IN DEFENSE OF SADNESS: THE PERSECUTION OF THE EMOTIONALLY "ABNORMAL"

If an individual sees it fit to be what is viewed as “morose” in disposition, in a world of injustice, poverty, egotism and discrimination, two things come to mind: 1) it may be absolutely justifiable and, 2) it may be no one else's business. However, since the world at large seems eager to make it everyone's business, I find myself inclined to provide this individual with some form of a defensive argument.

It must be granted that individuals make their decisions in life based on one, several, or all of the following: prior experiences and upbringing, genetics, personality, or natural inclinations. Whichever of these might be the cause of said decisions, it is as unfair to criticize someone for being morose as it is to criticize someone for celebrating a particular religious holiday or for speaking a certain language. The nature of one’s religious leanings, or an individual’s native tongue, are as randomly-determined as one’s emotional disposition, resulting from a slew of factors that pertain primarily to the geographical location and time of one’s birth. One might object to this comparison and say, “No, you have absolute control over your feelings and outlook; or if not absolute control, then at least some ability to change them,” but this argument would only serve to strengthen the parallel that I have here drawn, for I would respond by saying, “Yes, but you can also choose to change your religion or change your primary language, yet we do not criticize those who do not. On the contrary, we view it as a testament to one’s culture and upbringing if they do not change their religion or language. How is one’s emotional outlook any less of a link to cultural heritage, especially considering the fact that a large body of evidence that has surfaced which succeeds in linking such things as depression to genetics?”

Just as the acceptance of a variety of languages and religions does much in the way of enriching our world, culturally and socially, so does the acceptance of a wide range of emotional responses and tendencies. Similarly, just as an openness in talking about one’s religion might encourage open-mindedness in the world in general, and just as an eagerness to speak in one’s own language (even amidst those who do not understand it) might broaden individuals’ respective concepts of the world, so might candidness and openness about one’s emotional inclinations (and, most importantly, the reasons behind such) lead to greater cultural diversity. Furthermore, if emotional responses of differing kinds are accepted and addressed, leading to this increase in cultural diversity, there could occur a subsequent increase in our tolerance of others, and a propensity toward inventive, new ways of approaching problems that may surface in the world around us, whether they be of a global or personal nature.

Instead of acknowledging or accepting abnormal psychological responses, we stifle them; even when they are absolutely non-threatening and show no sign of contributing to animosity or violence. We view depression as a disease that must be cured (by way of prescription drugs and psychotherapy), which shows that we are quite aware of its prevalence, yet at the same time we refuse to acknowledge it as a legitimate excuse for failure in the workplace or the educational system, save for those cases that are so severe that hospitalization or drastic measures must be taken. The result of this refusal to acknowledge it is two fold: In one case, it causes individuals to hide their emotional struggles so as to avoid being viewed as “flawed”, which in turn causes said individuals’ failed undertakings to be attributed by various authorities to other factors; factors that may have nothing to do with the individuals’ various emotional states, such as laziness or lack of regard altogether. This is tragic, especially when the emotional states which inhibit the individuals’ productivity result from phenomena which are some variants of antitheses of such things as laziness or lack of regard: perfectionism, or the cultivation of cripplingly high standards for one’s undertakings. In some cases, the victim of this phenomenon might actually begin to believe that he is lazy or that he just does not care, and then in thinking he is such, he will become so. The second phenomenon that occurs when an individual’s emotional state and its subsequent effects go unrecognized is this: Suppression of the individual’s emotional sensitivities and emotional needs causes a build up of anxiety or sadness that exists below the individual’s exterior, invisible to others, snuffed to such a degree that it builds up over time and results in some emotional explosion that is actually extremely detrimental (this might exist in the form of an emotional breakdown, or a violent outburst, or an attempted suicide, or a total and complete loss of will altogether). In this situation, the career (be it vocational or educational) is often damaged or put at risk, leading to loss of confidence, and ultimately to a downward spiral of perpetual failures, increasing in their degree of negative impact and long-term-impairment.

This suppression of emotional nuance could be avoided if said nuances were accepted and (I know it sounds extreme) perhaps even celebrated. Individuals should not be left with the following three options: a) Absolute secrecy regarding one’s emotional state and total suppression and avoidance of emotional displays, b) Secretive seeking of aid and attempts to downplay one’s problems and keep them separate from the sphere of one’s work and duty, or c) Either submitting entirely to one’s emotional whims and allowing them to take over the self completely, eventually leading him to his downfall; or grossly exaggerating one’s emotional whims, so as to get help that is of a degree obvious and serious enough to render his problems worthy of others’ acknowledgment and attention, so that he might be taken seriously and, in being taken seriously, keep the repercussions of his emotional problems from being attributed to such things as laziness or lack of work-ethic or, even worse, lack of regard. The first two options, A and B, only lead to isolation and an eventual increase in difficulty dealing with the problems, and the third option, C, can result in a loss of pride and a delay in one’s endeavors, or even a victim mentality that may keep the individual from challenging himself or even being aware of the extent of his own abilities. None of these actually succeed in fixing the problem in question, and all of them are the result of our society’s unwillingness to view emotional difficulties as normal. The fact that our society creates a world in which emotional sensitive individuals are more likely to fall subject to stress or anxiety or depression than perhaps ever before, and at the same time becomes less and less willing to address said problems in a way that shows respect for the causes of the problems (and less willing to acknowledge that a logical and rational being might be subject to said problems, if not even more predisposed to said problems) is absolutely inhumane.

More respect, too, must be paid to these individuals’ cognitive abilities. It must be granted that people, for the most-part, act as they see fit, so long as they have fully developed senses of morality and logic. Not only does the individual likes to make the right choice, for the sake of being right, but he also likes to improve his life. Just as an individual would not be likely to choose something like homosexuality, especially considering the amount of difficulty that such a choice will provide him with (in the form of prejudice and bigotry), neither would an individual likely choose something like depression, that will also unquestionably cause him great difficulty. But, like the individual who is homosexual, the sufferer of depression (or any other emotional “disorder”) does not like to think that he must be cured of this “ailment”, because it is who he is and it is who he has always been. The individual does not desire to be what he is not, for presumably he is what he is because it is the result of not only genetics but also upbringing, or experience. The individual is not inclined to regret what he naturally is, except when others imply that he has due cause to regret it, and even in this case the regret it unnatural and, therefore, often expressed in the form of shame or anger or depression.

If you are of the opinion that depression is some kind of a choice, then in criticizing it you are paying no respect to the depressed individual’s ability to reason and make logical decisions. We give credit where credit is due for some emotionally-rooted decisions, yet not for others. For example, if the individual chooses to put his or her self before another, or before a particular cause, it is most likely because the individual has seen need to do so. Perhaps the individual has seen fit to do so in the past, either for survival or for salvation of the ego when the ego has faced a risk of some sort. Or perhaps the individual sees fit to do so in the present, because of his observation of facts and the attention that he has paid to his emotional responses to said facts. If an individual sees it fit to be somber, and to not feign glee at all times, and to find an element of annoyance in the fact that some individuals seem to uphold unrelenting joy as their top priority in life, it is that individual’s choice to do so. Odds are that this is not accidental, and that this choice has its roots in extensive networks of thought, introspection, experience, emotion, or perhaps even the trauma of a difficult past.

Some might find it not only a mark of ignorance or an oversight of obvious saddening facts to act gleeful at all times, but might even go so far as to view it as a sign of disrespect. To most, it seems absolutely heartless to repeatedly grin and laugh at a funeral. Some extend this phenomenon and consider it heartless to laugh in a world in which genocide takes place on a daily basis. This is the result of the differing scope of sensitivities amongst individuals. Furthermore, happiness despite the abundance of potentially-depressing events might be viewed, by some, as malicious; as voluntary and willful oversight of obvious injustices, and as an example of a kind of focusing of energies that is selfish and unkind. Perhaps to exploit one’s own happiness, whilst simultaneously criticizing the sadness of others, is in some sense to ignore the concrete and very real causes of sadness in the world today; and, in ignoring them, perhaps it allows them to continue. Happiness alone is no a crime, and it in fact can lead to happiness in others (and in this way is altruistic); but happiness that is simultaneously coupled with criticism of legitimately-founded-sadness is horrendous and cruel. The experience of happiness should not be suppressed (just as the experience of sadness should not be suppressed), but neither should it be displayed in ways that are offensive to others any more than sadness should be displayed in ways that are offensive to others. The latter is frowned upon, whereas the former is all but encouraged. This obsession with being perceived as happier than one’s peers is almost a statement of greed and thirst for power, for this dominance of one demeanor over another demeanor is not so different from the dominance of the ruler over the slave. After all, the man who says to the depressed man, “Nay, I am happy,” only serves the purpose of making the depressed man feel more like an anomaly, and because of this he will most likely become more inclined to withdraw altogether into his sadness, rather than to seek to change it by way of engaging in the world around him and respecting his own needs and desires and goals. In this sense, perhaps it is worse than a simple ruler-and-slave dynamic, for it is more like the dynamic in which the ruler kicks the slave for allowing himself to be a slave in the first place.

This lack of toleration regarding emotional troubles is a kind of discrimination. People who are sad are considered sick. Depression is considered an illness. Consider this: At some points in the history of the human race, homosexuality was considered an illness; something that needed to be cured. In the eyes of many, it still is a disease. People who are depressed are taken advantage of, and they are insulted for being so, which only perpetuates the cycle. Sadness is portrayed in the media via disrespectful stereotypes, and this is tolerated. It is pointed out by the chiding words of one’s peers, and this is not only tolerated but often dismissed as “attempts to help” the sufferer. Sadness is a thing that, if accepted and considered normal by one’s peers, is less likely to crop up in the individual. If pointed out and criticized, it will appear more and more frequently, and it will probably eventually appear alongside a breed of anger that comes about due to the sufferer’s awareness of this lack of acceptance.

Additionally, at what point does a "disorder" cease to be viewed as such? How many individuals - that is, what percentage of the population - must exhibit certain symptoms before that which is "abnormal" is viewed as "normal"? Not only is it impossible to determine the degree to which such things as depression and anxiety affect our co-inhabitants, but it is almost discouraged to even consider that a large percentage of us may be affected by it. Perhaps this is because it would be an admission of the error of our ways: Evidence of the shortcomings of our society. It seems clear to me, though, that the doling out of prescription drugs is a far worse solution than the attempt to view it as something not only normal but perhaps even understandable or even reasonable.

Just as it is argued by many that homosexuality is not a choice, I argue that sadness is not a choice. Anyone who is criticized for his or her sensitivity to the harsh realities of the world is no less a victim than the homosexual who is criticized for his or her sexual preferences.

I find it important to add the following: A hypocrisy is exposed here. Society as a whole (namely, drug companies and the media) view depression (for instance) as a problem. Yet it seems that they know the extent to which there is just cause for its prevalence, as is evidenced by the lack of attention paid to seeking out its cause. Particularly in America, a country overrun by ardent advocates of the "fix-it" mentality, if there is a problem, the cause is sought in order for the solution to be found. In this case, it seems that the cause is obvious, and the avoidance of discussion pertaining to the cause is a means to a solution to the entirely unrelated problem of our slumping economy, by way of providing drug companies with business and boosting sales therein. This is a double-edged sword, and it only serves to delay the search for a solution - on two fronts - and instead focus on the yearly incomes of the higher-ups. Both problems will eventually worsen. The economy cannot be sustained in this way forever, because emotional instability will only worsen if its causes are ignored, and although this will at first provide the drug companies with increased sales, it will ultimately result in much worse phenomena: Phenomena that will have direct effects on the economy, and every other factor of our ability to function as a whole. If we are unable to function as individuals, we will not be able to function as a larger network of individuals, just as a wall cannot be built of bricks if each brick is at risk of falling apart.

(January 2008)