some thoughts on depression

so, i was combing through my feed reader this morning, eating myself some breakfast of a soft taco and a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (today was a late rising day), and i came across this ProfHacker post.  it was really interesting, and i spent the next hour or so chasing links.  the primary piece of interest here is this recent article, which suggests that in some respects that depression may be an evolution-like response to various social and personal dilemmas.  in short, depression is a sort-of side effect of your brain winding its problem-solving skills into overdrive in order to solve a particularly prickly problem.

really, though, if you're interested at all, you should read the original Times article through, because it's not only interesting, it's exceedingly well-written.  better than this blog.

anyway, i really really like ProfHacker; it's a really useful resource for teaching literature and comp, and i love reading their articles pretty much every day.  i also haven't written this post to specifically pick on them, but more to pick on the point of view that their particular take on the Times issue seems to be emblematic of.

no, depression is not "romantic" (although "romantic", as per ProfHacker and Kramer is importantly different than "Romantic", as per the original Times article, but i digress); however, the idea that it is potentially constructive for some is an intriguing one, and one that it seems might allow the condition to be a little de-stigmatized.  i guess i don't see what's so threatening about seeing depression as partially constructive behavior...maybe there's something comforting about being able to treat it like a mystery ghost that comes and goes, something we don't actively have to try to deal with because, as long as it stays mysterious, we can justify being at its mercy.  oddly, one of the objections raised to Thomson and Andrews' argument (from the Times article) is that "romanticizing" depression is a destructive practice reminiscent of the "glamorization" of tuberculosis 200 years ago.  i don't get this either.  i'd say if there's any romanticization of depression going on, it's embodied in the idea that depression is an undefeatable, inexplicable condition that preys on us at will, and that we can only solve it by throwing medicine at the problem.  the statistics provided in the Times article regarding the danger of relapse when taking patients off of depression are pretty compelling.

and, yet, of course, not all-inclusive.  i think the most important part of the article is actually when Andrews acknowledges that part of the problem is that "depression" is actually an umbrella term for a number of different symptoms, and, likely, a number of different causes and solutions (something that the ProfHacker response seems to have missed).  interestingly, Andrews, i think, would agree with Kramer's assertion that his analytic-rumination hypothesis is limited to a certain audience.  precisely because of the assumptions it makes - that depression is a response to solvable problems - it would be useless to those suffering from depression because of a stroke or because of what Kramer calls "late-life" depression.  those are problems that no amount of cognition or rumination, i imagine, can surmount.  in fact, the Times article - and Andrews, and myself - are all ready and willing to admit that this one solution is not the solution to depression.  but if can help some - as Andrews shows that it clearly has - why all the vitriol?  why is it so important to not logically confront depression?

some of you know my own experience with depression, because i've written about it on here before, and i won't rehash it in detail.  suffice to say that i have, at times, in the past, suffered from a lot of the symptoms of depression (as outlined in the WebMD link provided by ProfHacker).  so i suppose i would understand the difference between "ordinary" sadness and depression, if that's worth anything.  and i know i would have benefited greatly from having heard what Thomson and Andrews had to say in the past.  depression, for me, has always been about wrestling with issues, whether it be a problem i couldn't - or didn't want to - solve, or adjusting to a major change that i had no direct control over in my life.  the idea that the depression wasn't a hindrance to, but instead a necessary component of the adjustment process absolutely, certainly would have helped me adjust and get better a lot more quickly.  i never got professional help for my own issues - though i thought about a fair amount - because i knew, on some level, that i was dealing with something i would ultimately have to work out on my own.  like Andrews' heart-wrenching example, i knew my problems wouldn't be solved by medicine.  instead, i just wouldn't care that those problems existed anymore.  and encouraging people who can deal with those problems to just take medicine seems reductionist at best, and a lot of other horrible things at worst.  i'd never presume to speak for someone else or their issues, and people are all allowed (obviously) to do what they want with their own lives; yet, when you're in the grips of depression, you're not exactly "yourself", per se, and someone else making suggestions about what might make you feel better is naturally going to have more sway over your decision than they might normally.  so it has always made me very nervous that so many doctors are so medication-happy.

but that's my personal bias, which is, of course, based on personal experience.  but again, if Thomson and Andrews' hypothesis is legitimately helping people, why such hostility towards it?  is there something attractive about the idea that our sadness is beyond our control?  about the idea that all of our problems should be able to be solved by pills?  i don't know.  all i do know is that something about the analytic-rumination approach really resonates with me, and i don't think it should be slighted or thrown out because it doesn't play into the idea that depression has to be an illogical, impregnable illness.  don't we want solutions to be easier?  i think the article makes it pretty clear that even Andrews and Thomson are pretty clear on the fact that his approach won't (and shouldn't) work on everyone, and that people who still need medicine or alternate approaches should get what they need.  i don't see this new idea as romantic at all, and in fact the article's author goes to great pains throughout to characterize depression as the horrible malady that it is.  so why all the grumbling?

i'm going to stop before i start grumbling, too...

grumble grumble grumble.