On Social Anaesthesia

I’ve long been worried about the trend towards mindfulness and similar “talking therapies”, so it was interesting to see many of my doubts echoed in an article, The Mindfulness Conspiracy by Ronald Purser, published in the Guardian back in June.

It is sold as a force that can help us cope with the ravages of capitalism, but with its inward focus, mindful meditation may be the enemy of activism.

Although the article is a long read (and American), for once I’ll refrain from providing edited snippets. However it did help me to crystallise why it is I find such therapies worrying. I’ll confine myself to my thoughts.

I’ve not only been concerned about mindfulness – and I come from having had some recent exposure to “mindfulness therapy”. I’m also concerned at the efficaciousness of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and indeed the new NHS trend for “social prescribing”.

Social prescribing CBT and mindfulness seem to me to be palliatives aimed at enabling people to cope internally and continue to fully participate in the greed economy. They are essentially “social anaesthesia”, to use Purser’s term. They do not help society as a whole sort out its fundamental ethical problems which give rise to the inability to cope in the first place. And that is the thrust of Purser’s article.

But I see the problem as deeper rooted, and emanating from the very causes which create the problems, the greed economy. Because these (mindfulness, CBT, social prescribing) are seen as “essential curses” they are peddled by the medical profession, and others, to consumers (aka. patients) in varying degrees of coercion and bullying. It’s the “we know what’s good for you; your views, desires and wishes don’t matter” attitude. Indeed the same is true of many medical interventions: eat well, exercise more, have bariatric surgery, etc. “Don’t think about it, just do it.”

That’s not to say that all of these aren’t useful interventions for some people, but if they are going to be truly effective they have to be done with the willing cooperation of the patient who understands what the “remedy” is doing and can make a truly informed decision. Only the patient can make that decision, based on the information they have, which includes their mental state and consideration of their quality of life – something the medical profession all too often lose sight of. The patient has to make the best decision they can, with the information they have, at the time; none of us deliberately sets out to make the wrong decision.

Mindfulness and CBT don’t work for me. Nevertheless they can be tremendously useful in allowing some people to calm their mental state and begin to cope with what’s happening around them. But they stop there. They don’t go on to help people understand the underlying problems of broken capitalism and the greed economy, let alone make them able to do something about it by addressing personal morals and understanding, nor society’s ethics. People are made once more into (barely?) functioning consumers, thus perpetuating the underlying problems.

As Purser says, in not quite so many words, mindfulness is a con. Especially compared with true Eastern meditation practices which are a way of life aimed at the individual’s inner self-understanding, realisation and morals; and are not “instant fixes”.

Or to put it another way, in a secular context:
Mindfulness = quickly quieting the mind to cope with society
Meditation = existing in society while deepening the mind over years.

It’s something I have long thought but never before been able to crystallise in my mind.