|
|
19 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
The Power of Directed Thinking, September 17, 2002
First, the bad news. Arline B. Curtiss could be described as a political reactionary. She's nostalgic for the Good Old Days before "the abandonment of principle in favor of feelings" brought on by the so-called Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. She admires Dr. Laura Schlessinger. She holds the Sixties--and mainstream psychology--responsible for infantilizing us, stripping us of our dignity, turning us into a "Culture Dump society".I don't share Curtiss' political views. Dr. Laura makes me gag, and I don't believe there ever was a time when America was all about Virtue, Character, and Community--for better or worse, the United States has always been, right from the very start, among the most fiercely competitive and individualistic (and therefore least communal) of modern nations. The "free love" movement and modern psychiatric movement may have *exacerbated* this tendency to self-absorption, but clearly they did not initiate it. But having said that, I can't help but admire and appreciate certain portions of Curtiss' book. Curtiss at least refuses to see anti-depressants as the *only* solution to depression. There's nothing wrong with interpreting the condition as a biochemical imbalance, but why does the pharmaceutical approach have to be the *only* approach? Isn't there anything else to be said about the matter? Curtiss thinks so, and though I have some strong misgivings about her book, she makes some legitimate points. Take her quote from Goethe: "Where a man has a passion for meditation without the capacity for thinking, a particular idea fixes itself fast, and soon creates a mental disease." Without taking away from Solomon, Redfield Jamison, Styron, et al., I I do think Curtiss raises a real issue, not a false one. We're living in the Information Age--thus we all, by necessity, must "meditate" upon the world--as castaways afloat upon a buffeting, roiling sea of data--and yet, at the same time, the quality of our liberal arts education couldn't possibly sink any lower than it is now. In other words, we're all forced to be "meditators" now, yet fewer and fewer of us are capable of being "thinkers" in the sense Goethe was a thinker, because of the very real and very drastic decline of liberal arts education all over the western world. Seen in this light, the skyrocketing rates of depression in industrialized nations seem much more explainable. Curtiss' other bugbear is Freud. She writes, "People say Freud's influence is waning. But it is Freud's theory of the unconscious mind that provides the only basis for mental illness as we know it. Without Freud's theory of the unconscious mind, we could not have the 'diseases' of drug addiction, manic depression, social phobia, or frotteurism." These are some of the reasons Curtiss provides for the rising rates of depression. Her solution is something she calls Directed Thinking, which is based on the premise that we can only think one thought at a time. Modern science shows that the emotions and instincts associated with depression are active in the sub-cortex or "lower brain"--by stimulating our neo-cortex or "higher brain" (which involves the cognitive faculties of reasoning, math, language, etc.) we can direct our attention away from our negative feelings and the pain caused by depression. ("Depression always ends. Not because of Prozac. Not because of psychotherapy. Not because of psychotherapy or shock treatments. Depression always ends because it is in the very nature of depression to end. The only question is, how can we get it to end sooner?") But isn't The Power of Directed Thinking just The Power of Positive Thinking all over again? Yes and no. Curtiss, unlike Peale, doesn't view "positive" thinking as entirely the right way to go. Instead of willing yourself to be happy (which could easily backfire and remind you with added force just how *unhappy* you presently are, thus compounding your misery), Curtiss suggests you pick a neutral thought, almost anything will do. She also emphasizes process rather than content. Reading a book or memorizing a poem would probably focus one's attention away from the anguish more effectively than channel-surfing the TV, simply because the former activities make more strenuous use of the neo-cortex. Though she obviously dislikes Kay Redfield Jamison's books, Curtiss' notions are quite similar. Jamison has described in detail how "for many artists, writing or painting or composing has provided an escape from their turmoils and melancholy." Thus depression (more specifically manic-depression) and artistic talent are intertwined phenomena. Jamison believes "creative work can act not only as a means of escape from pain, but also as a way of structuring chaotic emotions and thoughts, numbing pain through abstraction and the rigors of disciplined thought, and creating a distance from the source of despair." Despite her dislike of Jamision, Curtiss in fact says much the same thing. But she says it in a different way. It is the neo-cortex, the "higher mind," that enables human beings to "structure chaotic emotions," and to utilize "abtraction" and "disciplined thought." It's the sub-cortex, the instinctive and fearful "lower mind" that is the "source of despair" in the brain. According to Curtiss, everyone can learn to make more precise use of his or her neo-cortex, while at the same time taming the demons unleashed by the sub-cortex. You don't have to be an artist; anyone can learn to do this. Hence, her title: DEPRESSION IS A CHOICE. Since reading this book, I've found that Directed Thinking does indeed work for me--not perfectly, but it does help keep the demons at bay. I understand why some people hate the book, but I would still recommend it as an alternative Yang to Jamison's Yin. I don't recommend anyone chuck their Prozac in the garbage, but what's wrong with exploring other techniques for combatting this most horrendous of experiences? Drugs are an answer, but they're not foolproof, they don't work for absolutely everybody, and they'd probably work more effectively in combination with other therapies, like this one.
|
by Peter D. Kramer
by Kay Redfield Jamison
by Sharon Begley
by John Shaughnessy
See all Editorial Reviews
