I. Reification is a serious error: In the author's opinion, reification (the process of reifying) is among the Top 10 hindrances to learning and Christian living today. Reification is a logical error with a far-reaching record of ruin.

A. The definition: To reify means "To treat something that is not a thing (e.g., a deficit, category, or complex phenomena) as if it is something (e.g., a condition, cause, or single thing)."

B. Reification is an error of hubris in which a speaker, by an act of verbal gymnastics, appears to create something—a cause—out of nothing.

II. Treating a category (a label) as a cause of what it categorizes is one common reification.

A. For every effect, there's a cause.

B. A category is an effect—a result of a speaker's categorization. A category may cause an audience to think of what's categorized in a particular way, but a category doesn't cause the items or ideas it categories to be the way that those items or ideas are.

1. Categorizing your flowers into petunias and daffodils doesn't cause you to have petunias and daffodils. When you categorize, you merely group what you have.

2. A proper answer to "Why do you have those petunias and daffodils?" is not "Because I have petunias over here and daffodils over there." This answer confuses categories and causes.

3. A more reasonable answer to "Why do you have those petunias and daffodils?" is "Because I like them" or "Because I purchased them at the store, planted them, and continue to nurture them. (I fertilize them, water them, weed around them, and prune them.)" The first of these answers explains why I purchased the flowers; the second explains why they're still present.

C. Consider the category of "math difficulties," sometimes given the complex name of "dyscalculia." This category lets us know what kind of difficulties a student is having—difficulties with math. It doesn't tell us what has caused those difficulties. Is a student having difficulties with math because his school district uses the awful TERC or Everyday Mathematics series, and he's simply been poorly taught? Is he having difficulty with math because of inadequate nutrition? (Inadequate essential fatty acids or basic minerals can cause difficulties in math.) Is he having difficulty with math because his parents and teachers have never expected follow-thorough on his practice assignments? Without testing, we can't know. What we can know is that he does not have difficulties with math because he "has" difficulties with math, even if we call those difficulties "dyscalculia." To say so would confuse a category with a cause.

III. Treating a deficit (or lack) as a condition is another common reification.

A. If my furnace isn't working, it may lack something it needs—perhaps a new part or two, perhaps oil, perhaps a seal, or perhaps more than I want to pay someone to repair.

B. If my furnace isn't working, it may have something it doesn't need—perhaps a mouse has climbed up inside.

C. If my furnace isn't working, it does not have a condition of "brokenness." I wouldn't reply to the question "Why isn't your furnace working?" with the answer, "Because it has the condition of 'brokenness.'" "Broken" or "brokenness" are categories ("broken" vs. "working" / "brokenness" vs. "health"); they describe my problem, and aside from cueing me that something isn't working, they don't provide any help toward fixing it.

D. Not only do labels like AD/HD and "Learning Disability" confuse a category with a cause, they further muddy the waters by suggesting that not having enough of something—focus or foundational learning skills, here—suddenly means a person has something. The only thing a person so labeled has, however, is a reification.

IV. Treating a complex phenomena (an irreducible whole) as a single thing is the final common reification we'll examine. Human feelings, perspectives, and thoughts are complex. They're not single things. When a speaker treats complex feelings, perspectives, or thoughts as single things, (s)he reifies: (s)he lies—probably unintentionally—about the nature of human feelings, perspectives, and thoughts.

A. A thing can be touched, felt, or at least quantifiably measured.

B. We can't yet touch, feel, or quantifiably measure human feelings, perspectives, or thoughts. Until we can at least quantifiably measure these, we can't rightly treat them as things.

C. Categorizing human feelings, perspectives, and thoughts under a "diagnostic" label isn't exempt. In fact, such categorization reifies on two accounts: it treats complex phenomena as things, and it proffers a category as a cause. In reality, it doesn't point to anything beyond a label.

I. Reification answers the question "Why" by re-categorizing perceptions, rather than analyzing relationships. This is especially true of

A. Scientific claims that a reification causes the phenomenon which it merely labels—a primary example of which is gravity—and

B. Psychological claims that a patient has a reification that explains why a patient feels and behaviors as (s)he does.

II. Gravity: The popular conception of "gravity" is a reification, which we were taught as an explanation for a phenomena that it merely labels. This is sad, since the more that people are taught to think with reifications, the more we will tend to accept empty explanations for very real problems. 

A. When asked why things fall to the earth, people often provide the reification we were taught in grade school: gravity. Gravity makes things fall to the earth. Yet, when asked what gravity is, few of us can say more than, "Gravity is what makes things fall to the earth." This is circular—we haven't really answered the question. Those who remember high school physics regrettably don't fare any better. For more on how the popular understanding of gravity is a reification, click here.

B. It would be much better to plead ignorance as to why things fall to the earth, to discuss what's known about objects' behavior, and use what's known to make predictions about future occurrences of things falling (or not). What's sad is that such a response, despite being a quality explanation, may actually receive a lower grade in junior high or high school science class than a response which offers the expected reification of "gravity." (See above link for more information.)

III. Since most of us have been trained in science to accept reification of predictable relationships among tangible objects we understand, perhaps we ought not to be surprised how readily we accept reification of unpredictable relationships among psychological relationships we only partly understand.

A. How many men will exclaim, "Women! Who can understand them!" (or vice-versa)?

B. How many parents will declare, despite having been teenagers, bemoan, "I just don't understand him!" or "She's impossible! I have no idea why she behaves that way!"

C. It's thus no wonder reifications, which offer cheap yet satisfying explanations of "why"—and which create "causes" out of thin air—are so appealing: they make things seem simpler!

I. Almost all psychological and psychiatric diagnostic labels are reifications.They speak of a subset of human feelings, perspectives, and thoughts as though that subset of complex human phenomena is a tangible thing.

II. To further that reification, that thing is called a "diagnosis"—a medical reference for a real (tangible, quantifiable) cause of certain symptoms.

III. Worse, many psychological diagnoses/reifications concern the absence of abilities.

A. It's honest to note: "People in my profession have noticed that many people who show Traits A and B also show Trait C. Many of us believe C may be a cause of (or result of) A and B for the following reasons…"

B. It's borderline dishonest to note: "This person has Condition X (a reification for exhibiting Symptoms A, B, and C) if that person exhibits Symptoms A, B, and C."

C. It's dishonest to note: "Condition X (a reification for exhibiting Symptoms A, B, and C) causes Symptoms A, B, and C." (For example, "Depression causes intense and prolonged feelings of sadness.")

D. In reality, someone who claims (3) hasn't explained anything: (s)he has merely labeled a complexity of emotional, relational, and/or conceptual traits as a thing and, at least implicitly has imbued that label with causative power. This becomes evident through two lines of argument:

1. Considering common uses of have phrases and

2. Contrasting psychological reifications with physiological diagnoses.

IV. Let's examine

A. Innocuous "Have" Phrases

1. Examples

a. "I have a computer."

b. "I have cancer."

2. Do—or can—these things you have exist independently of you? Yes, they can. You can touch the computer. Cancerous cells can be excised or pointed to on an MRI to demonstrate the diagnosis.

B. Misleading "Have" Phrases

1. Consider this statement: "I have depression."

2. Does—or can—the depression exist independently of you?

a. No; depression is not a physical thing.

b. Moreover, depression is not a thing someone has: depression is not an ability or a force. But is depression a "chemical imbalance?"

I. The Serotonin Hypothesis (A Lucrative Sacred Cow of Psychiatry)

A. The current state of affairs regarding the "serotonin imbalance" hypothesis for depression is well summarized by Dr. Joanna Moncrieff, Senior Lecturer in Psychiatry at University College, London: "It is high time that it was stated clearly that the serotonin imbalance theory of depression is not supported by the scientific evidence or by expert opinion. Through misleading publicity the pharmaceutical industry has helped to ensure that most of the general public is unaware of this."

B. When serotonin levels in cerebrospinal fluid of individuals with depression have been compared to controls, individuals with depression have not consistently had lower serotonin levels.

C. Attempts to induce depression by depleting serotonin levels have met with mixed results, and attempts to alleviate depression through supplementation with L-tryptophan (which increases brain serotonin) have been largely ineffective.

D. How we think, what we eat, how regularly we eat, how regularly we sleep, and how regularly we exercise all affect our levels of serotonin, other neurotransmitters, and various hormones. Our knowledge, skills, habits, awareness, relationships, and faith in many ways help determine our brain chemicals and neuronal connections. Thus, even if it were demonstrated that individuals with depression had different levels of brain chemicals—it hasn't been yet, but even if it were demonstrated—it would not follow, logically, that the best course of action would be to take powerful drugs, which may pose great risk to the individuals taking them and others in their lives.

E. Even if psychiatric drugs that increase serotonin levels alleviate depression, it doesn't mean that depression is either caused by or equals a serotonin deficiency. It only means the drugs sometimes alleviate symptoms, possibly without finding or addressing a cause and at great risk to the individual taking them. Taking aspirin increases aspirin levels and alleviates many headaches, but no one argues that headaches are, therefore, caused by insufficient aspirin.

II. What is depression?

A. When English speakers have used the word "depression," they have classically meant

1. Sadness

2. Lethargy

3. A physical pit with gently sloping sides, so that entrance or exit from it is gradual.

B. When someone visits a psychologist feeling sad, lethargic, and down—as if, metaphorically, they're in a pit—(s)he wants to know

1. Why am I feeling this way, and

2. What can I do so that I no longer feel this way?

C. Likewise, when someone visits the family doctor because his/her leg hurts, (s)he wants to know

1. Why am I feeling this leg pain, and

2. What can I do so that my leg no longer hurts?

    Generally, when someone visits the family doctor because his/her leg hurts, (s)he already knows that eliminating the pain long term will require tracking down the cause of the pain.

D. Analogy: Imagine, if you will, that you have a friend whose leg has hurt her for several weeks, and she reports that the pain is getting worse. After visiting her family doctor, she informs you, "My doctor said my leg hurts because I have leg pain." "Nice joke," you may reply; "what did she really say?" You're looking for an answer like, "She X-rayed my leg and said I had a hairline fracture in my tibia." You instinctively know that "My leg hurts because I have leg pain" doesn't give a reason. You now know that it gives a reification: it attributes causative power to a label.

III. Your friend's "diagnosis" of "leg pain" would be an empty reification. Noting this may prompt you and your friend to dismiss the "diagnosis." It shouldn't prompt you to dismiss your friend's symptoms. Symptoms always have causes; they also usually have purposes.

A. Inflammation around an injured joint, for instance, may be caused by an injury. Inflammation may also serve a purpose—namely, to produce heat to fight off any infection present and to immobolize the area, discouraging premature full-range movement of the joint, which could result in further injury. (If I can't move my knee without experiencing considerable pain, I'm less likely to move it in ways that would exacerbate what's wrong or reinjure it.)

B. Depression (like inflammation) also has a cause (though we can't always identity it), and depression may also serve a purpose.

1. If I've invested considerable time and energy into pursuing life goals or relationships that aren't working out as I expected, feeling tremendously sad, lethargic, and unmotivated helps me stop investing in whatever I've been trying to accomplish. (There's a compulsive gambler in each of us: the more we "invest," even in a rathole, the more we expect a pay-off. It takes a lot to make us stop "investing." But feeling tremendously sad, lethargic, and unmotivated is "a lot"—and often, enough to make us stop.)

2. God has designed our bodies with mechanisms to help us stop: as our feelings of well-being, our energy level, and our natural drives decline, we're naturally less inclined to keep pouring resources into unproductive knowledge, skills, habits, awareness, relationships, or beliefs. We're also, importantly, less likely to pursue alternatives prematurely—the equivalent of avoiding reinjury due to the pain of moving an inflammed joint.

C. Symptoms like inflammation or depression are rarely, if ever, causes in themselves, even though they often serve somatic (physical, psychological, and/or spiritual) functions. Symptoms may also serve important social functions.

1. If I stop moving or stop "investing" in primary goals and relationships, a relative or even stranger may see my need and help me.

2. Moreover, if those in my relationships have been demanding my continued "investment," they may see my inability and, finally, let me be.

3. In this way, the body of symptoms that psychologists and psychiatrists label "depression" may actually help someone passively shift priorities or relationships when it seems too costly or unacceptable to shift them actively.

IV. Understanding the purposes of symptoms doesn't excuse reification. You've imagined a friend with a hurt leg, who informed you, "My doctor said my leg hurts because I have leg pain." You instinctively knew that "My leg hurts because I have leg pain" didn't give a reason, and you've learned: it gives a reification, attributing causative power to a label. You've imagined retorting, "Nice joke… what did she really say?" …and having your retort taken in stride.

Now, imagine that you have a friend who has felt sad, lethargic, and down for several weeks, and she reports that it's affecting her social and professional life. After visiting her psychologist, she informs you, "My doctor said I've been feeling this way because I have depression." In North American society, you'd be dismissed as an insensitive clod if you replied, "Nice joke… what did she really say?"

A. Reification, largely through poor science education and pop psychology, has become part of the fabric of our daily lives.

B. In reality, your friend's reification of depression is no more or less ludicrous than a reification about leg pain would have been—you just can't say so and be perceived as civil.

C. But what if you're that friend? Have you visited a psychologist or psychiatrist and accepted a diagnostic label as the cause for your struggles? If so, you're not alone. And you're certainly not stupid. Few people in North American society have heard of reification, let alone learned to spot it as an error. Even the professional whose help you sought has probably never heard of reification. It's unlikely (s)he knows there's a problem with his/her thinking. It's even less likely (s)he intended to harm you. Why, then, did (s)he do it—why does (s)he, and why do so many other professionals, refify?

Reification is not necessarily a conscious choice or character issue. It's important to remember that not everyone who reifies is trying to manipulate: most people reify unintentionally and aren't even aware they're making an error. Nevertheless, the error of reification plays into the hands of psudo-scientists and manipulators because by reifying, they can make claims with scant evidence, manufacture a false sense of objectivity, and reinforce others' perception that they are experts. Let's examine how reification facilitates each of these:

I. Reification enables professionals to make powerful claims with scant evidence.
First, by reifying, a speaker can make a claim seem credible without needing to produce evidence. Almost anyone who looks at a tricycle would agree it's a tricycle. If I saw you clutching a tricycle and declared, "You have a tricycle!" who would disagree? Anyone could touch and feel your tricycle to verify you had one. If you have something, you have a thing. If anyone doubts you have something, (s)he can touch and feel it—or look at clear measurements of what you have. People understand this. Hence, people assume a statement about having something can be verified by touching it, feeling it, or looking at quantifiable measurements of what you have. Given this common understanding, we rarely question claims to have something. (After all, that thing can often be produced readily to the embarrassment of whoever questions.) We consider a claim to have something as automatically credible, unless we have good reason to doubt.

II. Reification enables professionals to manufacture a false sense of objectivity.
Second, by reifying, a speaker manufactures a false sense of objectivity. When we speak about emotional, relational, or conceptual phenomena honestly, we acknowledge our feelings, perspectives, and thoughts as our own. Hence, honest talk about emotional, relational, or conceptual phenomena can rightfully be called subjective—that is, having to do with the subject (the person speaking). Talk about emotional, relational, or conceptual phenomena that pretends to be objective—that is, having to do with an object that can be touched, felt, or at least quantifiably measured—can rightly be called dishonest. Reification gives a false sense of objectivity by masking the subjectivity inherent in claims about emotional, relational, or conceptual phenomena.

III. Reification enables professionals to reinforce others' perception that they are true experts.
Third, by reifying a speaker encourages the perception that (s)he is an expert. By reifying, a speaker implicitly makes a counter-intuitive claim, but the claim seems credible, and the speaker seems rather objective. What kind of person makes counter-intuitive but credible claims from a position of relative objectivity? An expert! Hence, by reifying, a speaker bolsters others' perception of his expertise.

IV. Reification functions as professional shorthand & "treatment" justification.
Forth, reifying enables professionals to classify individual disabilities. Instead of saying that none of this group can yet do _________, professionals can say that this is a group of people with _________. Reification, in this case, functions as a professional "shorthand" that facilitates communication among professionals and insurance companies—but it is still an error.

A. An ability can be a powerful thing with causative powers: whenever I walk, I do so in part because I have developed the ability to walk. Crawling infants, in contrast, do not yet walk: they have not yet developed walking ability.

B. A disability also has causative power: it can prevent the expression of ability in a major life area. A broken leg—a temporary disability—can prevent someone from walking. A disability becomes a handicap when there is no way to work around it. A broken leg becomes a handicap when steep stairs are the only entrance to a building.

C. When we speak of inabilities in terms of under-developed abilities, we avoid reifying. Thus, we can say that someone struggles with walking because they have not yet developed walking ability. That's not reification.

D. In contrast, almost every time we label an inability, we reify. For instance, if we say that someone struggles with walking because they have disamblia (the inability to walk), we create a cause out of thin air. We imply that there is a thing—disamblia—that is causing struggles with walking. Ultimately, this is a lie. "Disamblia" doesn't exist; it isn't a thing; it doesn't cause anything.

V. Reification enables professionals to compassionately avoid identity statements.
A fifth reason for reification is usually well-intentioned.

A. Many times, professionals reify not so they can make claims with scant evidence, manufacture a false sense of objectivity, and reinforce others' perception that they are experts but, rather, to weaken a declaration they believe may be harmful. A declaration is an assessment that predicts future behavior. If I say, "This apple is red," I'm linking "apple" with the attribute "red" and suggesting that this apple will, at least for a while, remain red. In a sense, I'm equating "apple" with "red."

B. Similarly, if I say, "I am depressed," I'm linking "I" with the attribute of "depressed" and suggesting that I will, at least for a while, remain depressed. I link being "depressed" with my identity—and in so doing, I make moving beyond my reified diagnosis of depression more difficult. Weakening negative declarations is a worthy goal—we don't want to declare, "I am depressed"—but there are more effective ways to weaken negative declarations than using have statements that risk reifying.

I. To avoid reification, we must change our language.

A. Two Objectives

1. It will be helpful to avoid identity claims like, "I'm depressed."

2. It will also be helpful to avoid reifications like, "I have depression," which avoid identity claims but introduce logical error.

B. A Lingual Solution

1. Using the personal present perfect construction — "I have been feeling depressed." — is a viable alternative.

a. This way of speaking is personal—"I…."

b. This way of speaking uses the present perfect tense—"have been ________ing," which suggests that the experience may change at any moment.

2. Notice how ephemeral—how temporary, how fleeting—the declarations "I've been feeling sad" or "I've been feeling lethargic" really seem.

3. Whenever we express personal perceptions—and especially when we express them using the present perfect tense—we leave open the door for someone to volunteer perceptions of their experiences, to offer a different perspective on what we're feeling and, perhaps, to help us find a way beyond the pain we've been experiencing.

II. To overcome a complex mix of psychological, physical, and spiritual struggles, we must change our living.

A. Declare

1. Proclaim what you hope for in present-tense language. (This is the strategy of repeating positive affirmations with gusto; for example: "I am a more peaceful, serene person every day," or an affirmation Bill Murray made famous: "I feel good… I feel great… I feel wonderful!")

a. If positive affirmations work for you, by all means: use them!

b. If you feel your body whispering "Liar… liar… liar" when you're speaking affirmations, choose a different strategy. (See below.)

2. Proclaim what you're committed to, and proclaim it often. (For example: "Choose for yourselves today whom you will serve… but as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord" – Joshua 24:15).

3. Re-negotiate all unessential commitments to eliminate any responsibilities that feel burdensome or overwhelming, so that you can be true to the declarations you've made.

a. Practice saying "no"; then scale back. The strongest enemy of the best often isn't the worst; the strongest enemy of the best is usually busyness with the good.

b. Sometimes, scaling back our commitments empowers us to follow through on commitments we've made, which we're feeling bad about neglecting or breaking.

B. Ask.

1. Ask the Lord: Learn what He says in Scripture by reading the Bible, in addition to carefully written resources like

a. God's Solutions to Life's Problems by Wayne & Joshua Mack,

b. Christ for Real by Charles Price,

c. Lord, Change My Attitude by James MacDonald, and

d. Free Indeed by Richard Ganz.
Dr. Richard L. Ganz (Ph.D., clinical psychology) served on the clinical psychiatry faculty at Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, New York, and as an adjunct faculty member at Syracuse University—before becoming a believer. His testimony is amazing. Click here to read it.

For additional books or audio series by these authors, click on their names to visit their ministries' websites.

2. Ask yourself:

a. Develop a habit of asking questions using the following phrases, followed by a description of whatever you hope for:

1) In what ways… (For example: In what ways do I feel great right now?)

2) How… (For example: How might my sense of well-being increase ten-fold today?)

3) I wonder how… (For example: I wonder how soon I'll be surprised by joy today.)

b. Daily, answer such questions as "In what ways might I move if I were already joyful?" and "How will I act as I become aware of how joyful I am already?" In forming your questions and answers, consider the six aspects of energy—Novelty, Intensity, Direction/Purpose, Frequency, Duration, and Regularity:

1) Novelty: With surprise at the newness of life!

2) Intensity… Letting my yes be Yes! and my no No!

3) Direction/Purpose: With gusto!

4) Frequency: Again, I choose to practice being joyful.

5) Duration: I stay in the now.

6) Regularity: In what ways do I notice that which I hope for becoming reality already?

3. Ask others: People often speak of a "spiral of depression" because the more someone feels down, the less someone often generally feels like choosing to walk, share, breathe, soak up the sun, take time to listen to a favorite band, meet for coffee, "plug in" and serve, or risk letting others down by saying "no." With a helping hand, however, each of these can be a stepping stone beyond depression. They're harder to see, however, through a fog of reification. So please, don't reify—and don't accept others' reifications of you or your loved ones. You can, of course, choose to use others' reification to help get insurance funding for a treatment you may choose to pursue, but you may want to think twice about pursuing any treatment based on a logical error like reification.

C. Act As If:

1. Sometimes, we've got to simply act as if what we hope for is already present. Through action-oriented faith, we substantiate—we put flesh on, or make substantive—what we hope for.

2. There are many choices we can make to feel more alive, energetic, and connected to the human race. How can you make some now?

a. Finding a way to serve the church or community in a way that utilizes your unique gifts can sometimes help—and help those you're serving, too. In what ways can you reconnect with others? How can you experience camaraderie today?

b. Reconnect with your body and breath: Practice a customized HANDLE Program, or embark on breathing explorations.

c. Practice relaxation: Use a Heart-Rate Variability (HRV) biofeedback device like the StressEraser.

1) This can remind you what being relaxed feels like.

2) This can help restore your ability to relax when you need to most (i.e., now—not just when you can get away from the stressors of life).

3. Exercise: Take a twenty-minute walk three to five times per week.

a. A walking partner (human or canine), the oxygen of outdoor air, and the presence of sunshine can make a twenty-minute walk an even more effective way to fight feelings of depression.

b. Consider adding what you enjoy that's healthful for you: some individuals might stroll to polka music; others may listen to an encouraging pep talk or a favorite band. Others might walk to a sandwich shop or coffee house to meet a friend.

D. Give yourself permission to disagree with "professionals," especially professionals who reify. You—not the professionals—will have to live, daily, with the results of whatever decisions you make. Take charge of making good decisions… good decisions that just may involve rejecting reifying professionals outright.