Among American men aged 35–64, the suicide rate increased 27.3 percent from 1999 to 2010; and among American women aged 35-64, the suicide rate increased 31.5 percent. Among men, the greatest increases were in those aged 50–54 years old (49.4 percent increase) and those aged 55–59 (a 47.8 percent increase). Among women, suicide rates increased with age, and the largest percentage increase in suicide rate was observed among those aged 60–64 years, a 59.7 percent increase for this group of women.

The suicide rate of those grouped as “whites” increased 40.4 percent from 1999 to 2010, the second highest increase among ethnic/racial groups. The highest increase among ethnic/racial groups was for “American Indian/Alaska Natives,” who saw a 65.2 percent increase in suicides.

Why the Increase in Suicide among Middle-Aged Americans

The CDC notes, “Possible contributing factors for the rise in suicide rates among middle-aged adults include the recent economic downturn (historically, suicide rates tend to correlate with business cycles, with higher rates observed during times of economic hardship).” Other researchers point to the recent economic downturn with more certainty as the major culprit.

The medical journal The Lancet ( in “Increase in State Suicide Rates in the USA During Economic Recession,” November, 2012) reports, “Coinciding with the onset of the recession, the suicide rate accelerated.” Specifically, The Lancet reports that in the years before the onset of the financial crisis (from 1999 to 2007), the U.S. suicide rate was rising on average at a rate of 0.12 per 100, 000 per year; while after the recession, there were an additional 0.51 deaths per 100 000 per year, and The Lancet calculates that “this acceleration corresponds to an additional 1,580 suicides per year.”

The Lancet details the relationship between unemployment and suicide, concluding “rising unemployment could account for about a quarter of the excess suicides noted in the USA during this time,” and it adds that “future research should explore other risk factors such as foreclosures and job and income losses, and modifying factors such as gun control policies.”

Another telling study is “Impact of Business Cycles on US Suicide Rates, 1928–2007,” published in the American Journal of Public Health (June 2011). As would be expected, the study authors report that “analyses showed that the overall suicide rate generally rose during recessions and fell during expansions.” Suicide rates of those aged 25 to 64 years rose during economic contractions and fell during expansions; however, suicide rates of the groups aged 15 to 24 years and aged 65 and older were significantly less affected by economic downturns and upturns. This finding echoes the May 3, 2013 CDC report that states suicide increases among those aged 10–34 years and those older than 65 were “comparatively small and not statistically significant.”

One explanation for differences among age groups with respect to suicide increases is that Americans aged 10–34 years and those older than 65 are more insulated from financial hard times. Those younger than 34 may not yet be on their own and are less likely to lose a home in foreclosure; and Americans aged 65 and older have social security and Medicare. Americans aged 34-64 are more likely to have no financial safety nets, making the threat of unemployment more likely to create debilitating anxiety, and the consequences of unemployment more likely to result in depression and suicide.

Preventing Suicide in Middle-Aged Americans

The CDC speculates that another possible reason for the substantial increases in U.S. suicide rate for middle-aged Americans might be a baby boomer generation cohort effect, as the baby boomer generation had unusually high suicide rates during their adolescent years, and so CDC recommends that special attention with regards to mental health prevention strategies be provided to this possibly more vulnerable group. The CDC report also offers up the 2012 Surgeon General’s National Strategy for Suicide Prevention approaches that “enhance social support, community connectedness, and access to mental health and preventive services, as well as efforts to reduce stigma and barriers associated with seeking help.”

What neither the CDC, the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Institute of Mental Health, nor other major U.S. mental health institutions emphasize is this: Suicide, depression, and many other serious emotional difficulties can be most easily prevented by political courage and different public policies, not by medical treatments.

While the CDC acknowledges that “possible contributing factors” for increased suicide rates include the recent economic downturn, the research, history, and common sense make it obvious that the recent financial meltdown is the major culprit for the substantial increase in suicides among middle-aged Americans.

The Lancet estimates that the three-year recessionary period from 2008 thru 2010 was a source in the United States for “4,750 excess suicide deaths.” This increase was not caused by genetically-induced biochemical brain imbalances but by criminal Wall Street practices. If Wall Street scoundrels caused the economic meltdown, and the financial meltdown resulted in increased suicides, more important suicide prevention than increased mental health treatment would be incarcerating some of these criminals so as to serve as a deterrent for future irresponsible behavior, practices that have proven to be quite deadly.

Among American men aged 35–64, the suicide rate increased 27.3 percent from 1999 to 2010; and among American women aged 35-64, the suicide rate increased 31.5 percent. Among men, the greatest increases were in those aged 50–54 years old (49.4 percent increase) and those aged 55–59 (a 47.8 percent increase). Among women, suicide rates increased with age, and the largest percentage increase in suicide rate was observed among those aged 60–64 years, a 59.7 percent increase for this group of women.

The suicide rate of those grouped as “whites” increased 40.4 percent from 1999 to 2010, the second highest increase among ethnic/racial groups. The highest increase among ethnic/racial groups was for “American Indian/Alaska Natives,” who saw a 65.2 percent increase in suicides.

Why the Increase in Suicide among Middle-Aged Americans

The CDC notes, “Possible contributing factors for the rise in suicide rates among middle-aged adults include the recent economic downturn (historically, suicide rates tend to correlate with business cycles, with higher rates observed during times of economic hardship).” Other researchers point to the recent economic downturn with more certainty as the major culprit.

The medical journal The Lancet ( in “Increase in State Suicide Rates in the USA During Economic Recession,” November, 2012) reports, “Coinciding with the onset of the recession, the suicide rate accelerated.” Specifically, The Lancet reports that in the years before the onset of the financial crisis (from 1999 to 2007), the U.S. suicide rate was rising on average at a rate of 0.12 per 100, 000 per year; while after the recession, there were an additional 0.51 deaths per 100 000 per year, and The Lancet calculates that “this acceleration corresponds to an additional 1,580 suicides per year.”

The Lancet details the relationship between unemployment and suicide, concluding “rising unemployment could account for about a quarter of the excess suicides noted in the USA during this time,” and it adds that “future research should explore other risk factors such as foreclosures and job and income losses, and modifying factors such as gun control policies.”

Another telling study is “Impact of Business Cycles on US Suicide Rates, 1928–2007,” published in the American Journal of Public Health (June 2011). As would be expected, the study authors report that “analyses showed that the overall suicide rate generally rose during recessions and fell during expansions.” Suicide rates of those aged 25 to 64 years rose during economic contractions and fell during expansions; however, suicide rates of the groups aged 15 to 24 years and aged 65 and older were significantly less affected by economic downturns and upturns. This finding echoes the May 3, 2013 CDC report that states suicide increases among those aged 10–34 years and those older than 65 were “comparatively small and not statistically significant.”

One explanation for differences among age groups with respect to suicide increases is that Americans aged 10–34 years and those older than 65 are more insulated from financial hard times. Those younger than 34 may not yet be on their own and are less likely to lose a home in foreclosure; and Americans aged 65 and older have social security and Medicare. Americans aged 34-64 are more likely to have no financial safety nets, making the threat of unemployment more likely to create debilitating anxiety, and the consequences of unemployment more likely to result in depression and suicide.

Preventing Suicide in Middle-Aged Americans

The CDC speculates that another possible reason for the substantial increases in U.S. suicide rate for middle-aged Americans might be a baby boomer generation cohort effect, as the baby boomer generation had unusually high suicide rates during their adolescent years, and so CDC recommends that special attention with regards to mental health prevention strategies be provided to this possibly more vulnerable group. The CDC report also offers up the 2012 Surgeon General’s National Strategy for Suicide Prevention approaches that “enhance social support, community connectedness, and access to mental health and preventive services, as well as efforts to reduce stigma and barriers associated with seeking help.”

What neither the CDC, the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Institute of Mental Health, nor other major U.S. mental health institutions emphasize is this: Suicide, depression, and many other serious emotional difficulties can be most easily prevented by political courage and different public policies, not by medical treatments.

While the CDC acknowledges that “possible contributing factors” for increased suicide rates include the recent economic downturn, the research, history, and common sense make it obvious that the recent financial meltdown is the major culprit for the substantial increase in suicides among middle-aged Americans.

The Lancet estimates that the three-year recessionary period from 2008 thru 2010 was a source in the United States for “4,750 excess suicide deaths.” This increase was not caused by genetically-induced biochemical brain imbalances but by criminal Wall Street practices. If Wall Street scoundrels caused the economic meltdown, and the financial meltdown resulted in increased suicides, more important suicide prevention than increased mental health treatment would be incarcerating some of these criminals so as to serve as a deterrent for future irresponsible behavior, practices that have proven to be quite deadly.

Bruce E. Levine, a practicing clinical psychologist, writes and speaks about how society, culture, politics and psychology intersect. His latest book is Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite. His Web site is www.brucelevine.net

But as a clinical psychologist, I have to ask whether earlier mental health treatment is what will actually make the difference in preventing more of these tragic shootings. Do we need to rethink mental health care altogether so that it includes all of us, not just mental health professionals?

Most mass shooters have been young males. Psychologist James Garbarino in his classic book Lost Boys concludes, “When boys kill, they are seeking justice—as they see it, through their eyes.” These boys see themselves as having been wronged, often by peers, by schools, by authorities, by society, and/or by life. They have been either bullied or ignored, and often come to feel like a burden to their parents, an unpleasant irritation for their teachers, and/or a pariah among their peers; and they become hopeless that they can ever be a joy to someone. They experience overwhelming emotional pain, a major fuel for violence.

Take The Pledge: Words Hurt: Put an End to Bullying

Many of us, including nonprofessionals, can connect with at least one kind of troubled young person. If we can identify with their felt pain of being different and feeling rejected, we may find them receptive to us and to ideas about navigating their world without violence.

As a clinical psychologist, I have been able to connect with many angry young men, but I don’t know that I could have connected with Newtown school shooter Adam Lanza’s special terror, including his fear of any kind of human touch (see Frontline’s Raising Adam Lanza). However, I have known others—mostly nonprofessionals—who experienced his terror and fear as a youngster and overcame it, and they could well have connected with him.

The most important antidote against violent actions by a troubled young person is a genuine caring and respectful connection with a nonviolent person. In a healing relationship of mutual affection and respect, the pain which fuels violence can become less overwhelming. In such a relationship, troubled young people can also acquire genuine hope that their pain isn’t permanent, discovering that others have experienced such pain and have come to live satisfying and joyful lives.

While we professionals can help young people who are willing to form a relationship with us, often those open to professionals are far less at risk to take violent actions than those who refuse to allow such relationships. The last person that many of them will be receptive to is a social worker, a psychologist, or a psychiatrist; for them, mental health professionals can mean even more stigma and shame. Moreover, mental health professionals have ethical and legal boundary restraints that can make it difficult for us to give many of these young people what they often need most—someone who wants to be around them not because it’s their job but purely because they get a kick out of them.

The sad truth is that many school and other mass shooters had previously received professional treatment. In 1999, at Columbine High School in Littleton Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold’s school shootings resulted in 15 dead (including themselves) and 21 wounded. In 1998, Harris and Klebold, following their arrest for theft and in exchange for expunging their criminal records, agreed to several conditions, including anger management and psychiatric treatment.

Following Harris’s death, the coroner discovered that his bloodstream contained the antidepressant Luvox, and some speculate that his psychiatric medication—along with bullying and many other factors—could have contributed to the violence. Luvox manufacturer, Solvay, reports that in a 10 week trial, 4 percent of youth being treated with Luvox experienced “manic reactions” (compared with no such reactions in a control group treated with a placebo). Antidepressants, other psychotropic drugs, and alcohol are, for some people, “disinhibitors” to violence that make it easier for violent thoughts to become violent actions. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration now has an “black box” warning (the FDA’s most serious cautionary notice) about increased suicidality in children, adolescents, and young adults taking antidepressants.

Recognizing the limitations of professional treatment can be sobering but can also serve as motivation for nonprofessionals to become part of the solution. Many nonprofessionals are in a better position than professionals to connect with the pain of a young troubled person and to form a healing relationship that may well provide hope, stop a suicide attempt, or prevent another school shooting tragedy.

Bruce E. Levine, PhD, is a practicing clinical psychologist, and he writes and speaks widely on how society, culture, politics, and psychology intersect. His latest book is Get Up, Stand Up. Earlier books include Surviving America’s Depression Epidemic and Commonsense Rebellion. His website is www.brucelevine.net

Below is the original post.

Imperialist Psychiatrists, Psychopathic Corporatists—But I Repeat Myself

Mark Twain famously said, “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” My immediate reaction to Jon Ronson’s TED talk ? Imperialist psychiatrists, psychopathic corporatists—but I too repeat myself.

Ronson reminds us that the media’s poster boy for psychopathic corporatists in the 1990s was “Chainsaw” Al Dunlap. In the 2000s, the media’s poster boy for imperialist psychiatrists has been Joseph Biederman. You decide how much difference there is between imperialist psychiatrists and psychopathic corporatists.

Dunlap, the infamous “asset stripper” of the 1990s, cut 11,000 jobs as CEO of Scott Paper and walked away in 1995 with $100 million after Scott merged with Kimberly-Clark. “And,” Ronson reports, “he’d quite often fire people with a joke.”

Psychiatric imperialism? Ronson notes that “this is a country that over-diagnoses certain mental disorders hugely. Childhood bipolar—children as young as four are being labeled bipolar because they have temper tantrums, which scores them high on their bipolar checklist.” How did this happen?

Harvard psychiatrist Joseph Biederman, according to pediatrician and author Lawrence Diller, “single-handedly put pediatric bipolar disorder on the map.” Due in great part to Biederman’s influence, the number of American children and adolescents treated for bipolar disorder increased 40-fold from 1994 to 2003. And as Bloomberg News reported in 2007, “The expanded use of bipolar as a pediatric diagnosis has made children the fastest-growing part of the $11.5 billion U.S. market for antipsychotic drugs.” Today this market has grown to $18 billion.

Biederman’s relationships with drug companies was discovered by the public in 2008, when the New York Times reported the following about him: “A world-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist whose work has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medicines in children earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007 but for years did not report much of this income to university officials.”

As part of legal proceedings, Biederman was forced to provide documents about his interactions with Johnson & Johnson, the giant pharmaceutical company. In 2009, the New York Times reported Biederman pitched Johnson & Johnson that his proposed research studies on its antipsychotic drug Risperdal would turn out favorably for Johnson & Johnson—and then Biederman delivered the goods. In a deposition given by Biederman to several states attorneys, he was asked what rank he held at Harvard:

“Full professor,” Biederman answered.

“What’s after that?” asked one state attorney, Fletch Trammell.

“God,” Biederman responded.

“Did you say God?” Trammell asked.

“Yeah,” Biederman said.

Al Dunlap and Joseph Biederman share with the late mobster John Gotti (the “Dapper Don”) not only a certain grandiose sense of self-worth; all also brought attention to their deeds, embarrassing their fellow professional plunderers who would rather their business remain in the shadows.

In Al Dulap’s era, Newsweek ran a cover story “Corporate Killers: The Hit Men” (February 26, 1996) with mug shots of CEOs along with the number of jobs they had cut. Among the 12 severe offenders were Louis Gerstner, CEO of IBM (salary: $2,625,000, layoffs in July 1993: 60,000) and Edward Brennan CEO of Sears, Roebuck (salary $3,075,000, layoffs in January 1993: 50,000). And of course today, CEOs continue to get rewarded for whacking/downsizing/firing workers.

Biedeman is not alone among psychiatrists lining their pockets with drug company money. In 2008, the New York Times (“Top Psychiatrist Didn’t Report Drug Makers’ Pay”) reported this about Charles Nemeroff: “One of the nation’s most influential psychiatrists earned more than $2.8 million in consulting arrangements with drug makers from 2000 to 2007, failed to report at least $1.2 million of that income to his university and violated federal research rules, according to documents provided to Congressional investigators.” In 2008, Congress also discovered that Alan Schatzberg, then president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association, had $4.8 million in stock holdings in a drug development company. In its investigation, Congress found that Biederman, Nemeroff, and Schatzberg were among many psychiatrists financially connected to drug companies.

Ronson tells us that psychopath expert Robert Hare concludes that capitalism, at its most ruthless, rewards psychopathic behavior—glibness, the lack of empathy, cunning manipulativeness. And Hare believes that capitalism, at its most remorseless, is a manifestation of psychopathy that has come down to affect us all. So, perhaps in their own view and through the lens of fundamentalist capitalism, Al Dunlap and Joseph Biederman are not psychopaths but simply high achievers.

Bruce E. Levine, a practicing clinical psychologist, writes and speaks about how society, culture, politics and psychology intersect. His latest book is Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite. His Web site is www.brucelevine.net

Ronson reminds us that the media’s poster boy for psychopathic corporatists in the 1990s was “Chainsaw” Al Dunlap. In the 2000s, the media’s poster boy for imperialist psychiatrists has been Joseph Biederman. You decide how much difference there is between imperialist psychiatrists and psychopathic corporatists.

Dunlap, the infamous “asset stripper” of the 1990s, cut 11,000 jobs as CEO of Scott Paper and walked away in 1995 with $100 million after Scott merged with Kimberly-Clark. “And,” Ronson reports, “he’d quite often fire people with a joke.”

Psychiatric imperialism? Ronson notes that “this is a country that over-diagnoses certain mental disorders hugely. Childhood bipolar—children as young as four are being labeled bipolar because they have temper tantrums, which scores them high on their bipolar checklist.” How did this happen?

Harvard psychiatrist Joseph Biederman, according to pediatrician and author Lawrence Diller, “single-handedly put pediatric bipolar disorder on the map.” Due in great part to Biederman’s influence, the number of American children and adolescents treated for bipolar disorder increased 40-fold from 1994 to 2003. And as Bloomberg News reported in 2007, “The expanded use of bipolar as a pediatric diagnosis has made children the fastest-growing part of the $11.5 billion U.S. market for antipsychotic drugs.” Today this market has grown to $18 billion.

Biederman’s relationships with drug companies was discovered by the public in 2008, when the New York Times reported the following about him: “A world-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist whose work has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medicines in children earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007 but for years did not report much of this income to university officials.”

As part of legal proceedings, Biederman was forced to provide documents about his interactions with Johnson & Johnson, the giant pharmaceutical company. In 2009, the New York Times reported Biederman pitched Johnson & Johnson that his proposed research studies on its antipsychotic drug Risperdal would turn out favorably for Johnson & Johnson—and then Biederman delivered the goods. In a deposition given by Biederman to several states attorneys, he was asked what rank he held at Harvard:

“Full professor,” Biederman answered.

“What’s after that?” asked one state attorney, Fletch Trammell.

“God,” Biederman responded.

“Did you say God?” Trammell asked.

“Yeah,” Biederman said.

Al Dunlap and Joseph Biederman share with the late mobster John Gotti (the “Dapper Don”) not only a certain grandiose sense of self-worth; all also brought attention to their deeds, embarrassing their fellow professional plunderers who would rather their business remain in the shadows.

In Al Dulap’s era, Newsweek ran a cover story “Corporate Killers: The Hit Men” (February 26, 1996) with mug shots of CEOs along with the number of jobs they had cut. Among the 12 severe offenders were Louis Gerstner, CEO of IBM (salary: $2,625,000, layoffs in July 1993: 60,000) and Edward Brennan CEO of Sears, Roebuck (salary $3,075,000, layoffs in January 1993: 50,000). And of course today, CEOs continue to get rewarded for whacking/downsizing/firing workers.

Biedeman is not alone among psychiatrists lining their pockets with drug company money. In 2008, the New York Times (“Top Psychiatrist Didn’t Report Drug Makers’ Pay”) reported this about Charles Nemeroff: “One of the nation’s most influential psychiatrists earned more than $2.8 million in consulting arrangements with drug makers from 2000 to 2007, failed to report at least $1.2 million of that income to his university and violated federal research rules, according to documents provided to Congressional investigators.” In 2008, Congress also discovered that Alan Schatzberg, then president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association, had $4.8 million in stock holdings in a drug development company. In its investigation, Congress found that Biederman, Nemeroff, and Schatzberg were among many psychiatrists financially connected to drug companies.

Ronson tells us that psychopath expert Robert Hare concludes that capitalism, at its most ruthless, rewards psychopathic behavior—glibness, the lack of empathy, cunning manipulativeness. And Hare believes that capitalism, at its most remorseless, is a manifestation of psychopathy that has come down to affect us all. So, perhaps in their own view and through the lens of fundamentalist capitalism, Al Dunlap and Joseph Biederman are not mentally ill psychopaths but simply high achievers.

Anti-authoritarians question all authority and challenge and resist illegitimate authority. Americans should be concerned how our institutions are crushing young anti-authoritarians and preventing the rise of heroes.

Zimbardo wants to promote the “heroic imagination” in our children through our educational system with hero courses that he is developing. I believe that our young anti-authoritarians—our potential heroes—have far less of a need for hero courses in their schools than a need for help in battling against the systemic, authoritarian aspects of their schools.

George Orwell concluded that nothing crushes anti-authoritarianism and heroism more than overwhelming fear. And sadly, our educational system has created overwhelming fear with its “no child left behind,” “race to the top,” and standardized testing tyranny. These policies create fear in both students and teachers who are forced to focus on the demands of test creators. This kind of fear-based schooling crushes curiosity, critical thinking, questioning authority, and challenging and resisting illegitimate authority.

Young people have also been frightened by repeatedly hearing that they will be “losers” if they don’t attend college; while at the same time college attendees are saddled with crushing student-loan debt that can keep them from bucking a system for fear of finding themselves in an even deeper financial hole.

We should also worry that our young deviants, nonconformists, anti-authoritarians, and potential heroes are increasingly being referred to mental health professionals for treatment, which often consists of medication. In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association added to their diagnostic bible (then the DSM-3) “oppositional defiant disorder” (ODD). The official symptoms of ODD include: “often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules,” and “often argues with adults.” Many of history’s greatest heroes would today be diagnosed as youngsters with ODD and other so-called “disruptive disorders.”

Heavily tranquilizing antipsychotic drugs (e.g. Zyprexa and Risperdal) are now the highest grossing class of medication in the United States ($18 billion in 2011). A major reason for this, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2010, is that many children receiving antipsychotic drugs have nonpsychotic diagnoses such as ODD or some other disruptive disorder; this especially true of Medicaid-covered pediatric patients.

Ignacio Martin-Baró, a social psychologist in El Salvador and a champion of the oppressed, was ultimately assassinated by a U.S. trained Salvadoran death squad in 1989. One observation by Martin-Baró about U.S. psychology was that “in order to get social position and rank, it negotiated how it would contribute to the needs of the established power structure.”

Martin-Baró would not be surprised that for several years the American Psychological Association (APA) not only condoned but actually applauded psychologists’ assistance in interrogation/torture at Guantánamo and elsewhere. When it was discovered that psychologists were working with the U.S. military and the CIA to develop brutal interrogation methods, the APA assembled a task force in 2005 to examine the issue and concluded that psychologists were playing a “valuable and ethical role” in assisting the military. And in 2007, an APA Council of Representatives retained this policy by voting overwhelmingly to reject a measure that would have banned APA members from participating in abusive interrogation of detainees. It took until 2008 for the APA to overturn this policy. Philip Zimbardo is to be commended for being one of those psychologists who spoke out against this APA policy.

In every generation there will be authoritarians and anti-authoritarians. There will be power structures and authoritarian professionals who meet the needs of power structures to gain social position and rank. And there will be anti-authoritarians who refuse to meet the needs of power structures, and who often pay the price of marginalization for their resistance. Our young anti-authoritarians are now being systemically crushed by power structures and authoritarians, and we can all help them by battling the oppressive forces in their lives.

Bruce E. Levine, a practicing clinical psychologist, writes and speaks about how society, culture, politics and psychology intersect. His latest book is Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite. His Web site is www.brucelevine.net

Anti-authoritarians question all authority and challenge and resist illegitimate authority. Americans should be concerned how our institutions are crushing young anti-authoritarians and preventing the rise of heroes.

Zimbardo wants to promote the “heroic imagination” in our children through our educational system with hero courses that he is developing. I believe that our young anti-authoritarians—our potential heroes—have far less of a need for hero courses in their schools than a need for help in battling against the systemic, authoritarian aspects of their schools.

George Orwell concluded that nothing crushes anti-authoritarianism and heroism more than overwhelming fear. And sadly, our educational system has created overwhelming fear with its “no child left behind,” “race to the top,” and standardized testing tyranny. These policies create fear in both students and teachers who are forced to focus on the demands of test creators. This kind of fear-based schooling crushes curiosity, critical thinking, questioning authority, and challenging and resisting illegitimate authority.

Young people have also been frightened by repeatedly hearing that they will be “losers” if they don’t attend college; while at the same time college attendees are saddled with crushing student-loan debt that can keep them from bucking a system for fear of finding themselves in an even deeper financial hole.

We should also worry that our young deviants, nonconformists, anti-authoritarians, and potential heroes are increasingly being referred to mental health professionals for treatment, which often consists of medication. In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association added to their diagnostic bible (then the DSM-3) “oppositional defiant disorder” (ODD). The official symptoms of ODD include: “often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules,” and “often argues with adults.” Many of history’s greatest heroes would today be diagnosed as youngsters with ODD and other so-called “disruptive disorders.”

Heavily tranquilizing antipsychotic drugs (e.g. Zyprexa and Risperdal) are now the highest grossing class of medication in the United States ($18 billion in 2011). A major reason for this, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2010, is that many children receiving antipsychotic drugs have nonpsychotic diagnoses such as ODD or some other disruptive disorder; this especially true of Medicaid-covered pediatric patients.

Ignacio Martin-Baró, a social psychologist in El Salvador and a champion of the oppressed, was ultimately assassinated by a U.S. trained Salvadoran death squad in 1989. One observation by Martin-Baró about U.S. psychology was that “in order to get social position and rank, it negotiated how it would contribute to the needs of the established power structure.”

Martin-Baró would not be surprised that for several years the American Psychological Association (APA) not only condoned but actually applauded psychologists’ assistance in interrogation/torture at Guantánamo and elsewhere. When it was discovered that psychologists were working with the U.S. military and the CIA to develop brutal interrogation methods, the APA assembled a task force in 2005 to examine the issue and concluded that psychologists were playing a “valuable and ethical role” in assisting the military. And in 2007, an APA Council of Representatives retained this policy by voting overwhelmingly to reject a measure that would have banned APA members from participating in abusive interrogation of detainees. It took until 2008 for the APA to overturn this policy. Philip Zimbardo is to be commended for being one of those psychologists who spoke out against this APA policy.

In every generation there will be authoritarians and anti-authoritarians. There will be power structures and authoritarian professionals who meet the needs of power structures to gain social position and rank. And there will be anti-authoritarians who refuse to meet the needs of power structures, and who often pay the price of marginalization for their resistance. Our young anti-authoritarians are now being systemically crushed by power structures and authoritarians, and we can all help them by battling the oppressive forces in their lives.

Bruce E. Levine, a practicing clinical psychologist, writes and speaks about how society, culture, politics and psychology intersect. His latest book is Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite. His Web site is www.brucelevine.net