The relative global decline of the US has become a frequent topic of debate in recent years. Proponents of the post-US view point to the 2008 financial crisis, the prolonged recession that followed and China’s steady rise. Most are international relations experts who, viewing geopolitics through the lens of economic competitiveness, imagine the global order as a seesaw, in which one player’s rise necessarily implies another’s fall.
Yet the exclusive focus on economic indicators has prevented consideration of the geopolitical implications of a US domestic trend that is also frequently discussed, but by a separate group of experts: the US’ ever increasing rates of severe mental disease (which have already been very high for a long time).
The claim that the spread of severe mental illness has reached “epidemic” proportions has been heard so often that, like any commonplace, it has lost its ability to shock. However, the repercussions for international politics of the disabling conditions diagnosed as manic-depressive illnesses, including major unipolar depression and schizophrenia, could not be more serious.
It has proved to be impossible to distinguish, either biologically or symptomatically, between different varieties of these conditions, which therefore constitute a continuum — most likely of complexity, rather than severity. The most common of these illnesses, unipolar depression, is the least complex in terms of its symptoms, but also the most lethal: 20 percent of depressed patients are estimated to commit suicide.
Manic-depressive illness and schizophrenia are psychotic conditions characterized by the patient’s loss of control over their actions and thoughts, a recurrent state in which they cannot be considered an agent with free will. Obsessive suicidal thinking and paralyzing lack of motivation allow depressed patients to be classified as psychotic as well.
These conditions are often accompanied by elaborate delusions — images of reality that confuse information generated in the mind with that provided from outside. Often the distinction between symbols and their referents is lost and patients begin seeing people solely as representations of some imagined force. The judgement of such people cannot be trusted, to put it mildly.
A massive statistical study, conducted from 2001 to 2003 by the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), estimated the lifetime prevalence of major depression among US adults (aged 18 to 54) at more than 16 percent. Lifetime prevalence for schizophrenia was estimated at 1.7 percent. There is no known cure for these chronic diseases. After onset — often before the age of 18 — they are likely to last until the end of the patient’s life.
Surveys among US college students estimated that 20 percent fit criteria for depression and anxiety in 2010, and that nearly 25 percent fit these criteria last year. Other studies have consistently shown rising rates of prevalence with each successive generation and it is argued that, if older statistics were faulty, they erred on the side of underestimating the spread of mental illness.
All of this suggests that as many as 20 percent of US adults may be severely mentally ill. In view of disputes over the significance of available data, one can assume that only 10 percent of US adults are severely mentally ill. As these conditions are presumed to be distributed uniformly within the population, they must afflict a significant share of policymakers, corporate executives, educators and military personnel of all ranks, recurrently rendering them psychotic, delusional and deprived of sound judgement.
If it is deemed sensationalist to characterize this situation as terrifying, one may add that a much larger share of the population — estimated at close to 50 percent in the NIMH study — is affected by less severe forms of mental disease that only occasionally disturb their functionality.
Comparative epidemiologists have repeatedly noticed something remarkable about these illnesses: Only Western countries (or, more precisely, societies with monotheistic traditions — particularly prosperous Western countries) are subject to prevalence rates of this magnitude.
Southeast Asian countries appear to be especially immune to the bane of severe mental illness and in other regions, poverty, or lack of development, seems to offer a protective barrier.
As I argue in my recent book Mind, Modernity, Madness, the reason for high concentrations of severe mental illness in the developed West lies in the very nature of Western societies. The “virus” of depression and schizophrenia, including their milder forms, is cultural in origin: The embarrassment of choices that these societies offer in terms of self-definition and personal identity leaves many of their members disoriented and adrift.
The US offers the widest scope for personal self-definition and it also leads the world in judgement-impairing disease. Unless the growing prevalence of serious psychopathology is taken seriously and addressed effectively, it is likely to become the only indicator of US leadership. The rise of China is unrelated to this.
Liah Greenfeld is a professor of sociology, political science and anthropology at Boston University, and distinguished adjunct professor at Lingnan University, Hong Kong.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS