More From The Media

My latest encounter with an article is a New Yorker commentary by Louis Menand on the recent book by Scott Stossel titled "My Age Of Anxiety." It is the story of Stossel's life long experience with anxiety. You may read the article here http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2014/01/27/140127crat_atlarge_menand?currentPage=all

Stossel is the editor of The Atlantic and he was first treated at the age of 10. As one might imagine he has been through any and every model of treatment available, except electro-shock therapy. What interested me most is what seems to be an idea that anxiety (what I have been calling fear) is a disease to be eliminated. Every course of therapy and treatment, as I understand it, has had the intention of curing the condition. There is a built in supposition that Mr. Stossel's suffering has to do with a similar kind of suffering one might experience with a cold or the flu. These temporary biological upsets caused by an invasive organism or virus.

What if the situation is fundamentally different? We know that an infection causes a fever, which causes one to feel "sick" which causes one to seek medical treatment. Pains are the same kind of attention grabber leading to curative measures, But what if the psychological conditions we deal with such as depression and anxiety are merely indicators of the invasion, and what if they aren't so much calling for cure as much as they are calling for adaptation.

Many people I have talked with have held the notion that feelings, such as fear or anger are things to be controlled. I suggest the desire to control is an effort to avoid the negative consequences that have occurred when one has exploded in anger or crumbled in fear. But one thing I'm sure of is that these feelings are reactions to events outside the body, not reactions to the thoughts within the brain. After the feeling, the thoughts begin, often judgmental in nature, and many times reactive. I'm guessing the reactive behavior is similar to the fever or pain associated with the biological diseases referred to above.

My suggestion here is that the point of intervention required to effect a different kind of outcome is in the space between the feeling and reaction, not ahead of the feeling. Controlling one's feelings requires intervention before the feeling occurs. This is the outcome patients experience when they have taken psychotropic medications and complained about being numb or listless. All feelings are diminished by these drugs, which leaves a patient feeling lifeless.

I am not condemning use of these drugs. I personally experienced a depression, was prescribed Prozac, used it in conjunction with therapy and stopped after about 7 months. Both the psychiatrist and I considered this a successful course of treatment. But what the therapy did in conjunction with the drug, was to help me gain awareness and skill associated with my responses to my feelings. At the time I was so sad I needed the meds to get up off the floor. That gave me the opportunity to show up and take a look at my reactions. As I learned more mature responses to my feelings I became less reactive and the depression lifted.

The Revolution I have been talking about isn't about everyone in the world having the same experience and taking the same course of action and treatment I had. Rather the Revolution is about learning how to be present with my feelings and my thinking at the same time. My reactive nature, learned as a child, did not allow me to think about a response. I was reacting first and not even bothering to ask questions later. I believe that's more common than one might think.

The Revolution is not an argument between professionals. The Revolution is about how we can all help each other see the world as a larger place than we think. And then for each of us to see ourselves as larger than we thought.  We are all more capable and more complex that we have believed. And in order to see this, to feel its authenticity, we need each other.

Be well, stay warm and come back soon for more.