Search

In the late 1990s researchers in Pelotas Southern Brazil began documenting what they considered to be unacceptably high rates of licensed psychotropic use among individuals of all ages, including youth. This came as a surprise, since the vast majority of psychiatrists in Pelotas draw on psychoanalytic theory and approach pharmaceutical use, especially for children and adolescents, in a consciously tempered way. Drawing from a longitudinal ethnographic sub-study, part of a larger 1982 birth cohort study, this paper follows the circuitous trajectories of emergent pharma-patterns among “shantytown” youth over a ten-year period, exploring the thickly layered and often moralized contingencies in which psychodynamic psychiatrists' intention to resist excessive pharmaceuticalization both succeed and crumble. I juxtapose these trajectories with the growing salience of an “anti-biologizing” explanatory framework that psychiatrists and researchers are using to pre-empt the kind of diagnostics-driven “biopsychiatrization” so prevalent in North America. My analysis suggests that psychiatrists' use of this framework ironically contributes to their failed attempts to “resist” pharmaceuticalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Explanations for the association between teen-childbearing and subsequent mental morbidity vary considerably, from those based on neurological theories of development to those investigating underlying social and economic determinants. Based on longitudinal epidemiological and ethnographic sub-studies of the 1982 Pelotas birth cohort study, this paper explores the hypothesis that teen childbearing and subsequent mental morbidity have become associated through the interplay of culture, society, and biology in situations where teen pregnancy has become a stigmatised object of scientific and public health attention. Results show that the effect of teen childbearing on subsequent mental morbidity remained significant in the multivariate analysis. Ethnographic analysis, together with epidemiological effect modification analyses, suggest that this association is partially accounted for by the fact that it is more pronounced amongst a specific subgroup of women of low socio-economic status who, being more politicised about societal injustice, were also more critically engaged with – and thus troubled by – the inequitable institutionalisation of life-cycle transitions. With time, these women became highly critical of the institutionalised identification of early childbearing as a key violation of life-cycle norms and the differential class-based application of scientific knowledge on its causes and consequences. Public health campaigns should consider how the age-based institutionalisation of developmental norms has enabled the stigmatisation of those identified as transgressors. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]