I have been reading Émile Durkheim. Not the whole of him; nobody reads the whole of him on a Friday evening after a full day of work, sitting in the living room with an iced coffee. I have been reading about him, the way most reading happens now, in the small windows between other things, on a screen, with one tab open and the rest of the world waiting behind it. Durkheim was a French sociologist. He published De la division du travail social (On the Division of Social Labor) in 1893 and Le Suicide in 1897. He was thirty-nine when he published the second one. He was trying to explain why people kill themselves at rates that fluctuate not by personality but by social conditions, and the word he reached for, the word that did the most work in his account, was anomie.
The word means, roughly, normlessness. Durkheim was describing a specific condition of modern industrial life, the condition in which the older regulating structures of society had loosened or fallen away without anything taking their place. People in such a society, he argued, are left with aspirations that have nothing to constrain them. The aspirations expand without limit. The means do not. The mismatch between what one is permitted to want and what one is able to obtain becomes itself a source of suffering, and in extreme cases the suffering finds an exit. He called the exit anomic suicide. He believed it was a sociological phenomenon, not a personal failing. He believed it was, fundamentally, the absence of norms.
The word names something I have been living. Durkheim was describing it from outside, as a feature of collective organization. I had been living it from inside for the first thirty-some years of my life, with no word for what it was.
A bipolar or schizoaffective mind that has not yet been diagnosed does not know it is bipolar or schizoaffective. This is obvious but worth saying anyway. Donald Rumsfeld, talking about something else entirely in 2002, had a phrase for this kind of ignorance: an unknown unknown. Not just the absence of information, but the absence of the awareness that information is missing. The mind does not have a category to put itself in. It does not know that the upswing has a name, or that the crash has a name, or that the cycling between them follows a pattern that thousands of clinicians have spent more than a century describing. It just experiences the upswings and the crashes. The upswings feel like clarity. The crashes feel like the truth that the upswings were lying about. There is no scale that arrives with the experience. There is no rule that says this much joy is appropriate, more than this is suspect, this depth of despair is the symptom and not the diagnosis. The mind, left to itself, calibrates against itself.
This is the interior version of Durkheim’s problem. He was concerned with societies in which the moral order had loosened and people no longer knew what to want, what to expect, how much was enough. I am describing a mind in which there was never an internal order to begin with, or in which the order existed but was inconsistent with itself, producing one set of norms on Tuesday and a different set on Friday and a third set on the following Tuesday. The mismatch Durkheim located in the gap between aspiration and means, I lived in the gap between the brain I had on a good day and the brain I had on a bad one, and the two brains did not agree on what counted as a reasonable life.
The aspirations were limitless because nothing limited them. I was given a number as a teenager, a quotient, the so-called gift that arrived as a kind of mortgage against future performance. The number was anomic in Durkheim’s sense before I had the word for it. It set up expectations with no framework for meeting them. It told me what I should be capable of without supplying any structure by which capability would be evaluated, refined, or constrained. Einstein at twenty-six. The patent clerk. The annus mirabilis. By twenty-five I was a programmer in Duluth, married, renovating an old farmhouse, taking classes part-time, cycling through moods I did not have words for, and measuring my life against a benchmark that had no relationship to the actual conditions of my brain. The measurement returned the same answer every time. Not enough.
That is anomie. Not the sociological version, the personal one. The condition of having internal aspirations that no internal order constrains, no internal voice tempers, no internal framework relates to anything available. The condition of wanting without a structure that tells you when wanting is satisfied.
The diagnosis arrived in my late thirties. A psychiatrist on a locked ward in New Ulm, Minnesota, asked a question that contained its own answer, and the answer rearranged the architecture of everything that had come before. I do not want to retell the scene here. What I want to note is what the diagnosis did, in Durkheim’s vocabulary.
It introduced a norm.
The word bipolar is not a description of personality; neither is the term schizoaffective. They are categories. These categories come with a literature, a pharmacology, a clinical understanding of cycles and triggers and durations, a set of expectations about what is signal and what is noise. To receive the category is to receive, in one motion, a set of regulating principles that had been missing from the interior. Here is what counts as mania. Here is what counts as depression. Here is what is treatable. Here is what to watch for in spring. Here is what to do when the energy spikes for no environmental reason. Here is how much sleep is enough. Here is the daily medication. Here is the schedule of appointments. Here is the order.
The order is borrowed. I did not invent it. I received it the way Durkheim said people receive moral frameworks: from outside the self, from a body of knowledge constructed by other people over time, accepted as authoritative because the alternative is a brain that calibrates only against itself. The category was the first norm. The medication was the second. The watching, the daily monitoring of mood for the small fluctuations that might mean something, was the third. Each one a small piece of imported regulation. Each one a constraint where there had previously been an open field.
I should be honest about what I am stretching. Durkheim was writing about whole societies, not minds. The norms he had in mind were the kind a town agrees on without writing them down, the kind everyone in a place can feel without naming them. The things I have been calling norms here are smaller and more private than that. Quetiapine is a chemical, not a moral expectation. The count on my phone is a number I keep for myself. A sleep schedule is a rule I made up in a doctor’s office. None of these is a norm in his full sense. What does carry, from his account to mine, is the shape: certain kinds of suffering come from the absence of structure rather than the weakness of the people inside it, and the response has to be structural too. I am borrowing that shape, not the substance, and applying it to a single brain.
And the substance is not entirely private either. The word bipolar is not something I made up; it was built by many people over many decades, refined by clinicians and researchers who never met me and never will. The medications in the morning are not something I made up either; they were discovered, tested, regulated, prescribed by a profession that exists for that purpose. The institutions I move through to receive it are exactly the kind of thing Durkheim called a social fact: the clinic, the pharmacy, the appointment, the literature. The pills are not the institution. The institution is not the bottle. But the bottle is how the institution reaches me, and what arrives in my brain through it is more than a chemical. It is a collective decision about what is happening inside me, made by people I will never meet, delivered in a form small enough to swallow.
What stability turned out to be, in the years that followed, was the slow patient construction of an internal regulatory order. Not a recovery, which implies a destination. Not a triumph, which implies a struggle won. Not even particularly an improvement, though by most measures the life I have now is one that the twenty-five-year-old at the dining-room table in Proctor could not have imagined. It was, and is, the installation of norms.
Some of the norms are pharmaceutical. Some are behavioral. The sleep schedule. The avoidance of certain triggers. The audit of unusual joy in springtime, because joy that exceeds the local conditions is one of the things that has, historically, preceded the trouble. Some are observational, though here the inside/outside line gets porous. The watcher process, the part of the mind that runs alongside the primary thread and asks, quietly, whether what is happening qualifies as signal or noise, is internal. Its rule set is not. I can watch for mania because mania has been named for me. Some are arithmetical. The count of days since the last self-harm, which sits on my phone in an app that does not know what it is counting, and which provides, every morning, an integer that functions as a small piece of imported moral order.
Some of the norms are not mine alone. Melissa has been the most consistent regulating presence in my life for twenty-four years. She does not think of herself this way and I do not say it to her in these terms. The institutions of marriage and shared life are larger than any one person, but in our house they touch down through her, and through her they reach me daily, in a specific face and a specific voice. She has expectations of me. She has a sense of what counts as functional and what counts as drifting. She has the long memory of a person who has watched the cycles and knows what the early signs look like. Her presence in the house is a constant low-grade reminder that there is a shape my life is taking, and that the shape is not arbitrary, and that drifting outside it will be noticed. None of this is coercive. It is barely visible from the inside. It is just there, the way the floor is there, the way a person you have lived with for two decades is simply present in the next room whether you are thinking about her or not.
I am told, in the genre that includes essays like this one, that what I have built is best described in the vocabulary of growth, purpose, and inner strength. I do not recognize those words. Not because the words cannot mean anything useful, but because what they mean inside this genre is a story I have not lived. Growth implies that I became more than I was, by some kind of inner generative process. Purpose implies that I located, somewhere along the way, a destination toward which all the trouble was secretly aimed. Inner strength implies a reservoir I dipped into when the conditions required it.
None of these is what happened. What happened, in the language I am trying out here, is that I went from a mind without norms to a mind that was eventually surrounded by them, and the difference between those two states is not strength. It is regulation. It is the construction of a structure that did the work my brain could not do for itself.
Durkheim believed that the suffering of anomie was not, fundamentally, a problem to be solved by stronger individuals. He believed it was the consequence of a structural condition that demanded a structural response. The response was the restoration of norms. The restoration of the moral framework. The reweaving of the social fabric that had loosened. This was a sociologist’s prescription, written for societies. I have been quietly applying the same logic to a mind. The mind I am now is not a stronger version of the one I was. It is the same mind, with more structure around it. The norms came from outside. The category came from outside. The medication came from outside. The patience and presence of the woman in the other room came from outside. What is inside is mostly the same: the same processing, the same intensity, the same tendency to drift if left untethered. The difference is the tethers.
I have been reading Durkheim because I am the kind of person who, having found a word that names something he has spent thirty years living inside without a name for it, wants to read more. The reading does not change anything. The condition that was unnamed and then named and then constrained will be the same condition tomorrow. The medication will be taken. The count will rise by one. Melissa will be in the other room, doing the thing she has been doing for twenty-four years, which is the quiet structural work of a person who has decided, at some level she does not narrate, to be the regulating presence in a life that, without her, would not have had one.
But the word is useful. It gives me a frame for what I have built and what was built around me. Anomie is what was missing. Regulation is what arrived. Not strength, which I do not have in special quantities. Not purpose, which I am suspicious of as a category. Just the slow installation of a moral order in a mind that was not born with one, by means that came almost entirely from outside the mind itself.
Durkheim died in November of 1917. His son had been killed in The Great War. He had been working on a book about the moral foundations of social life, the kind of book a person writes when they have understood that what holds a life together is not the individual will but the conditions surrounding it. He did not finish it. I sit in my chair on a Friday evening, more than a century later, reading the word he gave me. I close the tab. I get up. I go into the other room where Melissa is, reading something of her own, and I do not tell her any of this. The presence is what we have. The room she is in is the structure. The structure is the norm. The norm is what was missing, and is no longer.
Quiet Mind, Loud Brain 
Leave a comment