Tag Archives: linguistic determinism

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 Grammar of Hubris

verb word cloudIt’s natural that we will place ourselves and our institutions in the driver’s seat.  We assume we can be in charge because our language lets us imagine it.   

Rhetoricians like to say that language has its way with us. The phrase is meant as a reminder that everyday language steers us to conclusions that usually promise more than we as individual agents or nations can deliver.  Word choice can easily create perceptions that can make the unlikely more likely, the improbable possible, the fantasy an imagined outcome that will surely happen.  We can tie a wish to an action verb and we are off and running, creating expectations for things that probably will not materialize. Who knew that simple verbs like “is” and “will” can be phantoms of deceit?

I was reminded of this by a recent article in The Atlantic by Stephen Biddle and Jacob Shapiro. Their thesis is the title of their piece: “America Can’t Do Much About ISIS.” (April 20, 2016).  The article includes a solid analysis of the roots of ISIS in the civil wars affecting Syria and neighboring states. Their point is that internal struggles like these have to “burn out” from the inside.  This kind of civil war cycle might take nine or ten years to complete, an outcome outsiders can’t change very much.

What seems inescapable is that the rhetorical ease of committing ourselves to the control or transformation of complex political forces is too easy. That’s something we’ve come to know all too well since the Vietnam era, reconfirmed more recently in Afghanistan and Iraq. The military and social problems associated with nation-building are unforeseeable.  Substantive reasons for caution tend to get lost behind the neon glow of action verbs.

Blame our overly-deterministic language.

We construct the world as a web of causes and effects.  It’s natural that we will place ourselves and our institutions in the driver’s seat.  We assume we can be in charge because our language so easily lets us imagine it.  Blame our overly-deterministic language, along with the hubris that comes with being the world’s preeminent military power.  Both set up tight effects loops that seem clear on the page but elusive in real life.

If we put individual culprits in a lineup they all look more or less innocent: verbs like affect, make, destroy, brake, results in, causes, starts, produce, alters, stops, triggers, controls, contributes to, brings about, changes, and so on.

In the right company these can be companionable terms.  But let them loose within the rhetoric of a leader determined to make his or her mark on the public stage and they can turn lethal. This is the realm of the familiar idea of “unintended effects.”  Fantasies of power and control impose more order on human affairs than usually exists.  They depend on verbs that flatter us by making us active agents.

This is ironically aggravated by our devotion to the scientific method. As Psychologist Steven Pinker has observed, we can’t do science without buying into the view that we can identify first causes. That’s surely fine for discovering the origins of a troublesome human disease. But even though this logic is diffused through the culture, it cannot hold when we immerse ourselves in the infinite complexities of human conduct.  Discovering the reasons and motivations of others is far more difficult.  Add in entities such as nations or tribes, and first causes are often unknowable.  And so strategic calculations based on efforts to influence or control behavior are bound to produce disappointment.

It’s a great paradox that we are easily outgunned by ourselves: by the stunningly capricious nature of the human condition. Take it from someone who has spent a lifetime studying why people change their minds.  We have models, theories, tons of experimental research and good guesses.  But making predictions about any specific instance is almost always another case of hope triumphing over reality. We may be able to say what we want, giving eloquent expression to the goals we seek.  Our verbs may sing their certainty, but forces we can’t predict are going to produce their own effects.

Comments: Woodward@tcnj.edu

cropped-Perfect-Response-logo.jpg