Governing depression in Australia: a Foucauldian analysis of policy documents, mental health literacy materials, and self-help books

© 2010 Dr. Brigid Mary PhilipThis thesis investigates the government of depression in Australia from 1980 to 2007 via a Foucauldian discourse analysis of a selection of dominant texts from the Australian discourse on depression. Drawing on Foucault, I use the term ‘government’ in its broadest sense, where ‘to govern is to structure the possible field of action of others’ (Foucault 1982, p. 221). By adopting Foucault’s approach to government, this thesis aims to investigate the multiple practices for governing depression in Australia that are carried out in a variety of different settings, by a variety of different actors. Discourse occupies an important role in the Foucauldian method and thus this thesis explores how a selection of dominant texts from the Australian discourse on depression produce a framework for the government of depression. More specifically, this thesis provides a Foucauldian discourse analysis of a selection of government policy documents, mental health literacy materials and self-help books on depression. The discourse analysis focuses on how these key texts represent depression, how the subject is represented in the key texts, and the power relations underpinning these representations. The central argument of this thesis is that the government of depression in Australia from 1980 to 2007 needs to be understood with relation to the normative demand in neoliberal societies for individuals and populations to be enterprising. This argument is developed by demonstrating how the key texts under analysis combine individualising and totalising knowledge of depression to enable neoliberal techniques that are focused on governing depression by regulating the autonomy of enterprising individuals. At the individual level, recognising and overcoming one’s depression becomes the rational and ethical thing to do, both for one’s own sake and for the sake of family, friends and society at large. Individuals are encouraged to combat their depression by performing certain ‘technologies of the self’ as prescribed in self-help books and mental health literacy materials, which are in turn endorsed by government policy documents. Importantly, the types of conduct promoted in the key texts tend to encourage neoliberal ideals about choice, productivity and enterprise. At the population level, overcoming depression is represented as being essential for the security of the nation. Workforce participation, economic productivity and social stability are all seen as being threatened by a depressed population. On this basis, the state and its institutions deploy new technologies of government over populations, such as screening ‘at risk’ groups for depressive symptoms, parenting programs for high-risk families, promoting self-help strategies for high-risk groups, management plans for patients with high-risk personalities or cultural backgrounds, and subsidised counselling services for high-risk individuals. These new technologies are seen as legitimate, as they are focused on enhancing the health, happiness and prosperity of the population, which is essential for the security of the nation. However, by targeting high-risk populations these new technologies of government cause problems for some groups more than others. Women, the elderly, and ethnic minority groups (i.e. all those deemed to be at ‘high risk’ of developing depression) are especially affected by the new regimes of rule. The use of governing technologies for calculating, measuring and addressing depression also expand the limits of what it means to be healthy. In the process, alternative approaches to depression are silenced or sidelined, and the complexities of the depression experience are obscured