The Affluenza Epidemic (and you thought the autism epidemic was bad)
Child psychiatric disorders–including autism—are all on the rise, according to a study by Danish researchers published in the February 2007 issue of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine (2007:161:193-198). In the January 28th Guardian, Nick Cohen notes a perhaps similar rise in mental health disorders in adults (while he is referring to the UK, he indeed notes that a like increase can be found among Americans; see below). Cohen mentions a new book, Affluenza, by media psychologist Oliver James. According to James, “we are facing an epidemic. ‘Affluenza’ is a disease which he defines as ‘a contagious, middle-class virus causing depression, anxiety, addiction and ennui’.” (And affluenza is said to hit Americans harder than anyone else.)
Cohen’s response to this “affluenza epidemic” is thoughtful rather than alarmist:
If and why psychiatric illnesses are increasing remain good questions. A cynical answer is that we have so many psychiatric problems because we have so many psychiatrists. Americans suffer particularly because American analysts are finding new sicknesses daily. Conditions people once regarded as commonplace miseries are now pathologised.
Cohen particularly refers to autism and to Cambridge psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen, and notes that our improved ability to identify autism and the expansion of the definition of autism to include those on a “spectrum” can account for the rise in the prevalence of autism.
Similarly, maybe the outbreak of “affluenza” describes by James is not such a bad thing after all. Cohen ends his column by referring to evidence that “the mental health of modern societies is surprisingly stable” and that levels of depression have actually not changed. Indeed:
New vaccines don’t cause an epidemic of autism. Increases in national prosperity don’t make nations happier, but nor, perhaps, do they push them into a materialistic mania.
If governments can avoid mass unemployment and a general fear of violence, levels of unhappiness should stay constant. It may sound eccentric to say it, but we’re not as mad as we look.
Maybe it is not such a crazy thing to say “there is no autism epidemic” after all.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Epidemic, Health, Psychiatry, Psychology
2 opinions for The Affluenza Epidemic (and you thought the autism epidemic was bad)
Tim Worstall
Feb 8, 2007 at 11:29 am
I’ve swapped a couple of emails with Nick Cohen about this and one point that Baron Cohen made that needs to be emphasised is that the definition of autism itself was changed, in the American diagnostic books, in the early 80s. Formerly, what we might call “classical autism” was the only thing diagnosed as autism. Since then, the whole spectrum, including Asperger’s etc is. We shouldn’t be all that surprised that incidence has risen then.
As my blog (or at least one of them does) deals with the “male” and “female” brain theories of B-Cohen I find that I rather like his description of autism as the “extreme male brain” and his theories about foetal testosterone exposure certainly seem to make logical sense.
Nick Cohen seems to like it a lot because the theory finally puts to rest the extreme nature v. nurture argument: in at least some things we are indeed predisposed at birth, we are not a tabula rasa which society then writes upon.
Worth noting though that even if Baron-Cophen is correct, this doesn’t rule out an environmental factor as well: there might well be two or more causes, just as there are with things like cancer.
Apologies but I thought Oliver James’ “Affluenza” idea was simply inane.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Feb 8, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Thanks for this, Tim—-I do think the changing, evolving defitinion of autism has a lot to do with it (and found James on “Affluenza even a bit tame……think others have put forth this argument before, indeed). I also think, too, that once we understand what autism is it seems particularly hard not to see it.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: