If the diagnosis and treatment of Internet addiction is not legitimate medical practice, what is it? The diagnosis of Internet addiction is a strategy used by mental health professionals to stigmatize people who find meaning in conversing with others via the Internet. People who diagnose and treat others for Internet addiction use the Internet as a scapegoat to serve their own selfish interests in the name of helping others. The diagnosis of Internet addiction is a social construction serving the political, social, and economic interests of diagnosticians: Psychotherapists making such diagnoses are disingenuous, and are feigning compassion and concern for others when their real interest is in power and money. This self interest masquerading as care and concern for others is nothing new: There is no end to what can be diagnosed and treated these days, when it comes to socially unacceptable behavior.
The Internet is a fantastic tool, revolutionizing the way people communicate with one another, acquire, and exchange information. It is used to bring people closer and closer together throughout the world. Many people are trying to capitalize on this marvellous invention and it is not surprising to see psychotherapists do the same. They do this by inventing ,До not discovering ,До disorders such as Internet addiction. People engaged in such deceptive practices are like parasites sucking the metaphorical blood of others in order to survive.
Why not "reading addiction," "telephone addiction," and "writing addiction?" People have always engaged in self-destructive behaviors via those mediums. These activities are not diagnosed and "treated" as disorders or diseases because everyone knows it is ludicrous to do so. The bottom line is this: Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other "mental health" professionals addict themselves to diagnosing and treating people for metaphorical diseases in order to boost their own self-esteem, and to make money.
The Internet is neither good nor bad, safe nor dangerous. It has no power unto itself. It can addict no one. Yes, the Internet is expanding exponentially. This is a function of its utility. It's not the size that counts, but how you use it that's important. Just as there is no such thing as a typical "addict," there is no such thing as a typical Internet addict. The people we label addicts constitute a heterogeneous population. This a fancy way of saying people are individuals. They log on and off of the Internet for diverse reasons, in diverse ways, and with diverse consequences.
Pronouncement without evidence is evidence of self-assigned God-like status. There is no evidence that Internet addiction exists, much less that it is a disease. Since it is not a disease, it cannot be treated. What passes as "treatment" for Internet addiction is simply conversation characterized by different rhetorical styles. Some people find the conversations called "therapy" useful. Many people think that therapists are crazy.
The conversation labelled "treatment" for "Internet addiction" consists of political, ceremonial, forensic, base, and noble rhetoric. The therapist and the designated "patient" urge one another to do or not do something in the future (political rhetoric). They praise or censure one another or others for what they are doing in the present (ceremonial rhetoric). They attack or defend one another or others for something someone did in the past (forensic rhetoric). They lie to one another, confusing symbolic and literal reality (base rhetoric). They tell the truth to one another, separating fact and fiction, encouraging courage, autonomy, responsibility, and liberty (noble rhetoric). These are ethical endeavors, not medical ones.
If we truly seek to comprehend the nature of "Internet addiction," we must study the "addictionologists" and the social, political, and economic context within which such persons make their pronouncements. We do not need to study the Internet, or the people communing with others via the Internet, to comprehend the mythical disease called "Internet addiction." Res ipsa loquitur.
1. In considering the claim that certain persons addict themselves to the Internet in ways that are amenable to "treatment," I rely primarily on distinctions between behavior and disease made by Thomas S. Szasz, MD over the past forty years.
Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D., is a psychologist and adjunct professor of justice, law, and society at American University's School of Public Affairs in Washington, D.C. He is the author, most recently, of Addiction Is a Choice (Chicago: Open Court. 2000). His home page on the Internet is www.schaler.net.
Return to New Therapist home page
New Therapist
Indispensable survival guide for the thinking therapist
