A collection of essays that I wrote

The Burnout Epidemic: A Direct Result of Neoliberal Governmentality


The Burnout Epidemic: A Direct Result of Neoliberal Governmentality

Introduction

The world today is determined by neurons; neurological illnesses such as burnout syndrome mark the landscape of pathology at the beginning of the twenty-first century (Han, 2015, p.1). In this essay, I explore how this burnout epidemic came to be. I argue that this epidemic is a direct result of neoliberal governmentality and that the only way out is by articulating another worldview.

This essay starts by diving into the definition of burnout syndrome. It continues with critiquing the current neoliberal governmentality that created a society where burnout syndrome could flourish. Then it dives into a critique of neoliberalism from another standpoint, an ecological one, questioning solutions for the climate crisis. Together with the critique on neoliberal governmentality and the solutions offered for the problem of climate change, I conclude with a way out of the burnout epidemic.

Burnout

Burnout is a state of mental exhaustion. Metaphorically it is compared to the smothering of a fire or the extinguishing of a candle. (Schaufeli & Buunk, 2003, p.383). More specifically, burnout refers to the occupational context and is characterized by three dimensions. First, the feeling of exhaustion. Second, increased mental distance from one’s job or the feeling of negativism/cynicism towards one’s job. And third, reduced professional efficacy (Hillert, et al. 2020, p.6). It is different from job-related stress. It results from prolonged stress, characterized by multiple symptoms and specific attitudes (Schaufeli & Buunk, 2003, p.391).

From a medical standpoint, there are no clear causes for burnout. Possible causes are workload, time pressure, and role conflict (Schaufeli & Buunk, 2003,p. 402). Role conflict is when conflicting demands at the job have to be met. An example is a correctional officer who is expected to facilitate the rehabilitation of a prisoner (educational role) but has to guard them as well (disciplinary role) (p.397). Another cause for burnout can be a lack of reciprocity, where caregivers feel that they put more into the relationship than they receive back. This lack of reciprocity and resulting emotional exhaustion can lead to depersonalization (p. 409-410). Burnout can also arise from a person-job mismatch. This can be differentiated into six different types: work overload, lack of control, lack of rewards, lack of community, lack of fairness, and value conflict (p.414).

The recovery from clinical burnout may take more than a year. Some studies show that even after 2 to 4 years, a substantial part (25– 50%) of the patients with clinical burnout is not fully recovered (Van Dam, 2021, p. 733). Interventions in burn-out prevention have been modestly successful. On an individual level, interventions like mindfulness training and stress management have shown small decreases in overall burnout prevalence. Interventions in things like duty-hour limitations have shown more promising but still scarce results in burn-out prevention (Abedini, et al., 2018, p. 26). Van Dam (2021) points out a phenomenon called post-burnout growth. This is the phenomenon that many former burnout patients state that their life is better after than before their burnout. They state that they have learned from it. They know better who they are and what is important to them in life. Now they spend more time with their friends and families and they have changed their priorities (p.739).

Society today is characterised by economic crisis and downsizing. Together with technological advances, this has resulted in an increase in non-standard work schedules and an increase in overall workload. There is an overall increase in employers' expectations regarding availability which results in employees who feel compelled to immediately respond to work-related messages even during leisure time (Derks & Bakker, 2021, p.411). Bivens (2021) claims that burnout research tends to oversimplify the causes and solutions of burnout. She states that scholars have failed to hold accountable the political and social arrangements that produce burnout, such as capitalism, racism, and the neoliberal system (p.42-43). Mainly the individualized solution of ‘’self-care’’ practices that according to her reinforce neoliberal individualism (p.5-6). Bivens proposes to maybe look at these notions of ‘’self-care’’ from a feminist perspective. For example, feminist Lorde (1988/2017) who called self-care “an act of political warfare” (p. 130). Or Ahmed (2014), who noted that “self-care is about the creation of community…”. Bivens states that the radical feminist conceptualization of self-care is promising and important, and differs significantly from the neoliberal version embraced by mainstream society (Bivens, 2021, p.79-80)

Neoliberalism

Life under neoliberalism is characterized by the economization of all aspects of life. Brown (2018) states that under neoliberalism, the definition of freedom is reduced to 'freedom within marketplace mechanisms,' and it is primarily used to increase an individual's worth, economic standing and market dominance (p. 63). This conceptualization of freedom reflects the neoliberal model's influence on all spheres of human life, as individuals are viewed as discrete pieces of human equity. People are confined to their economic worth and productivity, whose worth must be maintained continuously (p.61-62). Brown argues further that the spread of the hegemonic rationality of neoliberalism transforms elements of democracy from their political character, meaning and operation to an economic one (Brown, 2015, p.12). The homo politicus has been displaced by homo oeconomicus; market actors, exclusively driven by profit-seeking (p.51).

Lorey (2015) goes in line with Brown and adds the concept of precarization. This is the destabilization of individuals’ living and working conditions, which has become increasingly central to both politics and the economy of today. It has become the tool of governance. ( p.1). Precarization serves as a basis for capitalist accumulation and social regulation by destabilizing employment, life conduct, bodies, and modes of subjectivization (p.13). The normalization of precarization under neoliberalism has resulted in existential precariousness (p.14-15). It has resulted in a system where everyone must design themselves to sell their entire personality on the market of affective labour (p.70-71). This constant improvement in human capital leads to exclusion, inequality, and a permanent state of insecurity for workers. A labour market where short-term, insecure, and low-wage jobs are the norm for the majority of society (Berlant et al., 2012, p.164).

Alphin (2021) adds to this, stating that the constant state of precarization leads to the logic of intensity ( p.17). This is another form of neoliberal biopolitics, not only letting people live by norms but rather, the logic of intensity dictates the need to exceed norms: to live intensely (p.17). Characterized by notions like “live life to the fullest” or “seize the day” (p.8). This leads to individuals who continually live at the edge of burnout and more and more past burnout.

Han (2017) argues that mental health issues such as depression and burnout express the crisis of freedom. Being free by definition means being free from constraint, but in the neoliberal society of today, freedom itself is bringing forth compulsion and constraint. (p.15). Workers today are turned into entrepreneurs and in turn, everyone is an ‘’auto-exploited labourer in his or her own enterprise’’ (p.21). The production of wealth has grown increasingly detached from human labour, yet we have never been so thoroughly committed to work (p.88). This is because the neoliberal system is ‘’gamifying’’ life and the working world, Han argues. By rapidly delivering a sense of success and reward, a person becomes emotionally invested and this results in higher performance (p.86). This exploits the homo ludens (playing men) by subjecting themselves to domination for the very act of playing (p.87). 

Han adds another point, stating that the disciplinary society described by Foucault no longer exists, it has been replaced by an achievement society [Leistungsgesellschaft], making people no longer obedience-subjects but achievement-subjects (Han, 2015, p.8). Creating an achievement society. Achievement society is marked by unlimited can. ‘’Yes we can’’. Disciplinary society was marked by no, producing madmen and criminals, while achievement society produces depressives and losers (p.9). In the achievement society, the individual stands free from external instances of domination that force it to work and exploit it. However, this absence of external domination does not abolish exploitation. It makes compulsion coincide with freedom, Han says. The individual in the achievement society gives itself over to freestanding compulsion to maximize their performance. Consequently exploiting oneself. This auto-exploitation is even more efficient than the previous allo-exploitation because it creates the illusion of freedom. In times where everyone is an entrepreneur, the exploiter is simultaneously the exploited (p.49). The individual exploits oneself until it burns out (p.47).

The society of laboring and achievement is not a free society. It generates new constraints. Ultimately, the dialectic of master and slave does not yield a society where everyone is free and capable of leisure, too. Rather, it leads to a society of work in which the master himself has become a laboring slave. In this society of compulsion, everyone carries a work camp inside. This labor camp is defined by the fact that one is simultaneously prisoner and guard, victim and perpetrator. One exploits oneself. It means that exploitation is possible even without domination. (p.19)

An Alternative Worldview

Naomi Klein (2015) critiques neoliberalism from another standpoint. An ecological one. Klein explores why we have failed to respond to our biggest global threat, the climate crisis (p.3). She argues that the answer is political. We are stuck. We are stuck because the measures that offer the highest possibility of avoiding disaster, which would also benefit the majority, pose a significant threat to an elite minority. This elite minority happens to also possess significant control over our economy, political system, and the majority of our major media platforms (p.16). She states that the current system is embedded in hyper-individualism, dominance, and hierarchy. Therefore it is fundamental to articulate an alternative worldview. One that is about interdependence, reciprocity, and cooperation (p.399). 

Klein argues that change requires a shift in perspective, necessitating a collective effort in response to the climate crisis. This shift should move away from closed-door policy meetings and lobbying, towards a more dynamic, unpredictable and public arena. To resist the status quo, building broad-based networks and global grassroots movements is essential. This desire for change is rooted in a yearning for a more profound form of democracy that would enable communities to have genuine control over the resources crucial to collective survival, making it more than an ecological movement (Klein, 2015, p.255).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the prevalence of the burnout syndrome epidemic is a direct result of neoliberal governmentality. The economization of life has led to a society that is in a state of existential precariousness, driven by intensity, resulting in an achievement society. The individual in the achievement society exploits oneself under the illusion of freedom, it exploits itself until it burns out. This goes in line with the medical standpoint where practically all the causes for burnout are related to not getting enough validation for one’s work, therefore overworking to the point where the body gives up. This is also clear in the fact that interventions that show small decreases in burnout prevalence are all related to diving away from the work life, reducing stress, and focussing on the self. But these interventions only show small decreases in a big global problem. Is there an escape from this achievement society and a real solution to the burnout epidemic?

I would argue that the root of the burnout problem is the same as the root of the other burning problem of the 21st century, the climate crisis. Under neoliberalism, we are too focused on hyper-individualism, dominance, and hierarchy. An alternative worldview is necessary, one that focuses on interdependence, reciprocity, and cooperation. I would also agree with Klein that we are stuck. Stuck because a small elite, the one that profits from this neoliberal system, holds the majority of power in the economy, political system, and our media platforms. Therefore it is really hard to believe a solution could be possible, a world outside of the neoliberal system. I agree with Klein that a bottom-up approach is the way out. Grassroots movements resisting the status quo, connected by the desire to take what is rightfully theirs: the genuine control of resources in order to survive. With that maybe we can all have ‘’post-burnout growth’’ or better said ‘’post-neoliberal growth’’. A world where there is space for all living creatures, a space where interdependence, reciprocity, and cooperation reign.

References

Abedini, N. C., Stack, S. W., Goodman, J. L., & Steinberg, K. P. (2018). “It’s not just time off”: A framework for understanding factors promoting recovery from burnout among internal medicine residents. Academic Medicine, 93(2), 201-207. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001863

Ahmed, S. (2014, August 25). Selfcare as warfare. Feministkilljoys. https://feministkilljoys.com/2014/08/25/selfcare-as-warfare/

Alphin, C. (2021). Neoliberalism: Living on the Edge of Burnout. London: Routledge.

Berlant, L., J. Butler, I. Lorey et al. (2012) 'Precarity Talk: A Virtual Roundtable with Lauren

Bivens, B. M. (2021). Burnout, self-care, and neoliberalism: Tracing the promise of relational, emergent ontologies for sustainable community organizing. Journal of Feminist Scholarship, 14, 21-39.

Brown, W. (2018). Neoliberalism’s Frankenstein: Authoritarian Freedom in Twenty-First Century “Democracies.” Critical Times, 1(1), 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1215/26410478-1.1.60

Brown, W. (2015) Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution. New York: Zone Books (Chapters 2, 3 and 6)

Derks, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Smartphone use, work–home interference, and burnout: A diary study on the role of recovery. Applied Psychology, 63(3), 411-440. H       ttps://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12029

Han, B. C. (2015). The Burnout Society. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Han, B. C. (2017). Psychopolitics. New York: Verso.Klein, N. (2015). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Hillert, A., Albrecht, A., & Voderholzer, U. (2020). The burnout phenomenon: A résumé after more than 15,000 scientific publications. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, medizinische Psychologie, 68(7), 287-294. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-116567

Lorde, A. (1977). Poetry is not a luxury. In Sister outsider: Essays and speeches (pp. 36-39). The Crossing Press.

Lorde, A. (2017). A burst of light and other essays. Dover Publications. (Original workpublished 1988)

Lorey, I. (2015) State of Insecurity - Government of the Precarious. London: Verso.

Schaufeli, W., & Buunk, A. (2003). Burnout: An overview of 25 years of research and theorizing. In M. J. Schabracq, J. A. M. Winnubst, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The handbook of work and health psychology (2nd ed., pp. 383-425). John Wiley & Sons.

Van Dam, A. (2021) A clinical perspective on burnout: diagnosis, classification, and treatment of clinical burnout, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30:5, 732-741, DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2021.1948400