Categories
Lessons Nonfiction Policy Systems

How to Avoid Becoming an Agent of Social Control: Communist China.

The Year of the Horse has arrived! How delighted I was to see the New York Times show Lunar New Year Across America (free gift link). I remain struck with how representation matters. It is some kind of dazzling to see people who look like me in a major newspaper celebrating the same holidays I do! (For the past few years, Asian representation has looked more like this. I admire R. Kikuo Johnson’s art, though that vibe is the antithesis of the joy and connection of Lunar New Year.)


With Lunar New Year festivities about over, it’s time to talk about China using psychiatrists as agents of social control. There are many similarities between China and the Soviet Union (see the post I wrote about Anatoly Koryagin). The Human Rights Watch and Geneva Initiative on Psychiatry describes this in Dangerous Minds: Political Psychiatry in China Today and its Origins in the Mao Era.

In the Soviet Union, the government passed laws that recognized “anti-Soviet” speech and activities as crimes. In China, “political dangerousness” was incorporated into Chinese psychiatric diagnoses. This creation of “political-psychiatric dangerousness” allowed psychiatrists to detain people for psychiatric reasons. It also resulted in law enforcement charging people with crimes, amplifying

the more intractable problem of the Chinese authorities’ longstanding insistence upon viewing the peaceful expression of dissident or nonconformist viewpoints as constituting “political crimes” that must be sternly punished by law.

The authors further note:

most of these people should not have been arrested or brought for forensic psychiatric evaluation (formal or otherwise) in the first place, since in the overwhelming majority of recorded cases their only “offense” was to have expressed views or beliefs which served to offend the political sensitivities of the Chinese Communist Party.

Like psychiatrists in the Soviet Union, Chinese psychiatrists shifted clinical definitions:

individual mental problems soon came to be seen, in simplistic and reductionist fashion by the ultra-Maoists, as being not merely reflective of, but actually caused by, incorrect or deviant political thinking on the part of the sufferer.

One of the Chinese psychiatrists, Yang Desen, was a whisteblower. He said:

Eventually, [the ultraleftists] began claiming that the real reason people became mentally ill was that their heads were filled with an “excess of selfish ideas and personal concerns” and that it was the product of “an extreme development of individualism.

Believe in the wrong political system and the authorities believe there is something wrong with your mind.

Psychotic disorders were most associated with this political and psychiatric dangerousness:

the most frequent diagnosis made by police psychiatrists in this context is of either “schizophrenia” or “paranoid psychosis” leading to the following kinds of “crimes” by the alleged sufferers: “sending reactionary letters,” “writing reactionary slogans,” “petitioning and litigating,” “shouting reactionary slogans” and “spreading rumors to delude the masses.”

Mental acrobatics are necessary to argue that these individuals were dangerous to others. But, once the government defines anti-government speech as a crime and evidence of a mental illness, a warped internal coherence follows. The “police psychiatrists” concluded:

Cases of political crime created by the mentally ill usually exert a highly negative influence in society and have extensive ramifications. They take up large amounts of human and material [police] resources and pose a definite disruptive threat to the normal functioning of state offices and to the political stability of the country.

Ideas are potent. It’s hard for one person to kill hundreds of people at once. The police never have to worry about that problem. It’s far easier for one person to introduce ideas to hundreds of people at once through books, radio, and television (and, these days, social media!). Even a man silently holding a sign on the street has the potential to “infect” dozens of people. A government ruled by fear, not confidence, wants to quash the expression of diverse ideas.

Like in the Soviet Union, the goal of detention wasn’t humane treatment. There was “a very high patient-to-doctor and nurse ratio, severe underfunding by the government, and serious lack of capacity leading to a dense overcrowding of inmates” and

the form of psychotherapy actually used from early 1996 onwards consisted of increasingly intense political indoctrination sessions in which mental patients were exhorted to cure themselves by studying the works of Mao and adopting a “proletarian” political outlook.

The US government has yet to outlaw free speech (and may we work together to prevent this from happening!).

May we continued to recognize and insist on the value of free speech. May we all continue to act with courage, even as those in power have tantrums and rely on violent tactics. Let us use the power that we do have. Everyday heroes may be nameless to you, but they are everywhere: people with integrity who are doing the right thing within their six-foot radius of influence. You can be one of them, too.

Categories
Homelessness Policy Public health psychiatry

More on the Government’s Potential Use of Psychiatry.

There has been increasing amounts of conflict and violence within the United States. It saps attention and energy; of course people feel irritable and glum. This can lead to pronouncements that things will never get better, we’re doomed, etc.

Oliver Burkeman (I recommend his newsletter with enthusiasm!) quotes futurist and environmentalist Hazel Henderson and then himself comments:

“… if we can recognise that change and uncertainty are basic principles… we can greet the future… with the understanding that we do not know enough to be pessimistic.” You can take a crisis very seriously indeed without fooling yourself that you know the worst outcome is certain.

Please keep that in mind as we proceed here.


I haven’t forgotten about China’s use of psychiatrists as agents of social control. There’s stuff happening now in the United States that warrants concurrent commentary. It’s still important to know what has happened in the past. If you are itching to learn more and can’t wait for me, you can read the report from Human Rights Watch and Geneva Initiative on Psychiatry entitled Dangerous Minds: Political Psychiatry in China Today and its Origins in the Mao Era. The themes are similar to what we’re already learned together here.


The internet has been to good to me. I recently reconnected with an internet friend from the days of intueri. (Longtime readers will understand what that means.) This person has attended the protests in Minneapolis; from them I learned about Riot Medicine. Written by an anarchist medic, this manual “for practicing insurrectionary medicine” describes how medics can work in atypical settings. During protests, traditional emergency medical services may not be available. (For example, law enforcement may delay or block vehicles from entering a scene. We already know federal agents did this in Minneapolis.) It includes a short section on “Psychological Care”. It’s a summary of Psychological First Aid (introduced in my last post).

If you want to learn more about ICE Watch and Community Defense, whether in the context of protests or not, I strongly recommend this free training. What I most appreciated about the webinar was its lack of histrionics. The trainers emphasized serving as observers and avoiding escalations. Keeping a cool head is a valuable superpower during these times of dismay.


Within the deluge of actions from the federal government was this announcement: Secretary Kennedy Announces $100 Million Investment in Great American Recovery. The stated goal is to “solve long-standing homelessness issues, fight opioid addiction, and improve public safety by expanding treatment that emphasizes recovery and self-sufficiency”. This includes a new initiative:

The Safety Through Recovery, Engagement, and Evidence-based Treatment and Supports — or STREETS — Initiative will fund targeted outreach, psychiatric care, medical stabilization and crisis intervention, while connecting Americans experiencing homelessness and addiction to stable housing with a clear focus on long-term recovery and independence.

The funding attached to this is a mere $100 million. The language of this initiative is vague, so maybe $100M is enough. But if this is meant to fund a comprehensive plan for the entire nation, that sum won’t do.

Tucked further down in the announcement is this:

Secretary Kennedy also announced the $10 million Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) grant program to support adults with serious mental illness. AOT is a civil court-ordered, community-based outpatient mental health treatment program for adults with serious mental illness who are unable to engage with conventional outpatient treatment and are unlikely to be able to live safely in their community.

AOT already exists in many jurisdictions, including here in Seattle-King County. While there is some evidence that AOT improves treatment adherence and reduces hospitalizations, more evaluation is needed to explain how this happens.

When I saw this news, I wondered if this was another step to use psychiatry as an agent of social control. The executive order to “end crime and disorder on America’s streets” conflates mental illnesses, substance misuse, homelessness, and crime. Now there’s funding announcements for homelessness services and court-ordered, community-based outpatient psychiatric services.

Maybe this is confirmation bias. My skepticism about the federal government’s intentions, though, is a reaction to what has already happened. May hope spring eternal and may the worst outcome never come to pass.