Laura Wiesböck Digitale Diagnosen. Psychische Gesundheit als Social-Media-Trend
[Digital Diagnoses. The Mental Health Trend in Social Media]

“Digital Diagnoses” does this refer to an appointment with a tele-doctor, a remote treatment at a “TeleClinic,” or some other provider so as to avoid wasting time in a waiting room? Laura Wiesböck probes deeper. The Austrian sociologist investigates how the digital and diagnostic relate to one another in the age of social media. She is following an intuition when hearing (or using) words such as “toxic”, “trauma” or “trigger.” These psychological terms, once employed solely by professionals, are being coopted mainly on the internet to describe and diagnose one’s experiences of suffering. A therapy is then prescribed—not by a qualified medical practitioner—but by online friends or influencers. This type of public illness without being issued a certified of sickness or prescription has turned into a mega trend on social media. Wiesböck’s book focuses on the pathology of this new digital phenomenon.

A hallmark of “Healthism” is exemplified by how people proudly display their illness in the public sphere, especially if they think their illness is interesting. Depression can seem romantic when “sad girls” stage it online. ADHD explains and excuses young men, whose strange behavior they themselves believe proves they are particularly intelligent. Even without a clinical diagnosis, the digitally ill can count on encouragement from the online community. Recognition by one‘s peers in society replaces a medical diagnosis. Young people with mental illnesses have excellent chances in the digital attention marketplace. While the expertise of actual specialists is receding into the background, the “experiential expertise” of patients and followers is on the rise. An ADHD influencer, for example, speaks to her clients without any medical training, but supplements with a heaping dose of empathy.

Wiesböck shows how digital communication works today, by employing a highly critical view of illness/health. While one might occasionally discover some fact-based information, the real drivers of the trend are advertising images and “narratives.” The diagnostic culture of emotion that is spreading today across the internet shows strong symptoms of mental immaturity (here I am taking the liberty of offering a layman’s diagnosis). This applies to dealing with illness and suffering, as well as the cult of beauty and the commercialization of “care” and “healing”. Medical therapy would be necessary, but those who are ill prefer to be treated by their peers. How has it come to this? Wiesböck identifies “neoliberalism” as the main culprit, which highlights a problem with her otherwise highly informative book.

When employing the term neoliberalism, the author takes her cue from Foucault, who uses it to describe a certain liberal-capitalist form of governing that imposes self-techniques on us, such as the compulsion to optimize oneself, or as the “entrepreneurial self.” We govern ourselves, and wrongly, because neoliberalism wants it that way, or so Wiesböck argues. But who is actually demanding submission from whom with regard to the digital health craze? Isn’t it rather the customers themselves who are unable to let go of this apparatus? And isn’t it perhaps tech companies whose business model is based on the desire of this clientele to communicate promotional images of themselves?

Wiesböck seems to believe that it is the states and governments themselves that are imposing a neoliberal set of requirements on their citizens. Whether dealing with questions around performance, responsibility, competition or entrepreneurship, Wiesböck argues that these social imperatives are inevitably driving digital users into a crisis. That nobody is being forced to succumb to their Smartphone‘s “healthism” does not seem to faze the author. Instead, she concludes her book with a “plea for interpersonal ambivalence and solace.” That is all well and good, but surely there are also sectors in the economy that are not guided by the notion of care and kindness. Wiesböck’s analysis of society can certainly be questioned on some points, but this does not detract from her judgement and critique of digital misdiagnoses and their significance for society.