Critiques of psychoanalysis
- Thread starter tryptych
- Start date
Ideology's Mantra: Apologise for being Ridiculed
As this is my one-hundredth post at this charming forum, I'm honoured, after some twenty years of posting at assorted forums, newsgroups, bulletin boards, websites [back then it was, in Europe, called "Eurocom"], to pay witness to the above poster manically thrusting himself forth into this thread with his oh-so-considered accusations of "quasi-trolling". This is indeed singular; however, I do recall a schizoid basket-case poster some years ago accusing everyone at the forum where he posted as a bunch of "vampiric trolls." So you're in good company, Mr Magnum "Blondie" Force.
So then, given your gushingly-interventionist, delirial resurrection of "bringing this point up over and over" yet again for purposes of perpetuating Borderpolice's Error OF His Ways, it would be nice, though probably still premature, to read an instance of logical consistency from Borderpolice [or yourmagnumself], so I still look forward to his listing of critiques of psychoanalysis that are not merely superior to Deleuzian and Lacanian ones [which, as Borderpolice - and now yourdebbieself - so infectiously like to maintain "don't really say anything that hasn't been said more clearly elsewhere", an elsewhere that continues to insist on its - inaccessible - elsewhereness ] but remarkably are also easy reading.
But as an apologist for twisted logic, there's really no need for you to offer any further apologlies ...
DirtyClintEastwood said:
As this is my one-hundredth post at this charming forum, I'm honoured, after some twenty years of posting at assorted forums, newsgroups, bulletin boards, websites [back then it was, in Europe, called "Eurocom"], to pay witness to the above poster manically thrusting himself forth into this thread with his oh-so-considered accusations of "quasi-trolling". This is indeed singular; however, I do recall a schizoid basket-case poster some years ago accusing everyone at the forum where he posted as a bunch of "vampiric trolls." So you're in good company, Mr Magnum "Blondie" Force.
So then, given your gushingly-interventionist, delirial resurrection of "bringing this point up over and over" yet again for purposes of perpetuating Borderpolice's Error OF His Ways, it would be nice, though probably still premature, to read an instance of logical consistency from Borderpolice [or yourmagnumself], so I still look forward to his listing of critiques of psychoanalysis that are not merely superior to Deleuzian and Lacanian ones [which, as Borderpolice - and now yourdebbieself - so infectiously like to maintain "don't really say anything that hasn't been said more clearly elsewhere", an elsewhere that continues to insist on its - inaccessible - elsewhereness ] but remarkably are also easy reading.
But as an apologist for twisted logic, there's really no need for you to offer any further apologlies ...
corneilius
Well-known member
Alice Miller ans paychoanalysis
Alice Miller has a few things to say about Psycho-analysis, as does Carl Rogers, and especially coherent in their later writings. Rogers died in 87, and Alic Miller is still with us.
She has a webportal
http://www.naturalchild.org
Rogers' daughter has a web page too
http://www.nrogers.com/carlrogers.html
Both are very, very interesting .... and not so surprisingly their work ties in with John Taylor Gatto .... on education
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com
Alice Miller has a few things to say about Psycho-analysis, as does Carl Rogers, and especially coherent in their later writings. Rogers died in 87, and Alic Miller is still with us.
She has a webportal
http://www.naturalchild.org
Rogers' daughter has a web page too
http://www.nrogers.com/carlrogers.html
Both are very, very interesting .... and not so surprisingly their work ties in with John Taylor Gatto .... on education
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com
borderpolice
Well-known member
k-punk said:
in other places, Adorno was quite happy to level the charge of
pacifying bourgeois subjects, rather than changing socialisation such
that repressive super-egos are no longer needed, at psychoanalysis
proper, e.g. Minima Moralia, Part I, around Note 40.
k-punk said:
I'm not at all shocked. I loose the ability to read when i'm not
interested, or my mind is somewhere else. Clearly, most students don't
really want to study, and what they study is usually not very
interesting to them. So it is no wonder that they are thinking of
something else -- more likely than not involving the hot girl/guy
sitting right in front of them.
k-punk said:
I am extremely aware of this. But these issues don't only pertain to
PA critics of whatever strife, but also to defenders. In fact one of
the persisten criticisms of PA is precisely the lack of substantial
reflection on these issues. Gruenbaum is the most well-known exponent
of this line of attack. I think that G. is right in pointing out this
shortcoming, but his specific claim of methodology (he thinks PA
should follow physics) is inappropriate for a science like PA. Freuds
opinions on women, his lacking appreciation of the problem of
"therapeutic suggestion" and his -- how shall i put it, interest?
... in telepathy are telling in this regard.
k-punk said:
That's too conspirational for my liking. For a start i'm neither
powerful nor wealthy. And criticisms are not invalidated by wealth and
power either. And, as i pointed out several times, most criticisms of
PA have been made by practising psychoanalysts (I had already pointed
to the famous columbia study). Another example is the preoedipal
post-natal child development. Freud made fairly clearcut statements
how this was supposed to happen (child passively following the
pleasure-principle, building up a representation of reality, in
particular of mother and father objects, through a mismatch between
the expectations generated from the pleasure principle and reality),
but the "babywatchers" have made quite a convincing case that this
ain't so. children are rather active from day one, in particular,
complicated mother/child interaction sequences happen right from the
start. I cannot see a "big pharma" interest or influence
in the details of post-natal development. To be sure, there may be
some undue influence, where specific medications are tested, but
without strong evidence beyond your say-so i'm not willing to dissmiss
all studies of therapeutic effectiveness tout court.
k-punk said:
There was a time when PA was the dominant approach to mental
health. The reason for it's declining popularity is lacking clinical
effectiveness. I would posit a different causal chain: the popularity
of certain pharmacological treatments for certain indications is
mostly due to it's greater effectiveness vis-a-vis talk based cures
like PA.
k-punk said:
Clinical success is important. And it strikes me that most social
contemporary social though has been inspired by and struggled with the
claims of PA in some form or another. Looking at the great social
thought of the later part of the 20th century (Parsons, Luhmann),
one sees this very clearly. [Incidentally, Parsons's daughter committed
suicide after being psychoanalysed in her training towards becoming a
psychoanalyst.]
k-punk said:
it was born and bread in the clinic. Freud and Lacan were practising
analysts, and -- at least for the former -- but i also think for
Lacan, that's where most of the insights came from. Let me ask you:
exactly on what grounds do you judge Lacan's theories to be
interesting? Divine inspiration?
Where I would agree is that most metal problems are cruicially and
intimatly intertwined with the sufferer's social environment and that
in order to understand and cure mental conditions, one needs to
understand first and formost 'normal' human development. Hence
psychology needs to look outside the clinic.
k-punk said:
Yes, as I said, I am very much aware of this, but this predicament is
not one of PA alone. Any science has to face is, including Physics and
Maths, though for the latter that is not generally appreciated,
probably their truth-claims turn out to be (and this is an empirical
statement) much less problematic -- presumably because these sciences
have been so successful. Universal theories, like PA, that are
characterised by circularity, i.e. they appear "Re-enter" as objects
in their own theory, they investigate the causes and mechanisms for
their own truth-claims, are harder to verify -- if it makes sense to
use this term here -- than 'normal', small- or medium range theories.
For universal theories criteria like internal consistency, simplicity,
scope, range and so on become inportant. How a theory handles its own
"re-entry" is particularly relevant.
k-punk said:
Any theory has "theoretical terms" and postulates "theoretical
entities" that are not immediatly or at all verifyable. However, there
is a reason why we (or at least I) care about theories at all, namely
as problem solving tools. If a theory has no measurable consequences
(in a generalised sense), it is simply uninteresting. PA's measurable
consequences involve the clinical situation, and that's where it comes
from.
k-punk said:
Interestingly, some other theoretical concepts of Kant's like the
apriori structure of time and space, have become highly problematic due
to empirical investigations into the geometry of space-time.
the relationship between empirical data and theories is circular, not
linear in the sense that theories are first and organise empirical
data.
Last edited:
So my manically thrusting, gushingly-interventionist yet oh-so-considered j'accuse is equivalent to a schizoid basket-case accusing everyone else on some other forum? Sounds more like paranoia to me, but in any case I'm happy to be aligned with the delirious.Padraig said:
In fact I don't particularly agree with Borderpolice's point that there are easier to read critiques of psychonanlysis equivalent to Lacan's and Deleuze and Guattari's, but - once again, patiently - that wasn't my point. My point was your claim that there were logical errors in her/his claim, which - yes - you brought up over and over, with added unpleasantness, despite being entirely wrong.
Whether these critiques exist or not isn't germane to your misplaced accusations of illogicality, which I can only assume are either a rhetorical straw man attack or lack of comprehension on your part.
If you're still having trouble following this I'll make it nice and simple for you (despite you not setting much store in ease of reading, you really are struggling with this):
Borderpolice said "there are X" where X=[critiques of psychoanaly...yawn], you happen not to agree that there are X, but you are accusing her/him of logical errors in her/his claim, and now accusing me also of apologising for and siding with this perceived illogicality, just because I pulled you up on your mistake and your offensive style of making it. Inexplicable, but please just let it go, and make my day, punk.
yrs, Ms denis (denis) Harrier
corneilius
Well-known member
Both Alice Miller and Carl Rogers have important things to say about PA, the nuts and bolts of which are this.
The standard set-up of the Psycho-Analyst is that the PA is the one with all the power, and appropriate knowledge, (having spent years studying the subject in the best Universities, etc., ) and the patient is the one who is weak, with the need for someone with better knowledge and understanding to guide them back to health.
This is of course authoritarianism, and the vested interest of the PA, in seeing themselves as the powerfull one, and in maintaining that power, in the relationship is counter-productive to the helping and self-healing of the client.
It mirrors democracy as we have come to know it.
And the shift that Rogers and Miller saw as neccessary was a shift towards NOT taking the power of the client away in ther first place, towards active listening (rather than listening and directing, or leading), towards recognising the innate growth ability and innate acces to inner knowledge of each client as being the key to being helpfull. They assume that the person asking for help knew more about their problem as they were the on experiencing it.
Traditional PA relies upon it's income in a client returning for sessions for years. Rogers and Miilers approach rejects ouyright that as a parasitic relationship.
And of course they are right. And I know this from experience, for I have had to heal many deep wounds in my life, and it was with those who deeply trusted my innate self-healing ability and were strong enough in their trust to accompany me on that at times terrifying journey, to hold my hand as it were, that were the most helpful.
The others at times bullied me, insulted me and blamed me for not changing whilst keeping their own position from all or any criticism. And they charged me good money to do that!
The standard set-up of the Psycho-Analyst is that the PA is the one with all the power, and appropriate knowledge, (having spent years studying the subject in the best Universities, etc., ) and the patient is the one who is weak, with the need for someone with better knowledge and understanding to guide them back to health.
This is of course authoritarianism, and the vested interest of the PA, in seeing themselves as the powerfull one, and in maintaining that power, in the relationship is counter-productive to the helping and self-healing of the client.
It mirrors democracy as we have come to know it.
And the shift that Rogers and Miller saw as neccessary was a shift towards NOT taking the power of the client away in ther first place, towards active listening (rather than listening and directing, or leading), towards recognising the innate growth ability and innate acces to inner knowledge of each client as being the key to being helpfull. They assume that the person asking for help knew more about their problem as they were the on experiencing it.
Traditional PA relies upon it's income in a client returning for sessions for years. Rogers and Miilers approach rejects ouyright that as a parasitic relationship.
And of course they are right. And I know this from experience, for I have had to heal many deep wounds in my life, and it was with those who deeply trusted my innate self-healing ability and were strong enough in their trust to accompany me on that at times terrifying journey, to hold my hand as it were, that were the most helpful.
The others at times bullied me, insulted me and blamed me for not changing whilst keeping their own position from all or any criticism. And they charged me good money to do that!
Lingering Lacan For Lucky Londoners
Though this will likely be of no interest for the Logical Positivists, Reductivist Empiricists, and Reality Principle Pragmatists hereabouts, could any of the incredibly damn lucky libidinous buggers who will be attending this clearly unmissable course post their rudimentary impressions here at some point?
Slavoj Zizek Master Class on Jacques Lacan: A Lateral Introduction
A Free Four Week 8-lecture Course, May-June 2006, Birkbeck, University of London
In 2000, the 100th anniversary of the publication of Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams was accompanied by a new wave of triumphalist acclamations of how psychoanalysis is dead: with the new advances in brain sciences, it is finally put where it belonged all the time, to the lumber-room of pre-scientific obscurantist search for hidden meanings, alongside religious confessors and dream-readers.
There is something to these accusations. The story of three successive humiliations of man, the three "narcissistic illnesses", ("Copernicus-Darwin-Freud") was given a new turn in the last decades: the latest scientific breakthroughs seem to add to it a whole series of further "humiliations" which radicalize the first three, so that, with regard to today's "brain sciences", psychoanalysis rather seems to belong to the traditional "humanist" field threatened by the latest humiliations.
Is, then, psychoanalysis today outdated? It seems that it is, on three interconnected levels:
(1) that of scientific knowledge, where the cognitivist-neurolobiologist model of human mind appears to supersede the Freudian model;
(2) that of psychiatric clinic, where psychoanalytic treatment is rapidly losing ground against chemotherapy and behavioral therapy;
(3) that of the social context, where the image of society, of social norms, which "repress" individual's sexual drives, no longer appears valid with regard to today's predominant hedonistic permissiveness.
It contrast to these "evident" truths, the aim of the course is to demonstrate the exact opposite: not only is psychoanalysis not veraltet - it is only today that its time has arrived, that Freud's key insights gain their full value - on condition that one reads Freud through Lacan, through his "return to Freud" which is not the return to Freud as he was, but to what was "in Freud more than himself", the traumatic core of the Freudian discovery of which he himself was not fully aware.
The course will follow the fundamental rule of excluding all clinical stuff. Lacan was first and foremost a clinician, and clinic permeates everything he wrote and did: even when Lacan reads Plato, Aquinas, Hegel, or Kierkegaard, it is always in order to deal with a precise clinical problem (Plato for transference, Aquinas for symptom, Hegel for the dialectic of the progress of treatment, Kierkegaard for repetition). Our wager is that this very all-pervasiveness of clinic allows us to exclude it: precisely because clinic is everywhere, one can erase it and limit oneself to its effects, to the way it colors everything that appears non-clinical - this is the true test of its central place.
.................... Mulholland Dr.
The four weeks course will thus provide a Lacanian reading of four domains of humanities and social sciences: first week, philosophy and theology (Hegel, Kierkegaard, Heidegger); second week, science (contemporary cognitivists and evolutionists, from Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker); third week, theories of ideology (from Marx to analyzing today's "fundamentalism"); last week, theories of art (cinema and literature : Henry James, Samuel Beckett, David Lynch, Lars von Trier). The overall aim is to demonstrate the strength of the Lacanian approach, through polemical confrontations with other predominant trends, from cognitivism to deconstructionism.
Jacques Lacan, Ecrits: A Selection
Jacques Lacan, Seminar VII, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
Slavoj Zizek, The Parallax View (MIT Press, 2006)
Though this will likely be of no interest for the Logical Positivists, Reductivist Empiricists, and Reality Principle Pragmatists hereabouts, could any of the incredibly damn lucky libidinous buggers who will be attending this clearly unmissable course post their rudimentary impressions here at some point?
Slavoj Zizek Master Class on Jacques Lacan: A Lateral Introduction
A Free Four Week 8-lecture Course, May-June 2006, Birkbeck, University of London
The following dates for the Master Class have now been confirmed. All sessions will run between 2.00pm and 4.00pm.
There will be no charge for this event. People may wish to indicate an interest in the series by emailing Natalie Warner at n.warner@bbk.ac.uk or Claire Adams at office@fac-arts.bbk.ac.uk. This will ensure that they receive advance information about future activities of the Institute.
There will be no charge for this event. People may wish to indicate an interest in the series by emailing Natalie Warner at n.warner@bbk.ac.uk or Claire Adams at office@fac-arts.bbk.ac.uk. This will ensure that they receive advance information about future activities of the Institute.
In 2000, the 100th anniversary of the publication of Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams was accompanied by a new wave of triumphalist acclamations of how psychoanalysis is dead: with the new advances in brain sciences, it is finally put where it belonged all the time, to the lumber-room of pre-scientific obscurantist search for hidden meanings, alongside religious confessors and dream-readers.
There is something to these accusations. The story of three successive humiliations of man, the three "narcissistic illnesses", ("Copernicus-Darwin-Freud") was given a new turn in the last decades: the latest scientific breakthroughs seem to add to it a whole series of further "humiliations" which radicalize the first three, so that, with regard to today's "brain sciences", psychoanalysis rather seems to belong to the traditional "humanist" field threatened by the latest humiliations.
Is, then, psychoanalysis today outdated? It seems that it is, on three interconnected levels:
(1) that of scientific knowledge, where the cognitivist-neurolobiologist model of human mind appears to supersede the Freudian model;
(2) that of psychiatric clinic, where psychoanalytic treatment is rapidly losing ground against chemotherapy and behavioral therapy;
(3) that of the social context, where the image of society, of social norms, which "repress" individual's sexual drives, no longer appears valid with regard to today's predominant hedonistic permissiveness.
It contrast to these "evident" truths, the aim of the course is to demonstrate the exact opposite: not only is psychoanalysis not veraltet - it is only today that its time has arrived, that Freud's key insights gain their full value - on condition that one reads Freud through Lacan, through his "return to Freud" which is not the return to Freud as he was, but to what was "in Freud more than himself", the traumatic core of the Freudian discovery of which he himself was not fully aware.
The course will follow the fundamental rule of excluding all clinical stuff. Lacan was first and foremost a clinician, and clinic permeates everything he wrote and did: even when Lacan reads Plato, Aquinas, Hegel, or Kierkegaard, it is always in order to deal with a precise clinical problem (Plato for transference, Aquinas for symptom, Hegel for the dialectic of the progress of treatment, Kierkegaard for repetition). Our wager is that this very all-pervasiveness of clinic allows us to exclude it: precisely because clinic is everywhere, one can erase it and limit oneself to its effects, to the way it colors everything that appears non-clinical - this is the true test of its central place.
The four weeks course will thus provide a Lacanian reading of four domains of humanities and social sciences: first week, philosophy and theology (Hegel, Kierkegaard, Heidegger); second week, science (contemporary cognitivists and evolutionists, from Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker); third week, theories of ideology (from Marx to analyzing today's "fundamentalism"); last week, theories of art (cinema and literature : Henry James, Samuel Beckett, David Lynch, Lars von Trier). The overall aim is to demonstrate the strength of the Lacanian approach, through polemical confrontations with other predominant trends, from cognitivism to deconstructionism.
We would like to stress that the Lacan masterclasses are run as a series, not individual lectures. Seats will be allocated on a first come, first served basis. We recommend that you turn up to the Master Class sessions in good time to avoid disappointment.
Participants may wish to read the following books ahead of the masterclass sessions (no particular edition except where specified):
Participants may wish to read the following books ahead of the masterclass sessions (no particular edition except where specified):
Jacques Lacan, Ecrits: A Selection
Jacques Lacan, Seminar VII, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis
Slavoj Zizek, The Parallax View (MIT Press, 2006)
DATES:
Thursday, May 25th B34 Malet Street
Tuesday, May 30th B34 Malet Street
Thursday, June 1st B34 Malet Street
Tuesday, June 6th B34 Malet Street
Thursday, June 8th B34 Malet Street
Tuesday, June 13th B34 Malet Street
Thursday, June 15th B34 Malet Street
Tuesday, June 20th B34 Malet Street
Thursday, May 25th B34 Malet Street
Tuesday, May 30th B34 Malet Street
Thursday, June 1st B34 Malet Street
Tuesday, June 6th B34 Malet Street
Thursday, June 8th B34 Malet Street
Tuesday, June 13th B34 Malet Street
Thursday, June 15th B34 Malet Street
Tuesday, June 20th B34 Malet Street
Last edited:
K-Punk: ... and Psychoanalysis is often attacked for its failings in these areas by extremely powerful and wealthy vested interests ... Given the current prevalence of multinational-pushed pharma-psychology, and given that its SOLE CRITERIA for success is clinical effectiveness, it strikes me that ITS effectiveness and philosophical framework should be the more pressing priority atm.
Borderpolice: I cannot see a "big pharma" interest or influence ... To be sure, there may be some undue influence, where specific medications are tested, but without strong evidence beyond your say-so i'm not willing to dissmiss all studies of therapeutic effectiveness tout court ... [] ... There was a time when PA was the dominant approach to mental health. The reason for it's declining popularity is lacking clinical effectiveness. I would posit a different causal chain: the popularity of certain pharmacological treatments for certain indications is mostly due to it's greater effectiveness vis-a-vis talk based cures like PA.
Oh, the ideological innocence of cynical pragmatists!
US: selling to the worried well
US pharmaceutical companies have long known that the potential market for their products is limited by the finite number of sick people; so they have turned to the healthy for further expansion of their markets, using exploitative, fear-inducing advertising techniques.
By Alan Cassels and Ray Moynihan
16th May, 2006. Published in Le Monde diplomatique
Continued below ...
Borderpolice: I cannot see a "big pharma" interest or influence ... To be sure, there may be some undue influence, where specific medications are tested, but without strong evidence beyond your say-so i'm not willing to dissmiss all studies of therapeutic effectiveness tout court ... [] ... There was a time when PA was the dominant approach to mental health. The reason for it's declining popularity is lacking clinical effectiveness. I would posit a different causal chain: the popularity of certain pharmacological treatments for certain indications is mostly due to it's greater effectiveness vis-a-vis talk based cures like PA.
Oh, the ideological innocence of cynical pragmatists!
US: selling to the worried well
US pharmaceutical companies have long known that the potential market for their products is limited by the finite number of sick people; so they have turned to the healthy for further expansion of their markets, using exploitative, fear-inducing advertising techniques.
By Alan Cassels and Ray Moynihan
16th May, 2006. Published in Le Monde diplomatique
Thirty years ago the head of one of the world’s best-known drug companies, Merck, made some over-candid comments. The aggressive chief executive, Henry Gadsden, who was close to retirement at the time, told Fortune magazine of his distress that Merck’s potential markets had been limited to sick people; he said he would have preferred Merck to be more like the chewing-gum manufacturer Wrigley, because then Merck would be able to “sell to everyone”; it had long been his dream to make drugs for healthy people. His dream has since come true.
The marketing strategies of the world’s biggest drug companies now aggressively target the healthy. The ups and downs of daily life have become classified as mental disorders, common complaints are transformed into frightening conditions, and more and more people are turned into patients. The $500bn pharmaceutical industry is changing what it means to be human, with promotional campaigns that exploit our deepest fears of death, decay and disease. Rightly rewarded for saving life and reducing suffering, the global drug giants are no longer content with selling medicines only to the ill. As Wall Street knows well, there is a lot of money to be made telling healthy people that they’re sick.
At a time when many of us lead longer, healthier and more vital lives than our ancestors, saturation advertising and slick awareness-raising campaigns turn the worried well into the worried sick. Mild problems are described as serious disease, so shyness becomes a sign of “social anxiety disorder” and pre-menstrual tension is turned into a mental illness, “pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder”. Just being at risk of an illness has become a disease in its own right.
The epicentre of this selling is the United States, home to many of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies. The US has less than 5% of the world’s population but represents almost 50% of the global market in prescription drugs. Pharmaceuticals spending in the US continues to rise more rapidly than anywhere else, increasing by almost 100% in just six years, not only because of steep increases in the price of drugs, but because doctors prescribe more and more of them.
Vince Parry is the cutting edge of that global marketing. An expert in advertising who works from his mid-town Manhattan office in New York, Parry specialises in the most sophisticated form of medicine salesmanship: he works with drug companies to help create new diseases.
In an astonishing publication, The Art of Branding a Condition, he recently revealed the ways in which companies are involved in fostering the creation of medical disorders. Sometimes a little-known condition gets fresh attention, sometimes an old disease is redefined and renamed, and sometimes a whole new dysfunction is created. Parry’s personal favourites include erectile dysfunction, adult attention deficit disorder, and pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder (which is so controversial a classification that some researchers say it doesn’t exist).
Branding disease
With rare candour Parry explains how pharmaceutical companies take the lead, not just in branding such blockbuster drugs as Prozac and Viagra, but in branding the very conditions that create the markets for those drugs. Under the leadership of the drug marketers, Madison Avenue experts such as Parry collude with medical experts to “create new ideas about illnesses and conditions”. The goal, Parry says, is to give drug company customers around the world “a new way to think about things”. The aim is to make a direct link between the condition and the company’s medicine, to maximise its sales.
The idea that drug companies help to create illnesses may sound strange to the rest of us but it is familiar to industry insiders. A recent Reuters Business Insights report designed for drug company executives argued that the ability to create new disease markets is bringing in billions in soaring drug sales. One of the chief selling strategies, said the report, is to change the way people think about common ailments and to make natural processes into medical conditions. People must be convinced that “problems they may previously have accepted as, perhaps, merely an inconvenience” are now worthy of medical intervention.
Celebrating the development of profitable new disease markets, the report was upbeat about the financial future for the pharmaceutical industry: “The coming years will bear greater witness to the corporate-sponsored creation of disease.”
With many medical conditions, there is uncertainty about where to draw the line that separates the healthy from the sick. The boundaries that separate normal and abnormal are often highly elastic, they may differ dramatically from country to country, and they can change over time. Clearly, the wider the boundaries that define a disease can be drawn, the wider the pool of potential patients and therefore the bigger the markets for those making drugs.
The experts who sit down to draw those lines today often do so with drug company pens in their hands, and they are drawing the boundaries wider almost every time they meet. For example, they claim that 90% of elderly people in the US have a condition called “high blood pressure”, that almost 50% of women in the US have a sexual dysfunction called FSD, and that some 40 million US citizens should be taking drugs to lower their cholesterol. With help from headline-hungry media, the latest condition is routinely described as widespread, severe and, crucially, always treatable with drugs.
Alternative ways of understanding or treating health problems, and lower estimates of the numbers affected by those problems, are often ignored because of drug company promotions. The payment of money doesn’t necessarily buy influence, but many people believe that drug companies and doctors have become too close.
While the boundaries defining disease are pushed as wide as they can be, the causes of these supposed epidemics are defined as narrowly as possible. In the world of drug marketing, a major public health problem such as heart disease can be reduced to a narrow focus on cholesterol levels or blood pressure. The practical matter of preventing hip fractures among the elderly becomes a narrow obsession with the bone density statistics of healthy middle-aged women. Personal distress is seen as due mostly to a chemical imbalance of serotonin in the brain, an explanation that is as narrow as it is outdated.
This narrowing of focus is making it harder to see the bigger picture of health and disease, sometimes at great cost to the individual and community. If improvements in health were really our primary aim, some of the billions that are currently invested in expensive drugs to lower the cholesterol of the worried well might be far more efficiently spent on enhanced campaigns to encourage them to reduce smoking, increase physical activity and improve their diet.
The marketing strategies of the world’s biggest drug companies now aggressively target the healthy. The ups and downs of daily life have become classified as mental disorders, common complaints are transformed into frightening conditions, and more and more people are turned into patients. The $500bn pharmaceutical industry is changing what it means to be human, with promotional campaigns that exploit our deepest fears of death, decay and disease. Rightly rewarded for saving life and reducing suffering, the global drug giants are no longer content with selling medicines only to the ill. As Wall Street knows well, there is a lot of money to be made telling healthy people that they’re sick.
At a time when many of us lead longer, healthier and more vital lives than our ancestors, saturation advertising and slick awareness-raising campaigns turn the worried well into the worried sick. Mild problems are described as serious disease, so shyness becomes a sign of “social anxiety disorder” and pre-menstrual tension is turned into a mental illness, “pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder”. Just being at risk of an illness has become a disease in its own right.
The epicentre of this selling is the United States, home to many of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies. The US has less than 5% of the world’s population but represents almost 50% of the global market in prescription drugs. Pharmaceuticals spending in the US continues to rise more rapidly than anywhere else, increasing by almost 100% in just six years, not only because of steep increases in the price of drugs, but because doctors prescribe more and more of them.
Vince Parry is the cutting edge of that global marketing. An expert in advertising who works from his mid-town Manhattan office in New York, Parry specialises in the most sophisticated form of medicine salesmanship: he works with drug companies to help create new diseases.
In an astonishing publication, The Art of Branding a Condition, he recently revealed the ways in which companies are involved in fostering the creation of medical disorders. Sometimes a little-known condition gets fresh attention, sometimes an old disease is redefined and renamed, and sometimes a whole new dysfunction is created. Parry’s personal favourites include erectile dysfunction, adult attention deficit disorder, and pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder (which is so controversial a classification that some researchers say it doesn’t exist).
Branding disease
With rare candour Parry explains how pharmaceutical companies take the lead, not just in branding such blockbuster drugs as Prozac and Viagra, but in branding the very conditions that create the markets for those drugs. Under the leadership of the drug marketers, Madison Avenue experts such as Parry collude with medical experts to “create new ideas about illnesses and conditions”. The goal, Parry says, is to give drug company customers around the world “a new way to think about things”. The aim is to make a direct link between the condition and the company’s medicine, to maximise its sales.
The idea that drug companies help to create illnesses may sound strange to the rest of us but it is familiar to industry insiders. A recent Reuters Business Insights report designed for drug company executives argued that the ability to create new disease markets is bringing in billions in soaring drug sales. One of the chief selling strategies, said the report, is to change the way people think about common ailments and to make natural processes into medical conditions. People must be convinced that “problems they may previously have accepted as, perhaps, merely an inconvenience” are now worthy of medical intervention.
Celebrating the development of profitable new disease markets, the report was upbeat about the financial future for the pharmaceutical industry: “The coming years will bear greater witness to the corporate-sponsored creation of disease.”
With many medical conditions, there is uncertainty about where to draw the line that separates the healthy from the sick. The boundaries that separate normal and abnormal are often highly elastic, they may differ dramatically from country to country, and they can change over time. Clearly, the wider the boundaries that define a disease can be drawn, the wider the pool of potential patients and therefore the bigger the markets for those making drugs.
The experts who sit down to draw those lines today often do so with drug company pens in their hands, and they are drawing the boundaries wider almost every time they meet. For example, they claim that 90% of elderly people in the US have a condition called “high blood pressure”, that almost 50% of women in the US have a sexual dysfunction called FSD, and that some 40 million US citizens should be taking drugs to lower their cholesterol. With help from headline-hungry media, the latest condition is routinely described as widespread, severe and, crucially, always treatable with drugs.
Alternative ways of understanding or treating health problems, and lower estimates of the numbers affected by those problems, are often ignored because of drug company promotions. The payment of money doesn’t necessarily buy influence, but many people believe that drug companies and doctors have become too close.
While the boundaries defining disease are pushed as wide as they can be, the causes of these supposed epidemics are defined as narrowly as possible. In the world of drug marketing, a major public health problem such as heart disease can be reduced to a narrow focus on cholesterol levels or blood pressure. The practical matter of preventing hip fractures among the elderly becomes a narrow obsession with the bone density statistics of healthy middle-aged women. Personal distress is seen as due mostly to a chemical imbalance of serotonin in the brain, an explanation that is as narrow as it is outdated.
This narrowing of focus is making it harder to see the bigger picture of health and disease, sometimes at great cost to the individual and community. If improvements in health were really our primary aim, some of the billions that are currently invested in expensive drugs to lower the cholesterol of the worried well might be far more efficiently spent on enhanced campaigns to encourage them to reduce smoking, increase physical activity and improve their diet.
Continued below ...
Continued ... US: selling to the worried well
Marketing fear
_elvis.jpg)
There are many different promotional strategies in the selling of sickness, but the common factor among them all is the marketing of fear. The fear of heart attacks (and of ageing itself) was used to sell women the idea that menopause was a medical condition requiring hormone replacement therapy. The fear of suicide among the young is used to sell parents the idea that even a mild depression in their children must be treated with powerful drugs. The fear of an early death is used to classify high cholesterol as a condition requiring a pharmaceutical prescriptions.
Yet the much-hyped medicines sometimes cause the harm they are supposed to prevent. Long-term hormone replacement therapy seemed to increase the risk of heart attacks for women, while antidepressants appear to increase the risk of suicide among the young. At least one blockbuster cholesterol-lowering drug has been withdrawn from the market because it was implicated in deaths. A drug sold as a treatment for common bowel disorders led to constipation so severe that some of its users died; in this case the official government regulators were more interested in protecting drug company profits than the public’s health.
A loosening of advertising regulations in the late 1990s in the US led to unprecedented drug market advertisements that were targeted at ordinary people, who now see an average of 10 such advertisements every day. A similar deregulation in New Zealand had the same effect. Elsewhere in the world the industry is fighting for more ad deregulation.
Over three decades ago the maverick thinker Ivan Illich warned that an expanding medical establishment was medicalising life itself, undermining the human capacity to cope with the reality of suffering and death, and making too many well people into patients. He criticised a medical system “that claims authority over people who are not yet ill, people who cannot reasonably expect to get well, and those for whom doctors have no more effective treatment than that which could be offered by their uncles or aunts” .
A decade ago medical writer Lynn Payer described the process she called disease-mongering, in which doctors and drug companies unnecessarily widened the boundaries of illness to recruit more patients and sell more drugs. Her writings have become ever more relevant as the industry’s marketing roar becomes louder and its grip on the healthcare system much stronger.
There are many different promotional strategies in the selling of sickness, but the common factor among them all is the marketing of fear. The fear of heart attacks (and of ageing itself) was used to sell women the idea that menopause was a medical condition requiring hormone replacement therapy. The fear of suicide among the young is used to sell parents the idea that even a mild depression in their children must be treated with powerful drugs. The fear of an early death is used to classify high cholesterol as a condition requiring a pharmaceutical prescriptions.
Yet the much-hyped medicines sometimes cause the harm they are supposed to prevent. Long-term hormone replacement therapy seemed to increase the risk of heart attacks for women, while antidepressants appear to increase the risk of suicide among the young. At least one blockbuster cholesterol-lowering drug has been withdrawn from the market because it was implicated in deaths. A drug sold as a treatment for common bowel disorders led to constipation so severe that some of its users died; in this case the official government regulators were more interested in protecting drug company profits than the public’s health.
A loosening of advertising regulations in the late 1990s in the US led to unprecedented drug market advertisements that were targeted at ordinary people, who now see an average of 10 such advertisements every day. A similar deregulation in New Zealand had the same effect. Elsewhere in the world the industry is fighting for more ad deregulation.
Over three decades ago the maverick thinker Ivan Illich warned that an expanding medical establishment was medicalising life itself, undermining the human capacity to cope with the reality of suffering and death, and making too many well people into patients. He criticised a medical system “that claims authority over people who are not yet ill, people who cannot reasonably expect to get well, and those for whom doctors have no more effective treatment than that which could be offered by their uncles or aunts” .
A decade ago medical writer Lynn Payer described the process she called disease-mongering, in which doctors and drug companies unnecessarily widened the boundaries of illness to recruit more patients and sell more drugs. Her writings have become ever more relevant as the industry’s marketing roar becomes louder and its grip on the healthcare system much stronger.
Be Sick And Then Consume - You'll Feel Much Better!
PROFITABLY INVENTING NEW DISEASES
by Public Citizen Health Research Group
"Health Letter," Aug. 2003, Vol. 19
A recent article in Medical Marketing and Media (May 2003), aimed at the marketing departments of the pharmaceutical industry, provides an extraordinary view of this industry of which the public, unfortunately, remains unaware. Vince Parry, the "Chief Branding Officer" for a company called "InChord," tells his pharmaceutical company readers--and potential clients--how to increase sales by combining the "creation" of a disease with a drug to treat it.
There is no dispute that the pharmaceutical industry, first and foremost, is an industry needing and seeking ways to increase profits for its shareholders and that larger profits require a continuing increase in sales, a feat orchestrated by marketing departments. But in the past, simply letting the public know the uses for a drug too often failed to generate the robust growth in sales desired. The solution, as described by Parry, is something called "condition branding" in which a company defines a new condition (along with its worry-provoking symptoms) to convince physicians and patients that they must treat the condition and use one particular drug.
Parry begins with an early example: Warner-Lambert's desire to expand its market for Listerine, which in the 1920s had multiple uses but lacked sales growth. Warner-Lambert's strategy was to take a harmless concept, unpleasant breath, and change its name to "halitosis," thereby creating "awareness--and anxiety--around a serious-sounding medical condition." Halitosis, in ads, was made responsible for problems ranging from lack of career advancement to divorce, and within six years, sales increased from $100,000 to $4 million.
Today, healthcare marketers are much more imaginative: they take their pharmaceutical product and add in "external thought leaders [usually physicians who vouch for the drug's worthiness], support groups and consumers." Parry lists three principal strategies that can be used to create a new condition:
"1. Elevating the importance of an existing condition;
2. Redefining an existing condition to reduce a stigma;
3. Developing a new condition to build recognition for an unmet market need."
An example of the second suggestion is Pfizer's marketing strategy that turned Viagra into an acronym for erectile dysfunction.
Drug companies are now masters of suggestion number three--developing a new condition--spectacularly so in the field of mental health. Parry advised, "No therapeutic category is more accepting of condition branding than the field of anxiety and depression." The manual used to describe mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), is compiled by the American Psychiatric Association, an organization heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
Viagra's chemical structure
As a result of carving out more and more subcategories, DSM has increased dramatically in size from 106 categories (in 1952) to 357 (in 1994). Parry states that, "Not surprisingly, many of these newly coined conditions were brought to light through direct funding by pharmaceutical companies, in research, in publicity or both."
XANAX
One example of such a newly created mental health need was Xanax for panic disorder, a condition first appearing in the third edition (DSM-III) in 1980. To create this need, the manufacturer, Upjohn, funded research, publications, and speaking tours. They also funded an unrestricted three-day "thought leader conference at NIMH (National Institutes of Mental health)," a U.S. government agency. As a result, NIMH published a consensus on diagnostic criteria for panic disorder and Upjohn was able to get the first drug for this disorder approved from the Food and Drug Administration. Parry notes that since DSM-III first recognized the syndrome of panic disorder, its incidence has increased 1000-fold.
SARAFEM
Lilly was a beneficiary of DSM-IV with its newly created "premenstrual dysphoric disorder" (PMDD). Unknown to many, except to industry insiders, was the fact that Lilly's drug to treat PMDD, Sarafem, was identical to Prozac. However, since Prozac connoted mental disorder, Lilly changed the brand name (to Sarafem) and pill color (to lavender) and in their ads, built public awareness, "recasting diagnosis to confirm to the new criteria."
ZANTAC
In the digestive disease area, Zantac (made by GlaxoSmithKline; GSK) was originally used to treat ulcers, a limited market. By converting Zantac into a treatment for a disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), GSK opened up a large market for a condition that could be treated chronically. GSK ads aimed to frighten the public with the potential for serious long-term consequences if GERD were left untreated. According to Parry, GSK went even further, creating the Glaxo Institute for Digestive Health for "education and awareness." The institute sponsored research awards, involved powerful third-party advocates such as the American College of Gastroenterology, and established a public relations outfit, "heartburn Across America," all of which succeeded in driving sales to $2 billion at the peak of its popularity.
Parry lists questions to help industry determine whether "branding is right for your product." He concludes, "If you feel that your product could benefit from condition branding ... remember the basic lessons learned over time: evaluate all the strategic options for what suits your product best, develop nomenclature ... and build consensus [convince the medical professionals] early on."
What is never mentioned is that many drugs that people are induced to take as a result of this pressure are not only not needed but may cause adverse reactions that result in extra doctor's visits or even hospitalizations and deaths. The public needs to become aware of the subterfuges employed by the pharmaceutical industry--to use Parry's phrase, "a better brand of illness"--and keep these clearly in mind in order to avoid being misled and potentially harmed.
............................ Shiny Happy Zombies
PROFITABLY INVENTING NEW DISEASES
by Public Citizen Health Research Group
"Health Letter," Aug. 2003, Vol. 19
A recent article in Medical Marketing and Media (May 2003), aimed at the marketing departments of the pharmaceutical industry, provides an extraordinary view of this industry of which the public, unfortunately, remains unaware. Vince Parry, the "Chief Branding Officer" for a company called "InChord," tells his pharmaceutical company readers--and potential clients--how to increase sales by combining the "creation" of a disease with a drug to treat it.
There is no dispute that the pharmaceutical industry, first and foremost, is an industry needing and seeking ways to increase profits for its shareholders and that larger profits require a continuing increase in sales, a feat orchestrated by marketing departments. But in the past, simply letting the public know the uses for a drug too often failed to generate the robust growth in sales desired. The solution, as described by Parry, is something called "condition branding" in which a company defines a new condition (along with its worry-provoking symptoms) to convince physicians and patients that they must treat the condition and use one particular drug.
Parry begins with an early example: Warner-Lambert's desire to expand its market for Listerine, which in the 1920s had multiple uses but lacked sales growth. Warner-Lambert's strategy was to take a harmless concept, unpleasant breath, and change its name to "halitosis," thereby creating "awareness--and anxiety--around a serious-sounding medical condition." Halitosis, in ads, was made responsible for problems ranging from lack of career advancement to divorce, and within six years, sales increased from $100,000 to $4 million.
Today, healthcare marketers are much more imaginative: they take their pharmaceutical product and add in "external thought leaders [usually physicians who vouch for the drug's worthiness], support groups and consumers." Parry lists three principal strategies that can be used to create a new condition:
"1. Elevating the importance of an existing condition;
2. Redefining an existing condition to reduce a stigma;
3. Developing a new condition to build recognition for an unmet market need."
An example of the second suggestion is Pfizer's marketing strategy that turned Viagra into an acronym for erectile dysfunction.
Drug companies are now masters of suggestion number three--developing a new condition--spectacularly so in the field of mental health. Parry advised, "No therapeutic category is more accepting of condition branding than the field of anxiety and depression." The manual used to describe mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), is compiled by the American Psychiatric Association, an organization heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
Viagra's chemical structure
As a result of carving out more and more subcategories, DSM has increased dramatically in size from 106 categories (in 1952) to 357 (in 1994). Parry states that, "Not surprisingly, many of these newly coined conditions were brought to light through direct funding by pharmaceutical companies, in research, in publicity or both."
XANAX
One example of such a newly created mental health need was Xanax for panic disorder, a condition first appearing in the third edition (DSM-III) in 1980. To create this need, the manufacturer, Upjohn, funded research, publications, and speaking tours. They also funded an unrestricted three-day "thought leader conference at NIMH (National Institutes of Mental health)," a U.S. government agency. As a result, NIMH published a consensus on diagnostic criteria for panic disorder and Upjohn was able to get the first drug for this disorder approved from the Food and Drug Administration. Parry notes that since DSM-III first recognized the syndrome of panic disorder, its incidence has increased 1000-fold.
SARAFEM
Lilly was a beneficiary of DSM-IV with its newly created "premenstrual dysphoric disorder" (PMDD). Unknown to many, except to industry insiders, was the fact that Lilly's drug to treat PMDD, Sarafem, was identical to Prozac. However, since Prozac connoted mental disorder, Lilly changed the brand name (to Sarafem) and pill color (to lavender) and in their ads, built public awareness, "recasting diagnosis to confirm to the new criteria."
ZANTAC
In the digestive disease area, Zantac (made by GlaxoSmithKline; GSK) was originally used to treat ulcers, a limited market. By converting Zantac into a treatment for a disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), GSK opened up a large market for a condition that could be treated chronically. GSK ads aimed to frighten the public with the potential for serious long-term consequences if GERD were left untreated. According to Parry, GSK went even further, creating the Glaxo Institute for Digestive Health for "education and awareness." The institute sponsored research awards, involved powerful third-party advocates such as the American College of Gastroenterology, and established a public relations outfit, "heartburn Across America," all of which succeeded in driving sales to $2 billion at the peak of its popularity.
Parry lists questions to help industry determine whether "branding is right for your product." He concludes, "If you feel that your product could benefit from condition branding ... remember the basic lessons learned over time: evaluate all the strategic options for what suits your product best, develop nomenclature ... and build consensus [convince the medical professionals] early on."
What is never mentioned is that many drugs that people are induced to take as a result of this pressure are not only not needed but may cause adverse reactions that result in extra doctor's visits or even hospitalizations and deaths. The public needs to become aware of the subterfuges employed by the pharmaceutical industry--to use Parry's phrase, "a better brand of illness"--and keep these clearly in mind in order to avoid being misled and potentially harmed.
............................ Shiny Happy Zombies
psychoanalysis - experience of?
Just wondered who on this site has actually been in extended psychoanalysis? Not suggesting a person can't have opinions on it without but many of the views here do seem to sound as if posted by people who either haven't undergone psychoanalysis or who have and it failed them. For myself quite simply it worked. Other 'cures' for various problems doled out as NHS freebies, including cognitive and drugs just didn't except in the short term. Psychoanalysis is expensive because done right it's pretty much an artform, a creative act and takes years of analysis on the part of the anaylst first. Drugs and short term cures are cheaper. They also deliver 'measurable results' more quickly and that's one of the reasons the health service prefers them. And those results are measurable along the lines of unfunctioning citizen + short term cure = functioning citizen. Good psychoanalysis doesn't normalise and its results are not measurable in this 'corporate' way. By this token it's actually an anti-normative form and as such can be revolutionary.
Just wondered who on this site has actually been in extended psychoanalysis? Not suggesting a person can't have opinions on it without but many of the views here do seem to sound as if posted by people who either haven't undergone psychoanalysis or who have and it failed them. For myself quite simply it worked. Other 'cures' for various problems doled out as NHS freebies, including cognitive and drugs just didn't except in the short term. Psychoanalysis is expensive because done right it's pretty much an artform, a creative act and takes years of analysis on the part of the anaylst first. Drugs and short term cures are cheaper. They also deliver 'measurable results' more quickly and that's one of the reasons the health service prefers them. And those results are measurable along the lines of unfunctioning citizen + short term cure = functioning citizen. Good psychoanalysis doesn't normalise and its results are not measurable in this 'corporate' way. By this token it's actually an anti-normative form and as such can be revolutionary.
borderpolice
Well-known member
VioletB said:
i have, for about half a year. stopped, because too expensive and found my analyst a bit lame.
VioletB said:
how do you work out it a psychoanalyst is good or not when you commit yourself to years of "working through" (and paying through the nose)?
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
borderpolice said:
Paying through the nose? The current lectures at Birkbeck are free ... (unless one prefers Landmark's induced self-narcissism at £800 a shot, capitalists always only prefering what they pay through the nose for ...).
borderpolice
Well-known member
hundredmillionlifetimes said:
You don't seem to know what being psychoanalysed means. Psychoanalysis Wikipedia entry
Last edited:
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
borderpolice said:
Very presumptious of you: is it that you seem to have a traditional, unreconstructed view of psychoanalysis or that you favour the policing of borders against Those Evil Hoardes? And of what all of this actually means?
borderpolice
Well-known member
hundredmillionlifetimes said:
Padraig/kpunk is back.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
You want the Big Other to be back?
