The Politics of Pathologisation: How the Left and Right Weaponise Psychiatry

Dr Jess discusses the way both the Left and Right pathologise women - and why neither will stand up against psychiatry

Ready for a rabbit hole today, folks? Okay, let’s go!

Psychiatry and the pathologisation of human suffering have long been used as tools of social control, but what interests me, is how both the political left and right in the UK and USA embrace these frameworks - albeit in different ways.

While their ideological justifications differ, the outcome is often the same: traumatised and oppressed people (especially women and girls) are medicalised rather than understood, their suffering is depoliticised, and structural failures are obscured.

The right do it. The left do it. Fascinating.

The left, despite its anti-capitalist rhetoric, remains deeply invested in psychiatric explanations that support profit for pharmaceutical companies turning over billions. Then the right, despite its ‘tough on crime’ stance, repeatedly leans on narratives of ‘mental illness to excuse or explain criminality. Both sides, in their own way, maintain and legitimise a system that individualises trauma, abuse and suffering, neutralises any critique, and ultimately upholds the status quo.

The Left claim to be anti-capitalist, yet seem pro-big pharma

Left-wing politics often presents itself as compassionate towards humans, and critical of capitalism, yet when it comes to mental health, much of the left is heavily invested in psychiatric models that are deeply entwined with corporate profits.

Mental health activism within progressive spaces centres on empty echoes of ‘raising awareness’ of mental illness, ‘fighting stigma’, and… of course… increasing access to psychiatric medications and therapies. While these aims may appear altruistic to an unwitting observer, they fundamentally accept the psychiatric-industrial complex as a given, as a science, as fact, rather than questioning any it.

Their critique of power structures go out of the window, apparently!

Pharmaceutical companies make billions each year from psychiatric drugs, many of which have little to no robust evidence supporting their long-term efficacy. The myth of the ‘chemical imbalance’ - the idea that mental illness is caused by faulty brain chemistry - was debunked years ago, yet it remains a cornerstone of mainstream mental health discourse.

Why? Because it’s profitable.

It offers an easy, individualised solution that obscures the role of social conditions in suffering. If depression, for example, is caused by a serotonin deficiency rather than poverty, domestic abuse, or systemic oppression, then the solution is a pill, not social change.

This contradicts the left’s anti-capitalist stance. Why is it that those who are otherwise critical of exploitative industries - whether that’s fossil fuels, private healthcare, or big tech, industrial farming (meat industry) - rarely manage to extend that critique to Big Pharma?

I think the answer lies in the left’s reliance on victimhood politics and identity-based frameworks. I know. Controversial.

But think about it. To reject psychiatric narratives would require acknowledging that many people’s suffering is political rather than medical, and that would mean advocating for systemic change rather than merely demanding greater access to medication and therapy. It would also mean rejecting a key aspect of leftist cultural capital - the language of mental illness as an identity, as a way to assert oppression and legitimacy within progressive spaces.

The Right’s contradiction: Tough on crime, but soft on ‘mentally ill’ criminals

The right, in contrast, frames itself as tough on crime, committed to personal responsibility, and sceptical of ‘excuses’ for criminal behaviour. Yet, when it suits their agenda, they are more than happy to employ psychiatric narratives to explain criminality - particularly when that criminality challenges or embarrasses the state… *cough* MPs caught up in scandals claiming they have mental health issues *cough*

Another example of this is how right-wing politicians and media outlets respond to mass shootings in the USA. When the perpetrator is white, the discussion quickly shifts to mental illness and mental health history. We are told they were ‘troubled,’ that they ‘fell through the cracks,’ that their violence was the tragic result of untreated psychiatric issues. But when the perpetrator is Black or South Asian, the focus is on gang violence, extremism, terrorism, or cultural pathology - never mental illness.

Similarly, in the UK, discussions of mental illness frequently surface in cases of domestic abuse, child sexual exploitation, and white-collar crime. Here, psychiatric explanations serve as a way to distance perpetrators from personal responsibility without actually challenging the broader social structures that produce violence. If an abusive man is labelled as having ‘narcissistic personality disorder’ or is framed as a ‘psychopath’ rather than simply being violent, abusive and entitled, the conversation moves away from male entitlement and misogyny.

If corporate fraudsters and scam artists are labelled as ‘sociopaths,’ it is easier to frame them as uniquely deviant rather than as products of an economic system that rewards ruthless exploitation.

This is where the right’s contradiction becomes clear. If they truly believed in accountability, they would not so readily deploy psychiatric labels to excuse certain kinds of criminals. But they do - because mental illness, when selectively applied, allows them to shape the narrative in ways that reinforce their political goals.

Misogyny, identity politics, and the weaponisation of psychiatry against women and girls

Misogyny plays a central role in both left- and right-wing uses of psychiatry, shaping how women’s suffering, resistance, and behaviour are interpreted, medicalised, and controlled. Women, particularly those who challenge power or refuse to conform to social expectations, have historically been among the primary targets of psychiatric labelling. From ‘hysteria’ in the Victorian era to ‘borderline personality disorder’ today, psychiatry has long been used to silence, discredit, and pathologise women - often in ways that serve both left- and right-wing political agendas.

On the right, misogyny manifests in the psychiatric framing of women’s experiences as irrational, unstable, or biologically defective. Women who report abuse are often dismissed as ‘crazy’ or ‘vindictive,’ their trauma responses reinterpreted as signs of mental instability rather than evidence of harm. This is especially true in cases of domestic violence and sexual abuse, where perpetrators frequently manipulate psychiatric narratives to paint their victims as unreliable or delusional. Women who express anger or defiance are framed as totally unhinged, while those who struggle under patriarchal oppression are told they have ‘depression’ or ‘anxiety’ - as though their suffering is an internal flaw rather than a response to misogynistic external conditions and environments.

The right also selectively utilises psychiatric diagnoses to defend men who commit violence against women. Domestic abuse perpetrators, rapists, and even mass murderers are often described as ‘mentally ill’ rather than as products of a culture that normalises male entitlement to women’s bodies and lives. This allows the right to sidestep uncomfortable conversations about misogyny while maintaining its broader narratives about law and order. Rather than addressing the root causes of male violence, right-wing rhetoric suggests that ‘broken’ individuals - often framed as mentally ill or ‘damaged’ - are to blame, reinforcing the idea that violence is an anomaly rather than a systemic issue.

On the left, misogyny takes a different but equally insidious form, often operating through identity politics and an over-reliance on psychiatric language to frame women’s experiences. Many feminist critiques of psychiatric pathologisation (like mine!) have been drowned out by so-called ‘progressive’ mental health activism that prioritises ‘awareness’ and ‘destigmatisation’ over a structural analysis of how these diagnoses disproportionately harm women. ‘Don’t pill shame!’ ‘Mental health is the same as physical health!’ ‘End mental health stigma!’

All empty calls from left-wing activists that seemingly have no understanding of the way psychiatry oppresses and harms women and girls.

Feminists who challenge psychiatric labels such as ‘borderline personality disorder’ (which is overwhelmingly diagnosed in women, particularly those subjected to abuse) often find themselves dismissed as ‘invalidating’ mental health identities, rather than being recognised as critics of a deeply sexist system.

This has happened to me many times. If I question the validity of ADHD, BPD, NPD, Bipolar, medications, ECT, tranquilisers, restraints and sectioning women and girls - suddenly my feminism isn’t left enough, and I am seen as invalidating someone’s ‘lived experience’ - rather than criticising a system of lies, misogyny, and oppression.

The left also has a habit of using psychiatric frameworks to control the discourse around gender, identity, and trauma. Women who push back against dominant leftist narratives - whether on sex-based rights, trauma responses, or the medicalisation of distress - are often accused of being ‘mentally unwell,’ ‘paranoid,’ or engaging in ‘trauma dumping.’

Our perspectives are undermined not through reasoned debate, but through the suggestion that we are too emotionally unstable to be taken seriously. This is particularly evident in online leftist spaces, where psychiatric labels are frequently weaponised against women who challenge ideological orthodoxy.

Again, been there! Many times! In fact, I can honestly say that I’ve been called mentally ill, and accused of having everything from autism to BPD by left wing academics, professionals, therapists, and journalists much more than I have ever been called those things by right wing people.

(Not saying right wing are better, they usually just call me a fat, ugly bitch or something to that effect…)

Both the left and the right, then, use psychiatry as a means of policing women - either by dismissing their suffering outright or by medicalising it in ways that strip it of political significance. In both cases, the end result is the same: women’s resistance is neutralised, their suffering is individualised, and the structures that perpetuate their oppression remain unchallenged. If we are to resist this, we must reject the psychiatric framing of women’s experiences as ‘illness’ and instead recognise them as legitimate responses to a world that continues to dehumanise, abuse, traumatise, exploit, and silence them.

So what is the shared goal of pathologisation across the political spectrum?

Despite their apparent ideological differences, both the left and the right use psychiatry as a means of depoliticisation and silencing. The left, in its eagerness to medicalise distress, avoids confronting the systemic causes of suffering, instead funnelling people into an industry that profits from their continued distress. The right, in its selective use of psychiatric narratives, maintains the illusion of personal responsibility while excusing the behaviour of those whose actions might otherwise force uncomfortable conversations about privilege, power, and inequality.

Both sides also benefit from the psychiatric silencing of dissent. When people who challenge power - whether activists, whistleblowers, or those who resist oppression in any form - are dismissed as ‘mentally ill,’ their arguments are discredited without ever having to be engaged.

We know The Soviet Union infamously used psychiatry to institutionalise political dissidents, but the practice is alive and well in contemporary liberal democracies, albeit in more insidious forms. Activists are called ‘delusional,’ abuse survivors who fight back are labelled ‘borderline,’ and those who challenge mainstream medical narratives are written off as ‘conspiracy theorists.’

Understanding trauma without pathologisation

If we are to break free from these cycles, we need a radical shift in how we understand human suffering. Trauma, abuse, poverty, and oppression are not medical conditions, they are not illnesses or disorders; they are political and social realities. People’s responses to these realities - whether distress, anger, withdrawal, or even violence - should not be medicalised.

We must critically examine the interests served by pathologising distress. Who benefits when we accept that depression is a chemical imbalance rather than a response to unbearable conditions? Who gains when we frame criminals as mentally ill rather than as products of a society that breeds violence and exploitation?

A truly progressive mental health movement would challenge the psychiatric-industrial complex rather than reinforce it. Surely?

It would demand economic justice, social transformation, and the dismantling of oppressive systems rather than simply expanding access to medication. Medication is not the answer to human suffering. A better approach would understand trauma not as a disorder, but as a normal response to abnormal circumstances - circumstances that can, and must, be changed.

Ultimately, both the left and the right use psychiatry to their advantage, but neither is willing to face what would truly be required to address human suffering, trauma and abuse. That task falls to those of us who refuse to be silenced, medicalised, or controlled. It falls to those who understand that trauma is not an illness - it is a call to action.