The Mega Marketing of Depression in Japan Essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay on "The Mega Marketing of Depression in Japan" and how it relates to other pieces of literature....

Description

Scheuer 1

Amanda Scheuer Professor Marc Cicchino Expos 101 30 July 2017 The Mega-Marketing of Depression in Japan Depression has been commonly accepted as an illness caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, but some refute this explanation by indicating that culture plays a role. Biology may play an influential role in mental health, but depression comes down to a combination of biological and cultural elements, unlike the perspective taken in Ethan Watters’ essay “The Mega-Marketing of Depression in Japan.” His perspective acknowledges the biological explanation of depression that exists in the U.S., but favors the notion that various cultural perspectives influence how individuals define depression. Unlike Watters’ cultural view, Barbara Fredrickson’s essay takes a predominantly biological stance on human experiences, and although she does recognize that many individuals allow the cultural expectations to dictate their own experience, she does not agree with that aspect. Moreover, Martha Stout’s outlook on mental health lies somewhere in the middle of Watters and Fredrickson in that she demonstrates the biological differences in the experiences of her patients, still while explaining the cultural differences that influence their perception of mental illness. Lastly, Oliver Sacks implies that there is a difference in the cultural expectations and the biological experiences of humans, and argues that language is the tool that dictates the ways in which humans subjectively define an experience such as depression. Depression is a product of biochemistry and culture, together mediated by language, which is what dictates the human experience of mental health. There is no

Scheuer 2

universally correct definition of depression, and therefore no universally correct treatment for all because of the nature of mental health being self-fulfilling, ever-changing, and rooted in disparate language. Depression is thus nearly impossible to systematically and comprehensively treat, and instead requires further research in the mental health field to establish culturally-specific treatments that take this cultural variance into account. The concept of depression can be interpreted through both a biochemical perspective as well as a cultural one because, undeterred by the scientific explanations of depression, individuals continue to conform to their own personal judgments, and the opinions of others within their culture. In other words, depression can biologically influence individuals, but their perception of it is ultimately impacted by the overall cultural understanding of the symptoms, cause, and course of this experience. Watters acknowledges that there are conflicting biological and cultural aspects to mental illness when he says that “this interplay between the expectations of the culture and the experience of the individual leads to a cycle of symptom amplification” (518). Those elements of depression are conflicting because, while one may be more fact-based than the other, people tend to fall into the expectations of their culture more than what their bodies are truly experiencing. Watters calls this the “self-fulfilling” tendency when it comes to depression because it is the way in which “explanatory models created the culturally expected experience of the disease in the mind of the sufferer” (518). People often learn what their culture thinks of depression and then conform to that idea in a way that causes the symptoms to become true for themselves. Similarly, Fredrickson explains in her essay that “if you were asked today, by a roving reporter or an inquisitive dinner party guest, to provide your own definition of love, your answer would likely reflect a mishmash of shared cultural messages and your own deeply

Scheuer 3

personal experiences with intimacy” (107). This sounds as if Fredrickson is agreeing with Watters on the importance of culture to the definition and experience of love, but she goes on to argue that this expectation is completely incorrect. She continues by saying, “however compelling your answer, I’d wager that your body has its own--quite different--definition of love … Sure enough, love is closely related to each of these important concepts. Yet none, I will argue, capture the true meaning of love as your body experiences it” (Fredrickson 107). Although Fredrickson leans towards the biological perspective, she would acknowledge that the individual experience of something like love or depression would also be influenced by the accepted cultural understanding of it. Like Watters, she would agree that humans tend to create their own definitions of love and depression based on what they have endured, combined with the cultural expectations of that experience by others. Fredrickson would agree with Watters that believing depression is a temporary mental state and not a permanent illness, or vice versa, is self-fulfilling in that it will compel their experience of depression to become exactly what they believe it to be. This perceptual change can be influenced by both the biochemical symptoms of depression as well as the cultural understanding of it, which can pose a problem for the mental health research that determines the diagnostic criteria for depression. If individuals have culturally diverse understandings of what depression is, this makes it very difficult for psychiatrists to diagnose and treat depressed patients, or even to suggest a plan of care. There would need to be supplementary research concerning specific cultural differences in the perception of depression in order to develop a more culturally-aware treatment plan. The beliefs that people have about depression tend to fluctuate unpredictably, whether they come from biology or culture, because it can be difficult for people to distinguish their

Scheuer 4

experiences from what they have seen or heard about depression. Even though the perception of depression and anxiety has a large focus on the neurological reactions, especially when treated with medication, it also depends on the changing cultural understandings and explanations shared in the media. Watters states that “cultural beliefs about depression and the self are malleable and responsive to messages that can be exported from one culture to another” (519) which means that people can transfer explanations of mental illness between cultures, which leads to changing expectations and thus definitions of that experience. The news media is an effective channel for cultures to share these messages, just as Watters explains that the American pharmaceutical companies had done with the advertisements to market depression in Japan. Stout, a clinical psychologist, discusses the differing experiences of mental illness and dissociation between individuals in her essay. She explains that “there is a common Japanese term, shin pan, inexactly translated as ‘agitated heart syndrome,’ referring to a great pain between the chest and the stomach … a pain of the heart that does not involve the actual physical organ” (Stout 435). This term does not exist in the U.S., like how Watters explains that depression as an illness did not necessarily exist in Japan before the Westernized view of it was exported into their country, which led to a change in perspective for the Japanese. Stout goes on to say that “in our culture, we consider such a thing--a ‘heartache,’ if you will--to be poetry at most. We do not understand that much of the rest of the world considers it to be quite real” (435). So although Stout focuses on the individual experiences of her patients when it comes to mental illness and dissociation, she separates the cultural expectations versus the experiences of her patients to maintain a perspective that lies somewhere between the essays by Watters and Fredrickson. Although they lean more towards the cultural or biochemical elements of

Scheuer 5

depression, respectively, Stout explains that it is more of an equal distribution between cultural expectations and biological experiences that cause a person’s perception of depression to change drastically and erratically. Again, this causes an issue for those in the mental health field because there is an unreasonable expectation for psychiatrists and researchers to keep up with the unstable beliefs that individuals have about depression. Even with the introduction of culturally-specific treatments, it would be difficult to do such widespread research to ensure successful treatment options that were up to date with the current beliefs regarding depression. The symptoms and causes of depression remain merely characteristics of an experience unless a culture attributes the language to it, thus labeling it pathological or not. So while some cultures may view depression as a temporary mental state, like Japan, others consider it a disease that requires treatment, such as in the U.S., simply because the language has changed the culture’s understanding of it. Watters explains this by saying “one culture can reshape how a population in another culture categorizes a given set of symptoms, replace their explanatory model, and redraw the line demarcating normal behaviors and internal states from those considered pathological” (519). This statement demonstrates how one culture can consider depression normal behavior that does not require medical attention, but others consider the same characteristics pathological because that is the expectation in their culture, despite the presence of similar biological symptoms. Depression may be explained by the biochemical reactions that occur within an individual’s body, but it’s also important to take into account the language that is used to describe such an experience in one’s culture. For instance, Watters’ essay demonstrates how Japan did not possess or necessitate the language to describe depression as an illness until American pharmaceutical companies began advertising symptoms of depression, such as “being

Scheuer 6

highly sensitive to the welfare of others and to discord within the family or group” (525); this enforces the language on the Japanese public in such a way that encourages them to apply those symptoms of depression to themselves. Likewise, Sacks’ essay revolves around the idea that language acts as a tool to alter people's’ perception of certain ideas, such as blindness and the mind’s eye. He explains that “if there is indeed a fundamental difference between experience and description, between direct and mediated knowledge of the world, how is it that language can be so powerful? Language, that most human invention, can enable what, in principle, should not be possible” (Sacks 345). Although he is referring to blindness, Sacks would agree with Watters that language can change depression from being perceived as a mental state, as the Japanese understand it, into being understood as a mental illness that demands medication and treatment. Even the associated words for depression, or the Japanese word for gloominess of the body and spirit yuutsu, between Japanese and American college students were strikingly different. The word associations for Japanese students included external descriptions like “rain … dark … worries” (521), but the words for American students were more related to internal emotions, including “sad … lonely … down” (521), which Watters explained was attributed to the cultural variations in the definitions and experiences of depression. Sacks and Watters would agree that the linguistic differences across cultures largely influence the perceived biological elements that individuals understand about depression, which implies that increased attention should be focused on the language that is used to describe the cause, symptoms, and treatment of depression. The need for treatments that vary from culture to culture thus also presents the need for researchers to consider linguistic differences within a culture. There are already existing language barriers that may cause complications between psychiatrist and patient because of

Scheuer 7

misunderstandings about depression or treatments, but this is an even greater problem across cultures, as explained by Watters between the U.S. and Japan, that needs to be addressed when it comes to establishing culturally-specific plans of care. There is no universally correct definition of depression because it is a human experience based not only on the individual’s unique biological reactions, but also on the wavering expectations regarding mental illness within one’s culture. Watters and Fredrickson would agree that beliefs about depression, as well as many other human experiences, are self-fulfilling because humans create their own understanding of it based on their personal experience combined with the perspectives of others within their culture. The essay by Stout demonstrates a more balanced explanation of the cultural and biological influences on perception because, like Watters, she indicates that the beliefs about mental illness are always changing due to the inconsistent explanations made popular by the media. In addition, Sacks explains in his essay that culture and biology come together through language to create human experiences like depression; he would agree with Watters that attributing language to a concept is primarily what determines how people perceive it. Consequently, this cultural variation regarding depression evokes the issue of a successful treatment option that not only applies to individuals of different cultures, but also evolves with the changing beliefs, expectations, and language that people have regarding depression. Although this makes it more difficult for psychiatrists and researchers to provide successful plans of care for depression, it ensures that individuals will receive improved, personalized treatment options that work to more effectively treat their individual symptoms. Depression is not solely a product of biology, nor is it entirely dictated by culture, but it is instead an even combination of the two that influences the individual experience of depression as

Scheuer 8

either an illness or a mental state. This ultimately creates the demand for further research in the mental health field for the development of culturally-specific medical care for individuals with depression in order to promote better care across cultures when it comes to mental health....