©Combat
SH: What are some ways in which teenagers and students were affected during the pandemic?
MB: What was problematic about the lockdown was the suppression of socializing places. The moment universities and schools closed down, the solidarity and support between young people diminished. Depriving them of emancipation from the family environment, from their childhood, had an important mental impact.
However, it was an ambivalent experience. I realized that the lockdown was lived differently by people, according to their personality. There are people for whom it was great to live a period of lockdown because for once the whole world shared their problems, such as anxiety or phobias. So for them it wasn't really a problematic experience because the world became a pathology for all.
On the other hand, there are social links that have really diminished. But we should also talk about the distress of institutions. The public system distanced itself from the people, people couldn't easily see doctors when they needed them, universities didn't mean anything anymore - the pandemic revealed all these problems, it wasn't their only cause.
SH: In your book "Mental health: happiness under control" you say that mental health is a neoliberal tool that pushes us to adapt to a system we didn't choose. Can you further explain this concept?
MB: First of all, I am more inclined to talk about "psychological health" rather than "mental health". The idea of mental health refers to 'the mental', to the idea that there is a 'dysfunctional brain'. Existential problems should not be classified as a problem of brain dysfunctionality.
In the beginning, the concept of mental health was a progressive idea - the idea being to take out the "mad" from psychiatric hospitals, to find ways in which society can live with and welcome those that are seriously ill. This is the first version of mental health from the 60s.
In the 70s, 80s, disorders such as substance addiction, misery were introduced in the sphere of psychiatric and psychological treatment, which was not the case beforehand.
But then, in the 2000s, problems such as burnout and psychological distress are more and more considered. All of this was saying that the problem is not society, but how the individual is adapting to society. For example, the problem is not a toxic management at work, but how people are adapting to it. We will not question the system, but we will silence the individual, naturalize him, we will focus everything on intervening on the person that cannot adapt.
This way of thinking eliminates the political problems and concentrates everything on the individual, it eliminates the sense of self and transforms it into a economical problem. That is why I am saying it is a neoliberal concept.
SH: Since "normal life" restarted, it seems like society acts like the lockdown and the uncertainty of the pandemic never happened. What do you think about that?
MB: People were definitely marked by this experience. It was a traumatic experience for some, an interesting experience for others - it was an experience. Acting like we left this experience behind us is a façade. Everyone still remembers in detail where they were and what they were doing when the first lockdown was announced.
Everything that we lived - deprivation of liberty and questioning of certain things in our daily lives - has left a mark. We have lived a collective experience. Now we are all sent back to our little individual experiences. But I think something of collective nature was affected by this experience.
SH: What are some things we should take with us from this whole experience?
I think we have to be aware that our liberty can be taken away in a second. The worst is possible, but at the same time we have to be optimistic and pay attention to the new solidarities that arise from such events. I personally saw it when I was in the hospital the first two weeks of the lockdown. It was a catastrophe. But there were people that were coming to the hospital with masks or even with breakfast. In such a complicated time, there is solidarity.
SH: According to you, what are the best ways of dealing with uncertainty, especially as a young adult?
MB: You shouldn't adapt to situations that are presented as unchangeable. We can change things, but collectively. We can also change things at an individual level, but especially at a collective level.
I think people should be more revolted against injustices they see, not adapt and say that this is the way it is. No, nothing is just like that. Everything is a socio-political construction.
For example, if we take climate change - it could be different, if we acted collectively. We saw it during the pandemic. We can stop everything from one day to another.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity
________________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bellahsen is a psychiatrist and an author. He works with the University Bureau of Psychological Aid in Paris. In his book "Mental Health, towards a happiness under control" (La santé mentale, vers un bonheur sous contrôle) he describes mental health as a neoliberal concept. We asked him some questions about this concept in the context of the COVID 19 pandemic.
Comments