Summary

            In Chapter 3 of Francis Fukuyama’s OUR POSTHUMAN FUTURE: CONSEQUENCES OF THE BIOTECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION, Fukuyama discusses the field of neuropharmacology. In the mid-century many people believed in Freud’s concepts of how mental illness was primarily psychological in nature. However, the discovery of a drug called lithium in1949 contradicted Fraud’s views and was the beginning of a period of research and development that led to a new generation of drugs by the end of the century. The rise of these new drugs has been called the neurotransmitter revolution, which is an increase in the scientific knowledge about the biochemical nature of the brain and its mental process. Modern neuroscience has allowed us to see how levels of neurotransmitters and the way they interact directly affect our subjective feelings or personality. Fukuyama states that before genetic engineering becomes a possibility, knowledge of brain chemistry and the ability to manipulate it will become an important source of behavior control that will have significant implications.

            Each day about 28 million Americans take Prozac and other drugs like it, which produce changes in personality. These wonder drugs have generated substantial controversy over time. Some say that these drugs have long-term side effects, but the real problem is if Prozac is found to be completely safe. According to Fukuyama, Prozac affects the most central of political emotions, the feeling of self-worth, which Americans are constantly being told they need more of. The desire for recognition has a biological basis that is related to levels of serotonin in the brain. This is why a drug like Prozac looks so politically consequential. Fukuyama feels the morally acceptable way of overcoming low self-esteem is to struggle, work hard, sacrifice, and rise and be seen for doing so. However, the problem with self-esteem in American pop psychology is that it is an entitlement, which everyone needs whether it is deserved or not. “This devalues self-esteem and makes the quest for it self-defeating” (Fukuyama, 46). In addition the American pharmaceutical industry now provides self-esteem in a bottle through such drugs as Prozac. Although there are many clinically depressed people who can greatly benefit from Prozac and other drugs like it, these drugs also open what is known as cosmetic pharmacology, which is taking a drug simply because it makes you “better than good” (Fukuyama, 46).

            According to Fukuyama, Ritalin has become an overt instrument of social control. It is used to treat those with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, which is commonly associated with young children. No one knows the cause of ADHD it is recognized only by its symptoms. The problem is that once people know what the symptoms are, they tend to see it everywhere. About 15 million Americans are said to be suffering from ADHD. Fukuyama feels that ADHD isn’t a disease at all, but rather the tail end of the bell curve describing the distribution of perfectly normal behavior. Young children were not designed to sit around for hours at a desk, but rather to run and play. Ultimately, the increasing demand for them to sit still creates the impression that there is a growing disease. Although Ratilin can have side effects, it will increase the focus, concentration, and performance of anyone, ADHD-diagnosed or not. Ritalin offers a foresight of what will come when genetic engineering becomes possible. For those people who have extreme hyperactivity or inability to concentrate, Ritalin can be a great thing. However, using the drug simply to discipline difficult children would be a great misuse of our newfound technology. Since ADHD is classified as a disability, society has taken a condition with both biological and psychological causes and said that biology should predominate. Individuals who have some degree of control over their behavior are told they are not, and compensated for something that is actually partly under their control. As a result of drugs like Prozac and Ritalin, people are “nudged toward that androgynous median personality, self satisfied and socially compliant, that is the current politically correct outcome in American society” (Fukuyama, 52).

Fukuyama states that the spread of psychotropic drugs demonstrates three powerful political trends that will reappear with genetic engineering. The first is the desire to medicalize as much of one’s behavior as possible, thereby reducing the responsibility for one’s own actions. The second is the pressure of powerful economic interests to assist in the process. The third is the tendency to expand the therapeutic realm to cover an even larger number of conditions. We should worry about whether biotechnology will provide shortcuts to the reaching of politically correct ends or social control. We should also worry about the use of drugs for cosmetic pharmacology, enhancing normal behavior or exchanging one behavior for another one that some feel is socially preferable. In the end, Fukuyama concludes that we don’t have to wait for the arrival of genetic engineering to foresee a time when we can manipulate behavior because the issue has already been joined with the current generation of psychotropic drugs.

Argument

One of Fukuyama’s major claims in chapter three is that he feels the morally and acceptable way of overcoming low self-esteem is to struggle, work hard, sacrifice, and raise and be seen for doing so. He also states that the problem with self-esteem in American pop psychology is that it is an entitlement, which everyone needs whether it is deserved or not. According to Fukuyama, this devalues self-esteem and makes the quest for it self-defeating. Aside from the unfortunate group of people who are seriously clinically depressed and need drugs like Prozac, I agree with Fukuyama on the basis that self-esteem is a quest one must struggle, work, and sacrifice for in order to achieve, and classifying it as an entitlement does in fact lessen the value.

            According to the Webster Dictionary, self-esteem is defined as confidence and self-respect, but I believe there is much more to self-esteem then that. The National Association for Self-Esteem defines self-esteem as the experience of being capable of meeting life’s challenges and being worthy of happiness. In addition, the concept of self-esteem is founded on the premise that it is strongly connected to a sense of competence and worthiness and the relationship between the two as one lives life. The NASE claims that the worthiness component of self-esteem is often misunderstood as simply feeling good about oneself, when it actually is tied to whether or not a person lives up to certain fundamental human values. For example, finding meanings that encourage human growth and making commitments to them in a way that leads to a sense of integrity and satisfaction. The competence component is having confidence that one is generally capable of producing desired results, having confidence in the efficacy of our mind and our ability to think, as well as making appropriate choices and decisions. Based on these ideas of what self-esteem really is, we find that “self-esteem stems from the experience of living consciously…pertaining to self-competence and self-worth based on reality” (NASE).

Since our efforts to build self-esteem are strongly based on reality, I agree with the NASE of the fact that they should also be grounded in reality. By that I mean, through realistic and accurate self-appraisal, meaningful accomplishments, overcoming adversities, and bouncing back from failures. Being able to cope with these life challenges is not easy; it requires the same struggle, work, and sacrifice that Fukuyama said is a part of overcoming low self-esteem. I believe it is the struggle, work, and sacrifice of facing life’s challenges in which we have the opportunity to rise above, accomplish our goals, and gain self-esteem. Just as Fukuyama said, we must rise above whatever stands in our path and be seen for doing. This process of facing reality is essential in discovering true self-esteem along with the self-competence and self-worth that the NASE defined as being part of self-esteem. Therefore, the quest for true self-esteem, or as Fukuyama defines as the morally acceptable way of gaining self-esteem, is a life process one must work for and be seen for doing so; not something someone is automatically entitled to and can be provided with by a pill.

It is hard to argue against the fact that simply taking a pill is much easier than struggling to gain self-esteem, but like Fukuyama said, doing so greatly devalues self-esteem and makes the quest for it self-defeating. Many will agree that part of the glorification of accomplishing something is being able to reflect on all the hard work that went into achieving it and being recognized for having done so. What good is a championship trophy or Olympic medal if it is given to you even though you haven’t earned it? It takes the work and sacrifice put into earning that trophy or medal to give it real value and recognition for earning it. I believe the same goes for personal feelings such as self-esteem. Without the confidence of knowing that you yourself earned it, it doesn’t have much value.  Drugs like Prozac devalue self-esteem because you no longer have to work towards your goal, which as Fukuyama said makes the quest for it pointless; all you have to do is swallow a pill. 

Although Prozac may make us feel good about ourselves, so can lots of other things, and simply feeling good or having positive feelings does not define having true self-esteem. True self-esteem can only be brought forth through the quest for it. By that I mean, the life process of overcoming life challenges, facing reality, and knowing that you yourself have earned it. Making self-esteem an entitlement devalues it, because it is no longer earned, it is given to everyone. Since it is given to everyone the quest for it becomes self-defeating. Therefore, self-esteem should not be an entitlement provided by with a pill. It should remain a quest one must endure and hopefully succeed in; and only then will we preserve the true value of having self-esteem. So as psychotropic drugs continue to persist on into the future, remember that Prozac and other drugs like it “can’t supply the true happiness of being fulfilled, competent human beings” (Clements par. 4).

Clements, Colleen. “You’ve got drugs.” The Medical Post 38.35 (1 Oct. 2002). <http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?content=/content/EXTRACT/RAWART/3835/13A.html>.

Fukuyama, Francis. Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2002.

National Association for Self-Esteem. <http://www.self-esteem-nase.org>.

| Home | Syllabus | Assignments | Text | Instructor |

These materials are copyrighted but may be used for educational purposes if you inform and credit the author and cite the source as: LSCI 106 Online Research. All commercial rights are reserved. Send comments or suggestions to: Eric Brenner at brenner@smccd.net