In 2024, young people report more mental health problems than ever before. Both the number of diagnoses and the proportion reporting mental health problems are increasing. A recent study showed that the proportion with problematic levels of mental health problems in Norway has increased by approximately ten percentage points in the period from 1992–2020. Similar tendencies are found in most Western countries. How to interpret these statistics is the subject of intense debate both among professionals and around the dinner table. In his book “The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness”, the American social psychologist Jonathan Haidt concludes that we live in an ongoing epidemic of mental illness among young people, which is caused by the destructive power of social media. Haidt’s main argument is the striking connection between ever-increasing mental health problems and increased use of social media. According to Haidt, there are no other mechanisms that can explain why the young people have become so mentally ill, but this conclusion is far from uncontroversial. In his critical review of the book, he points out something that every university student is served from day one: Correlations do not necessarily mean causation. It may be that these two societal trends occur at the same time, but without one being the cause of the other. There is also a more fundamental debate taking place, namely whether statistics on young people’s mental health can be trusted at all. If the young have replaced the term horror with anxiety and sad with depressed, then the numbers must be interpreted accordingly. The Danish psychologist Svend Brinkmann claims that we live in a diagnostic culture, where avoidable personal suffering is understood as mental illness. The therapeutic culture has replaced the traditional theological perspectives and class struggle understandings. Where previously personal suffering was understood as part of the struggle of good against evil or as a consequence of social oppression, suffering is now understood within a diagnostic framework. The debate is parallel to that encountered when distinguishing between the mentally ill and the healthy. Mental disorders are characterized by both a subjective and an objective element. The subjective element is an experience of suffering, for example anxiety or feelings of depression. The subjective dimension is of course important when defining mental disorders, but also fundamentally problematic for researchers. In the same way that you don’t know whether the color red is experienced the same from person to person, you don’t know whether a feeling of depression is comparable. The objective dimension is about making it difficult to carry out life’s tasks. This dimension provides a firm point of reference when interpreting growing numbers of mental illness. Since most mental disorders are by definition linked to difficulties in daily life, the consequences of mental disorders can shed light on the debate. In a recently published study, we have investigated the connection between anxiety, depression and ADHD, and how these are linked to the school results of Norwegian young people. In line with a drastic increase in diagnoses, we see that the school-related negative correlation declines over time. Put to the fore: In 2006, there were few with these diagnoses, and those who had diagnoses often did poorly at school. In contrast, there were many with the diagnoses in 2019, but those with a diagnosis did not do so badly at school. When it comes to serious mental disorders, such as schizophrenia, we see no corresponding increase in the number of diagnoses, nor any change in relation to school results. We interpret this as the diagnoses are in motion. More focus on mental health and increased transparency means that more people are diagnosed, without this being a sign of an increase in mental disorders per se. Then the next question is whether this is the way we want to go. Is it right that young people get diagnostic labels as a consequence of society wanting to help them? Brinkmann fears that the one-sided diagnostic self-understanding creates disempowerment because the young are unable to see how their condition is affected by political and ideological conditions. On the other hand, there are many young people who benefit from both special education and Ritalin, made available via PPT and BUP. On the other hand, none of the municipalities or government departments can initiate a social revolution. Published 25.06.2024, at 11.31
ttn-69
Diagnoses in change – Speech
