BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The coming epidemic? Mass Psychosis

 
 
YatimaMeiji
18:08 / 04.12.06
I just read this Reuters article on a stunt pulled on a talk radio show on the east coast. The host had mentioned that we should being identifying and tagging all Muslims in the United states. Of course he got calls telling him he is crazy and such, but what disappointed me were the callers that agreed, and even mentioned World War II tactics (ie putting Muslims in camps). In U.S., fear and distrust of Muslims runs deep

This reminded me of what I had read in Carl Jung's The Undiscovered Self. This idea of mass psychosis, a way for a society to become complacent, even participate in horrible acts, just seems so apparent today. While I don't know the current state of psychoanalysis in the world, I do think that we are still below an acceptable level of "mental hygiene."

Thoughts? Comments? Call me outright stupid? My skills of discourse can only get better through practice, so bring it .
 
 
*
18:46 / 04.12.06
I'm not sure how good an idea it is to associate racism— because "Muslim" is being racialized in the US— with psychosis, as discussed in this thread: Extreme forms of prejudice considered as mental illness. Is it productive to frame the discussion this way? How can this way of thinking about the problem help us solve it?
 
 
*
18:47 / 04.12.06
Also... that wasn't intended as a response to your very cute "bring it" at the end. I like discussion, not contests. So please don't "bring it."

Unless it's pie. I like people who bring pies.
 
 
YatimaMeiji
21:37 / 04.12.06
Sorry about that last part. It is a bit juvenile, but now I know. Anyways...

Reading the definition of psychosis(Wikipedia), why cannot one describe intense fear of a racial group with the symptoms that describe psychosis.

1. Delusional Beliefs: Paranoia falls under this, and would it be fair to say that it is paranoia when someone sees a Muslim(or any other race) and feels fear when no signs of aggression or other behavior has been shown? Though of course if you are walking down a dark street, a bit of fear is already on one's mind so it doesn't take much to push it a bit farther and find someone approaching scary.

2. Thought Disorder: Who wouldn't be disorganized while feeling intense fear?

3: Lack of insight: And while I luckily have not run into many racist or other prejudice people, I can say that to them, this is totally normal behavior. It is those who do not show suspicion that are not normal.

Then there are the hallucinations, well to make this a good argument for syntax sake, I would have to include a response to it, but I have to say that It doesn't really fit. So yes there is a hole in which to say that racism is not a psychosis, just a misunderstanding(should another word go here?). But I think it is a whole other thing when considering people on a large scale.

Group dynamics come into play and people of power, or at least with the charisma of a good speaker, do hold sway over large groups. So is it easy to say in this situation that it's not my fault, I just got caught up with crowd? I think its a bit deeper then that. I feel we have a need to blame someone when things happen, to find a scapegoat. In 9/11, the hijackers died, so we had no one to blame, and so people picked the whole racial(ethnic?) group to have as a source of fear.

I can keep this up, but I'll cut it down to the end. We fear the unknown, and so we have a need to put a face to our fear, to at least know where it is. To spot it when we see it. A primal need, I think.

Thoughts? Comments? And again for the whole bring it bit, I'm sorry, that was just silly of me.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
13:25 / 05.12.06
I've just been reading Zizek on Anti-semitism, and though this is something different I think some points might be relevant, because Zizek basically says that the racism fulfills a part of the human psychological drive- that the ideological figure of "the Jew" has nothing to do with real Jews but is there to plug the gaps in the subject's ideology, that because we want to create an ego, a "me" who is of course wonderful, we have to think up evil enemies to define ourselves against- and we might take certain real facts (for Zizek, the fact that some Jewish bankers, as all bankers do, possibly ripped off their clients) but distort them into these mythological monsters, and this is something we all do until we realise we're doing it.

So, possibly, the people who want to see Muslims locked up are taking as a basis some form of reality- the fact that Al Qaeda etc call themselves Muslim (whilst being frequently disowned by the community at large) but then corrupting this so that they can invent an insiduous enemy who is everything they (the Good Americans) are not, to preserve the myth of The Good American which gives them their identity.

So. Someone who knows more about Zizek please critique.
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
17:08 / 05.12.06
Have you read Charles Mackay's "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"? The chapters on the Crusades and Witch Mania, in particular, are relevant to this.
 
 
symbiosis
15:34 / 07.12.06
I'm pretty confident that history is going to judge Fox news to be evidence of a mass psychosis in it's entirety.

Anybody who knows how to keep score has to notice that two entire years of programming on that channel have been disproved by the Iraq war.

My dad, an Orreilly fan, now admits that the war is a huge mess, but he won't admit anything that might damage his imagined version of himself too much. Like, his son saw it coming and warned him about it in clear terms, but he chose to believe his friends on his news channel.

Now there is clearly no solution, and he wants to blame it anybody but Bush, as if Rumsfeld or congress did it. Then he wants to say that you can't argue with crazy people, like that's the reason we have to fight al qaeda until they are just all gone.

It seems to me that both the christians in the u.s. and the muslims in asia have masses of people at their core who can't be reasoned with, who have built their internal world to protect them from even the possibility of intellectual dissonance. The evidence doesn't exist that would change my dad's mind so he would somehow admit that voting for Bush in 2000 was a moral fault. And there is no evidence that could possibly end the war on terror. Or convince Al Qaeda that the jihad could end now.

We aren't the first to encounter these eternal war types or mass psychosis. Imagine the hundred years war or the human sacrificing under the rule of the aztecs. Entire civilizations have lived and died in a full on psychosis.

I wish I knew some way I could influence them besides dosing him with LSD against his will. And even if I did, if my dad saw how stupid he has been over the course of his life, if the flashbacks of him destroying his kids legos with a hammer or telling his teenage son that he doesn't need a computer because it is just a trend that will pass.....he would kill himself.

Ultiimately, as in the 2006 elections, it is not the core of the psycosis that you can hope to alter, these people are too far gone. It is the people who are on the fringe, who are kindof wishy washy, but who could change their mind without dissolution of their ID who we are talking to.

It's the kindof people who would still vote for Bush in 2004 but not in 2006 that we are looking for, and by directing our efforts towards them, we can mitigate the damage of living in a country with people who exhibit pathological group mania.

I do just long for that silver bullet that would make it so Fox would just crumble, that no person would ever believe them again. I would think, the idealist in me, that Iraq should do it, but I know now that delusional people can always create more delusions to maintain the buzz of their artificial reality.
 
 
multitude.tv
01:42 / 08.12.06
Just wanted to say to symbiosis. Your relationship with your father as you describe it, seems fairly similar to my own. I find myself giving him less and less of a hard time because, I love the guy and he wasn't a bad father. I am really worried that a crash of his entire world-view (LSD induced or otherwise) may be very damaging to him.

Its probably a similar reason why Plato spent more of his time educating youth and less time confronting his contemporaries. It is after all the reason the Athenians killed his teacher. Similarly you may see the coming Socraticide on the horizon with the the continual villainization of academics (including scientists) amongst the Right, particularly on Fox.

Discover The Network is a whole paranoia-machine, the "brain" child of David Horowitz. It may be useful to look at for this thread. It gives, I think, a fairly organized presentation of the paranoid world view of the Conservative Right in the US, that is, who the "enemy" is.

As for the Zizek, I would imagine his analysis (from what I know of him and what you've said) has something to do with the notion of "lack" and "object of desire" that he takes from Lacan, though I haven't read the piece. If it is available on-line please tell.
 
 
YatimaMeiji
02:29 / 08.12.06
Its websites like Discover the Network that scare me, but don't be fooled into thinking these people only exist in the far right. But to take this discussion farther, let me ask this question: If there is a mass psychosis problem, how do we fix, or at least treat it? Is there a way to change the world view of an untold number of people, on both sides?

Its easy to point out the problem, and I think easier yet since this had to have been incubating for some time now, but how do we change it? Yes lots of questions, but I for one don't know of any answers, not without moving into wishful thinking.
 
 
Dutch
22:58 / 10.12.06
perhaps a Harrison Bergeron style t.v./media takeover?

ah, wishful thinking again...
 
 
Jim Higginson
08:31 / 11.12.06
Hey guys,

As a budding psychiatrist, I'm afraid I'm going to have to put out some of the fires spreading here in terms of nomenclature. Psychosis is a really specific term, and to use it in this context not only demeans those who truly suffer from psychosis, but more dangerously, disengages us from the very real and very important issues raised by Yatima.

I'd like to address first your comparison of mid-American hatred of Islam to psychosis based on a Wikipedia definition. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource that is a kind of peer-reviewed journal of everything, and can greatly help understanding of the broad gist of a topic. Sadly, this is inevitably tempered by a potential for misuse if used as a definitive academic resource. I'm not saying that you're out and out "wrong," - sometimes I think the world truly has "gone mad" - but I'm afraid you used the three features of psychosis mentioned in the wiki very differently from the way in which psychiatry uses them.

Formal thought disorder (FTD) refers to an inability to form coherent thought structures. So, for example, if a psychotic person was asked what they did for a job, they might start talking about when they were, say a salesman, then shift onto talking about the car they drove, then shift to talking about NASCAR, then onto football, and so on. It is a persistent deficit in thought structure (not content) that is not causally related to intelligence or education.

Whilst it was important to me to clear up the issue of FTDs, it adds little to the debate, whilst subtracting much (by further debunking the use of "psychosis").

However, I think that when we consider delusional beliefs we arrive at the real crux of this issue. A delusion is defined as " a false unshakable belief which is out of keeping with the patient’s social and cultural background" (Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry) and here we find the insidious difference between the spreading hatred and mass psychosis - it is a social and cultural construct.

Like the rise of power of the Nazi party in early 1930s Germany, the rising racism is a cultural phenomenon, in which people are required only to take innocuous little baby steps towards a conclusion that is horrific, yet sufficiently veiled that each may make their next step on the path whilst denying their destination.

The question is, of course, what can we do to shatter this sociocultural edifice? Should we try to change the minds of radicals (religious or secular), or just attempt to foster an environment in which hatred cannot flourish? Any thoughts?
 
 
eib
07:38 / 15.12.06
Im a bit disturbed by yr discussion header "Sure people are scared of muslims" - are they? Educated people arent I can assure you
 
 
Dutch
22:25 / 15.12.06
I think the level of education has little to do with the underlying current of fear that is very much present in modern day society.

Fear is irritational by definition I believe. The fact that you understand that muslim terrorists constitute a small portion of a very large community is not a preventive measure against fear per se. If you understand that the media tends towards the negative in their manner of reporting, that they often benefit from shock-value and quick bite-size coverage of terrible things that happen, that doesn't nessesarily (sp?) mean that you will be less frightened by the information you are given.

If the images you are given show death, destruction, suffering, mayhem, etc, all tied to a group of people who happen to belong to a certain religion, this sticks inside your mind whether you are consciously aware of it or not. While an educated and balanced view of things can help you to suppress or reason with certain negative aspects of fear and the resulting quick aggressive-reactionary thinking, the fear that has been instilled into you remains present and can sometimes show itself in ways you wouldn't expect.

An example, which may or may not prove that I have a racist kind of fear imbedded inside of me: A week ago, I happened to need some money for alcohol, late at night. There is a bar nearby and I wanted to go to an atm-machine and make a withdraw some time during the night.

When I got to the atm-machine, there were three young black men standing there, just chatting, hanging around. I found myself too scared to withdraw money from that atm, and walked for another fifteen minutes to find another one. I later caught myself thinking: "Would I have reacted the same if those three men had been white?" - and I couldn't give myself a definitive answer.
 
 
Edie
00:36 / 16.12.06
The comparison of wartime mentality in a population to the condition of being psychotic reminds me a bit of the argument utilised in the documentary The Corporation. The only difference is a slight shift in subject matter and terminology... from war to profit over humanist concerns, which in any case often has its hand in breeding war and its justifications, and from psychosis to pathology....

Interestingly, Fox News and oil companies feature largely in that film.
 
 
gayscience
12:26 / 10.01.07
eib, can education, then, switch off fear? As Phriar has suggested, isn't it largely uncontrollable? Is it even a good idea to do away with it, irrational or not?

I'm not suggesting of course that these sorts of emotions are justified in a rational sense, but I do think its important we value them.

Points to the general discusion: Freud would argue that the world is necessarily a mentally unwell place. In Civilization and its discontents he suggested that we have to repress our animal desires inorder to live in a secure civilization. This repression leads to mental illness on both an individual and societal level.

I don't know if anyone is familiar with the work of RD Laing, I suppose if he had to be pigeonholed he'd be labelled an existential-psychoanalyst. He argued that the world was mad and that the individuals we think of as insane are often more sane than 'normal' people. His most famous example of this goes something like: Who is more mad the general with his finger on the atomic launch button, or the patient in the hospital who thinks the bomb is inside her?
 
 
Blake Head
12:49 / 10.01.07
It might be best in that last example to distinguish between irrationality and psychopathology to investigate whether the axiom of a ‘mad world’ is more than a compelling but shallow truism.
 
 
gayscience
14:08 / 10.01.07
Laing doesn't really talk about mental distress in terms of pathology because he didn't believe problems of the mind were illnesses.

I think Laing would argue that the General is indeed 'mad', when compared to the utopian possibilities of human existence (in an existential sense). The girl in the hospital has been driven into a different kind of madness because she is unable to conform to mad-normality. Both are estranged from their 'authentic possibilities'.

The concept of authenticity has never sat to well with me, but his 'diagnosis' of the world is interesting nonetheless.

As for irrationality, can't both general and patients actions be explained rationally? Perhaps rationality is insufficient when looking at the state of the human race.
 
 
Ganesh
14:50 / 10.01.07
Using a very loose definition, all sorts of things might reasonably be labelled "psychosis". There's still a difference between what's being described here and the kinds of psychotic illness treated with psychotropic medication. I'm not sure what's to be served by seeking to blur any distinction between the two groups (if that's what's being proposed here). One could equally argue that belief in UFOs is a "mass psychosis epidemic" but, as with irrational fear/prejudice around Islam, that doesn't actually advance discussion very much.
 
 
gayscience
15:10 / 10.01.07
There's still a difference between what's being described here and the kinds of psychotic illness treated with psychotropic medication

As I suggested that depends on whether you consider mental distress an illness at all.
 
 
Internaut
15:38 / 10.01.07
Psychosis, no. Paranoia? sure. maybe not an epidemic, though. educated people are should have enough sense to realise that people of another race or religion are not the cause of everything bad going on in the world. and yet, there are formally educated people who are firm believers in this generalisation of middle-easterners being terrorists and dictators. obviously this issue isnt the only victim of mass stereotypicicality, but it is one of the most prominent. and it shouldnt be. i really expected more from the human race. unfortunately, things cant be changed, its gone too far for anyone, let alone everyone to suddenly change their views.
 
 
Ganesh
19:56 / 10.01.07
As I suggested that depends on whether you consider mental distress an illness at all.

Or an occasional element of being alive.
 
 
Vadrice
09:25 / 16.01.07
um... i love you all, but am very saddened by the fact that no one has clearly (amongst the of yet elegant discourse therein) pointed out to the person who began this thread that being a muslim is in fact neither a race or ethnicity.
it is a religion.


jackasses.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:38 / 16.01.07
Id entity, second post:

I'm not sure how good an idea it is to associate racism— because "Muslim" is being racialized in the US

Feel free to take issue.
 
 
Vadrice
09:42 / 16.01.07
yes yes, but no one takes us yanks seriously in rational discourse anymore.

not that they ever should have, mind... but still.
 
 
Vadrice
09:47 / 16.01.07
don't you ever sleep (btw) haus? if one didn't have first person sources to the contrary, one might confuse you for an atack devil's advocacy bot.
 
  
Add Your Reply