Political Apathy... Disorder??

[TithonusSyndrome]

Might be op/ed, but I didn't want to post something as dry as the abstract from the paper.

If you're like most people, you're still slightly giddy and invigorated by the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President. You followed with interest the long, contentious primary process, avidly watched the presidential debates, perhaps even worked in one of the campaigns. And, in concert with record numbers of your fellow citizens, you voted.

Or, perhaps, didn't. Didn't follow the campaigns, didn't study the issues, didn't watch the returns on Election night. In fact, it may be that you're fairly uninterested overall in the fate of the nation, or even the world.

Which means...what, exactly? Well, according to an article in The Journal of the Association for Humanistic Psychology of a few years back, it may mean you're suffering from a mental illness. The article's author, Geoffy D. White, proposed calling this new condition Political Apathy Disorder, whose essential feature is "a pervasive pattern of failing to help reduce human suffering in the world, combined with overconsumption of the society's limited resources."

I thought of this proposed new diagnostic category recently when reading about the panel of eminent psychiatrists who've begun the laborious process of updating the clinical manual used by virtually all mental health professionals. Called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (or DSM, for short), it's the Bible of diagnostic categories, the ultimate reference from which to assign a clinical diagnosis. The current edition, published in 2000, describes 283 disorders. The next edition, DSM-V, due out in about three years, will probably contain even more.

Will Political Apathy Disorder make the cut? At this point, it's hard to say. As Edward Shorter, a leading historian of psychiatry (and critic of the manual) was quoted recently in the New York Times, "In psychiatry no one knows the causes of anything, so classification can be driven by all sorts of factors." Meaning, the cultural climate, financial considerations, trends in the mental health field, etc.

But let's cut to the chase: Do you suffer from Political Apathy Disorder? According to White's proposal, the answer is a resounding "Yes!" -- if you meet at least four of the following criteria: you fail to consider the effect on others when making a purchase; are not involved in political organizations; buy a new home when your current one is satisfactory; are not informed from diverse points of view; express concern about social ills but take no action; base your self-worth on financial worth; boast about what you own or plan to buy; or, lastly, engage in elitist activity (which includes living in a gated community, trying to get out of jury duty, and neglecting to vote in elections).

Believe me, I wish I were making this up. True, refusing to vote may be irresponsible. Or a shirking of your duties as a citizen. But evidence of mental illness?

My concern here is with this growing trend of assigning diagnostic labels to literally the whole spectrum of human behaviors. For example, we've spent the past two decades diagnosing an ever-increasing number of children with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder. However, according to a recent Time magazine story, even the ADHD label has become passe. Nowadays, the fastest-growing diagnosis for kids is bipolar disorder. (Which means, I suppose, that screenwriters and rock stars will just have to find a new one.)

What's next? Will we soon be labeling "difficult" children as sociopaths, because they can't empathize with another kid who took their toy? Or don't show sufficient remorse for licking the icing off their brother's birthday cake?

As for the DSM itself, it's starting to resemble every other publishing phenomenon, from Harry Potter to Chicken Soup for the Soul. A lot of fanfare accompanies each new edition, which invariably boasts new and improved diagnostic categories. (Including one of my favorites, Self-Defeating Personality Disorder.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting we throw out the whole system of categorization. But truth be told, diagnostic labels exist for the convenience of the labelers. And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with convenience. Nor with a common language that enables all us clinical geniuses to talk with one another.

But it does beg the question: is there no trait, behavior or private thought that is undiagnosable?

In our haste to understand the human condition, are we in a similar rush to plane off all the edges, quantify all the quirks, reduce all the prejudices and contradictions that make up an individual's personality to a set of differential criteria?

This isn't a rhetorical question. I really wonder about it. As I wonder about a lot of things. So much so, in fact, that it might indicate the need for a new diagnostic category: Pervasive Wondering Disorder.

I can imagine others: Excessive Daydreaming Disorder. Insufficient Outrage about Lindsay Lohan Disorder. Or how about Unwarranted Belief in Diagnostic Labels Disorder. Bet they won't put that in the manual.

But, really, where will all this labeling end? (A question, no doubt, symptomatic of Apocalyptic Obsessional Disorder.)

Or am I making too much of the issue? (Reflexive Self-Invalidating Disorder, with Mixed Emotional Features.)

See what I mean? That's the trouble with labeling. Once you get started, it's very hard to stop.

The more vindictive part of me wishes that there was just cause to label the politically apathetic as "damaged" in some way and shame them, because I torment myself daily about the way the world is going and whether or not I'm doing my part to help it improve. This is simply part of having a conscience and the cognitive functionality above that of a sponge so as to be able to see all the decadence and exploitation and injustice everywhere, to my way of thinking. But hearing it put as White has doesn't jive well. If the idea has any merit, it'll have to be drastically retooled first.

[Nephtys]

engage in elitist activity (which includes living in a gated community, trying to get out of jury duty, and neglecting to vote in elections).

What the hell is this? Okay, see. I understand that informed voting is an important duty. That's one thing. Trying to get out of Jury duty? That depends a lot. Sure, whatever, go through a two-day theft trial or something... not a big deal. But I've known people who have had their careers thrown way the hell off track because they were picked up for a 9 month murder trial.

And finally... living in a gated community? EXCUSE me? Is this article seriously suggesting that living in a nice area is some sort of social sin? I live in San Diego, and half the communities here are gated. They don't have guards or anything, just a door that residents have a code to get in.

I suppose saying it's 'Elitist' is the 'in' thing these days, nevermind that 'Elite' is a good adjective.

[Count Chocula]

Dude, it's from HuffPo. They're as far to the left politically, for the US, as FoxNews is to the right. In other words, take what they write with a grain of salt...followed by a shot of tequila and a slice of lime.

To the topic, I've seen this in the past with elections of both Republicans and Democrats, and I'd more properly term it political exhaustion. There comes a time when, if politics is not your bread and butter, you simply find that your passing interest in the political process wanes in the face of more important things that affect your life in the short term. It's engaging for a while, then it becomes...less important in your life.

[Mr Bean]

Dude, it's from HuffPo. They're as far to the left politically, for the US, as FoxNews is to the right. In other words, take what they write with a grain of salt...followed by a shot of tequila and a slice of lime.

Not quite, Huffing Post is an aggerator site. It's a site which relies on other websites, newspapers and cabel programs. They are more than happy to post a Fox-News story(With snarky comments of course) on their front page. It's still a blog level news site so nothing posted there should be automaticly accepted but to say they are "far left" is a mistatement. They host people with far left views, they host people with leftist views. Most of their content is of course someone elses. But Huffingpost leans from mindless middle to left wing.

Unlike Faux News which is more than happy to report blatent falsehoods for days on end or Glenn Beck the news. For fuck sake when Steven Colbert ran his "Doom-Bunker" in parady of Glenn Beck, it appears Glenn took it as a challange to go even more crazy. Listening or watching Glenn Beck is a combination of Art Bell and Shawn Hannity at their best. Crazy and Patriotic Stupid. Fox leans Republican to crazy Conservative.

[Count Chocula]

Hey! I like Art Bell (George Noory these days). There's almost always something outlandish to wake me up on my oh-dark-thirty commute to work. Time magazine did a soft smear on HuffPo in their recent issue, almost coming right out and calling her a worthless aggregator of other people's work...but with a winning charm! Methinks they're feeling the pressure from the slow death of the printed word.

[Mr Bean]

Hey! I like Art Bell (George Noory these days). There's almost always something outlandish to wake me up on my oh-dark-thirty commute to work. Time magazine did a soft smear on HuffPo in their recent issue, almost coming right out and calling her a worthless aggregator of other people's work...but with a winning charm! Methinks they're feeling the pressure from the slow death of the printed word.

I like Art Bell too, but lets be honset, Coast to Coast AM is a deep well of what we like to call "the crazy". Art Bell is not himself insane, but at three AM he gets the crazies to call in. That and his performance in Prey, a rather lackluster video game that was far improved by his smooth tones

Clip of Art from Prey

Back to the story at hand to end this hijack
And the story is... well bullshit

The article's author, Geoffy D. White, proposed calling this new condition Political Apathy Disorder, whose essential feature is "a pervasive pattern of failing to help reduce human suffering in the world, combined with overconsumption of the society's limited resources."

I notice no "Dr" in that name so I have to ask if Mr White's little turn of phrase is nothing more than semantic bullshit. Considering the the description of this "condition" I'd call it bullshit. The point of the piece that you can have a condition because some random guy declares something that's common as a condition is a common medical related bullshit.

[fuzzymillipede]

Am I missing something? In the second half of the article, the author calls bullshit on "Political Apathy Disorder". Why are you attacking the article over the disorder, which the article itself is attacking?

[Mr Bean]

Am I missing something? In the second half of the article, the author calls bullshit on "Political Apathy Disorder". Why are you attacking the article over the disorder, which the article itself is attacking?

Because he chose a piss poor example? Obvious man attacks Dumb Guy for dumb thing that guy said. Some random guy, (Who I STILL can't find his credentials if any) says something stupid and then Obvious man or Dennis Palumbo as he names himself decides to call this man to task.

To note Dennis Palumbo is a former screenwriter turned consular in Private Practice. He is not per his own website a doctor but he is a licensed psychotherapist who is "working on his masters degree in psychotherapy" I don't know if he holds said degree because his own website BIO has not been updated it seems since 2001. But in the latest sections bio update to his website is from 2003, so it's all possible he's graduated.

So the man is not uninformed, he should have a grasp of mental heath issues despite not having a doctorate in the area. A masters degree is nothing to sneeze at. And with a good decade in psychotherapy he should be moderately well informed.

So he should know better when random guy makes a dumb uninformed medical statement then to try and debate the fellow on the merits and instead ask "Excuse me random person but what orifice did you pull this idea out of?" If someone who no medical knowledge(Or some, can't find Geoffy D. White anywhere) comes forward and makes a stupid medical claim (Ahem "Mommy Instinct", or "HIV does not cause AIDS" claims) then you can cut them off with a brisk dismissal and a request for data or studies to back up their theory, not a full length piece that mentions all Geoffy D. White's claims without refuting any of them, then asks vauge leading questions about "Gee who can say if the PA disorder won't end up in the next DSM? Whooo could say? Maybe someone with some medical knowledge? Like me? Nah, it's not my place to give counter to such claims, only give them a venue so they can be more widely heard"

[Dooey Jo]

If the idea has any merit, it'll have to be drastically retooled first.

No no, they just have to invent a drug to fix the condition.

But seriously, a "Political Apathy Disorder"? Sounds a bit like the underlying cause of that might be an "Inadequate Education Disorder" or a "Living in Rural Community Complex". Why not also brand political activism a disorder while we're at it?

[TithonusSyndrome]

If the idea has any merit, it'll have to be drastically retooled first.

No no, they just have to invent a drug to fix the condition.

But seriously, a "Political Apathy Disorder"? Sounds a bit like the underlying cause of that might be an "Inadequate Education Disorder" or a "Living in Rural Community Complex". Why not also brand political activism a disorder while we're at it?

I (hope) the people White are referring to are affluent people in urban areas who have the means to be politically aware, but either choose not to act on it or in some cases, even react with anger when politics are being discussed. After all, we don't typically diagnose people with paranoid personality types if it turns out they have good reason to fear for themselves.

[Dooey Jo]

I can understand it if they have some sort of voting phobia or something, but is it really a disorder if it's a conscious choice?

[TithonusSyndrome]

Lots of things that are conscious choices are symptoms of mental illness. Not getting a job and lying on the couch all day long is a choice, but it's also probably a safe bet that the person doing that has some kind of problem confronting their responsibilities. Everyone also has the civic responsibility to follow and participate in the political process. Whether or not their failure to do so is a mental illness, I couldn't tell you, and odds are that even if this motion bears fruit it won't be pressed into the next DSM for the same reason religious belief never will be - appeal to tradition.

[General Zod]

Lots of things that are conscious choices are symptoms of mental illness. Not getting a job and lying on the couch all day long is a choice, but it's also probably a safe bet that the person doing that has some kind of problem confronting their responsibilities. Everyone also has the civic responsibility to follow and participate in the political process. Whether or not their failure to do so is a mental illness, I couldn't tell you, and odds are that even if this motion bears fruit it won't be pressed into the next DSM for the same reason religious belief never will be - appeal to tradition.

Political apathy might be a problem, but I'm tired of everything that somehow seems to deviate from what's perceived as the norm being labeled as a disorder, myself.