The bulk of people (apparently 85% in the UK) believe that a “chemical imbalance” is the cause of depression. This is despite contemporary research being unanimous that this isn’t the case. Depression is now understood to be caused by a complex array of things: there may be some biology involved but also psychology , past trauma, adversity, and situational stuff such as poverty, stress, disappointment etc. And I wonder if we always knew anyway, implicitly, before the narrative was overtaken by the messaging of the pharmaceutical industry.

So why is it that people are so attached to the idea that depression is just a chemical imbalance in the brain? Partly because it’s so simple. And in a large part because it gets you off the hook. If you stick with the chemical imbalance story, you don’t have to think about the deeper stuff; the painful stuff. What’s happened in the past, your disappointments, how you were treated, how you mistreated yourself or others, how society is kinda bonkers, how life is a complex and weird thing, and what does it all mean anyway?

Anti-depressants can be very useful, life-saving at times of crisis, or in periods in your life when having to do that engagement with the more complex causes is just not available to you or you don’t have the resources to commit to the task – emotional, financial, or time.

We take painkillers to ease pain. And we’re very grateful for them. But that doesn’t establish that pain is caused by an imbalance of paracetamol. Likewise, artificially increasing serotonin may be beneficial to your mood, but your low mood isn’t caused by an imbalance of it.

So let’s not cling to a reductive chemical imbalance idea, just because it’s intellectually convenient and morally simple. It’s just not true, and it’s a disservice to yourself. It’s saying: I’m just a thing that I can chuck chemicals into and my life will change.