Biology of Knowledge

Two articles concerning a biological and physiological basis for depression or mental illness of various kinds.

A Question of Resilience
Spring babies 'face suicide risk'

I have three thoughts

First, this represents part of the transition in a regime of truth concerning mental illness. Initially, mental illness and treatment concerning deviancy focused on the patients mind and ‘soul.’ The psychologist dealt with the psyche, the immaterial foundation for problems of deviancy, attempting to condition it to fit or accept a norm of practice. The further step of locating illness in the body or genes corresponds with a further perfection of this method. There is now a biological psyche that requires treating the whole body down to genes as the subject of control. This accelerates government’s expansion into biological determinism in a quasi-postmodern sense: each person’s genome or exact background becomes the foundation for finding their exact role in government. The point is, this form of knowledge (biological determinism) represents only one schema for understanding humanity, and stems from a continuing governmental project aimed at the management and optimization of populations.

Second, it addresses the wrong end of things. In particular, the New York Times article demonstrates that these genetic factors only come in to play in situations of extreme stress or violence. Gene therapy or timed insemination (which logically follow these types of studies) can only solve one end of the creation of a ‘problem:’ the symptom. Creating solutions on this model fail to get to the real issue, first of all. Second, they establish a higher threshold for treatment that initiates another cycle of exclusion. Gene therapy and the like is expensive, and the eventual distribution of this treatment will reflect status quo economic relations with particular sections receiving ‘better’ treatment. A more effective and socially responsible solution would stem from dealing with social dislocation and poverty.

Last, you must be very careful with these approaches. These articles, and the studies they describe, deal with huge interpersonal and societal issues, and must be prefaced explicitly with a warning against immediately dismissing relevant responses in favor of newer ones. Saying that someone’s depression or alcoholism comes from a genetic factor creates a potential for abuse or dismissal of very real problems. Writers and scientists carry a heavy burden in shaping people’s responses to social issues, and they must come to terms with the potential responses their writings can generate.

Duncan