I find it utterly amazing that a man who has adopted Scientology as his main "ism" in life would turn around and call Psychiatry a "pseudo science". If he was well intentioned and disavowed the term "chemical imbalance" for the purpose of providing an alternative perspective to people suffering from Depression, I would not be writing this article. He was not, however. He uses the term "Chemical imbalance" to base his disbelief in the validity of depression. He uses this term because it's the modern jargon, not because of some deep understanding he possesses of the neurological aspect of the brain or a vast understanding of the human psyche.
Cruise meant his comments with the utmost contempt for people seeking help outside of the realm of Scientology. He could have easily attacked meditation or yoga or any other method that people use to help deal with depression with the disdain he attacked psychiatry. Cruise was not attacking psychiatry, he was pushing his own agenda. Psychiatry is just the low hanging fruit.
Cruise said he has "studied the history of psychiatry". For this to be true, he would have known that the history of psychiatry is far from being about "chemical imbalance". The history of psychiatry has been about techniques to help people live within a very difficult society. Psychiatry has gone from the psychoanalytic techniques of Freud, subsequently to the cultal followers and misinterpreters of his system, to a more pragmatic "solution centered approach". It has only been in the latest epoch of psychiatry that has been so dedicated to "biological psychiatry".
Cruise did not realize that he chose a term that that is a hotbed of controversy in the psychiatric world. The term "chemical imbalance" is a highly disputed term - not whether it exists or not, but whether it is really applicable to a person. From certain philosophical angles "imbalance" may exist, but I can't help but wonder what it really means. Aside from his highly inappropriate attacks on a persons choice of treatment, Cruise uses a term which for all intents and purposes is worthless in describing a human being.
As much as we like to flatter ourselves as the supreme ruler of this planet, we are merely a neatly packaged collection of chemicals and electrical impulses. - Under these circumstances it is curious as to what it means to say that a person has an imbalance. When a person is depressed, the common expression is that a he or she has an "imbalance". When a person is happy and enjoying life, are they "in balance"? If they are in balance when they are happy, is this because we are "supposed" to be happy? If a person is concentrating on a complex problem and not showing any particular emotion at the moment are they in balance or out of balance? It's normal for a persons mood to shift quite a bit during the course of a day. Does this imply we go in and out of balance every day?
It seems as if when we are behaving as society deems that we should then we are in balance, if we are not then we are out of balance. It all sounds a bit too subjective to me to build a scientific concept on.
An analogy I like to give is in my field of expertise, software development. As you would expect, I have fought with many software bugs and issues over the years. The software equivalant of the chemical imbalance diagnosis would be to say that the bits and bytes of the computer's memory is not correct, and therefore the program is not functioning as it should. I would be laughed out of town should i go back to a client with a comment like that.
Someone recently told me that "there is a biological element to depression". He is absolutely right, there is. There is also a biological element to eating, sleeping, walking and talking. In fact, having "biological elements" is the definition of being a living being.
I am just constantly amazed at people who try to distinguish between "situational depression" and "chemical depression". I assume by chemical depression they are trying to describe a situation where depression comes over a person with no connection to events in the persons life. Very often people are not sure of what's going on inside their own heads to cause their episodes. This of course is not the same as saying that there is no cause. Team this person up with a biological psychiatrist who has no training or desire to help a person from a cognitive angle and you have a self fulfilling prophesy of "chemical imbalance". People don't believe things that they hear, they hear things that they believe. This is apparently as true for Biological Psychiatrists as it is for us common men.
If depression is due to a "biological element" caused by a "chemical imbalance" that comes about with no rhyme or reason then how do we explain the increased reports of anxiety/depression after 9/11? How do we explain what our troops in Iraq are going through? How do we describe what happened to our soldiers in Vietnam? Depression is a natural reaction to a stressful or devastating situation.
Everything has its time and place in this world, and anti-depressants are no exception. One doesn't take anti-depressants because of chemical imbalance, they are taken to alleviate symptoms to a large enough degree that the underlying problem can be dealt with. Anti-depressants are not the panacea that the drug companies make them out to be nor are they the "evil substance" that Cruise describes them as. They are a tool to help people during bad times.
Is it wrong to take meds? No, its not. Is it right to take meds? No, Its not. Why do I say that? Because its an issue that transcends the moral realm of wrong or right, its a personal decision.
Mr. Cruise, I watched the tape of your rants and raves - I see from your anger and rage how much happiness scientology has brought you - keep up the good work. Take my advise and stick to acting - at least you found something you can achieve mediocrity with.
