William Fleming
In recent decades, mental health has grown into a fraught and explicit public issue with considerable public and corporate policy attention. Mental health problems are reported to be both very prevalent and increasing, no more so than in the rising rates of work-related mental illness like burnout. What explains the ubiquity of mental health discourse and the growth of work-related mental illness in contemporary society? There is a vast scholarship in the social and health sciences seeking to explain these trends with national and international datasets, but the full answer remains elusive. For Ari Väänänen in The Rise of Mental Vulnerability at Work: A Socio-Historical and Cultural Analysis (TRoMVaW), we must look to transformations in the dominant modes of production and employment, especially the changes in the subjective experiences of work and life.
Väänänen comprehensively reviews the currently dominant theories why work-related mental well-being is such a growing problem (Chapters 3 and 4). The first explanation comes from positivist research in labour sociology, economics and psychology, claiming work is just more cognitively demanding and intense than it used to be (e.g. Green, 2006). The second explanation, in a similar paradigm, suggests the standard employment relationship developed in the Fordist, post-war era has degraded to produce new forms of ‘precarity’ (e.g. Standing, 2011). The other group of dominant theories are from critical and constructivist sociologists, both generally developed from Foucauldian ideas of governmentality, that argue society and subjectivity has been psychologized (e.g. Rose, 1999) and medicalized (e.g. Armstrong, 1995). For Väänänen, all four positions have strengths, but omit personal, cultural and political explanations, while also relying on a ubiquity and universalism that is neither sufficiently substantiated, nor provides a complete explanation. Väänänen’s summaries of these research streams on the relationships between work and mental health are excellent; any reader, regardless of familiarity with the topic, will benefit from engagement. Yet Väänänen’s criticisms of these research approaches are the real theoretical hook for TRoMVaW, opening the door to proceed.