“There Is a Depression-Structure Attached to My Cognitive System”
How treating distressing mental states as relational objects may strengthen cognitive therapy
1. The Tyranny of “I Am”
Language does more than communicate our thoughts; it shapes how we understand ourselves. The words we use to describe our experiences influence how we interpret them, organise them, and ultimately incorporate them into our sense of identity. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the language of psychological suffering.
When people experience depression, anxiety, grief, or loneliness, they commonly describe themselves using phrases such as:
I am depressed.
I am anxious.
I am lonely.
These expressions seem entirely natural. Yet they contain an assumption that is rarely questioned. They describe the distress not as something the individual experiences, but as something the individual is. The psychological state becomes fused with identity.
This distinction may appear subtle, but its consequences are potentially profound. If depression is experienced as part of who I am, then recovery may unconsciously feel like changing the self rather than addressing a condition. The illness ceases to be something that can be examined from the outside and instead becomes the lens through which every experience is interpreted.
Modern psychological therapies have long recognised the importance of creating distance between the individual and their internal experiences. Whether through observing thoughts, challenging beliefs, or externalising problems, many therapeutic approaches encourage patients to develop a relationship with their psychological states rather than becoming completely identified with them. The underlying intuition is simple: it is often easier to work with something that is observed than with something that has become indistinguishable from the self.
This essay begins with a simple question. What if one of the greatest obstacles to psychological change lies not only in the experience of depression itself, but in the way we habitually conceive of it?
Perhaps the first step is not changing depression itself, but changing how we conceive it.
2. The Brain Thinks in Objects
The human brain did not evolve to perform psychotherapy. It evolved to survive in a physical world.
For hundreds of thousands of years, our ancestors interacted with objects. They recognised predators and prey, fashioned tools from stone and wood, navigated landscapes, climbed trees, built shelters, and manipulated countless features of their environment. Survival depended upon accurately perceiving objects, understanding their properties, predicting their behaviour, and imagining how they might be altered. Over evolutionary time, this produced a cognitive system remarkably adept at reasoning about the physical world.
Even today, these abilities are so effortless that we rarely notice them. We can mentally rotate a key before placing it in a lock, imagine rearranging the furniture in a room, visualise the route through an unfamiliar city, or picture how the pieces of a broken machine fit together. Engineers, architects, surgeons, mechanics, and artists all rely upon this extraordinary capacity to construct, manipulate, and analyse internal representations of objects and structures before acting upon them.
This ability extends beyond tangible objects. We routinely simplify complex systems by converting them into visual models. We draw maps to navigate landscapes, diagrams to understand machines, molecular models to study chemistry, and flowcharts to explain organisations. These representations are not reality itself; they are cognitive tools that make complex systems easier to understand and manipulate.
Psychological suffering, however, is rarely presented to the mind in this form.
Depression has no obvious shape. Anxiety has no visible structure. Loneliness occupies no location in space. They are typically experienced as diffuse states that permeate consciousness itself. Rather than standing before us as problems to be examined, they become the medium through which we experience the world. We do not inspect them; we inhabit them.
This raises an intriguing possibility. Perhaps psychological suffering is difficult to work with not only because it is painful, but because it is presented to the brain in a form that its most powerful cognitive systems did not evolve to handle. The mechanisms that allow us to manipulate objects, analyse structures, and solve spatial problems remain largely untapped when confronting an invisible psychological state.
If that is true, then a different way of representing depression may recruit cognitive abilities that are otherwise unavailable. By transforming an abstract psychological condition into a coherent object of thought, we may enable the brain to do what it has always done exceptionally well: inspect it, explore it, understand how it is organised, and imagine how it might be changed.
Whether this idea proves correct remains an empirical question. But it suggests a simple possibility: one reason objectification may be therapeutically useful is that it harnesses some of the oldest and most sophisticated cognitive machinery the human brain possesses.
3. Can Relations Be Things?
At first glance, describing depression as a “thing” may seem mistaken. Unlike a rock or a tree, it cannot be seen, touched, or weighed. It appears to belong to an entirely different category of existence.
This intuition, however, depends upon a particular assumption about what constitutes a thing. We often imagine that objects are defined primarily by the material from which they are made. Yet many of the entities we readily accept as real are better understood as organised patterns than as distinct pieces of matter.
A whirlpool is a familiar example. It is not a separate substance suspended within the river but a stable organisation of moving water. The individual water molecules continuously change, yet the whirlpool persists because the relationships among those molecules remain organised.
The same is true of a hurricane. A hurricane is not a giant object travelling through the atmosphere. It is a stable organisation of interacting air masses, pressure gradients, temperature differences, and moisture. Its identity lies not in any particular parcel of air but in the persistence of the overall pattern.
An ecosystem provides another example. No single organism is the ecosystem. Rather, the ecosystem emerges from the enduring relationships among plants, animals, microorganisms, climate, water, and nutrients. Although its components continually change, the organised structure itself can remain remarkably stable over time.
Get Bill Giannakopoulos’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
These examples suggest that “thingness” need not depend solely upon material substance. It may instead arise from the persistence of organised relationships. Stable relational organisations can possess identifiable boundaries, characteristic behaviours, internal organisation, and continuity through time. In this sense, they are every bit as real as many objects composed of matter.
Viewed from this perspective, depression may also be understood as a stable relational organisation. It is not simply a low mood or a collection of isolated symptoms. Rather, it consists of enduring relationships among patterns of thought, emotional responses, memories, behaviours, physiological processes, and interactions with the surrounding social environment. None of these components alone constitutes depression. It is their organisation that gives rise to the persistent phenomenon we recognise as the illness.
Whether one ultimately accepts this relational ontology is less important than recognising its conceptual coherence. If organised patterns such as whirlpools, hurricanes, and ecosystems can legitimately be regarded as things, then there is no obvious reason why a sufficiently stable organisation of psychological relationships cannot also be regarded as a thing.
Depression, on this view, is not a substance.
It is a stable relational organisation.
4. Objectification as Therapy
If depression is conceived as a stable relational organisation, then the therapeutic task changes in a subtle but important way. The aim is no longer simply to “feel less depressed.” Instead, it becomes to understand, modify, and gradually reorganise the structure itself.
This shift naturally creates psychological distance. Rather than experiencing depression as an inseparable part of the self, the individual begins to relate to it as something that can be observed. Curiosity replaces, at least in part, identification. The question is no longer, “Why am I like this?” but “What is maintaining this structure?”
Many established psychological therapies already encourage this change in perspective. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy helps patients recognise and challenge maladaptive patterns of thinking. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy encourages people to observe thoughts without becoming fused with them. Narrative Therapy similarly seeks to externalise problems, allowing individuals to see “the problem” as separate from the person. The framework proposed here is intended to complement these approaches by providing a simple conceptual model around which they can be organised.
Visualisation becomes central to this process. The precise image is unimportant. One individual may imagine depression as a dense black sphere, another as a tangled network of roots, another as an overgrown vine, and another as a complex machine whose components have become locked into a self-perpetuating cycle. The image is merely an interface that allows the mind to interact with something that would otherwise remain abstract.
Once represented in this way, the structure can be explored. Which parts appear central? Which thoughts reinforce it? Which behaviours sustain it? Which relationships nourish it? Which habits weaken it? The individual begins to investigate the organisation of the structure rather than simply enduring its effects.
This perspective also reframes recovery. Large structures are rarely dismantled all at once. A building is taken down brick by brick. An invasive vine is removed branch by branch. A damaged ecosystem recovers gradually as healthier relationships replace destructive ones. Likewise, psychological recovery may be understood as the progressive weakening of maladaptive relationships while healthier patterns are deliberately strengthened.
Importantly, this approach does not replace established treatments. Medication, psychotherapy, physical activity, social connection, sleep, and purposeful activity can all be viewed as interventions acting upon different parts of the same relational organisation. Their common goal is not merely symptom relief but the gradual reorganisation of the structure that sustains the illness.
Seen in this way, objectification is not itself the therapy. It is a cognitive tool that may help patients engage more effectively with therapies that already exist. By giving psychological suffering a form that can be visualised, examined, and progressively reshaped, it may increase agency, encourage curiosity, and transform recovery from an abstract hope into a tangible process of structural change.
5. Can We Test This?
The ideas presented in this essay are intended as a hypothesis rather than a conclusion. If representing depression as a stable relational object genuinely improves therapeutic engagement, then the proposal should generate testable predictions.
The most direct prediction is that patients who deliberately conceptualise depression as an external relational structure will experience greater psychological distance from their symptoms than those receiving standard therapy alone. Rather than identifying with the illness, they may become more inclined to investigate it.
A second prediction is that objectification will enhance agency. By presenting depression as something that can be examined and modified, patients may increasingly approach recovery as a process of structural change rather than a struggle against their own identity. This may encourage curiosity, persistence, and more active participation in treatment.
These hypotheses could be evaluated in a randomised clinical trial. Patients receiving standard Cognitive Behavioural Therapy could be compared with those receiving CBT supplemented by structured objectification and visualisation of depression as a relational organisation. Outcomes might include symptom severity, psychological flexibility, cognitive fusion, perceived agency, treatment adherence, and relapse rates.
Whether these predictions prove correct remains an empirical question. The value of this framework ultimately depends not upon its philosophical appeal, but upon whether it measurably improves the lives of people living with depression.
6. Conclusion
This essay began with a philosophical question, but it ends with a personal one.
I do not know whether this framework will ultimately help me. I did not develop it in a psychology laboratory or derive it from a clinical trial. I arrived at it while trying to understand my own experience of depression and searching for a way of relating to it that offered more hope than simple identification with the illness.
Whether this perspective proves therapeutically useful — for me or for anyone else — remains to be seen. That is an empirical question, and one that deserves careful study.
What I do know is that it has already changed one sentence.
I no longer always think,
I am depressed.
Instead, I sometimes think,
There is a depression-structure attached to my cognitive system.
Perhaps that difference matters.
