Jane Sternbach-- Response to Mental Illness

Jane Sternbach

4/30/12

Sociology of Globalization

Response to Globalization of Mental Illness

            These readings about mental illness clearly illustrate the ways in which some mental illnesses are socially constructed. The fact that a drug company can change an entire society’s perception of an “illness” to suit their capitalistic needs, shows that these are socially constructed phenomena.

            The chapter on Depression in Japan did a great job illustrating the ways in which American views of medicine and science can impact a society. During the section on the development of depression in Japanese society through out history, the author shows the different phases the disease went through; each theory going in an out of favor on the basis of science. I really liked the quote on the last page when one of his interviewees said, “Some people say that this relationship between the researchers and drug companies is a kind of prostitution. I agree” (p.248). How can we say that scientific proof is objectively true when there is clearly an agenda behind it?

            Another interesting aspect of the chapter was the reference to the DSM and whether the world’s psychiatry should be standardized by it. It is obvious to me that different culture experience things differently, and something that we call clearly pathological and disordered here in our culture, is considered just a way a being in another culture. However, the fact that the DSM is seen as transcendent of culture is a scary thought. Some proof that the DSM is definitely influenced by culture, and is not a completely objective tool, is that Homosexuality was listed as a disorder in it until 1986! Who knows what we will look back on as a ridiculous entry in the DSM in 26 years from now? This of course brings up the question of whether all mental illnesses are socially constructed or not. If not, where is the line drawn?

            Also, back to the standardization of the world, which can sometime be referred to as globalization, I think this chapter shows that a one-size-fits-all model is not really helpful to anyone but Western corporations. However, it is also clear that society can be made to fit such a model by these corporations, which reminds me of the Jihad vs. McWorld article. Is this chapter just an exemplification of McWorld?

            The chapter on anorexia was also very interesting but harder to wrap my head around. In the United States, there is a clear correlation between societal ideals of thinness and girls’ developing disordered eating to fit into that societal norm. The fact that the girls in Hong Kong were less likely to have been influenced by these western ideals, is proof that there is more than one reason for anorexia in the world. The girls that Lee was treating did not fit the DSM’s symptom checklist for anorexia, however, they were clearly starving themselves, which is the same basic thing that girls in the U.S. are doing. This, to me, is further proof that we should not standardize the world based at all, but especially not based on the DSM. This issue of labeling the phenomenon reminds me of the article we read about dowry murders and domestic violence. Two things that are the same thing, but across borders are given different labels and different connotations. There is no reason that we shouldn’t consider dowry murder domestic violence, and there is no reason that we shouldn’t consider what these girls in Hong Kong are doing anorexia (even if it doesn’t fit the checklist).