Psychedelics: The Mirage of a Mental Health Revolution?

The intertwining of the psychedelics movement with neoliberalism may undermine its potential as a mental health solution.

10
3031

Psychedelics, those mind-altering substances often touted as the vanguard in treating mental health challenges, are not the panacea they’ve been portrayed as, according to a new study. Instead, they may be propping up the very societal structures that contribute to widespread mental distress.

The research, led by James Davies, Brian A. Pace, and Neşe Devenot and published in the Journal of Psychedelic Studies, explores how the burgeoning field of psychedelic-assisted therapy (P-AT) is entangled with the neoliberal paradigms that underpin much of psychiatric research and medical practice.

For years, advocates of psychedelic medicine have positioned these substances as revolutionary — a silver bullet that would free individuals from debilitating mental ruts. But, the researchers argue the commercial industry built around psychedelics is reproducing the profit-driven approaches that have previously led to questionable clinical outcomes in psychiatric medications like SSRIs.

“We present evidence that the liberatory rhetoric of psychedelic medicalization promotes neoliberal, individualised treatments for distress, which distracts from collective efforts to address root causes of suffering through systemic change.,” the authors write. They further illustrated how the discourse around psychedelic medicalization “subjects socially-determined distress to psychotropic intervention through mechanisms such as depoliticization, commodification, and de-collectivization.”

Psilocybin, the dominant compound found in psychoactive fungi, can be therapeutic for psychic suffering and soothing symptoms of depression and other mental illnesses. Historically, these healing experiences have been found when ‘tripping’ or using psilocybin recreationally. However, in the past decade, pharmaceutical companies have begun researching how psychedelic substances or Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy (P-AT) can be used in controlled mental health settings.

In their article, Davies and his co-authors warn that the psychedelic pharmaceutical industry is participating in the same neoliberal, for-profit practices that have contributed to the poor clinical outcomes that other individualized treatments for mental illness like SSRIs and mood stabilizers.

The authors, from the UK and the United States, write:

“This current paper contends that psychedelics are now being framed by key financial and political actors as harbingers of a meaningful (and often utopian) clinical and social revolution, despite every indication that they will be operationalized in ways that discourage material change. On the contrary, we assert that at a structural level, their rise threatens to leverage—and so be enabled by—the very mechanisms that have facilitated the dominance of medicalized meanings and psycho-pharmaceutical interventions over the past four decades. In this sense, we are interested in the vectors of collusion between neoliberalism and the mental health sector as they play out in the rise of the psychedelic movement.”

The paper demonstrates that neoliberalism individualizes mental distress in a way that cannot meaningfully address the social determinants of mental health: inequality, ecological collapse, and exploitation. First, the authors outline the rise of medicalization. They then describe the process of depoliticization, productivization and pathologization, commodification, and then de-collectivization.

Drawing from an extensive body of research linking mental health treatments to neoliberal practice, the authors challenge the notion that psychedelics can solve systemic issues like political violence, structural oppression, and social injustice. Simply put, individual interventions can’t fix collective problems.

The authors highlight how the medicalization of mental health aligns with the values of late capitalism and neoliberalism.

“…since the 1980s, socially determined distress has become increasingly liable to psychiatric framing and—in turn—psychotropic intervention. While medicalization constitutes the central mechanism for transitioning adverse experience onto the ground of medical heuristics and management, it has also enabled the operation of germane and somewhat intersecting mechanisms such as depoliticization, productivisation, pathologization, commodification, and de-collectivization…further render medicalizing practice and discourse consistent with the key aims and values of late capitalism.”

Advocates for P-AT often appeal to medical authorities by writing about P-AT interventions in the way mood stabilizers and antidepressants are typically written about—as scalable, replicable, standardized, and, most importantly, profitable.

This appeal, however, necessarily situates P-AT alongside other psychotropic medications, medicalizing mental illness further and depoliticizing it. Neoliberalism affects different communities in the world differently. Psychedelic therapies, the authors argue, inherently depoliticize mental distress by framing suffering not as something that is caused by social factors and is instead an individual failure—an individual failure that is up to the individual to fix. Unfortunately, this depoliticization is used to ‘hype’ psychedelic therapies to quickly improve mental health issues rather than address the systems causing them.

COVID is a good example:

“Similarly, we see P-AT floated as an ideal treatment for individuals experiencing system-wide, pandemic-related depression, anxiety, PTSD, and substance use disorders while both government and industry push for an end to work-from-home and other safety measures that have been shown to mitigate COVID impacts.”

The push to remedy the mental distress of COVID was not to elevate distress for distress’s sake. Instead, it was to get them back to work as soon as possible. Recent P-AT hype implies that not wanting to work is pathological. And that being as innovative and as productive as possible is best.

Unfortunately, “…enthusiastic business press pieces have pondered the trend of entrepreneurs and tech workers using psychedelics as catalysts for innovation in business and technology…much of this exploration has occurred in Silicon Valley, which has helped elevate such psychedelic instrumentalization by raising the profile of psychedelics in a context of start-ups and venture capital funders.”

Psychedelics are inherently tied not only to productivity and pathology, just like SSRIs, but are also like common psychotropic medications insofar as they make human suffering into a “vibrant market opportunity.” The global market of psychopharmaceuticals is valued at over 25 billion, and psychedelic interventions are unlikely to stray from this norm so long as mental distress is treated individually and social suffering is made a personal problem; collective action to address social inequity is unlikely.

The authors conclude:

“The belief that P-AT represents a paradigm shift in mental health does not make it so. Political violence, structural oppression, workplace exploitation, social isolation, inequality, social injustice, ecological collapse, and climate catastrophe are significant social and environmental determinants of distress that individual solutions cannot fix. If P-AT is deployed into the existing neoliberal mental health paradigm, mental distress will continue to be framed as a problem of mindset, ineffective coping, and inadequate resilience.”

This is not the first time scholars have sounded the alarm and warned the public to be cautious around P-AT. Past studies have also highlighted significant threats to the validity of psychedelic research, and others have sought to point out the hidden harms of the so-called psychedelic renaissance.

The study serves as a stark reminder to temper expectations around the transformative powers of psychedelics and to remain wary of how commercial interests might influence therapeutic applications. As the psychedelics movement continues its ascent into the mainstream, researchers, and advocates must grapple with its place in the broader socio-political landscape and the potential consequences of intertwining healing with profit.

 

****

Davies, J., Pace, B. A., & Devenot, N. (2023). Beyond the psychedelic hype: Exploring the persistence of the neoliberal paradigm. Journal of Psychedelic Studies. (Link)

10 COMMENTS

  1. What I find interesting about this, is that none of these “modern” psychedelic guys have seem to have read Hoffer and Osmond’s work, The Hallucinogens, written in 1967, which discusses the work they did using psychedelic therapy in treating alcoholism, which discusses contraindications to “therapeutic” use of theses substances in some detail.

    Report comment

  2. This statement is completely misleading: “Psilocybin, the dominant compound found in psychoactive fungi, can be therapeutic for psychic suffering and soothing symptoms of depression and other mental illnesses.”

    First, I’d like to see proof of that. But more important the statement leaves out the tremendous negative effect psychedelics can have, including panic, psychosis, confusion and paranoia

    And of course, commercialization of psychedelics will be for profit only. We don’t need research to know that. Furthermore, maybe a few radicals have seen psychedelics as a panacea and revolutionary. I doubt anyone else has.

    Report comment

      • Good point…. However the essence of most psychedelics is that one 2 or 3 uses is sufficient…. Not a profitable drug. Also, microdosing is also a short term venture at 6-12 months max…..
        And the “radically enlightened underground” is part of what is showing psychedelics to be collective healing movements. Thanks

        Report comment

    • Again it can not be the same as big pharma’s profiting from long term use of drugs….. psychedelics do their work, with set and setting, with about 70% of people who try them, in a very short time. Why do you think they are still illegal…. Can you say: big pharma lobby?!!

      Report comment

      • IMO, it was made illegal for the same reason cannabis got a new round of demonizing in the 60s: it made it easy to arrest anti-war activists and other rabble-rousers.

        Big Pharma (Sandoz) was pretty enthusiastic about trying to find commercial uses for “Delysid” or whatever the trade name for LSD-25 was.

        Report comment

  3. Clearly an exaggeration of certain inevitable cons of the psychedelic emergence. Unfortunately this article is doing what it accuses psychedelic proponents of… stating that it is individualistic, big pharma benefiting, pathologizing, etc without any evidence or examples.
    Please don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Because this baby helps people feel deeply connected to humanity which fosters collective engagement. And psychiatry is fighting against more widespread use of psychedelics BECAUSE IT IS NOT A GOOD PROFITABLE PRODUCT!!
    It is also unfortunate that the author does not acknowledge the growing research that shows how psychedelics is so much more successful than big pharma drug trials.
    How rediculous to say that it does not promote social change and ecological action. Even after close to a thousand studies on the therapeutic benefits of LSD in the 60’s, was criminalized BECAUSE it promoted free thinking and social activism. A critique of the movement is necessary of course, but the exaggerated statements and conclusions in this article are way off the mark.

    Report comment

    • I think the article conflates the capitalists trying to make a buck off psychedelics with psychedelics themselves and associated therapies.

      Similar criticism has been leveled at misuse of insight techniques as mere amelioration of people’s suffering, with great validity, I think. But misuse isn’t the same as productive use.

      I think you could do a similar analysis of a great many psychological techniques, considering the fact industrial/workplace psychology exists at all.

      Report comment

LEAVE A REPLY