Thinking for Yourself in the Age of Mental Illness

In a media-saturated age, what does it mean to think for oneself? Is it even possible?  Has introspection become obsolete, if not cognitively incompatible with the deluge of media that we assume--mindlessly--empowers us?  Might these questions be worthwhile at a time when one in five adults have been clinically diagnosed as mentally ill--with the greatest number of those between 18 and 25, the most media-immersed of the adult population (Ogre-oid, 2012, January 20, LA Times)?

Sure enough, this focus on mental illness in our society has been reinforced by yesterday's reports that 49ers receiver Kyle Williams received death threats for his fumbles in Sunday's NFC Championship overtime loss to the NY Giants.  And, quite interestingly (for me, anyway) Williams cites the availability and influence of digital media for what is obviously a psychotic, anti-social reaction to an athlete making a mistake that allegedly "cost his team the game."

Says Williams: "People just write blindly and I guess that's to be expected with how open Twitter is and how open Facebook is.  Again, there's a line and some people cross it and some people have respect for it (ESPN.com: NFL, 2012, January 24).  The article contextualizes Williams' statement by prefacing that the receiver "talked of the imaginary 'line' that exists between athletes and fans, one that has become blurred, especially in the age of social media.

What "line" is this?  And how does it figure into mental illness?  I would say the line is the same line of which the prominent psychiatrist R. D. Laing writes in his book The Divided Self, the line between the human as person and human as mechanism.  Back in 1969, Laing argued that the blurring of this line has lead to the methodological problem of conflating the human as person with the human as mechanism in order to study mental illness.  In the context of psychiatry, humans exist as mechanisms, or "it-processes" from a biochemical and physiological standpoint.  Psychatrists identify chemical imbalances in the brain, for example; but this "it-process" is the human as mechanism, not the person.  Laing argues that while it is obviously crazy for humans to see themselves as machines or animals (characteristic of schizoid and schizophrenic personalities), it is equally crazy for psychiatry to study humans by conflating the person with the mechanism in precisely the same way the mentally ill do. 

In the age of digital, (anti)social media, humans exist as mechanisms in many ways: Facebook photos and posts, data-bits or "cookies" compiled by computers about their spending habits, political views, and other behaviors, as well as other files such as credit history, criminal records, scholastic transcripts, etc.  But none of these things is the actual person, of course.  I would argue that what Laing was saying about psychiatry in 1969 applies to society in general in the 21st century: a scholarly problem has become a popular one.  Laing argues it is impossible to understand anyone as a person by depersonalizing them into "it-processes" and assuming that the human as mechanism is the human as person.

Obviously such conflation is at work when sports fans threaten to kill another human being for fumbling twice during a playoff game.  Kyle Williams the person is nothing more than Kyle Williams the mechanism: the media transmitted unit that exists to do nothing but perform an athletic function.  If these people knew Williams as a person, if they interacted with Williams face-to-face and knew him as someone with feelings, a family, someone who exists to do more than be watched on TV playing football, it seems unimaginable people would threaten to kill him.  In turn, the availability of digital media of which Williams speaks makes possible the communication of severely mentally ill intentions: to kill another human being because he failed to hold on to a football. 

While I haven't received any death threats for reporting that I went to see a film about the Sept. 11 attacks that questions the official story of why the twin towers collapsed, the vitriolic, ad hominem attacks I received from my MoPod colleague are expressions of mental illness.  I am reduced to the vocal transmissions via a digital network that constitute part of a podcast.  Because I found the arguments made by the filmmakers to be compelling, I am now a creationist, and someone in denial of climate change.  My colleague knows good and well I am neither of these things.  So why his reaction?

My guess is that digital media occupy so much time and attention from people that are making all other forms of intelligence vital to effective communication--particularly interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence-- obsolete.  Knowing how to use the media is the only remaining knowledge domain. 

There is nothing wrong with going to see a film that questions the official version of what happened on September 11.  Why was Mayor Guiliani evacuted from Tower 7 after being told the North and South Towers were going to collapse when the people in the towers themselves were not only told not to evacuate but to return their offices after they had left?  I remember that day vividly and I know the footage of Guiliani saying to the media that he had left Tower 7 because he had been told the towers were going to collapse is credible and not doctored with a voiceover or digital alteration.  There is other testimony from people while the buildings were smoldering but still standing that they assumed there was no way the buildings would fall.  And here's the thing: one the first tower was hit, if in fact the authorities knew that building alone was going to collapse, not only would the people in the other tower been evacuated--there would have been an evacuation of lower Manhattan.  Why protect Guiliani and let a herd of spectators waiting for a swath of falling skyscraper devour them?  While there may be flaws in the film, this one observation alone makes the chilling prospect that our government and military wanted as many people in those towers to die.  I don't want to believe that, and more investigation needs to be done before I would unequivocally reach such a conclusion, but if there still is such a thing a thinking for yourself, this matter is one for which I shall continue to do so, even if it means other people will insist I think God created the Earth in the year 1776.

Here's the point: with such an extraordinary, bizarre, "how-in-the-fuck-could-this-happen," horrific event such as September 11, the normal assumptions we have about who to trust and what to believe go out the window.  It may be that the claims made in this film are not credible, but the only credible way to dispute them is through empirical demonstation that shows why the version of events the film offers is not scientifically explainable while the version of events according to the official version offers a satisfactory explanation.  As for me, a decade after the attacks that led to erosion of our civil liberties, two wars and occupations, and soaring debt that is a significant factor in our continued economic malaise, the official story falls well short of offering a satisfying explanation.  The personal insults I incur from my colleague simply because I found the film to be compelling and worthy of inquiry are expressions of cowardice, a childlike inability to fathom that Mom and Dad and Big Brother not only aren't perfect, but capable of evil as any human is. 

Here's one rhetorical problem with Alan's opinion on the matter.  Alan claims that Bush-Cheney, et al. knew something was going to happen but didn't work all that hard to stop it.  But that doesn't mean that they "let it happen."  Yet I remember President George W. Bush specifically saying "If I had known there was going to be a terrorist attack on this country, I would have done everything I could to stop it ."  Bush said this after "conspiracy theories" began to gain some crediblity.  Well, if Alan is right, then Bush is lying.  Furthermore, Alan's position is a distinction without a difference.  If our government knew the country was facing an imminent terrorist attack and did anything less than everything it could to stop, that is treason--that is unforgiveable evil.  The sinister agendas that have been in place since those attacks: war, occupation, wire-tapping, torture, strongly suggest that the sources of the official version of the attacks--the media and government--are not trustworthy.

In any case, it seems that asking questions and expressing that one has doubts about the official version of a national tragedy is in the spirit of a democratic society and intelligent, educated, civil discourse, whereas berating someone for doing so reflects the anti-social, pathological behavior typical of tyranny, and, sadly, our 21st century society.  The availability of digital media not only aren't serving any constructive purpose--we've seen no improvement in our economy, our education system, or our mental health since digital media have become entrenched in everyday American life; they appear to exacerbate anti-social tendencies that may be in all of us but are being socially reinforced as admirable, or at least acceptable behavior.  Our obsession with digital media conflates our Facebook pictures, tweets, comments, and the data they in turn generate about us with who we are as actual persons.  That's the best explanation I can give for why people would want to kill another human over fumbling a football or insisting that someone is a complete buffoon because he feels the agony and misery countless people suffered on September 11 is worthy of continued study and discussion, rather than being an obedient automaton and passively accepting what mainstream media claim is what happened that day. 

The cumulative effect of these reports about mental illness, and persistent reports of anti-social behavior via digital media empirically demonstrate that we have begun to internalize the same perspective the corporations and government have had for us for some time now: as disposable, interchangeable parts, mechanisms that can be discarded without a second thought, not as persons "endowed with reason" and worthy of rights, liberties, and respect.