Change lays not her hand upon truth.
Algernon Charles Swinburne (1837–1909)
So, when a raging fever burns,
We shift from side to side by turns;
And ’t is a poor relief we gain
To change the place, but keep the pain.
Isaac Watts (1674–1748)
To hear people all over the country speak about who they support in the current presidential race, you'd think we are on the brink of a massive political revolution. Change seems to be thick in the air - every candidate and pundit seems to be bending over backwards to argue they are the true agent of change (Obama just latched onto that message first). But what kind of change are we talking about? Do the people and pundits and politicians that mouth these words incessantly even know what specific changes they are talking about? Or are they simply reflecting the deep depressive nature of today's US citizenry and a deep desire, in the face of the seemingly endless corruption and callousness of our current leaders, for change, any change? Have we wholly bought into a snake oil solution - one made simply of our own fears and feelings of helplessness? Has any previous president who ran on a message of change (which non-incumbent president didn't?!) actually institute any real institutional change?
In my humble opinion, people need to get over this lazy desire for the candidate offering the most generic version of "change," and instead take the fucking time and devote some deep thought to look at each candidate's specific proposals for change. Do you agree with those changes or just want change for the sake of change? Is your candidate of choice offering real, achievable, concrete changes, or just a pipe-dream, feel-good, marketing ploy? I am not totally sure if any of the top candidates out there are offering much of anything real, but I fear for the viability of our country if a strong proponent of the latter vision prevails (Romney, Huckabee and Obama come most prominently to mind in this vein)...
But then again, that's just my opinion - what's yours?
4 comments:
Szasz is a critic of the influence of modern medicine on society, which he considers to be the secularisation of religion's hold on human kind. Criticizing scientism, he targets in particular psychiatry, underscoring its campaigns against masturbation at the end of the 19th century or the use of lobotomy to treat schizophrenia. To sum up his conception of medicine, he declared:
Since theocracy is the rule of God or its priests, and democracy the rule of the people or of the majority, pharmacracy is therefore the rule of medicine or of doctors.[1]
He considers that:
"The struggle for definition is veritably the struggle for life itself. In the typical Western two men fight desperately for the possession of a gun that has been thrown to the ground: whoever reaches the weapon first shoots and lives; his adversary is shot and dies. In ordinary life, the struggle is not for guns but for words; whoever first defines the situation is the victor; his adversary, the victim. For example, in the family, husband and wife, mother and child do not get along; who defines whom as troublesome or mentally sick?...[the one] who first seizes the word imposes reality on the other; [the one] who defines thus dominates and lives; and [the one] who is defined is subjugated and may be killed."[2]
His main arguments can be summarised as follows:
* The myth of mental illness: It is a medical metaphor to describe a behavioral disorder, such as schizophrenia, as an "illness" or "disease". Szasz wrote: "If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic."[3] While people behave and think in ways that are very disturbing, this does not mean they have a disease. To Szasz, people with mental illness have a "fake disease," and these "scientific categories" are in fact used for power controls. Schizophrenia is "the sacred symbol of psychiatry". To be a true disease, the entity must somehow be capable of being approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion. According to Szasz, disease must be found on the autopsy table and meet pathological definition instead of being voted into existence by members of the American Psychiatric Association. Mental illnesses are "like a" disease, argues Szasz, putting mental illness in a semantic metaphorical language arts category. Psychiatry is a pseudo-science that parodies medicine by using medical sounding words invented over the last 100 years. To be clear, heart break and heart attack belong to two completely different categories. Psychiatrists are but "soul doctors", the successors of priests, who deal with the spiritual "problems in living" that have troubled people forever. Psychiatry, through various Mental Health Acts has become the secular state religion according to Thomas Szasz. It is a social control system, which disguises itself under the claims of scientificity. The notion that biological psychiatry is a real science or a genuine branch of medicine has been challenged by other critics as well, such as Michel Foucault in Madness and Civilization (1961).
* Separation of psychiatry and the state: If we accept that "mental illness" is a euphemism for behaviours that are disapproved of, then the state has no right to force psychiatric "treatment" on these individuals. Similarly, the state should not be able to interfere in mental health practices between consenting adults (for example, by legally controlling the supply of psychotropic drugs or psychiatric medication). The medicalization of government produces a "therapeutic state," designating someone as "insane" or as a "drug addict". In Ceremonial Chemistry (1973), he argued that the same persecution which has targeted witches, Jews, Gypsies or homosexuals now targets "drug addicts" and "insane" people. Szasz argued that all these categories of people were taken as scapegoats of the community in ritual ceremonies. To underscore this continuation of religion through medicine, he even takes as example obesity: instead of concentrating on junk food (ill-nutrition), physicians denounced hypernutrition. According to Szasz, despite their scientific appearance, the diets imposed were a moral substitute to the former fasts, and the social injunction not to be overweight is to be considered as a moral order, not as a scientific advice as it claims to be. "Health" is a moral concept, argues Szasz[citation needed]. As with those thought bad (insane people), those who took the wrong drugs (drug-addicts), medicine created a category for those who had the wrong weight (obeses). Szasz argued that psychiatrics was created in the 17th century to study and control those who erred from the medical norms of social behavior; a new specialisation, "drogophobia", was created in the 20th century to study and control those who erred from the medical norms of drug consumption; and then, in the 1960s, another specialization, "bariatrics", was created to deal with those who erred from the medical norms concerning the weight which the body should have. Thus, he underscores that in 1970, the American Society of Bariatic Physicians (from the Greek baros, weight) had 30 members, and already 450 two years later.
I do agree with ya that the word "change" has become a bumper sticker rather than a real tool. A big problem is that I do feel we put too much of the blame and fame on the President. Why the "buck does stop there", dosent the whole system have a part in this. Two years ago, people voted for "change" and that to me seem things have only gone for the worse. I have always maintained that the 2 parties are failing us. So I really think that change isn't in a empty promise of a candidate, rather with you and me. Real change starts with getting new blood into the House and Senate from a varity of sources. Like you said, get to know who the heck you are voting for and get off this bandwagon mentality of backing a winner. I also think that the thinking a vote for a third party is a wasted vote needs to get out of peoples mind. A wasted vote is what most are doing now, 1. Pulling a lever for one party vote 2. Voting for the lesser of 2 evils. 3. Not voting like over 50% of the eliglble voters then bitching about it. I dont see real change either from the "major" canidates, the last debate had me feeling sorry Edwards who I really think is poor canidate, but was the only one there to at least to try and speak about things, I do give him kudoos for that. The only real change I heard was from Huckabee who had some likeable qualities til he said that the Constutution should be in line with "goda law' That is all we need here is a Christian Taliban, no thank you. I guess my point is change if people want it starts with you. Peoples rights have been changed by small groups, becoming bigger groups, til they have the power to enact change. Well I am going to stop, hope you have a good weekend and keep up the good fight.
Later
April :)
Dear Tomasso,
Thanks for the comments - are you arguing that there is a vast, medicated-wing conspiracy out there? Or are you just saying in the most obtuse way possible, that I'm insane? LOL, thanks again either way,
peace out,
Dana
Dear April,
Thanks for your always thoughtful comments - I hope you're well out in the "something-belt" area. Yup - most definitely change starts with us - the problem being that most of us (me included) have little idea what exactly our idea of change would consist of. That's what, in my opinion, our president and other elected leaders are for - to propose and implement and bring forth consensus for a vision for the future, one that attempts to correct the wrongs of the present through incremental and long-term change (short of revolution, this boring kind of change is really all that is possible within our system of government).
The underlying problem is that modern politics forces anyone elected to become beholden to the forces against change, i.e., those who have the most money and power and influence within our current system. It is basically impossible to get elected these days to any major office without taking vast amounts of money and favors from corporate sponsors. That is why candidacies like Edwards, Nader and Kucinich always fail - their platforms represent a threat to the status quo in one way or another. So instead we are offered empty choices of candidates who mimic the words of change but in the end will do nothing to actually change anything system-wise.
Post a Comment