- This topic has 7 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated April 23, 2022 at 8:45 am by .
-
Topic
-
I’m currently trying to bridge together insights from neuropsychoanalysis and CasP. It’s a project for a paper I’m embarking on and I don’t know where it might lead to, although I have some key departing points.
Some premises:
1)With neuropsychoanalysis I mean the (relatively) recent field of studies which bridges together psychoanalytical theory and findings from the neurosciences. In particular, I’m focusing on the dopaminergic system (or ‘SEEKING’ system, to use Jaak Panksepp’s parlance, a neuroscientist) which, in humans as well as in mammals, is responsible for eliciting “wanting” behaviors (it is “wanting” in its most general meaning; Panksepp defines it as a general non-specific will or urge which is only secondarily directed towards specific goals/objects). The SEEKING system’s hypo activation is linked with depression, whilst hyper activation to paranoia and schizophrenia.
2) The idea came to my mind after reading, not so long ago, Alain Ehrenberg’s book The Mechanics of Passions: Brain, Behaviour, and Society. At one point he reminds that, on the 31st of August, 2015, Thomas Insel, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health – the major American public investor on research in «behavior health» – claimed that «In the future, when we will think about the private sector in mental health research, we will think about Apple and Ibm instead of Lilly and Pfizer (pg. 242 of the Italian edition). Ehrenberg further elaborates on this by reminding the reader that there’s already an ongoing effort to «digitalize affective data» (so called “affective computing“). This is for him linked to the corporate utopia of a global neural web (ibid.) in which these data would help predict extreme behaviors (harmful or socially dangerous, à-la Minority Report) or help creating pro-social behavior in the workplace for those who are lacking social skills.
3) From a CasP perspective, I guess we could already envisage these big corporations yearning after this new “digital gold” which are “affective data”. But there’s also a simple, bio-social health issue which might be raised here: the problem with definitions of what constitute mental illness. The problem is that, according to mainstream instruments like the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders), disorders are always changing and, for this reason, they keep compulsively publishing updated versions of the DSM in order to keep up with that.
4) Hence one of the problems I would like to tackle: the relation between point ‘1’ (neuropsychoanalysis) and point ‘2’ and ‘3’. Being ‘happy’ or ‘mentally healthy’ is a thing, being happy or mentally healthy because big corporations know that “happy” employees are more productive (or less prone to question authority) in the workplace is completely another thing. Moreover, all this raises questions that remind me of the famous paper by Marglin ‘What do bosses do?’ in which he demonstrates how technological developments (machines) in the early stages of capitalism were a means to better control people, and not to raise productivity. Maybe we could make a similar case for big corporations’ will to harness our ‘SEEKING’ systems?
These are just suggestions, of course, but maybe Jonathan, Shimshon and all you guys could help me! I welcome anything from further reflections on this topic to bibliographical suggestions!
-
Replies
-
-
Hi Yuri, I think this is a fascinating angle from which to approach the subject.
1) on the subject of “seeking” (wanting) and the links to depression, I would like to recommend the work of Social Neuroscientist, Dr John T. Caccioppo, who wrote the book “Loneliness: Human Nature and the need for Social Connection” in which he describes the physical and social effects of Social Isolation, the fear of social ostracism, and loneliness. I think there could be some invaluable links to the work you’re already looking at.
2) Some additional sources on the role of tech in mental and physical health, here, here, and here. there’s a ton more stuff, these are just the articles I read most recently and have on hand.
3 & 4) The Neuroscientific insights into affective data, and how workplaces can be manipulated, would certainly have huge ramifications for the future direction of CasP research. Not only for companies wishing to increase productivity with a “Happy” workforce, but also in terms of companies seeking to increase their differential breadth, or companies seeking to influence public and investor opinion when practicing hype on their valuations.
In addition to this, it might be useful to note the neoclassical, liberal, and neoliberal tendency to view Happiness as synonymous with Utility (in the economic sense) and that by maximizing Happiness (Utility) all parties are supposed to profit. This is clearly untrue, and I think CasP provides a solid understanding of WHY it is untrue.Looking forward to seeing your work progress and to reading your final output.
-
Dear Pieter,
First of all, thank you so much for the material you shared. The papers are indeed quite helpful, and they touch upon some key aspects that I would like to explore.
Also, the aspect you pinpoint about the liberal equation of utility as an index of happiness goes straight to one of the main arguments that need to be developed.
Gramsci already noted in his notebook reflections on Fordism that capitalists were implementing sociological research on the field in order to better control the level of output of the workforce. They literally payed empirical sociologists to investigate how laborers would spend their leisure time. They would be very attentive to things such as alcohol consuming and sexual habits. One key argument was that night-time sexual entertainment (i.e. prostitution) would impair the laborer’s energy the morning after.
But when it comes to dominant capital, and given the technologic-logistical means they can implement nowadays, we can definitely imagine big corporations actively trying to shape those very habits.
I’ll keep you and everyone posted on my progress. In any case, I would like to tackle both aspects of the problem: affective technologies used to exercise power and the role of technology in the overall rise in mental illnesses and disorders. One curious thing would be to explore how this apparently contradicting forces are actually interacting with each other.
-
-
4) Hence one of the problems I would like to tackle: the relation between point ‘1’ (neuropsychoanalysis) and point ‘2’ and ‘3’. Being ‘happy’ or ‘mentally healthy’ is a thing, being happy or mentally healthy because big corporations know that “happy” employees are more productive (or less prone to question authority) in the workplace is completely another thing. Moreover, all this raises questions that remind me of the famous paper by Marglin ‘What do bosses do?’ in which he demonstrates how technological developments (machines) in the early stages of capitalism were a means to better control people, and not to raise productivity. Maybe we could make a similar case for big corporations’ will to harness our ‘SEEKING’ systems?
CasP research typically comprises two steps: (1) a qualitative hypothesis that identifies a specific power process, examines its evolution and reasons its underpinnings; and (2) a quantitative analysis that demonstrates how this power process appears as systematic differential accumulation.
The second step is as important as the first and tends to be much harder.
-
-
In addition to this, it might be useful to note the neoclassical, liberal, and neoliberal tendency to view Happiness as synonymous with Utility (in the economic sense) and that by maximizing Happiness (Utility) all parties are supposed to profit. This is clearly untrue, and I think CasP provides a solid understanding of WHY it is untrue.
The utilitarianism of Bentham, Mill et al. is certainly the dominant strain of liberalism (and neoliberalism) and drove development of neoclassical economics. My understanding, however, is that utilitarianism focuses on the happiness/utility of society as a whole, not individually. The Benthams of the world could care less about the distribution of happiness/utility, all that matters is maximizing utility in the aggregate.
We can see this attitude reflected in many econometrics, especially GDP, as well as in the famous “Coase Theorem,” which animates the Law and Economics movement. If increasing the wealth of society as a whole means you lose your property, so be it. The irony is that the Coase Theorem vitiates the regime of private property rights on which liberalism/capitalism rests as it would always assign ownership of a property to the person who could maximize the economic value of that property.
-
Yuri,
I think it would be a lot easier to find examples of companies using affective data to sabotage the mental health of their customers than it would be to find examples of them using such data to increase the mental health of their workers.
Consider, for example, the role the “algorithm” of platforms such as Facebook plays in radicalizing people to join any number of different fringe groups/movements, e.g., QAnon. There should be traffic data that can be analyzed to determine whether content-based sabotage increases capitalization of companies that use such algorithms in their business. Can it be shown that Facebook profits from trafficking in disinformation that fractures society?
It is also worth recognizing that even the ancients were aware (and took advantage) of the dopaminergic system of the masses, even though they did not know what to call it (think of Plato’s Noble Lie). Edward Bernays, author of the 1928 book Propaganda, was a pioneer in modern public relations (including targeted marketing/advertising), which is still the foundation of advertising, whether or not affective data is used for targeting purposes. Whether using affective data to target advertising is more effective than prior techniques (e.g., mass mailing) in driving revenue growth is something that should be capable of quantitative analysis.
Some links related to the Facebook whistleblower:
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043377310/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-congress
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-health-misinformation
-
Dear Scott,
Yes, perhaps you’re right. It looks easier to investigate capital-to-customer sabotage. The other possibility (capital-to-employees) is also worth exploring but, of course, I have to chose the angle from which to explore these issues one thing at a time.
Thank you for those references. They are incredibly helpful for me at this stage!
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.