The phrase ‘mental health’ appears in almost every news story about the new restrictions placed on students, and recurs in statements made by officials. Larissa Kennedy, President of the National Union of Students, said on BBC Radio 4’s PM that “we need to think carefully about the implications for mental health for students”, while the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, Willie Rennie, insisted on BBC Radio Scotland that “mental health support” should be made available by universities. The students themselves echo this vocabulary, with freshers telling journalists of their “history of anxiety”, or using oddly clinical language to describe this unpleasant introduction to university life. One young woman, for instance, described how isolation had “unfortunately” led to her “experiencing mental health issues”.

We might expect an 18-year-old to use more prosaic words when she is far from home, living with strangers, banned from leaving her accommodation, and now facing the prospect of Christmas without her family. Words like ‘sad’, ‘angry’, ‘upset’, and ‘lonely’ spring to mind. But over the past several decades, these ordinary words have been crowded out by medicalised words that seem to give an aura of authority. This new discourse speaks not of ‘sadness’ but of ‘depression’, not of ‘worry’ but of ’anxiety’, and not of ‘happiness’ but of ‘mental health’.

more from this author

Why defunding the police will hurt women most

By Louise Perry

There are several factors at play here. One is the steady expansion across the globe of American psychiatry — well documented in the book Crazy Like Us by Ethan Watters — which has led to both the medicalisation and the Americanisation of forms of emotional distress that in other times and places have been considered an expected part of the human condition.

The American Psychiatric Association publishes a diagnostic manual, the DSM (now in its fifth edition), that is used the world over as the bible of psychiatric diagnosis. The DSM sets out in cool, logical bulletpoints the steps by which a person’s dysfunction or distress becomes pathological. A diagnosis of depression, for instance, requires either a “depressed mood” or a “loss of interest or pleasure”, accompanied by three of the following: weight loss or gain, physical slowness, fatigue, feelings of guilt, poor concentration, or recurrent thoughts of death. Tick, tick, tick, tick: congratulations, you’re mad.

Tellingly, the so-called “bereavement exclusion” — which excluded a patient from a diagnosis of depression if he or she had been recently bereaved — was removed from the fifth edition of the DSM, meaning that ordinary grief is now technically considered a disease. Some forms of mental illness are easily distinguished from everyday experience, but others are not, meaning that ‘pathological’ can be distinguished from ‘normal’ only by drawing a line on the spectrum of severity, and that line can easily slip. Meaning that, as the outspoken critic of over-medicalisation Allen Frances puts it, “normality is an endangered species”.

suggested reading

Can our mental health cope?

By polly Mackenzie

There is a slightly conspiratorial, anti-capitalist way of framing this psychiatric concept creep, a framing that leans heavily on the role of Big Pharma. I won’t dismiss this theory, but nor do I believe that it tells the whole story. Yes, in a privatised healthcare system, doctors have an incentive to prescribe medication that patients don’t really need, but we also have to acknowledge that medication, effective or not, is often what patients desperately and loudly want. An old friend of mine who works in mental health services once told me that although she and most of her colleagues were signed up to the so-called social model of madness and distress — which understands mental illness as not just biomedical, but also as a product of the social environment — most of their patients didn’t want to hear it. They wanted to take a pill and feel better. They didn’t want to be told that they were suffering from what some medics darkly refer to as ‘Shit Life Syndrome’.

The huge rise in the diagnosis of depression, anxiety, and other slippery conditions among young people is often attributed on the Right to over-sensitivity. The ‘snowflake’ narrative suggests that these youngsters are either exaggerating their distress, or that it has been induced in them by a political ideology that discourages resilience. There is some truth to the idea of mental illness as status symbol, as we can see from the fashion for including one’s psychiatric diagnoses in one’s Twitter bio, frequently found alongside pronouns, an anime avatar, and rainbow and rose emojis. In a social hierarchy constructed around marginalised identities, identifying as mentally ill can certainly boost one’s victim status.

But for the many young people who really are sad, vocalising that sadness by ‘identifying as’ mentally ill also offers another advantage, and one that the critics of the ‘snowflake generation’ often miss. The clinical social worker and psychoanalyst Lisa Marchiano describes the appeal:

A  diagnosis carries with it a sense of absolution. It isn’t our fault that we have anxiety or depression. Forces beyond our control have conspired against us… when our diagnosis becomes an important part of who we are, we are encouraged to abdicate responsibility for our plight. We are adrift on life’s turbulent currents, without blame, but also without agency.

The psychiatrist Lewis Kirshner argues that while madness was once considered “an existential possibility present at the margins for every person”, in contemporary society we understand it as a sort of biological taint, present from birth, that will sooner or later announce itself in the form of symptoms. Thus the presence of this ‘identity’ is outside the individual’s control, they are (as Marchiano puts it) “adrift on life’s turbulent currents”, and temporary remission is available only through drugs or talking: publicly, in an effort towards destigmatisation, or privately, to a therapist. The trouble with this understanding of mental illness is that there now seems to be an awful lot of ‘biological taint’ present in the population since, according to Kirshner, approximately half of Americans meet the criteria for a major psychiatric disorder at some point in their lives. If fully half of us are irredeemably mad, maybe there’s something else going on?

A new book, The Lonely Century by Noreena Hertz, poses an interesting challenge to the ‘biological taint’ theory by suggesting that loneliness is both responsible for a huge amount of the emotional suffering that attracts psychiatric diagnoses, and that its prevalence is a consequence of recent historical trends: family breakdown, the rise in both domestic and international migration, the disintegration of civil society, and our increasing dependence on the internet, particularly social media. We are social animals, and loneliness makes us very, very sick. While the elderly are particularly vulnerable to it, the young are also suffering terribly. Those ‘snowflake’ young people on Twitter are telling the truth when they write about their profound unhappiness. It’s just that they’re using these feelings as evidence of their special, oppressed status, rather than seeing themselves as part of a lonely generation in need of better company.

more from this author

The generation betrayed by Boris

By Louise Perry

Perhaps the reluctance to face up to this peculiar sadness induced by 21^st-century living is because the most reliable remedies to loneliness are disturbingly traditionalist: get married, have kids, live near your extended family, go to a weekly religious service. Hertz points, for instance, to the surprising longevity of the Haredim, an ultra-orthodox Israeli community who, despite being disproportionately poor, overweight, and sedentary, live significantly longer than their peers. “Community,” Hertz writes, “the value of which was so repudiated by neoliberal capitalism’s focus on individualism and self-interest, seems to have a health benefit of its very own. And for the Haredim, community is everything.”

If we accept Hertz’s diagnosis of what really ails us, then we should look differently at the unfortunate students locked away in their halls of residence, and indeed the many other people locked away from the world as a result of Covid-19. First, we should do away with the clinical language of ‘mental health’ and its false sense of legitimacy, and return to words with more emotional resonance, particularly the word ‘lonely’. Second, we should think of isolation, not as something that might aggravate the psychiatric symptoms only of those with a ‘biological taint’, but rather as an unbearable imposition on any person, given our deeply social natures.

So, instead of using phrases like “experiencing mental health issues”, we could instead be more straightforward: “I want to see my friends and family, and I can’t, and that makes me sad because I’m a person who needs affection and companionship, just like anyone else.” You don’t need to tick off a checklist in the DSM to know that people need company — it’s a need as fundamental as sunshine.

Liberals, eh? Dontcha just hate ‘em? Or should I say ‘so-called’ liberals, who aren’t really liberal at all because they want to silence their opponents. And whatever happened to John Stuart Mill? He’s been taken off the curriculum of course — because he’s a Dead White Male and the Cultural Marxists who control the universities don’t think their snowflake students will be able to read him without bursting into tears…Want to hear more? Sign up to my YouTube channel…

Of course, I don’t really have a YouTube channel, but a lot of people do. And this sort of Right-wing dissent from liberal orthodoxy proliferating on social media and video-sharing websites these days.

The raucous and antagonistic online culture has sprung up as traditional media’s gatekeeper role has diminished. And such are the financial incentives — rewarding controversy and gotchas rather than reasoned debate — that decent money can now be made from stoking the Right-wing id with jeremiads about millennial snowflakes and Cultural Marxism and post-modernist wreckers. It’s a problem.

The circuit of this alternative media is now pretty well established: mostly YouTube-based discussion programmes, broadly opposed to the progressive cultural consensus. There are different styles. For example, the Triggernometry podcast is presented by two very funny comedians and has a fairly informal approach, full of jokes and occasionally quite profane, whereas Conversations, hosted by former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia John Anderson, is more polished and old-fashioned. Nevertheless, the programmes have the same kind of guests, who tend to make the same kind of points, in the same kind of way. 

There are two topics that arise time and time again. First, cultural decline, i.e. the gradual loss of knowledge and understanding of the great art, the great literature, the great achievements of Western civilisation. This is usually ascribed to the dominance of the academy by highly politicised Left-wing academics with a bad case of what Sir Roger Scruton called “oikophobia”, that is a strong feeling of dislike and repugnance towards their own cultural and religious inheritance. 

More from this author

It's time to reverse the Beeching Axe

By Niall Gooch

The second subject is the increasing censoriousness of culturally dominant progressives, who are keen to silence and delegitimise critics of the Current Year social consensus. A stern and humourless progressive piety reigns in the citadels of the British cultural establishment, empowered and encouraged by the dynamics of social media. 

These are important subjects. However, they cannot be the only topic of conversation. Clearly there’s a problem. What about the solutions? 

When I worked for a pro-life organisation, we used to grumble about media bias, how big broadcasters stacked the deck against pro-lifers in interviews and debates, and how the print media gave endless column inches to outright liars and propagandists. Such complaints were all rather futile. We should, instead, have been asking: “Given the media landscape, what are we actually going to do?” It’s hard to fight a battle on a field you didn’t choose, but you do still have to fight.

In his thoughtful piece for UnHerd after the death of Sir Roger Scruton, Ben Sixsmith noted, correctly, the lack of intellectual heft within British conservatism. The problem isn’t just in the academy; it’s in virtually every field of cultural endeavour. Where are the conservative painters and poets and sculptors and TV writers? Perhaps more importantly, where is the institutional infrastructure to support conservatives in the arts?  

Suggested reading

Where are Britain's conservative philosophers?

By Ben Sixsmith

If conservatives genuinely want to challenge the progressive hegemony, they need to get serious and they need to get organised. They can’t afford to get bogged down in cultivating resentments. Resentment, as Scruton himself often noted, is a corrosive and dangerous dead end. 

Of course, tweaking the nose of the po-faced consensus, with its bizarre, ever-changing shibboleths and bureaucratic vindictiveness, is great fun. There is a glorious heritage in Britain of robust opposition to hectoring officialdom. People who stand at the back and hurl tomatoes at the stage will always be needed. But conservatism can’t be just about that. 

Sure, it might feel good to say the unsayable and to get hundreds of RTs for a devastating put-down of Polly Toynbee or some withering remarks about the suffocating piety of BBC drama. But, generally speaking, the juggernaut rolls on regardless. The task is not to make the drivers of the juggernaut feel embarrassed or angry, but to actually stop the juggernaut. This is one reason to be concerned by the preponderance of comedians among the heroes of the anti-woke counterculture; while comedy can advance dissident goals to some extent by breaking progressive taboos, it is ultimately a destructive force, not a constructive one.

Maybe conservatives should take a step back from the day-to-day combat of the culture war. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not one of those conservatives who retires to the fainting couch with a glass of sherry when the culture war is mentioned. 

More from this author

What if we made our MPs go to church?

By Niall Gooch

In Western countries in the modern era, it is entirely natural and reasonable for there to be culture war, i.e. a rigorous, ongoing debate about the attitudes, expectations and moral imperatives that should govern public and private life — especially in areas such as education, entertainment and the media. The alternative is so-called Tory pragmatism, the school of thought whose main principle seems to be “whatever the Guardian editorial page says, but four years after the editorial appears rather than 18 months”.  

The point is not that the culture war shouldn’t be fought; rather, conservatives need to fight smart, and remember the culture bit as well as the war bit. This means thinking about strategy and not just tactics. One tendency in the world of Right-wing podcasters and YouTubers is to seek out the latest person to fall foul of the dreaded libs and thrust a microphone in front of them. 

The problem is that those people don’t always have anything very interesting to add, and that giving them more publicity simply feeds into a reactive and antagonistic atmosphere of snark and counter-snark. It also contributes to a climate where grifters can flourish; it is very easy to carve out a niche for yourself as The Person Who Says What They Don’t Want You To Say, without contributing much of value to conservative thought and action. 

Suggested reading

Journalism is being eaten alive by opinion

By Jesse Singal

Which brings us to another difficulty. There are really (at least) two factions on the Right-wing side of the culture war: classical liberals or libertarians, and traditional conservatives. They have overlapping concerns and shared enemies, but fundamentally they have quite different aims and so want to fight different battles in different ways. 

Traditional conservatism, my own part of the political forest, is not simply concerned with removing restraints on speech and clearing obstructions from the public square. It has a vision of the true and the beautiful, a particular understanding of what a good and orderly society should look like. For adherents to this philosophy, the future cannot simply lie in joining forces with the libertarian loudmouths and provocateurs. 

Imagine a podcast or YouTube video series that wasn’t content to condemn the decline of Western civilisation or the absurd censorship attempted by academic liberals, but actually sought out conservative artists to interview them about their work. Imagine a new media show that was not a lament about how X university won’t teach Dante or Plato or Shakespeare, but instead gave a voice to a young poet seeking to write within the great tradition, or an up-and-coming architect seeking to build beautifully and creatively, or a painter rejecting the sterile conceptualism of establishment art.

It won’t be enough on its own — not without the impressive and enviable institutional support available for conservative artists in, say, the USA — but it would be a big step in the right direction.

On top of that, the soaring cost of tuition places a disproportionate debt burden on poorer students, who are less likely to have help with living expenses from family; they graduate £57,000 in debt, compared with the £42,000 debt of their better-off peers.

We need a new approach. One that will reduce the total number of graduates to better fit the UK’s employment requirements, while levelling the economic playing field between rich and poor and improving the quality, attitude and employability of new graduates.

By the same author

Why liberal feminists don't care

By Mary Harrington

My radical policy would make university degrees fully government-funded, including living expenses, but make them contingent — for the entire UK student body — on prior successful completion of two years’ public service, either in the military or (for conscientious objectors) the NHS.

To make it work, we would need to widen the definition of military service beyond the frontline. After basic training, young people might drive minibuses on unprofitable public transport routes in rural locations, help fill in potholes, or provide Meals on Wheels to the elderly. It would be important to provide accommodation — as much for esprit de corps as to act as a social leveller — as well as food and a small stipend. There should be no impediment to public service on grounds of economic background.

For egalitarian reasons, it would be essential to ensure service tasks were assigned rather than chosen, as a precaution against the sharp-elbowed middle classes pulling strings to ensure their offspring received a cushy posting. And the scheme would need to offer roles compatible with mobility issues or other access requirements, for young people with disabilities.

Suggested reading

Slaying dragons: Britain's world-leading universities

By James Kirkup

Why do it? As things stand, academics describe a student cohort that has been so over-praised by parents and teachers that they believe themselves automatically entitled to good grades. They approach education as paying customers, which feeds the entitlement, and drives grade inflation. Eliminating the consumer dynamic would be the first step in getting higher education back on track.

The MoD’s Army Leadership Code describes its values as “Courage, Discipline, Respect for Others, Integrity, Loyalty and Selfless Commitment”: two years spent internalising these values, while rising early and doing as you’re told would be good preparation for taking undergraduate life seriously. And a little practice in the art of temporarily subordinating personal desires in pursuit of the public good might not hurt either.

It would put some off applying. This is no bad thing. It would be a quick and easy way of reducing our surplus of graduates. Filtering out those young people without the character to complete two years’ public service would also raise the calibre of those graduates, ensuring they’re ready for the challenging world of work.

Suggested reading

How university re-establishes hierarchy

By Peter Franklin

The policy might also improve access to top universities for the less well-off, by deterring their more highly-strung and overparented middle-class peers from applying. Research has linked helicopter parenting — a distinctly middle- and upper-class behaviour — to increased neediness and lack of self-reliance in students. Requiring young people to commit two years to communitarian service would either reduce the number of fragile middle-class university students in favour of their more self-reliant, working-class peers — or else cure them of their fragility. Either outcome would be a net benefit to universities, which are currently experiencing a crisis of mental health issues as well as student entitlement.

The policy would doubtless cause outrage. But an inverted version of it already exists in the UK, in the form of the Army Undergraduate Bursary — which offers up to £24,000 paid throughout your degree, conditional on completing a subsequent year at Sandhurst and three years’ service as an officer. Similar schemes to the UK army bursary operate in many countries, including Turkey and the USA.

Objectors might also complain that housing, feeding and paying two million young people for an extra two years, on top of funding their university education, would be prohibitively expensive. But the outlay needed to facilitate two million young people performing public service would hardly be money wasted.

In any case, higher education is subsidised by the taxpayer even now to the tune of nearly £4bn. If we take into account the fact that only 17% of students are ever forecast to pay back their full student loan, this figure is much higher. The government is just keeping that £100bn of mostly bad debt off the books. Why not re-route it?

Suggested reading

Why 'separate but equal' is a fraud

By Polly Mackenzie

At present, the system of tuition positions higher education as a transactional good, sold to student consumers on the basis that the ‘graduate premium’ outweighs the cost of loan repayment and as such is worth the investment. This approach has been justified on the basis that it has improved access. But so far, marketising higher education has neither improved the quality of degrees — quite the opposite — nor done much for young people’s employment prospects apart from raising the bar for the ‘graduate premium’.

Restoring full funding for university education in exchange for civic participation would level the socioeconomic playing field for applicants, and also reintroduce an older understanding of education not as a consumer good but as a public good that benefits all of us. It would also underline the fact that the purpose of higher education is not personal enrichment but to train the future leaders of society for a lifetime of service.

Those wishing to embark on a life of leadership and public service should see no hardship in performing some of this upfront, while those seeking only their own selfish advancement would be welcome to study overseas, at their own expense.