Mark Fisher

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #64525
    wv
    Participant

    —————–The politics of dispossession: Mark Fisher on mental health and class confidence: https://rs21.org.uk/2014/04/27/kpunk/

    A reply to Mark Fisher on magical voluntarism: https://libcom.org/blog/reply-mark-fisher-magical-voluntarism-29042014

    More from Mark Fisher on his depression and on how we need to understand its political origin: http://theoccupiedtimes.org/?p=12841

    Extract:

    For some time now, one of the most successful tactics of the ruling class has been responsibilisation. Each individual member of the subordinate class is encouraged into feeling that their poverty, lack of opportunities, or unemployment, is their fault and their fault alone. Individuals will blame themselves rather than social structures, which in any case they have been induced into believing do not really exist (they are just excuses, called upon by the weak). What Smail calls ‘magical voluntarism’ – the belief that it is within every individual’s power to make themselves whatever they want to be – is the dominant ideology and unofficial religion of contemporary capitalist society, pushed by reality TV ‘experts’ and business gurus as much as by politicians. Magical voluntarism is both an effect and a cause of the currently historically low level of class consciousness. It is the flipside of depression – whose underlying conviction is that we are all uniquely responsible for our own misery and therefore deserve it. A particularly vicious double bind is imposed on the long-term unemployed in the UK now: a population that has all its life been sent the message that it is good for nothing is simultaneously told that it can do anything it wants to do.

    Another article called The Privatisation of Stress is here:
    http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/the_privatisation_of_stress

    Extract:
    The privatisation of stress is a perfect capture system, elegant in its brutal efficiency. Capital makes the worker ill, and then multinational pharmaceutical companies sell them drugs to make them better. The social and political causation of distress is neatly sidestepped at the same time as discontent is individualised and interiorised. Dan Hind has argued that the focus on serotonin deficiency as a supposed cause’ of depression obfuscates some of the social roots of unhappiness, such as competitive individualism and income inequality. Though there is a large body of work that shows the links between individual happiness and political participation and extensive social ties (as well as broadly equal incomes), a public response to private distress is rarely considered as a first option.13 It is clearly easier to prescribe a drug than a wholesale change in the way society is organised. Meanwhile, as Hind argues,there is a multitude of entrepreneurs offering happiness now, in just a few simple steps’. These are marketed by people who are comfortable operating within the culture’s account of what it is to be happy and fulfilled’, and who both corroborate and are corroborated bythe vast ingenuity of commercial persuasion’.

    Psychiatry’s pharmacological regime has been central to the privatisation of stress, but it is important that we don’t overlook the perhaps even more insidious role that the ostensibly more holistic practices of psychotherapy have also played in depoliticising distress. The radical therapist David Smail argues that Margaret Thatcher’s view that there’s no such thing as society, only individuals and their families, finds an unacknowledged echo in almost all approaches to therapy’.14 Therapies such as Cognitive Behaviour Therapy combine a focus on early life (a kind of psychoanalysis-lite) with the self-help doctrine that individuals can become masters of their own destiny. Smail gives the immensely suggestive name magical voluntarism to the view thatwith the expert help of your therapist or counsellor, you can change the world you are in the last analysis responsible for, so that it no longer cause you distress’ (p7).

    The propagation of magical voluntarism has been crucial to the success of neoliberalism; we might go so far as to say as it constitutes something like the spontaneous ideology of our times. Thus, for example, ideas from self-help therapy have become very influential in popular television shows.15 The Oprah Winfrey Show is probably the best-known example, but in the UK programmes such as Mary, Queen of Shops and The Fairy Jobmother explicitly promote magical voluntarism’s psychic entrepreneurialism: these programmes assure us that the fetters on our productive potentials lie within us. If we don’t succeed, it is simply because we have not put the work in to reconstruct ourselves.

    #64526
    wv
    Participant

    Jeff Schmidt is the author of Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-Battering System That Shapes Their Lives

    Extract:

    “As professionals, psychotherapists are ‘nonpartisan’ in their work: They just help ill people get better. But to declare extreme nonconformity an illness, as psychology professionals often do, is a partisan act because of the down-on-the-victim therapeutic framework it rationalizes: ‘Treating sick individuals’ is a much more politically conservative framework than is ‘treating individuals troubled by a sick and oppressive society.’ Evidently it is not the place of the clinicians to question the health of the society to which the patient must be adjusted. Their ‘legitimate’ professional concern is how best to bring about the adjustment. In this alone, they are expected to use their creativity. The few who do raise questions are seen as ‘getting political’, even though it is hard to imagine how they could get any more political than mainstream clinical psychology itself, which often practices conservative social action disguised as medical treatment.” (p.34)

    #64528
    zn
    Moderator

    Why are you such a radical about everything?

    Just be happy.

    #64534
    waterfield
    Participant

    Is Gurley responsible for his failure this year ? Or was it his O line ? Or possibly a combination of stuff?

    #64542
    wv
    Participant

    Is Gurley responsible for his failure this year ? Or was it his O line ? Or possibly a combination of stuff?

    ————–

    All good questions.

    w
    v

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.