As I keep shouting into the void, pathologizers love shifting discussion about material conditions into discussion about emotional states.
I rant approximately once a week about how the brain maturity myth transmuted âYoung adults are too poor to move out of their parentsâ homes or have children of their ownâ into âYoung adults are too emotionally and neurologically immature to move out of their parentsâ homes or have children of their own.â
Iâve also talked about the misuse of âenablingâ and âtraumaâ and âdopamineâ .
And this is a pattern â people coin terms and concepts to describe material problems, and pathologization culture shifts them to be about problems in the brain or psyche of the person experiencing them. Now weâre talking about neurochemicals, frontal lobes, and self-esteem instead of talking about wages, wealth distribution, and civil rights. Now we can say that poor, oppressed, and exploited people are suffering from a neurological/emotional defect that makes them not know whatâs best for themselves, so they donât need or deserve rights or money.
Here are some terms that have been so horribly misused by mental health culture that weâve almost entirely forgotten that they were originally materialist critiques.
Codependency
What it originally referred to: A non-addicted person being overly âhelpfulâ to an addicted partner or relative, often out of financial desperation. For example: Making sure your alcoholic husband gets to work in the morning (even though heâs an adult who should be responsible for himself) because if he loses his job, youâll lose your home. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/codependency-addiction-recovery.html
What itâs been distorted into: Being âclingy,â being âtoo emotionally needy,â wanting things like affection and quality time from a partner. A way of pathologizing people, especially young women, for wanting things like love and commitment in a romantic relationship.
Compulsory Heterosexuality
What it originally referred to: In the 1980 in essay "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence," https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/493756 Adrienne Rich described compulsory heterosexuality as a set of social conditions that coerce women into heterosexual relationships and prioritize those relationships over relationships between women (both romantic and platonic). She also defines âlesbianâ much more broadly than current discourse does, encompassing a wide variety of romantic and platonic relationships between women. While she does suggest that women who identify as heterosexual might be doing so out of unquestioned social norms, this is not the primary point sheâs making.
What itâs been distorted into: The patronizing, biphobic idea that lesbians somehow falsely believe themselves to be attracted to men. Part of the overall âWomen donât really know what they want or whatâs good for themâ theme of contemporary discourse.
Emotional Labor
What it originally referred to: The implicit or explicit requirement that workers (especially women workers, especially workers in female-dominated âpink collarâ jobs, especially tipped workers) perform emotional intimacy with customers, coworkers, and bosses above and beyond the actual job being done. Having to smile, be âfriendly,â flirt, give the impression of genuine caring, politely accept harassment, etc.
https://weld.la.psu.edu/what-is-emotional-labor/
What itâs been distorted into: Everything under the sun. Everything from housework (which we already had a term for), to tolerating the existence of disabled people, to just caring about friends the way friends do. The original intent of the concept was âItâs unreasonable to expect your waitress to care about your problems, because sheâs not really your friend,â not âItâs unreasonable to expect your actual friends to care about your problems unless you pay them, because thatâs emotional labor,â and certainly not âDisabled people shouldnât be allowed to be visibly disabled in public, because witnessing a disabled person is emotional labor.â Anything that causes a person emotional distress, even if that emotional distress is rooted in the distress-haverâs bigotry (Many nominally progressive people who would rightfully reject the bigoted logic of âSeeing gay or interracial couples upsets me, which is emotional labor, so they shouldnât be allowed to exist in publicâ fully accept the bigoted logic of âSeeing disabled or poor people upsets me, which is emotional labor, so they shouldnât be allowed to exist in publicâ).
Battered Wife Syndrome
What it originally referred to: The all-encompassing trauma and fear of escalating violence experienced by people suffering ongoing domestic abuse, sometimes resulting in the abuse victim using necessary violence in self-defense. Because domestic abuse often escalates, often to murder, this fear is entirely rational and justified. This is the reasonable, justified belief that someone who beats you, stalks you, and threatens to kill you may actually kill you.
What itâs been distorted into: Like so many of these other items, the idea that women (in this case, women who are victims of domestic violence) donât know whatâs best for themselves. I debated including this one, because âsyndromeâ was a wrongful framing from the beginning â a justified and rational fear of escalating violence in a situation in which escalating violence is occurring is not a âsyndrome.â But the original meaning at least partially acknowledged the material conditions of escalating violence.
Iâm not saying the original meanings of these terms are ones I necessarily agree with â as a cognitive liberty absolutist, Iâm unsurprisingly not that enamored of either second-wave feminism or 1970s addiction discourse. And as much as I dislike what âemotional laborâ has become, I accept that âWomen are unfairly expected to care about other peopleâs feelings more than men areâ is a true statement.
What I am saying is that all of these terms originally, at least partly, took material conditions into account in their usage. Subsequent usage has entirely stripped the materialist critique and fully replaced it with emotional pathologization, specifically of women. Acknowledgement that women have their choices constrained by poverty, violence, and oppression has been replaced with the idea that women donât know whatâs best for themselves and need to be coercively âhelpedâ for their own good. Acknowledgement that working-class women experience a gender-and-class-specific form of economic exploitation has been rebranded as yet another variation of âDisabled people are burdensome for wanting to exist.â
Over and over, materialist critiques are reframed as emotional or cognitive defects of marginalized people. The next time you hear a superficially sympathetic (but actually pathologizing) argument for âMarginalized people make bad choices becauseâŚâ consider stopping and asking: âWait, who are we to assume that this personâs choices are âbadâ? And if they are, is there something about their material conditions that constrains their options or makes the âbadâ choice the best available option?â
tangentwithtanner
izzy806
dailybridgerton
vaporwave
turnnoffyourmind
2087
titsay
gummygunk
