimpses of ourselves reflected in his experience. Some withdraw as he does, others break into compassionate, equanimity such as the Dominican friar Meister Eckhart who advised us to learn to live without a why; or in Muslim tradition, Rumi who eschued identification with any external identity, and even the famous Jewish sage from the Acts of Apostles, Gamaliel who said of those who were on a different journey, "Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail." Either way, all of us in one way or another will experience a “crack up” - the only question is how to handle it. The answer to that question can only come from a first-rate intelligence.

0 Comments

Crazywise

Analysis of Oppression

Is the environmental movement an expression of “Nature’s God”?

The Crack-Up - F. Scott Fitzgerald

My Pensées

Archives