Reflecting upon my essay, I feel that I've given an accurate account of "the chemical imbalance theory" and how and why it remains the popular laymen's understanding of the neuroscience involved with depression. I'm just not sure I focused enough on the rhetoric within the debate. Carried away by the different studies of depression, I became lost as to how to approach the issue without detailed explanation.
Larger philosophical terms from some of the works read and discussed in class went out the window as I tried to give a precise understanding of the biochemical treatment of an increasingly common disorder.
I focused on the antidepressants specifically but the larger issue seems to be the growing numbers of people diagnosed as clinically depressed. Is Depression itself a popular label used to keep people feeling "imbalanced" or sick, so they won't question their status within a capitalist society? If symptoms of depression are misplaced anger over loss, according to Freud, then aren't we just encouraging a sad complacency with our lot in life by accepting the sadness comes from within us? This question is one I wish I had explored in my paper.
Larger philosophical terms from some of the works read and discussed in class went out the window as I tried to give a precise understanding of the biochemical treatment of an increasingly common disorder.
I focused on the antidepressants specifically but the larger issue seems to be the growing numbers of people diagnosed as clinically depressed. Is Depression itself a popular label used to keep people feeling "imbalanced" or sick, so they won't question their status within a capitalist society? If symptoms of depression are misplaced anger over loss, according to Freud, then aren't we just encouraging a sad complacency with our lot in life by accepting the sadness comes from within us? This question is one I wish I had explored in my paper.