Therapy: The Cunning Opiate

by Chōkōdō Shujin

Chōkōdō Shujin explores how modern therapy has fostered a culture of dependency, leading to the rise of domineering women and emasculated men.

Increasingly, therapy is viewed as the only legitimate solution to the various dilemmas that confront the modern psyche, from the most banal to the genuinely vexing. With this, small indignities are unduly magnified, and what would have been deemed unworthy of complaint a century ago is now regarded as an insurmountable “trauma” to be endlessly reflected upon — although the modern parlance for this is, and I say this sardonically, “worked through.” The “work,” however, rarely ceases. Here, we see a world of contrived tragedies.

Mundane life events are relentlessly analyzed and constantly relived atop the proverbial therapist’s couch, although it should be noted that these therapists are rarely Freudian psychiatrists, and the populace, artificially sensitized, has thus become increasingly incapable of navigating the vicissitudes of life that their parents and grandparents understood as the natural course of human events. Introspection can be a beautiful thing; indeed, it can be a glorious and sublime thing. It is introspection, after all, that brings forth philosophy and art. There is no poet who stands outside of the gates of introspection. But few among us are philosophers and artists.

It is a great irony that in an era in which the powers of raw intellect are so thoroughly detested, therapy has proliferated, becoming both a status symbol and an opiate of the masses. One could say it has become weaponized. There is no doubt that engaging in these hours of self-reflection — shall I say navel-gazing? — allows for the unremarkable to feel a sense of superiority. Perhaps this phenomenon is also the result of an increasingly atomized society. There are any number of explanations, but the simplest one may very well be that therapy has simply become fashionable, especially among liberal young women and the men who seek their approval, if not their attention. It is the marker of a certain social class and income status. Few have any desire to deviate from the norms of their respective groups. To do so would be tantamount to social suicide for many of these people, and so it would be inconceivable for them to eschew therapy, or even to merely question its purported benefits.

There is a blind and misguided assumption that therapy is the solution to their unhappiness. Moreover, it is far less taxing to simply tell someone to see a therapist than to attempt to find any sort of common ground; in another perverse irony, those who extoll the virtues of therapy often seem to be the least capable of empathy. Differences in opinion and temperament, too, have become pathologized. Therapy has become a weapon employed by the weak to disgrace and vilify the strong. I would make the argument that it is those who realize that they have no need for therapy who are truly introspective. The remarkable popularity of therapy seems to be the result of good marketing. To visit a therapist is to be seen as thoughtful, as enlightened; using this logic, to refuse therapy is to lead an unexamined life. However, the reverse is often true. I have no interest in statistics for their own sake, but I would wager that those who actively avoid therapy are more likely to have actually read the theories of Freud and Jung, whether they support such theories or not. Modern therapists are rarely trained in psychoanalysis. One curious about the mechanisms of his own mind would benefit far more greatly from reading philosophical texts at his leisure. Philosophy serves to steel the mind, rather than to coddle it.

It seems that many impressionable people have become dependent on therapy, unable to make sense of their various conflicting thoughts and emotions without the aid of a “caring” third party who gives the appearance of being impartial. Of course, therapists are well-compensated for this work, and as such they have a financial incentive to foster such dependence, but this is a digression. Those who keep regular appointments with therapists seem satisfied enough with this arrangement, and moreover, therapy is often covered by medical insurance. What is interesting here is that most of those who regularly seek therapy have no specific problems to be resolved, only vague insecurities to discuss. Their reasons are invariably rather nebulous, and it is as though they pursue therapy for its own sake. When put into this context, the therapist takes on the role of confessor, or confidante, and with this, we return to the problem of the isolation of the modern individual. I will refrain from speculation as to women’s rationale for visiting therapists; I will only say that it seems to be a form of external validation combined with a desire for social status, and leave it at that. It is the psychology of men who pursue therapy that is of greater interest to me.

While organizations and social clubs for women continue to proliferate — indeed, some of these are arrogantly described as “women-only spaces” — similar associations for men are discouraged, if not outright banned. Female camaraderie is called “sisterhood,” and deemed necessary. In modern society, it is seen as healthy and essential for women to gather and offer support to each other, while men are expected to do without such institutions. Meanwhile, men who see this for what it is and seek to distance themselves from these values that place them in a subordinate position are routinely derided, and dismissed as loners or worse. Perhaps this has contributed to the rise of men, especially young men, attending therapy sessions. Young men need some sort of outlet, as it were, and this is the sole outlet they find.

Therapy, however, is most often a poor solution to companionship, as most modern therapists, little more than counselors, espouse the feminine values that deprive men of masculine camaraderie in the first place. For many modern men, therapy has replaced masculine camaraderie entirely, and this has contributed to the feminization of culture, perhaps irrevocably. One could describe this as a sanitization of reality. Emotions are expressed in a tidy and controlled manner, reduced to abstraction while also being stripped of any deeper meaning, despite promises of the opposite. Phrases such as “assert your needs” have replaced any sort of decisive action, and men who would not otherwise be so passive are taught to be docile — that is, to be unmasculine. Masculinity, itself, is perceived as threatening in such an atmosphere. Such men are hardly participants in their own lives. Normal human interactions are circumvented, and any trace of passion is savagely curtailed. Men are chastised for telling their wives or lovers “no”; through therapy, they are instead instructed to “assert your needs” while simultaneously validating the emotional reactions of the women in their lives, however irrational or hysterical they may be. It is noteworthy that “hysteria” is no longer considered to be a valid diagnosis, allegedly a form of sexism, while normal male behavior is branded as “toxic.” Traditionally masculine traits such as ambition, competition, and stoicism are presently categorized in the DSM as symptoms of mental illness. It is also interesting to note that women who demonstrate ambition or competitiveness, these traits are not pathologized, but lauded. Who among us does not recall that unfortunate period when the phrase “nasty woman” was waved as a banner of pride among liberal young women?

Aggressive traits are prized when displayed by women and condemned when displayed by men. Furthermore, men who take issue with overly aggressive women are derided as weak, unable to handle “strong women,” and relegated to the status of misogynist relics. In therapy, these men would be told to reassess their views on women, and they would be reminded of their “male privilege” — in therapy, the equivalent of original sin. Marxist language is often used in such exchanges, with sex being substituted for class. Men are instructed to suppress their normal, healthy emotional reactions, with the result being an unnaturally structured social order. It is an artificial society. Of course, it is highly improbable that individual therapists have such grand designs in mind when they give men such advice, but on a collective scale, this has been effective in redistributing the power dynamics of daily life and interactions. Acceptable social discourse has been altered through the use of therapeutic language.

It is, ironically, those who claim that words — or silence, depending on the day — constitute violence are the ones who have so thoroughly weaponized language in order to reshape society according to the parameters they deem not only acceptable but necessary. Dare I say that language has been colonized? Out of what is perhaps a perversion of the concept of chivalry, men have accepted these unprecedented paradigm shifts with little resistance. At its purest, chivalry is a noble and admirable thing. In a properly ordered society, chivalry is to be encouraged. But the Amazon has no need for chivalry, and indeed chivalry can be a detrimental thing in a society that has been reconstituted according to the preferences of women. It is entirely natural for men to have an instinct to defend and be courteous to those who are physically weaker than them. But modern women occupy a position of privilege in society, if I may use their language, and there is no need to defend those who claim to have cast off the shackles of tradition. This is how modern man falls prey to manipulation: the natural instinct to protect what was traditionally feminine and graceful is taken advantage of by cunning opportunists. A therapist would never tell such a man that he is being manipulated — no, a therapist would commend him for being “an understanding partner.”

Such behavior in men is not sensitivity, as is commonly believed, but weakness of character, indicative of a lack of willpower. I would even go so far as to call it cowardice. These men refuse to assert themselves as men lest they be accused of the dreaded “sexism,” and the women in their lives know they are too cowed to reprimand them on even the smallest issue. This is the result of Pavlovian conditioning. Men capitulate and are seen as “good” — that is, not sexist — and women are appeased and thus emboldened, encouraged to continue with their blatantly domineering behavior. Therapists praise domineering women for defying stereotypes and “asserting their needs,” while docile men are praised for encouraging their wives to occupy the dominant position in their relationships. This is nothing if not social conditioning, even if it is inadvertent. It is yet another irony, then, that all of those involved lack the introspection to realize that they have been thoroughly manipulated, and the conclusions to which they have been led are not their own, but those of a morally therapeutic society. Such a society would be impossible to satirize.