It is not a bad thing to hold a belief, or to maintain that belief as the sole truth of the matter. I do this myself - my convictions in my religious affiliations are firm and in my mind irrefutable; all truth is ascribed into the whole of understanding, all else is bunk. It is my opinion that much of what others put forth is uninformed nonsense or otherwise false outright. However, given the inherent subjective nature of the mortal experience there's no way I can make that proclamation and expect it to have any governance over others. Nor would I presume to do so - a path of belief must be chosen, not dictated; otherwise it lacks supporting faith. There are also degrees of truth, and it is possible for portions of truth to exist in those alternate views which should be appreciated in that light.
This is (I hope) a departure from Cruise's assertion that not only are all others wrong to him, they are wrong overall and he (Tom) should be accepted as a sole authority. This eliminates any potential merit in the non-Tom arguments and presents a closed mind. That closed and inflexible position is easily perceived as a blind mania with a touch of psychosis - especially when a more even tempered response can contain the same content without the impatience or bigotry.
Now to the meat: Tom's recent proclamation that, "There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance."
Were this the case, of course, then mental health would be unaffected by any application of substances attempting to disrupt it and so drugs (recreational or pharmaceutical) wouldn't be of any concern anyway. I'm assuming he intended additional context, such as, "There is no such thing as a psychological malady that is the direct result of a chemical imbalance." This would make a lot more sense, so I'll assume this is his statement in order to have something to dissect instead of being utterly ridiculous.
The mainstream western media culture would have us believe that even if it comes down to the point that it really is all in your head, it's still not your fault and if you take this little special and Brand Name pill it can make things better. Really. Ask your Dr. about Brand Name, and the world will be a better place for you. This applies to allergies, sleep aids, heart-burn & acid reflux, anti-social fears and anxieties, depression, etc.
I'll agree that this is certainly overmarketed, and continues the concept of problems being some(one/thing) else's direct influence. Shades of truth - or rather, truth intermixed with marketing. But to swing to the opposite side still places one completely off base - simply on the other side of it. A balance of truth must be sought.
Chemical imbalances do exist, and can result from multiple sources:
- Natural imbalance based on genetics or environmental factors
- Hormonal influences resulting from situational influences or physical changes
- Long-term depression, anxiety, or psychosis
Medication can be applied as an effective management tool to reduce the immediate negative impact of the imbalance, which allows time dissociated from the harsh difficulty of impaired function to undergo the analysis and appropriate therapies (which may include additional medication and chemical treatment) to eliminate the causal factors. Once established on proper footing, if possible, the medication can be reduced and normal operations resumed.
Yes, most imbalances are the result of no. 3 above and can be averted - but only if the individual experiencing the problem can maintain the personal objective awareness of self & environment. Most people are not equipped with the learning and expertise to do that: we live in a strange, stressful world of unchartable stresses and influences, and personal ownership of mental health is not a highly emphasized priority.
Are we an overmedicated society? Yes. Is that medication often used to mask problems rather than resolve them? Yes; teens put on Prozac(tm) in some cases descend further into their symptoms and may become suicidal as a direct result. These tragic facts do not dismiss the great benefit that is also possible. Pretty much any situation is ripe for abuse, but that doesn't mean that positive elements should be dismissed solely on that argument: baby with the bathwater, and all that.
To point, Cruise's lambasting of Brooke Shields for disclosing her use of anti-depressants should be an embarrassment to him. Women in general have a much higher sensitivity to the effects of the emotional hormones secreted by body and brain, and therefore represent on average a much higher level of both stress and strength than can be found in men. It is easy for men to resist the emotional impact of events and associations because they genuinely (not without exception) lack the capacity to experience it the same way and to the same depth that women do. Recap: women are more prone to displaying emotional effects, but not disproportionately so based on the extra level of sensitivity they similarly represent; if anything, women are far stronger in this arena.
Add to that the hormonal effects of pregnancy and birth, the new conscious responsibilities for a precious life of infinite potential, and the world turns upside down very very quickly. Takes a while to get it sorted back out.
Let Tom take estrogen for a while, and then simulate the massive serotonin drop that comes with the additional hormonal changes of pregnancy and delivery and we'll see how he does. Walk a mile in those shoes.
But then, that would be altering your brain chemistry.