How will our drug culture be viewed many years from now? As anthropologists study the use of pharmaceuticals, they could take many positions. One of which is the belief that neuroleptic drugs do for the brain what antihistamines do for the body. Both externally regulate a biological malfunction in the body. This could be a very positive view, the "psychopharmaceuticals" would be looked on as a major advance in humans' understanding and control of their bodies.

Another perspective may believe that the this biological intervention has distanced psychology from traditional counseling therapy. Psychiatric counseling may be reduced to part of a regular medical check-up. The patient and physician would treat psychological problems as just another form of a medical prognosis, to be treated with medication. Medical doctors have already begun to prescribe fluoxetine to their patients (Kramer, 1993). Will this signal a decline in traditional psychotherapy? Possibly, however it is believed that the benefits of psychotherapy are too great to discount (Kramer, 1993., Breggin, 1991).

A viewpoint that already exists today is that psychopharmaceuticals perform a "chemical lobotomy," (Breggin, 1991). This perspective considers neuroleptics to be just the most recent form of psychiatric blundering with the brain, the modern successor to lobotomies and electroshock. If it is revealed that tinkering with the neurotransmitters at the synapse does not actually benefit conditions like depression, but produces a veneer of improvement while causing permanent neurological damages, the neuroleptics of today may be seen as a great step in the wrong direction.

The perspectives of the people on the medication will also be taken into account. The analysis may consider these patients to be informed and knowledgeable users of pharmaceutical self- regulation or a populace believing in the "cure-all" principle, much like the followers of "patent" medicine makers of the last century. The condition of an uninformed or misinformed populace would serve as a catalyst for the misuse of psychopharmaceuticals. The perspectives of the administering physicians may also be taken into account. Many Psychiatrists believe that psychoparmaceuticals are of great benefit to patients (Sneader, 1985). However, if these drugs are perceived negatively, then the physicians become well meaning but mislead practitioners who provide yet another "magic elixir."

Christopher Lasch has criticized our culture of therapy. In 1978 he wrote The Culture of Narcism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. In this book Lasch portrays modern Americans as escapists from the harsh conditions of the world, living for the moment and seeking self-gratification in pursuit of peace of the mind. "People hunger today not for personal salvation, let alone for the restoration of an earlier golden age, but for the feeling, the momentary illusion of personal well being, health and psychic security," (Lasch, 1978 p. 7). Lasch sees therapists as the principle allies in this struggle for composure. "Plagued by anxiety, depression, vague discontents, a sense of inner emptiness, the 'Psychological Man' of the twentieth century seeks neither individual self-aggrandizement nor spiritual transcendence but peace of mind, under conditions that increasingly mitigate against it," (Lasch, 1978 p. 13).

This is a rather extreme position. Disorders such as depression and schizophrenia have existed for thousands of years, and are not necessarily caused by the culture that we live in (Hunt, 1993). Lasch's criticism is more appropriate when applied to those who would seek peace of mind by pursuing a prescription to fluoxetine. These people may not actually be diagnosed with a condition such as Bipolar disorder, but would be seeking relief from stress in life. For these people, Lasch's claim that "mental health means the overthrow of inhibitions and the immediate gratification of every impulse" (Lasch, 1978 p. 13) may apply.