Originally Posted by
Celestia
Sure but how would the increase of those diagnosed on the severe side (as in dysfunctional and fully dependent on others for survival) support that? Only thing I can think of is pharmaceutical companies benefiting from it. (Being that most are also diagnosed with anxiety, hyperactivity and aggression)
Many people think of the big pharma connection here but that is probably one of the least surprising aspects or connections of the psy-professions under Capitalism. First and foremost it serves the ruling classes by cooling the losers of the system making sure they don't revolt and squawk exposing Capitalism as the con game it is. Anxiety and Aggression are treated with benzos and neuroleptics to 'cool off' the people taking them.
If a population believes that its financial and emotional suffering are caused not by social-economic-political variables but instead by individual defects—be it noncompliance with religious dogma or faulty biochemistry—this “individual-defect” belief system can be a more powerful and less expensive way of maintaining the status quo than a heavily armed police force.
...[Antonio] Gramsci argued that the coercive powers of the state (e.g., the army, police, and the judicial system) were comparatively ineffective and fragile in ultimately halting the revolution; instead the capitalist classes had secured a greater chance of survival through hegemonic power—the rule of the bourgeoisie by induced consent. As Crossley (2005: 114) has articulated this idea,
The bourgeoisie must win the hearts and minds of the people, persuading them (without even seeming to do so or to need to do so) that the status quo is natural and inevitable, beneficial for all, and inducing them to identify with it.
Gramsci located the intellectual and moral leadership won by the ruling classes as residing in civil society rather than the state. By “civil society” he meant institutions such as religion, education, the media, and the family, to which Marxist scholars such as Navarro (1986) and Waitzkin (2000) have added the institution of health as a further site of hegemonic power. These civic institutions are much more effective than direct, repressive organs of the state in manipulating the masses due to their perceived detachment from elite control. Hegemonic power is conducted under the guise of objective and neutral institutional practice, though it is in reality nothing of the sort...
https://books.google.com/books?id=na...dea%2C&f=false
Bookmarks