Therapy as an Opium for the Oppressed
The recent article in The New Arab highlights the limitations of 'liberal therapeutic culture,' using the example of the Filton 24 hunger strikers. While ostensibly progressive, the piece's author, Tarek Younis, points to a deeper, more insidious dynamic at play when mental health is invoked in contexts of structural violence. The question isn't whether people suffer trauma, but how that suffering
is framed and who benefits from that specific framing. THE ACTORS: Who defines 'trauma' and 'healing'? The primary actors here are the 'liberal therapeutic culture' (as described by Younis) and specific state-aligned institutions. In the Filton 24 case, it was the state and its agents seeking to 'manage' the hunger strikers' distress. More broadly, it includes academic institutions funded by
Western governments (e.g., studies on 'radicalization' often funded by homeland security departments), NGOs operating with international grants (e.g., USAID, some EU grants), and professional psychological associations. These bodies often develop and disseminate the very frameworks that Younis critiques. THE FUNDING: The Business of 'Trauma-Informed Care' The mental health industrial complex is a
multi-billion dollar industry. In the US alone, the mental health sector was valued at $100 billion in 2021 (Grand View Research, 2022). A significant portion of this funding, particularly research and intervention grants for conflict zones, comes from government agencies and large philanthropic foundations often with geopolitical interests. For instance, USAID, which has a stated mission tied to