One Nation Under Therapy: How the Helping Culture Is Eroding Self-Reliance

by Christina Hoff Sommers, Sally Satel

Americans have traditionally placed great value on self-reliance and fortitude. In recent decades, however, we have seen the rise of a therapeutic ethic that views Americans as emotionally underdeveloped, psychically frail, and requiring the ministrations of mental health professionals to cope with life's vicissitudes. Being "in touch with one's feelings" and freely expressing them have become paramount personal virtues. Today-with a book for every ailment, a counselor for every crisis, a lawsuit for every grievance, and a TV show for every conceivable problem-we are at risk of degrading our native ability to cope with life's challenges.

Drawing on established science and common sense, Christina Hoff Sommers and Dr. Sally Satel reveal how "therapism" and the burgeoning trauma industry have come to pervade our lives. Help is offered everywhere under the presumption that we need in children's classrooms, the workplace, churches, courtrooms, the media, the military. But with all the "help" comes a host of troubling consequences,

* The myth of stressed-out, homework-burdened, hypercompetitive, and depressed or suicidal schoolchildren in need of therapy and medication

* The loss of moral bearings in our approach to lying, crime, addiction, and other foibles and vices

* The unasked-for "grief counselors" who descend on bereaved families, schools, and communities following a tragedy, offering dubious advice while billing plenty of money

* The expansion of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from an affliction of war veterans to nearly everyone who has experienced a setback

Intelligent, provocative, and wryly amusing, One Nation Under Therapy demonstrates that "talking about" problems is no substitute for confronting them.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Politics, Philosophy, Sociology, Health, Self Help

320 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2005

About the author

Christina Marie Hoff Sommers is an American author and philosopher. Specializing in ethics, she is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Sommers is known for her critique of contemporary feminism. Her work includes the books Who Stole Feminism? (1994) and The War Against Boys (2000). She also hosts a video blog called The Factual Feminist.
Sommers' positions and writing have been characterized by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "equity feminism", a classical-liberal or libertarian feminist perspective holding that the main political role of feminism is to ensure that the right against coercive interference is not infringed. Sommers has contrasted equity feminism with what she terms victim feminism and gender feminism, arguing that modern feminist thought often contains an "irrational hostility to men" and possesses an "inability to take seriously the possibility that the sexes are equal but different". Several writers have described Sommers as anti-feminist.

Reviews

[Bradley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nothing much new here, but it never hurts to focus some light on the rather glaring, obvious problems of our culture.

I earned a degree in Psychology back in the day and I recognized a very absurd trend going on. It's called being a one-trick-pony. Most of the serious practitioners of psychology realize that no single situation or psychological issue can be solved with a single tool. To do so, or think so, is beyond stupid. Situations change and people differ. Not only do they differ, but any single person might need a wide range of tools used at different times -- or even NO TOOLS AT ALL.

Self-reliance, resiliency, and adaptability must be sought after, brought about on a patient's own terms. It is not something that can be forced on anyone. It's not an externality.

This book, however, highlights the amazing absurdity of the notion that we're all sniveling brats and we're all broken people. If we go by real numbers, real PTSD in the population very small. Having some temporary issues one way or another is NOT PTSD. Just like having clinical depression over years is not the same thing as having a week of the blues.

There's a great analogy in the practice of the Law. It's called leading the witness. If you come at people with an assumption that they MUST have PTSD, you're providing the person with a narrative that they will try to shoehorn themselves into. If left alone, that person may never have ever SEEN themselves as a trauma victim.

And yet, over the years, we see more and more therapy-isms creeping in, everywhere we look. Are you depressed? Are you traumatized? How do you know? Come get therapy! Come on, you KNOW you're all messed up, right? COME GET THERAPY.

Does this sound like a sales pitch to you? Like there are a lot of snake-oil salesmen (and women) masquerading as legitimate therapists trying to convince YOU that you NEED therapy so they can make some money? Justify their own jobs? Justify the huge huge numbers of specialized PTSD therapists that are funded by well-meaning but thoroughly duped government agencies who now believe that the WHOLE FREAKING SOCIETY is on the verge of mental collapse?

Hmmm. Maybe it is just that. A trend not supported by real numbers. Just like the pharmaceutical industry that pumps out and encourages the total drugging-up of our children based on massive overdiagnosis of Hyperactivity or Depression. It boils down to one maxim: follow the money. Who is profiting most? Then look at the people who insist that the problem is pervasive.

Then ask people candidly if they're really having a problem or if they're following a narrative. Most people don't want to dwell on the bad things. A little repression is actually very, very good. That's why we forget about our last flu. Or about the real pain during childbirth. Or that time we passed a stone.

Do you REALLY want to relive that experience? Over and over and over? If you do, then hell... that's sick. It's better to forget.

And yet, enabling this therapism provides us with exactly this same effect. It helps us relive the trauma over and over and over. Some people do need this kind of psychological toolset. I'll never say otherwise. But it is a single tool usually only used ONCE when unconscious effects are preventing someone from functioning in real life. When it comes to light, it should not be dwelled upon. It should be understood and boxed away. Send it to the same place where you sent the memory of your kidney stone.

Otherwise, you'll keep it fresh. Who wants to keep their trauma fresh, anyway?

We are strong. We are all as strong as we want to be. Don't enable weakness if you have a choice. Be resilient. :)

[Trish · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sheesh! I’ve been trying to find the punchline to this joke but apparently, this is all serious. All too serious.

Did you like to play tag as a kid? Well, then something is wrong with you! Best go see a therapist. Or better yet: let him/her put you on heavy medication. Because you can’t be trusted. You’re emotionally disturbed and not sensitive enough. Sadly, this is also no joke.

Then there are „experts“ that say children need special protection. If we were to talk sexual predators, I’d wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, we are talking about games such as dodge ball or tag as they are „too competitive“ or „too violent“ (correct me if I’m wrong but I’ve never seen a kid dying from dodge ball) and put children under a lot of stress.
Instead of regarding such games as what they are - exercise to blow off steam after sitting in a classroom for a long time - a war is waged for „the soul of our children“ and apparently the souls need coddling because real life isn’t stressful or competitive and nobody’s feelings ever get hurt so we don’t need to prepare for it or learn how to cope.

Apparently, there is a very big interest in telling people that there is something fundamentally wrong with them, psychologically. That they are frail, too frail to handle anything without therapy and drugs.
Personally, I think this is as stupid and disgusting as telling women (or men!) they need plastic surgery to look better.
It was a joke here in Germany when I grew up that Americans were constantly seeing therapists, even just over having written the grocery list wrong. I’m scared to see the trend spreading across the world in the meantime.
And yes, you guessed it, the people saying you need therapy and/or drugs are the same people you’re gonna pay for the therapy and/or drugs.

The industry (for that is what it is) is getting stronger and better organized, too. They start with children, changing the way children are taught, sowing doubt into the minds of their parents so the children hear nothing but this one narrative. This trend continues throughout our lives; we’re told we need professional help because otherwise we won’t be able to cope with anything.

This is not to say that going to a therapist is wrong and that nobody ever needs one. There are real psychological illnesses, of course, that indeed require treatment.
However, I, along with the authors who penned this book, am against the notion that we cannot deal with anything without therapists. Grieving, for example, is a natural process, painful but also vital. And every person grieves differently. Some cry, others don’t; some need to talk about a trauma while others prefer to stay silent. All of which is OK.
Moreover, there is a point to be made about therapy often actually being self-absorption amplified and signed off on by a doctor. Not to mention all the meds people get prescribed that nobody actually needs (we’re talking about really harmful chemicals - again, with the exception of actually sick people).

You can see an example right now: Corona has quarantined many people and most of the rest of us are not supposed to have contact with one another. While it isn’t ideal, it could also be over fairly quickly if everyone adhered to the rules. And it’s not the end of the world if we’re being entirely honest. Yes, I’d also like to go hiking in the beautiful sunshine instead of staying in the house (in fact, I’m still allowed to do that if I stay away from people). We’re NOT victims of horrible circumstances. The situation might not be ideal, but it’s far from being in insurmountable catastrophe (I’m talking about the situation of not being supposed to going to parties, not the death toll by the way). We have more entertainment at our disposal than anyone else in the history of mankind. Books (print, ebooks, audiobooks), games, music, movies, TV shows … we have so many things available at a click that we don’t even know what to do first! Even if you live in a tiny apartment instead of a house with a garden, it is more than survivable.
But what do I see and hear online and on official news or in government officials’ speeches even? That this is the greatest challenge since WW2 and that therapists need to be there for people in these dark and horrible times. *snorts* Give me a break!

I think it’s all a self-created problem as people seem to LIKE being victims (because they then get pity or whatever). It might even be a new form of addiction.
Simultaneously, I see it especially here in Europe that there is next to no self-reliance whatsoever anymore. Almost everyone constantly looks to someone else to make decisions and handle matters and people angrily demand being told what to do even. As if we were sheep.

All this is to say that we are not incapable of making our own decisions - the problem is that we then also have to take responsibility. I think that is the problem. It’s so much easier and more comfortable to hand it all over to somebody else. I’ll NEVER get on board of that way of thinking or even only understand why people like this.

The biggest problem is that it’s actually spreading. Just like a virus. It hinders progress, invention and thus causes humanity to not evolve any further. It starts with our children. Stop shoving completely unnecessary and very harmful chemicals down their throats. Go outside. Play tag with them. Or dodge ball. It won’t kill them and it won’t turn them into monsters.



P.S.: Yes, this was more of a rant than a review, but the book greatly showed proof of everything I said above - and more (except they didn’t use Covid-19 as an example). The writing style is great and the research sound so I definitely recommend this to anyone sick of participation awards and being told to take this or that pill to see the rainbow.

[Петър Стойков · Rating 4 out of 5]

Направило ли ви е впечатление, че по филмите американците много ходят на психотерапия? Не само на вас и не е само по филмите - в САЩ психологията е много повече на мода, отколкото в Европа и всякакви квалифицирани и неквалифицирани "терапевти" се борят със зъби и нокти да убедят всеки човек, че трябва да им дава пари.

Медикализирането на нормални човешки емоции и състояния отдавна е склонност на психологията и даже психиатрията - и това се усеща не само в САЩ вече. Съвсем нормално е човек да е тъжен след загуба на близък или преживяна лична или обществена трагедия или опасност, но не това искат да чуят хилядите психолози, които се опитват да "лекуват" нормалните човешки емоции с терапии или лекарства.

В това не би имало нищо кой знае колко лошо, ако прекаленото вторачване в чувствата и преживяването на емоциите на човек всъщност не ги усилваше - така отново и отново изследвания доказват, че огромната част от хората сами се справят по-добре със своите нормални емоции след загуба на съпруг/а или дете, след катастрофа или тежка болест. Специализирана терапия помага само на малка част хора, които не могат да се справят сами, а на останалите тя всъщност вреди.

В Европа общественото разбиране за нуждата от психотерапия е по-здравословно, но вредното въздействие на медикализацията на човешките емоции вече си е проправило път в специализираните институции като образование и съдебна система. Вече и тук невъзпитаното и невъздържано поведение на децата бива извинявано с всякакъв вид "психични разстройства", "тежка домашна среда" и толерирано в училище, а престъпници все по-често биват гледани благосклонно от съда, защото са "имали тежко детство" или поради "културните им особености". Наркоманиите пък са вече "болест", която не е по вина на "болния".

Това омаловажаване на личната отговорност има тежки и дълбоки последици върху обществения живот и разбирането ни за това какво е позволено и какво не в отношенията между хората. Безкрайната жалостивост към другите хора и извиняването на тяхното противообществено или дори само невъзпитано и невъздържано поведение, както и моралният релативизъм и отказът от заемане на морална позиция и заклеймяване на определени поведения като неморални е просто покана за още подобно поведение и разпад на обществения ред.

Което вече се случва в най-цивилизованите, богати и "прогресивни" градове в света като Сан Франциско, Филаделфия, Париж и Лондон, които, иронично, не могат да се справят с лавинообразно нарастващи проблеми с бездомност, религиозен фанатизъм, наркомания и улична престъпност не поради липса на средства, техника, знания или хора, а поради липса на обществен и политически гръбнак.

[Adam · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was highly disappointed with this book. I was expecting a balanced critique of therapy and the helping professions, instead I got a biased slam of parts of culture that the authors picked out of a much bigger body of evidence. For example, they routinely criticize Goleman (Emotional Intelligence) but they only pick out the few things they can make a case against, leaving the rest untouched. I do agree that we should not coddle our kids, nor prevent them from dealing with consequences or hardships in life, but this book seems more like sensationalism with the intent to make $ rather than do any good in society.

[Carolyn Harris · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book makes some good points, but I disagree with so much of it. It reads like this:

Authors: Most people can grieve on their own and don't need help.
Me: Agreed.
Authors: Talking with a grief counselor doesn't work for everyone and may be harmful for some.
Me: Still with you.
Authors: Therefore, all grief counselors are worthless and harmful and need to get a life. Anyone struggling with grief or trauma (statistics show there aren't that many of you) just needs to suck it up and get over it.
Me: What???

That's probably not at all what they were going for, but that's how it sounded because they hardly mentioned anything positive about therapy. This book picks the worst examples of how psychology has failed and then applies it generally to the whole field. They take things out of context or twist them then whine that psychology is evil and destroying America. I kept shouting, "You're drawing the wrong conclusions from that! You're not getting it!" I feel like it was written just to attack Daniel Goleman and grief and trauma counselors everywhere. Definitely not an objective take on the pros and cons of therapy.

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am reviewing this book from a Christian worldview. Although the book is not religious, it is nevertheless an important work that affirms some of the observation Nouthetic counselors have made about pop psychology. The book argues against much of pop-psychology’s assessment and various pseudo-scientific psychotherapy that is rampant in today’s society. Time and time again the author demonstrate that many popular works advancing ideas that Americans as a nation have serious psychological problems lack actual scholarship, either by falling short of rigorous empirical verification or being blatantly unscientific. I recommend this book. Below are some of my notes from my reading:

- Many secularized doom and gloom prophets have come and gone, defending their latest theories by anecdotes rather than proper social scientific methodologies. For example, the book documents recent advocates who say males today have psychological problems because of our society's high standard of responsibility imposed upon them that’s unrealistic; then there’s the anti-homework crowd who say school work are psychologically damaging upon minors; and the anti-tag and anti-dodge ball experts who don't want kids to be "it" or "out" lest these kids feel excluded and get messed up for life.
- The book has a sobering analysis of "unmerited self-confidence” promoted among leading experts of children education with the unintended consequences of producing a generation of narcissists. Self-confidence apart from merit is not a good thing.
- Studies have shown that there’s no correlation between self-confidence and success. The book also bring attention to the self-confidence of some psycho-paths, criminals, etc.
- The book has a serious indictment against some group therapeutic method and its practitioners unwillingness to call something that’s evil for what it is since it attempt to foster an atmosphere of extreme tolerance and understanding. The book records a morally disturbing dialogue during a group therapy session in which a man confesses that he has a problem of raping his sister in which the facilitator went after participants who were repulsed rather than the rapist himself.
- Chapter 3 dealt with the enslaving concept of addiction as a medical disease, which makes victims out of addicts and often disolves the need for responsibility in the eye of addicts.
- The book counters the argument made by advocates who have charts of brain activities showing drug addiction as a rewarding experience by noting the fact that those resisting addiction also show brain activity of being more intensely rewarded and gratified.
- All this "getting connected and talk about one's feelings" promote self-absorption.
- In a 1973 article titled "Case for bottling up rage" in Psychology Today it criticizes venting therapy: other studies agree and confirm talking about trauma per se has little effect despite what most people think. For instance, Yale studies on Gulf War vets show no differences among those talking about it and those that didn't.
- Talking about problems also does not significantly help with the lifespan of cancer patients despite what advocates say. The largest study on group therapy for longevity of cancer patients proved that those who talk about their problems only survive 9 more days on average rather than the previous claim of a two year difference
-Perils of overthinking not accounted for in the grief industry which fail to take into account people grieve in different ways and there's nothing wrong with not "talking about it"
-Grief industry had two presuppositions that need to be reconsidered: strangers are assumed to be always welcomed during grief and grief needs specialized assistance
- The phenomenon known as delayed grief (technically, not the same as repressed grief) in which not grieving now can come back to haunt you later on with the feeling of grief has not been proven empirically.
-PTSD is different than the experience of being traumatized in of itself. Thus PTSD is different from the experience described as "shell-shock," "combat fatigue," etc.
- Chapter 5 talk about the origin of PTSD was during the Vietnam War era by anti-war psychologists who originally advanced it as Post-Vietnam Syndrome. They proposed that it was a unique experience to Vietnam veterans suffering from self-punishment for being duped by society in an unjust war with the lack of a proper home-coming which result in the symptom of a delayed traumatic response.
- Contrary to what most people think about Vietnam veterans, studies have indicated that by the 1990s Vietnam Veterans were roughly the same statistically when compared to those of their generation who did not serve or were military veterans who did not serve in Vietnam. These reflect the same statistics as their counterparts in the area of suicide, homelessness, income, divorce rate, employment and level of education.
- Studies on delayed PTSD (defined as past 6 months) indicate that it is very rare.
- Group therapy for PTSD that focuses on re-living Vietnam intensify PTSD and ends up producing more problem instead.
- Crisis counselors and mental health workers for genocides and wars in Bosnia, South East Asia, Kosovo and Rwanda are often unwelcome by those whom they are trying to help since these victims don't see their problems as a pathological issue. These mental health workers often fail to address the problems the refugees themselves have identified which are more practical in nature such as health, sanitization, employment and financial needs, etc.
- Psychotherapy by means of briefing might end up hurting more than help trauma victims since it can prime them to see themselves and their experiences as pathological issues rather than normal grieving.
- There is the reality that our psychobabble culture might be “overhelping” which itself can produce problems.
- Good quote: "If one's worldview accommodates the likelihood of horror, one is prepared for it and better able to cope when tragedy does at last strike." (Page 211)
- Good quote: " Numerous studies have shown that ideological commitment to a cause plays a protective role." (Page 211)
- A sense of commitment to a cause checks the likelihood of PTSD.
- As a tangent afterthought, this work made me realize that to interpret those who do immorality in unbiblical and non-moral categories is spiritually and socially dangerous; for instance those who understand criminals as psychological victims approach solutions that fail to account for the responsibilities of criminals: most disturbing is the lady quoted who did not see Jefferey Dohmer was evil among Wolfe's subjects.

[Evan Micheals · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book arrives at the same conclusions as the philosophy underpinning the recovery movement. People are fundamentally well, and usually do not need help from Mental Health Professionals, unless they specifically ask for such help. The logic used to get there will affront Mental Health Professionals.

Whilst I have enjoyed the previous work of Hoff Sommers that I have read – I was uncomfortable with this feeling she cherry picked her examples, showing the extreme to be the norm. It is impossible to know given I have no first hand knowledge of the US school system, nor Mental Health System.

Regarding her thoughts of addiction. I agree with her with rejecting the “brain disease” model, however I also reject the personal responsibility model as the cure to addiction. The truth is in the middle. I have known to many people professionally who experienced the most unbelievable trauma that effected the choices they made. It is interesting she is prepared to forgive someone with schizophrenia, but not an addict. I believe the two are more closely related than she cares to admit. She does make some interesting and compelling points that are worthy of examination.

Her thoughts on grieving and trauma are reflective of my own, that responses to grief and trauma is complex, and that people should not be forced to talk about their feelings. The key thing to consider is if the person finds it helpful? If they do want to talk, great. If they don’t that is equally fine. I recall watching a trauma psychologist following the Beaconsfield Mine Collapse, telling the Journalist everything that she had “done” for the two survivors. I recall feeling appalled, that this woman was the stereotype of everything I knew to be wrong about a therapist. Nor do I recall the survivors having a word of thanks for the trauma councillors and the work they did for them. The praise was instead for those that dug the escape tunnel. I have no doubt that some overzealous therapists conform to the stereotype described and actually do more harm than good. This is a problem within our industry.

It reinforced my personal philosophy of minimalism in the treatment of trauma and distress. If the person appears to be coping, they probably are. There is no need for an “intervention”. Peoples styles of coping are complex and varied, and there is no “right” one style. The important thing is to be there when they need extra support, and withdraw quickly when that support is no longer required.

I admire that the book is well referenced and researched, but suspect it does not attempt to give the full debate, only the authors point of view. Christina Hoff Sommers remains an intellectual I respect, but she does have an agenda (but so do I as a Mental Health Professional – so I might be sub consciously protecting my own turf).

[Jenny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good food for thought. The mental health revolution that has taken place in the last 10 years has really changed things from when I was a kid at the very beginning of the "self-esteem movement."

I think our culture has, to a large extent, come to value self-expression over self-control and has replaced religion with therapy. Acceptance has become the only value that really matters in today's society, to the exclusion of all others (including kindness/tolerance toward those who don't accept anything and everything.)

I also think we've come to need mental health professionals more as our traditional communal support systems have been eroded by technology and affluence (in 1st world countries, anyway.) My favorite chapter was the one about rumination and how it is actually not beneficial for us. Many people would be happier if they knew that. I also liked the authors' point that post-traumatic growth is much more common than PTSD and we are stronger than we think we are.

That said, I definitely didn't agree with every conclusion the authors made, and was surprised to see that a psychologist co-authored a book that claimed the purpose of therapy is endless talking and introspection for its own sake (any therapist will tell you it's to help people develop strategies for dealing with life.)

Interesting food for thought and not life-changing, but things everyone should have in mind when living in the culture we have and evaluating the messages we receive from society about values and mental health.

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I agree with the overall theses of the book:
1. Being too quick to offer therapy to everyone implies that people can’t cope on their own and erodes other forms of assistance such as friendship, family, and community.
2. Forcing people into therapy or therapeutic situations violates the principle of informed consent. School children should not be forced to identify and process their feelings in the classroom. Teachers should teach, counselors should counsel, and politicians should run for office.

Throughout the book, the authors contrast two different approaches to the human condition. On one side you have “therapism” and on the other you have “moral philosophy” and “the American creed.”

Below are the ways in which these views are contrasted (therapism first):
- All-is-forgiven tolerance of the intolerable vs. Repentance and responsibility are required for forgiveness (84)
- Psychological diagnoses vs. Ethical judgments (84)
- Biology is a get-out-of-jail-free card vs. People are responsible for their behavior
- Determinism vs. Free will (92)
- Non-judgmentalism and the “abuse excuse” for behavior vs. Responsibility (unless psychotic, demented, or intellectually disabled) (96)
- Primacy of feelings vs. Primacy of behavior
- All cultures are equal vs. Freedom is exceptional and a better way to live
- Causes can be identified vs. It is impossible to know for certain what caused what (98)
- Those with addiction are helpless, passive, and fragile vs. People have natural fortitude and the capacity to make behavioral choices (244) and drugs don’t neutralize free will (105)
- Addiction relapse is inevitable vs. Individual choices and behaviors mitigate risk and addiction has both a biological and ethical/moral component (which is a more hopeful view) (100)
- Failure to express distress is denial vs. Lack of outward expression can be a valuable coping skill for some people (136)
- Self-expression vs. Self-control (217)
- Salvation through psychology vs. Ethics, philosophy, and/or religion are the way to the good life (216)
- Psychic pain is pathology in need of a cure vs. Pain is a normal part of life (217)
- Self-absorption and moral debility vs. Self-reliance, stoicism, courage in adversity, valorization of excellence, problem-solving, perseverance, achievement (218)

The authors summarize Bernie Zilbergeld regarding the therapistic sensibility, which “holds that 1) people are really sick even if they don’t appear to be, and especially if they deny it; 2) everyone can benefit from therapy; 3) normal problems are to be made into mental health issues; and 4) those problems are widespread and are unlikely to be solved without professional help” (200).

Tracing the history of therapism, the authors note that it expanded when returning Vietnam veterans were encouraged by anti-war psychiatrists to seek treatment for PTSD. The veterans soon learned that this qualified them for total and permanent disability payments for the rest of their lives. The authors argue that such an incentive for secondary gain led to over-diagnosis and treatment. Of course some patients were truly suffering and needed the treatment, but many didn’t. The authors caution, “The ease with which symptoms can be deliberately faked or unwittingly exaggerated, and the incentives for doing so, should worry PTSD researchers” (164).




Potent Quotables:

A growing body of research suggests there is, in fact, no connection between high self-esteem and achievement, kindness, or good personal relationships. On the other hand, unmerited self-esteem is known to be associated with antisocial behavior – even criminality (6).

Treating addicts as morally responsible, self-determining human beings free to change their behavior is, in the end, more effective, more respectful, and more compassionate.

Pluralism is an American tradition, but moral relativism is not.

“All theory is against the freedom of the will; all experience for it.” Samuel Johnson

[AA’s] founders were leery of the word disease because they thought it discounted the moral dimension of addiction.

[Brain imaging techniques] almost never permit scientists to predict whether a person with a desire-activated brain will act on that desire. Nor can they distinguish between an impulse that is irresistible and an impulse that is not resisted.

The “clinician’s illusion” occurs when practitioners generalize too readily from a clinical subgroup to a wider population.

Naturally, professionals should be ready and available to treat people with disabling levels of distress, but in general the people’s psychological well-being is best maintained through non-clinical means.

[raccoon reader · Rating 3 out of 5]

An overview of a compilation of studies and quotes from famous people (dead and alive) to support the authors claim that we are "overtherapizing" and focusing far too much attention on our emotions. While there was a great deal of evidence to support their claim, they've got a long way to go to change the trend of "getting in touch with your feelings" and talking something to death that pervades in psychological/psychiatric treatments.

The PSTD section was particularly interesting. I thought a lot during this book and I can't even beging to come close to covering all my various threads of thought in this review. I would have needed a pad and pencil with me the entire time and that's tedious. I'd suggest people reading the book to come to their own conclusion. There were definitely some amazing aha moments where I felt like a veil had been lifted. However, there were also some moments where I felt like they overlooked research. For instance in Origins: How the 9 Months Before Birth Shape the Rest of Our Lives, there was some starting research done on women (all ages) who survived a major crisis and grew up to have children. The crisis could be period of starvation and stress during WWII, surviving terrorist attacks, or even something like a major earthquake or disaster- so long as it was a pretty big event. These females grew up to have children that had some serious problems that the research attributes to the female's having lived through the event. Even if she dealt with the stress well there were unforeseen Long Term effects on her eggs/fetuses. Problems like abnormally high rates long term health problems or schizophrenia in her unborn/not yet conceived children. Why this book didn't mention it I don't know. But their la-te-da "just get over it" "get busy and deal" attitude towards people who had lived through an event is dismissive of potential effects that go far beyond the emotional. Maybe they are right and we don't need therapy, we just need to forget about bad stuff and move on. But regardless, there is evidence that a connection is made between the body and stress that we are still figuring out. Perhaps they just didn't want to open that can of worms of physical reactions to major stressors that are beyond our control, because I mean really, a bad event happens, your future children might be on the road for serious problems and there's nothing you can do about it because the event was unavoidable. Perhaps they just wanted to stick to emotional/therapeutic topics.

But I give the above as an example that you too might find something that you wish was better about the book, or more tightly written, or contradicts with what you've read elsewhere. But that's the point of these kind of books isn't it?

My major advice is DO Not get the audiobook. The reader sounds great at first, but then you realize she has NO differentiating voice when transferring between reading a quote and when the authors pick back up with their own words. Really? It makes it IMPOSSIBLE to know when a quote is over, which is very important. Really pissed me off. Come on old lady, get your shit together and read properly or please authors/publishers, find someone who knows how to change their voice between these types of things. Bleh.

[Denis · Rating 3 out of 5]

This author starts out strong with a good premise. Therapy is being overdone and now the therapeutic milieu permeates our schools. Fine, I but that -- somewhat. What Sommers leaves out is that the diagnoses and illnesses whose vailidity she questions concern students with very real problems that need to be named so they can be accomodated in the classroom. The author skips too many steps in her argument and seems to count on a complete consensus of agreement from her readers. This makes for a weak argument as the book goes on. I found myself skipping entire sections because the tone of the writing had becomes too strident. By the end of the book I concluded that therapy has a definite place in all of our lives and that Sommers' strongly held point of view came off as reactionary and counter-productive to the best interests of everyone. Reading the book was useful for me, though, because it served to open up my own thinking about this topic and make me interrograte my own thoughts.

[Richelle Moral Government · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was much more interesting and fact based than I expected it to be! It confirmed a lot of things I suspected but hadn’t done the deep dive into to figure out if my intuition was right. When a friend accused me of repressing my emotions and said I needed therapy I was offended. And that’s what motivated me to find this book. She couldn’t understand how I got over traumatic events so quickly (I have a medically complicated child who I have to give CPR quite often) and thought that I was over-due for a mental breakdown. But this book has all those studies that have been buried that confirm that repression works and getting on with things and not dwelling on how things make you FEEL is a legitimate strategy that does lead to long-term mental well-being. More people need to know this, we would have a lot less mental illness.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very interesting and some what prescient read. It certainly seems to me that the definition of the word "trauma" has been so expanded as to be meaningless. The first chapter about education suggests that the focus on young people sharing their deepest emotions has had some ugly side effects. Hoff Sommers explains that have kids write about such things "inevitably invites some children to prevaricate, invent, and dramatize." I have seen many of my classmates try to "enhance" their personal stories and essays to make them seem more emotionally damaging than they really were. Overall, this book highlights some really key cultural issues and has some insights into my generation that will prove valuable going forward.

[Michael Palkowski · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good segments in particular on our culturally influenced understandings of trauma and post traumatic stress disorder. Another segment of the book worth analysing is the large area on humanistic or positive psychology and person centred counselling. The critiques are off base sometimes totally and it sometimes relies too heavily, as does other anti therapy texts, on character discrediting.
I agree with most of the premises of the book though, particularly the notion that the rise in counselling interventions is not linked directly to a frail psychological need but rather a misguided set of assumptions about the human condition.

[Fishface · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good, research-based expose of how ineffective, and often unnecessary, therapy is. Takes some welcome pot-shots at the way grief counselors have become the new ambulance-chasers in our society, there to suck up FEMA grants more than they are there to help anyone. The promise of the subtitle did not bear fruit: the authors present no evidence that the therapy culture is undermining American self-reliance, but it does present considerable evidence that therapists would LIKE that to happen. Because, hey, job securty is a wonderful thing. I was surprised to find that the last third of the book was citations -- this is a much shorter read than I expected.

[Erik A Berg · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Too many Americans have been convinced, for example, that self-expression is more important than self-control, that non-judgmentalism is the essence of kindness, that psychic pain is a pathology in need of a cure."

The authors trace the history of "therapism" (their term for the general cultural trend favoring emotional openness and the sharing of feelings) from psychological theory to widespread public acceptance, and in turn its influence on law, education, and the helping professions. Especially interesting to me were the stories of health professionals who venture into advocacy and in the process "overstep their data to support their politics".

[Linda Oleszczuk · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ok I skimmed thru and read most of it. I realized halfway thru it was published in 2005 so while the beginning was relatable the sections later on were dated. Ironically the whole last section was about 9/11 which is a week away 20.th anniversary. I have always been a proponent of talk therapy and meds, and still am. However, valid arguments in this book about the younger generation having moral issues due to practices put in place by “therapism” and its supporters. I would love an updated version of this, especially since I think there has been a shift that directly contradicts idealogy by early adapters. Worth a look for sure

[Kristi · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked the overall message, but it was hard for me to get over the way it was written. It just seemed poorly organized for me. But it was well researched and well supported. The main question the book presents is if we as Americans will stick to the tradition of perseverance through trials or if the new culture of therapy will drive us into "theraputic self-absorption and moral debility." Worth reading.

[Sue · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finally! Someone with the nertz to say that all feelings aren't pathological, we don't have to share everything (and no one's really interested, thank you), repression can be a good thing, therapy is intrusive and makes you dwell on your problems instead of getting over them and children don't develop healthy self esteem just because you tell them they're wonderful. I love these ladies!

[Amanda · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was a little conservative but it brought up many great points about the helping profession. I especially liked the idea that people are far less fragile than the helping profession would like to say that they are. I found myself agreeing with the assertions in this book far more than I disagreed with them - their ideas on PTSD were a little "out there" but were generally spot on.

[Barbara Lovejoy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book gave me lots of food for thought! Rushing in to quickly to help can give the wrong message and actually make matters worse. It is going on my list of recommended books for our Esperanza educators.

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would recommend reading sections of this book but not the entire thing. I found it uneven, with some parts leading me to consider our culture in a new light, but others seeming obvious.

[Dawn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I like the concept of this book, that we have gone too far in trying to absolve people of responsibility. But I am not sure how accurate it is, or maybe because it is very US based, maybe I am not seeing this in its natural habitat.
The school system is discussed first, mentioning that the obsession with self esteem, that everyone is a winner and eliminating any possible triggers is making a nation of children with no concept of how to survive in the real world. There was some pretty heavy 'America is Great' rhetoric in this section that made me laugh and roll my eyes all at the same time.
The catholic church is the next example, in regards to the sexual misconduct of the priests in the 20th century. The concept is that the catholic church bought in wholesale to the idea that this was a disease that could be cured instead of a crime and sent their priests to be rehabilitated. I have an issue with this idea as I think the church would have protected their own no matter what. This was not a societal failing that the church adopted in ignorance, it was a convenient way to cover up an issue. The catholic church has a long history of this, it cannot be blamed on psychology.
Up next is addiction and how we spend so much time trying to blame our upbringing, our emotions, or our brain that we have stopped taking personal responsibility for the choices we make. This one makes a lot of sense to me so far, I do think we have in general started to deflect responsibility for what we do in a lot of areas. Not my fault that you were insulted, that my marriage broke up, that I can't lose weight, that I stole, that I can't keep a job.....
There are additional discussions about cancer and the support groups that may or may not be helpful; about veterans, specifically from Vietnam and whether our view of them has been permanently tainted by assuming they were all traumatized; and about 9/11 where we assumed there would be mass trauma that required therapy.
The book speaks to how we are losing our ability to be resilient by classifying everything as trauma that requires counseling. That maybe not everyone and not every situation will be helped by this idea and we need to move toward taking responsibility for our own actions, emotions and healing. That maybe these situations are a way to grow and learn, instead of fall apart. Not in invalidate the experiences of those that do need help but also not to think that everyone must get in touch with their feelings to survive.

[Mel Foster · Rating 5 out of 5]

As it was published in 2005, I wondered how relevant it would still be. It's very relevant.

In the tradition of Thomas Szasz, the authors challenge the culturally accepted therapeutic state and the society that has developed around it. This book pulls back the curtain and points out where trends in psychology and psychiatry depart from actual science, as well as where pop psychology often departs from even the tentative theories of progressive psychology.

The rebuke of Maslow is a breath of fresh air after attending so many educational classes and seminars that begin with the premises of Maslow as established scientific fact.

Read to discover the origins of the PTSD framework in the Vietnam era and its subsequent expansion in application.

Are self esteem and self-revelation and 'venting' intrinsically good? Read on.

In a postCOVID-19 world where people are almost obsessed with looking to "Science," there are too many culturally received truths about psychology that do not have scientific merit. Let's put the sacred cows out to pasture.

A few quotes:
"Too many Americans have been convinced that self-expression is more important than self-control, that nonjudgmentalism is the essence of kindness, that psychic pain is a pathology in need of cure." (217)
". . .immediate and highly visible attempts to help people negotiate a task that they could have managed on their own can undercut their sense of personal agency. Psychologists call this overhelping." (201)
"As Simon Wessley has remarked, 'The toxic effect of counseling is that some people begin to see themselves as having a mental health problem when they do not." (189)
"clinician's illusion. . .occurs when practicioners generalize too readily from a clinical subgroup to a wider population. The illusion tricks doctors, for example, into overestimating how difficult it is to quit cigarettes or alcohol. . . the patients who are successful don't keep coming back to the doctor. . . "(157)

[Jason Clinton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not without its flaws but it challenged my assumptions and made me realize that many company's approaches to employe wellbeing have no basis in scientific evidence.

The thesis is, "model resilience and you'll be fine, usually."

Where it goes off the the rails is where it wades into ideas of blame and retribution due to the moral failings of those in society who commit crime or fall into addiction or "moral weakness". At one point in the book, the authors are precient enough to realize that they have waded into the question of free will. But then wave away the consequences of that debate as irrelevant all while going about casting condemnation as though free will exists.

Free will does not exist. And that is exactly where the book leaves me spinning. In our world without free will, it is still rational to consider the use of consequences and incentives to correct moral failings: to remove someone from a situation who is causing harm or to publicly punish to discourage other rational actors from considering the same negative path. Or, to reward good behavior. However, as repeatedly demonstrated by the authors throughout the book, therapy and therapy inspired team structures either don't work or don't have any evidence to support the assertion that they work.

So: if every person's behavior is deterministic and science has utterly failed to derive an effective behavioral model, then what should we do to encourage the right behavior in society? The book is silent on this except to point to stoicism and Judeo Christian values. More than two millenniums later, apparently, this is the best we can do?

[Megan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I agree with many of the key points in this book regarding learning materials being too censored so as not to upset, stress out, or cause anxiety in children. Teachers in the US are not 'allowed' in some cases to tell a child they got the answer wrong. Instead, for sensitivity's sake, they have to dance around and reword their response carefully. Whereas in Europe, children their are still told the answer is wrong and they move along in the lesson. There is nothing wrong with challenges or normal levels of anxiety and stress as these are completely natural things. They teach children, for example, how to go about learning to cope and problem-solving. But when adults step in and pave the path of all of the possible hiccups or speed bumps, the kids don't learn to deal with much of anything. Then you also have the application of assuming everyone needs some sort of therapy (trauma or not). This one size fits all approach of blanket therapy is frustrating and unnecessary. Granted there are some points in the book I felt were not on point. Ultimately though, it explained a lot about why it is therapy is often crammed down the throats of people who don't need it and how mismanaged the system is to those who really do.

[عدنان العبار · Rating 5 out of 5]

One Nation Under Therapy is a fantastic book about the often ignored problems of psychiatry and clinical psychology. The central theses of the book are quite simple. They are these: i) That not allowing the person undergoing a troubling phase to conquer his mental woes will leave him weaker in will and discipline; ii) That mental health is not a properly defined category of mental or bodily state; and iii) That where a benefit can be yielded to the healers, a disease can emerge.

The book provides example after another of these propositions, and the last one especially resonated with me. I recall the example from 9/11. Many people have claimed to have PTSD by simply watching the event on TV. This exemplifies a weak resilience that should not be catered to if we are to inform people that they should be responsible for what goes in their heads from processing external stimuli. There is no doubt that many mental illnesses exist either as physiological disorders or severe psychological strain. But it is the case that many (MANY) of the claimed cases do not correspond to reality.

I have enjoyed this book a lot, and consider it to be essential readings for people interested in psychology and psychiatry.

[Jessica Whitmer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent scholarship and research supporting the premise that the rampant "therapism" within our culture has done more harm than good. Although this book was published in 2005, it seems to still (if not more) have relevance today, where (in the author's own words) "self-expression is more important than self-control", and emotional self-absorption has more merit than human resilience. The authors discussed many different areas where therapism has harmed people, from students in education who are steeped in moral relativism and are afraid to stand up for any moral ideals, to the overzealous diagnosing of PTSD after the Vietnam War, to criminals (particularly Catholic priests caught in child abuse scandals) using the excuse that "their brain made them do it," with the full support of their "therapists." Really opened my eyes to some issues facing us in the psychology fields and the over diagnosing that goes on, as well as the need for moral clarity. A must-read! Definitely will be looking for more books that discuss the issues revealed here!

[autumnatopoeia · Rating 2 out of 5]

I like Christina Hoff Summers - I've read another book of hers and listened to her podcast - but this book felt like an angry white woman tirade. Clearly she has a vendetta against therapy, in all its forms. I would have hoped that her arguments would have been balanced, objective, and well-researched, given her academic background. I mean, I get it - I have doubts about therapy and I WORK IN THE FIELD. Sure, there are people and programs out there trying to milk a mental health diagnosis for all its worth, but its unfair to judge a philosophy by its abuse. Yes, individuals respond to different treatments in varying ways, so therefore it is necessary for clinicians to be properly trained in many approaches. There are certainly mental health echo chambers, especially in our post-pandemic culture, and there is also endless research that proves therapy to be truly helpful. In the end, I fall in the middle on most of her points, but, disappointingly, she clearly falls to one side.

[Jerry Wall · Rating 2 out of 5]

Therapism is what this book is about.
From veterans to terrorist attack survivors to bank personnel who have been robbed, the answer is
purported to be mental therapy.
Studies show that it has been overused and that people who suffer a jarring experience mostly to as well to "cowboy up" and get on with living.
. . . lamented the church leaders' "tolerance . . . for intolerable behavior. p. 84 (on priest child abuse)
. . . only a society that treats its members as ethically responsible and personally accountable can achieve and sustain a democratic civil order. p. 95 !!!!
When you're ignoring pain, brushing past hardship, doing your best despite adversity -- that's when you know what it means to 'cowboy up' p.215
The American Creed values are self-reliance, stoicism, courage in the face of adversity, and the valorization of excellence. p. 218