As to ADD and Ritalin:
I'd like to suggest a slightly different take:
Nietzsche suggests that the reason we make people 'individual' is so
that we can blame them. In an ambience of rampant individualism, where
every action is explained by 'choice' the difficult behaviour of
children poses a very specific problem: although they may be making
'choices' they can't be held totally responsible (unless we get into
blatant nonsense). But then neither can the parents who have done all
the correct things - according to current ideology - be held to have
made the 'choice' to make their kids nuts. In fact the 'individual' is
asssumed to represent the child's interest: suggesting that
parents'interests might not be identical with the child's interest is
close to heresy. You have to rule out sociological reasons, because
society does not exist. Medicalizing children's misbehaviour has the
advantage of solving all these problems: the parents are no longer
responsible for the problem, the child is not responsible for their
actions, the community/society is not responsible because it does not
exist - the responsible thing for the caregiver to do is to fix the
problem with medication, send the kid off to school, and go to work.
Remain 'productive' therefore remain a responsible individual.
You might have a sneaking suspicion that there is something in the
water: lead or cyanide or mercury perhaps: keep cool: the thing to do
about that is to get some parent to take out a class action against the
polluter. No worries!! You then put a price on the disadvantage caused
by the results of poisoning. If the kid is too stuffed up to care, then
the caregivers can use the cash for a condo at Karamea. Privatising
externalities: externalising private tragedies.
The other problem solved by the use of ritalin is the principal-agent
problem, also quaintly known as 'provider capture'. It is a well known
fact that teachers , psychologists and others who work for the govt are
in the habit of making outrageous and expensive claims, such as, for
instance that kids with special needs need specialized attention,
smaller classes and so on, and that such attention is not just in that
child's interests but also in the interests of the other 29 - or 39-
other children in the class. This is obvious self-interest on the part
of lazy teachers, and can be overcome by removing the pretext on which
they base their case, that is, by making the difficult and
time-consuming child docile and compliant. This may not be good for the
kid in question, but it tends to stem the complaints from the parents
of other kids, as well as the teacher, and is a whole heap cheaper than
extra support for the affected child.
This is not fiction: this is N.Z. All support for children classed as
'moderately' handicapped has been removed by recent govt legislation.
There is still some - but less - support for the 'severely' handicapped,
but the facilities which were built for them are being closed down and
they are being 'mainstreamed'. You can see this as 'normalizing' but you
can also read it as cheap. You can also read it as a part of an
endeavour to convince well-off parents that the public education system
will not deliver an adequate education to their child.
Yours,
Nesta
I'd like to suggest a slightly different take:
Nietzsche suggests that the reason we make people 'individual' is so
that we can blame them. In an ambience of rampant individualism, where
every action is explained by 'choice' the difficult behaviour of
children poses a very specific problem: although they may be making
'choices' they can't be held totally responsible (unless we get into
blatant nonsense). But then neither can the parents who have done all
the correct things - according to current ideology - be held to have
made the 'choice' to make their kids nuts. In fact the 'individual' is
asssumed to represent the child's interest: suggesting that
parents'interests might not be identical with the child's interest is
close to heresy. You have to rule out sociological reasons, because
society does not exist. Medicalizing children's misbehaviour has the
advantage of solving all these problems: the parents are no longer
responsible for the problem, the child is not responsible for their
actions, the community/society is not responsible because it does not
exist - the responsible thing for the caregiver to do is to fix the
problem with medication, send the kid off to school, and go to work.
Remain 'productive' therefore remain a responsible individual.
You might have a sneaking suspicion that there is something in the
water: lead or cyanide or mercury perhaps: keep cool: the thing to do
about that is to get some parent to take out a class action against the
polluter. No worries!! You then put a price on the disadvantage caused
by the results of poisoning. If the kid is too stuffed up to care, then
the caregivers can use the cash for a condo at Karamea. Privatising
externalities: externalising private tragedies.
The other problem solved by the use of ritalin is the principal-agent
problem, also quaintly known as 'provider capture'. It is a well known
fact that teachers , psychologists and others who work for the govt are
in the habit of making outrageous and expensive claims, such as, for
instance that kids with special needs need specialized attention,
smaller classes and so on, and that such attention is not just in that
child's interests but also in the interests of the other 29 - or 39-
other children in the class. This is obvious self-interest on the part
of lazy teachers, and can be overcome by removing the pretext on which
they base their case, that is, by making the difficult and
time-consuming child docile and compliant. This may not be good for the
kid in question, but it tends to stem the complaints from the parents
of other kids, as well as the teacher, and is a whole heap cheaper than
extra support for the affected child.
This is not fiction: this is N.Z. All support for children classed as
'moderately' handicapped has been removed by recent govt legislation.
There is still some - but less - support for the 'severely' handicapped,
but the facilities which were built for them are being closed down and
they are being 'mainstreamed'. You can see this as 'normalizing' but you
can also read it as cheap. You can also read it as a part of an
endeavour to convince well-off parents that the public education system
will not deliver an adequate education to their child.
Yours,
Nesta