red concave bar 1

Naming our Mental States

Second Thoughts Banner

Building on the premise that a name must come prior to the perception, our rapid growth of awareness in mental crises is abetted by an expanding lexicon of depression terms.

[With theories of communication, the most interesting ideas are also the most difficult to pin down.  So it is with the idea of linguistic determinism:  the observation that the power to name is the power to see.”  Note the reversal of conventional wisdom in the wording. Give this some thought and it turns into a kind of IMAX of communication models. It is a monumental observation and a good reason to take a second look, with a few more caveats now in place. This short piece suggests that we may be victims of our own proliferating mental health language: a justifiable lede that is buried in the very last sentence.] 

It’s an old truism in the language arts that we see what we can name. It’s the idea behind the phrase “linguistic determinism.” If so, our national concern about the spreading darkness of suicide and depression in the young is fed by increased usage of these terms, which have become top of mind. Two generations ago, these mental health labels were scarce in our discourse, even though these problems clearly existed. As a child I remember a family we knew well with a son who died while on an academic exchange. There was really no evidence of foul play, but that was the narrative that was accepted. At a certain point most of us will be made aware of concerns about the distress and safety of a young relative or family friend.

Tragic comic masks roman mosaic 2

Having a term for a condition primes us to notice it. Mental health researchers tell us that rates of clinical depression in the United States have been steadily increasing. One estimate from the Centers for Disease Control is that about one in five Americans carry that condition, with 2.5 percent suffering from persistent depression. Similarly, the still relatively new diagnosis of Attention-deficit/hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) rate grew from five and a half percent in 1997 to nearly ten percent by early 2021.

What’s going on?

Anyone asking the question must be humble when proposing causes. Among other factors, our reporting is probably better than it has ever been. Suicide used to be concealed behind other less stigmatizing causes, such as auto accidents. But the problems of depression and suicide are now a cause for significant national soul-searching. To be sure, taking one’s own life is a rare consequence of depression. But it is the third most common cause of death in people aged 15 to 25, assuming we can sort out true accidents from intentional acts.

Every case is different. But it is probably fair to assume that teens lack the ballast of experience to ride out rough patches, which may include broken relationships, family tensions, and low self-esteem brought on by corrosive comparisons of oneself with others built into a lot of social media.

It also seems as if there has been a sea change in the amount of public mental health talk that is now part of the lives of younger Americans and their families. Institutional mental health services have come out from under a cloud of concealment that was common in mid-twentieth century America. Counseling services have proliferated in schools and universities. And discussions of depression and anxiety are now baked into the formal orientations new college students are likely to hear when they show up on campus. Meanwhile, our media culture is bolder in dwelling on depression episodes, abetted by direct-to-consumer ads for psychoactive drugs that go not just to patients, but sometimes to their friends. Consider as well that just a few years ago no mainstream provider of television content would have touched a series like 13 Reasons Why (2017), Netflix’s fictional account a of a teen’s descent into suicide, or Hulu’s The Girl From Plainville (2022). In myriad ways, our culture has normalized the sources of teen angst that can occasionally turn self-destructive.

teens and cell phones

It also seems evident that students living on a campus are rarely ‘on their own’ and out of contact in the ways their parents once were. For some, frequent text or phone contact with home keeps family problems in play at a time when, for prior generations, being away at school offered a kind of refuge.  But I digress.

Add in linguistic determinism, and you have a perfect storm. Building on this view that a name must come prior to the perception, our rapid growth of awareness in mental crises is abetted by an expanding lexicon of depression terms. And here is the key point: with its emergence out from under its former stigma, perhaps we have inadvertently over-represented mental health issues. This kind of ‘clinicalization’ of our mental lives has now gone on for years, with frequent talk about others in terms of what were once more formal diagnostic categories. We now talk casually about someone’s “anxiety,” “attention deficits” or “paranoia,” mixing subjective judgments with classification categories once limited to the bible of mental illness diagnoses, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders known as the “DSM.”

Merging these labels into our everyday rhetoric has done its part in putting what were formally considered passing states of mind front and center. Sometimes that can be good. But it also follows that such language gets formalized through diagnosis and treatment. Once a person self-identifies as a victim of a labeled condition, that awareness can hopefully lay the groundwork for recovery. But these terms can also become self-protective justifications that delay it.

black bar

cropped Perfect Response logo 1

The Broken Prototype of “The Best”

It makes no sense to ask a sentient person to choose one “winner” from a list of films originating out of different narrative forms.

Awarding “best” for this or that in the arts—including film—is beginning to seem like a tired fiction we should be willing to give up. Perhaps never winning ribbons in my grade school’s field days soured me forever. But the annual cycle of film industry awards that has just concluded with the Oscars seems out of wack.  The obvious reason we already know is that individual efforts that result in vastly different projects are not directly comparable. A person only allows themselves to swallow this fiction if they want to indulge in the fantasy that only one can be “the best.”  There may be justifications for defining winners in sports competitions and hot dog eating, but not in the arts.

There is simple solution that preserves the important function of celebrating outstanding work in film, theater, writing and music. As is usually done now, use ballots of professionals to vote on those five or six colleagues or projects whose efforts seem especially praiseworthy. That’s what yields the nominations that set up Oscar night run by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.  Thousands of members in 18 separate divisions vote those they deem worthy of recognition.

At that point, the process should stop.

Build an event praising all of those folks who were selected. The remainder of the A-list party at the Dolby Theater in Los Angeles could then celebrate the work of more of their peers. Among the advantages is that small-budget and outlier films will not suffer from expensive Oscar campaigns  to secure votes.

In simple terms, it makes no sense to ask a sentient person to compare and choose one “winner” from a list of films that function in different narrative universes, including from this year: Barbie (a deceptively warm thumb in the eye to patriarchy), Oppenheimer (historical biography), and Poor Things (revisionist science fiction). The final list of category nominees could still be honored with brief clips and a few words from one of the persons who helped guide the project to the short list.

The Oscars Presentation is a National Touchstone

The pressure to turn the Oscars into a winner-takes-all game show game show is beneath what a serious art form should want. The process lowers the proceedings to something akin to Family Feud in tuxedos. It also suggests that money matters to the Academy more than pure art: not quite the idea of Ars Gratia Artis emblazoned above the old MGM logo.

An altered format that shuns the idea of a single winner also means that as the evening progresses, more of the attendees will not have been identified as losers, in a ratio of about ten to one. To the credit of the nominated actors and the heads of crafts departments, most still manage to take their defeat with admirable grace.

There’s also a bigger point here. Organizations everywhere end up adapting some of the strategies and assumptions of the Oscars for their own dress-up formal events. The event is a cultural touchstone. I’ve seen the outlines of the template within the events of college organizations, national academic conferences, variety shows, and even grade school assemblies. The ersatz point in these events is to identify a stand-out “winner” who will carry home a new piece for the mantel, leaving those looking on to suppress their disappointment.

It isn’t that we should skip the idea of acknowledging great achievers. The more unchallengeable point is that we should not be forced to choose between diverse projects. If we really think the broken Oscars works as it is, then we should have no problem putting our stamp of approval on the single “best:

– Family member

-Round fruit

– Painting in New York’s Metropolitan Museum

– Jazz musician living or dead

– Scout in troop 25

– Faith tradition

All of these as singular choices are clearly absurd, even though there is a hopelessly flawed part of us that loves manufactured competitions. I know: as things stand, nothing will move  the Academy to change its rules for the next big night, other than to make it flow better as a game show. It is in the American nature to celebrate individuals over groups. In addition, film producers want to spend a big portion of their budgets on promotion. Since many have already gambled in spite of terrible odds, the chance to become a winner is too tempting to pass up.

black bar

cropped Revised square logo