Author Archives: Monica

Posts: 5 (archived below)
Comments: 5

Haldol

This is an advertisement for the psychotropic drug Haldol. It was featured in a psychiatric journal in the sixties, which will bring a couple of things to mind. The “belligerent” man depicted in the picture is clearly a black man, in an aggressive, assaultive stance.

This advertisement was run right around the civil rights era, which does something to explain the unexplained aggressive, assaultive, and belligerent behavior. What do you do when someone just wont stay in their place? You confine and medicate them against their will. This ad is a lot to swallow.

I don’t know whether such a thing actually did take place at the time, but the insinuation is enough for me. Everything about this advertisement screams social control. The words are made to instill fear within the reader, to cause a sort of panic about what could be, and will be possible, if certain measures and precautions are not taken.

The ad is also careful to add: Usually leaves patients relatively alert and responsive. Relative to what- a vegetable? What happens not usually? Who cares, this guy just wont stay in his place.

Seriously though, this is maybe the most racist ad I’ve ever seen, even for the time. The way it panders to a deep-seated psychological fear about the unrest of a disenfranchised race is pretty low ball. It’s hard to think of something more offensive. And again, the implications of locking someone up and medicating them because they threaten your political and economic stability is just terrible. Really, really terrible.

Social Control Tool? Absolutely.

 

Posted in Assignment 5 | Tagged , , , , , | 92 Comments

China Wants Change

According to this Forbes article, China’s sovereign wealth fund wants to buy a large enough chunk of Facebook, so that it can control its image abroad, as well as censor much of what the site already allows, because the People’s Republic of China is weary of social media and the freedom it propagates. Although the article is careful to mention that the fund would only be able to buy non voting stock, and that even a billion dollars worth of stock would be only about a hundredth percent of the total amount once the stock goes public, the idea of the article is clear: China wants to take away our social media freedom , and control us.

A Sassy Control Agent or a Smart Shopper?

As was apparent in the little bit of Foucault that we read in class, control and capitalism go hand in hand. The author of the article states that China figures that if it can buy its way into our social media, then it can control us. We owe China so much money that it practically owns us already, and now it wants to own our favorite pastime?

I don’t think that the Chinese sovereign wealth fund is all that interested in telling us Crazy Americans what to do. Maybe it just wants to be a bank and fulfill its wealth-making function, a la capitalism. I don’t think it’s possible for China  to own us anymore than it already does. Anytime we feel threatened, we like to demonize the perceived threat, make it worse than it really is. Especially if we’re in control.

 

Posted in Assignment 4 | Tagged , , , | 17 Comments

Rosenhan Experiment

A couple of says ago I mentioned an experiment that was done in the 70’s (1973 to be exact) in which a small group of people was coached to act “crazy” in order to gain admittance into an insane asylum. Psychologist David Rosenhan published On Being Sane in Insane Places, in which he described his and eight other participants’ experiences in respective psych wards. None of these participants had a history of mental illness. Among those taking part in the experiment were psychologists, a grad student, and a pediatrician.

Once the patients were admitted into the ward (they all went into different types of hospitals with different types of funding), they no longer gave any sign of being mentally ill. There are several things about this article that are interesting.  Most of the participants were diagnosed with schizophrenia (at the public hospitals) and one with manic-depressive psychosis (at the private, better funded hospital, no less), a diagnosis which has a far more optimistic diagnosis, with better outcomes than schizophrenia, according to this article.

Once the participants were labeled as mentally ill, everything they did was attributed to their diagnosis. Rosenhan himself points out that “the perception of his circumstances was shaped entirely on his diagnosis” (on a particular patient’s normal family history, which was manipulated to aid in his diagnosis as schizophrenic.)  One bored participant was though to be nervous, simply because he was pacing the corridor. In a comical anecdote, Rosenhan describes a situation in which, “One psychiatrist pointed to a group of patients who were sitting outside the cafeteria entrance half an hour before lunchtime.  To a group of young residents he indicated that such behavior was characteristic of the oral-acquisitive nature of the syndrome.  It seemed not to occur to him that there were very few things to anticipate in a psychiatric hospital besides eating.” Although it’s easy to assume that this particular psychiatrist, who I’m sure was a learned and esteemed member of the psychiatric community, lacks any and all common sense, it’s easy to see how enshrouded a mental patient can become in his or her label. Rosenhan calls this section The Stickiness of Psychodiagnostic Labels, a title which is all too appropriate. Ironically enough, the only ones who were able to detect the patients as far from crazy, were other patients in the ward. Some of these voiced their suspicions from the get go, accusing the participants of being journalists or professors because of the constant note-taking. They weren’t far off.

Crazy?

On a side note, the study also brought attention to some very unorthodox practices, such as orderlies using excessive force with patients, patients regularly not taking their medication, and the incredible depersonalization that the patients went through on a daily basis. Such treatment would make anyone feel crazy.

Posted in Assignment 3 | Tagged , , , , | 12 Comments

Passing a Polygraph

A future for all potential suitors?

I was somewhat disturbed with the ambivalent tone in The Brain on the Stand article regarding the legal implications of using brain-scanning technology in the future. Rosen seems excited at the prospect of such a technology revolutionizing social, scientific, and legal frontiers. This is despite the fact that Jones, one of the envelope-pushing neuroscience proponents, has a skull and calipers set and that hearkens back to the phrenology brains. If this isn’t a red flag I don’t know what is.

In “Putting the Unconscious on Trial,” the possibility of admitting this mind reading technology in trial, is mentioned. Because of the incredible disregard for the 5th Amendment in doing such a thing, and with the violation of privacy it could involve,  I started wondering about the legal weight that the polygraph has in this current day and age. I knew that it’s inadmissible in court, but I wasn’t informed with the legal weight (if any) that polygraphs may have in the work place.

I found the site of a risk management company, which takes the liberty of advising employers who may be flirting with the idea of using the technology within their own company. The article stresses that it is possible to pass the test even when not being truthful, as the machine can only read physiological signs of activity or discomfort. It turns out that polygraph admissions are “often retracted and closely scrutinized” when reviewed by a third party. Furthermore, on December 27, 1988, the EPPA was passed. It states the businesses cannot require, or even suggest, that an applicant or employee take the polygraph. There also cannot be any disciplinary action if the employee refuses to take the test.

This possible mind reading technology is one of those instances where I’m glad the law is always the slowest to change.

Posted in Assignment 2 | Tagged , , | 13 Comments

Tattoo Brief

We discussed in class the different types of tattoos that people use to identify themselves as members of a particular group, such as a white supremacy group, or an ex-convict. I did some research and found this powerpoint: Tattoo Brief that is, from what I can only conclude, designated for recruiters in the armed forces. The brief goes on to describe the various designs, numbers, and symbolism used to designate members in groups such as Neo-Nazis, California gangs, Native Americans, and the BGF (Black Guerrilla Family).

The slides make a point to distinguish between people who use the tattoos to identify as members of a group, and those who use the tattoos without knowing the real meaning behind something permanently etched  onto their skin. A tattoo of the number 311 could be a coded way of writing KKK, as K is the 11th letter of the alphabet, and 3×11 is equal to 3 K’s. 311 is also the name of a ska band. “Santana” could be an allusion to an Orange County gang, or be a tribute to Carlos Santana. Albeit an accidental one, the connection between tattoos an music is ever present.

In appropriating tattoos for their own use and classification, gangs are to this day justifying Lombroso’s theories. The methodology of classifying on sight is being used by the recruiters of law enforcement in order to weed out undesirables. This is not entirely an unpleasant thought, as I’d be wary of seeing a skinhead signing up to protect the peace. Unless it’s Edward Norton.

Posted in Assignment 1 | Tagged , , , | 102 Comments