Oh, I know that the reductionist argument goes like this:
A negative event has occurred in my life.
I used to feel ok and now I don’t.
My mind is confused, depressed therefore unhealthy.
My mind is my mental state.
Therefore, I have mental health issues.
Not so long ago if you had said that you suffered from mental health issues a listener might have assumed psychiatrists, anti-psychotic drugs, spells in sanatoria perhaps. Also, PTSD, bi-polar disorder, clinical depression, ADHD, OCD and more. Now the phrase has a much wider application and is used to describe anyone’s state who has a negative reaction to a life event. Reactions which often present as sadness, anger, or a generalised inability to cope temporarily now have a much grander label.
Of course, to be unsympathetic to people who are bereaved, have suffered a relationship breakup, or lost their job is inhumane, as the global growth of counselling services can attest. It is rare to read a news story in which violence or some trauma has been reported and not to read the words ‘the victims have been offered counselling’. But here’s the thing, these are events which if not temporary themselves the effects will grow less over time. Being publicly dumped by your partner, for example, shouldn’t be a catalyst for ‘mental health issues’. Anger, sadness, bouts with alcohol, yes, but real mental health issues, no.
Maybe avoid shoplifting from fancy frock shops as well.
Members of my family have had mental health issues. They won’t ever completely go away, despite cognitive therapies, psychotropic drugs, long bouts with psychiatrists and hospital care. Sometimes the ‘issues’ are barely there, sometimes they are overwhelming, but what these people I care about suffer from can only ever be managed not cured. How do they, and others similarly afflicted, feel when public figures in particular wave the ‘mental health issues’ card in the air for a sympathy vote? Do they feel as if their diagnosed and clinically recognised states are being hijacked?
It isn’t as if there’s more shame in saying ‘I can’t get over my dad’s death’, or ‘I’ve been made redundant,’ than ‘I’m an addict’ which is confession so common among the glamourati as to be a badge of honour. Indeed, it seems that to have a mental health disorder can offer an excuse because it can’t be your fault, you have an illness. Like Covid. You can hitch yourself to Sir John Kirwan’s courage, and experience the halo effect of his honesty about his own mental health struggles. If you are wanting to join the tyrannical minority of victims, this is a useful first step to a whole slew of grievances.
Winning!
A colleague of mine once took a week away from work following the death of a dog. It was an old and valued friend to its owner who was single and had no family in this country. If the reason for the absence had been explained as ‘mental health issues’ our sympathy would have been less warm and genuine because we would have felt that some level of evasion, some lack of honesty had been offered to us in place of a fair and relatable reason.
And I do wonder at the lack of imagination and breadth of advice given by PR firms called in to manage the fall out of bad behaviour from public figures. Is anyone else bored with statements that talk about ‘seeking help for my issues’ and ‘spending more time with my family’. Chances are your family aren’t breathless to have extra time in your company just now and never mind about paying someone to listen to you emote about yourself. Just say, ‘I’ve been a complete mong and I’m going to plant trees for a charity.’
Or something.
And then there are the unintended consequences of embracing this fashionable affliction. I’m imagining being on an appointments committee again, and just for the sake of argument let’s suppose that there are two equally appointable candidates, all the equity and diversity boxes have been ticked and we know that one of the applicants has disclosed mental health issues. I don’t think that I would be suggesting that we give the job to the person with the health issues. This is because, no matter how much sympathy I might have on a personal level, I would be foreseeing future problems with the smooth-running of the organisation and a negative impact on the well-being of staff already doing their best.
Call me awful.
But I would prefer to know that claimants taking this popular excuse just acknowledge a human error, a temporary lack of judgement that may have been triggered by something quite ordinary going wrong. Or just because they were a bit of an idiot. So, to all you stars in the public firmament who have committed an oopsie in the bathroom of a favoured city bar or other career catastrophe, when an excitable PR spinner advises you to claim that the moment was down to ‘mental health issues’ just say, ‘Yeah, nah’, out of respect for those who have to live their entire lives with catastrophic biochemistries.
Penn Raine is an educator and writer who lives in NZ and France.
8 comments:
Fantastic. I love it. Thank you (again).
It seems to me that in the GG case that the seeking of some kind of dopamine rush from shoplifting is nothing to do with a mental health illness. She could rightly claim to be under great stress but reacting badly to stress isn't a mental illness.
Mental Health is like all health. You are technically unhealthy if you have been to the doctor and been diagnosed with a malady or such.
Emotions on the other hand are just feelings and feelings are not a sign of mental ill health. Emotional feelings are in fact a sign of a healthy state whether it be from sadness to gladness they are quite natural.
Without these you could infact fall into the category of either psycho or sociopath which are clearly mental health issues.
For anyone using an emotional state as an excuse for theft (or anything really) under the mental health banner is both a coward and a liar (mostly to themselves) and should be treated like that until actually treated (by a doctor) as such.
Well said, Penn. Yes, such a claim is far too easy and generic and if resorting to it there should be a requirement to express what specifically the issue is or was. In the subject instance, the repeated act of theft was the manifestation of the issue. No, they didn’t steal someone’s life (that’s a murderer - and you could question the sanity of anyone doing that at the time), but they did impair someone else’s livelihood or enjoyment by stealing something that didn’t belong to them. Let’s also not forget that they had enough mental wherewithal to attempt concealing their activities, and that they did it repeatedly on two or three occasions that we know of.
From time immemorial, society rightly takes a very dim view on thieves, and I certainly wouldn’t employ a person with such proclivities. You’d have to question the ‘sanity’ of anyone who did - unless perhaps the role involved catching others similarly inclined? (As the saying goes, it takes one to know one.)
I also wouldn’t employ someone with ‘other’ mental issues, or indeed any other impairment if there truly was a choice between otherwise ‘equal’ candidates (anyone who claims differently is either a liar and/or is just signalling virtue), but it’s never quite that straightforward, as there are invariably other considerations at play.
As you rightly indicate, out of respect to those unfortunate souls truly afflicted by mental health issues, it should be rejected as a justification or excuse for what is patently unacceptable behaviour, and more especially as a purported representative of the people.
She has been charged with shoplifting. End of story. The whole exercise of making it about her mental health is a smokescreen to cover up the fact that she committed a criminal offence. No sympathy from me.
The choice of stores and items taken indicates the kleptomania was no potential diagnosis in the case. Yes, she has spiritual health issues for being a thief and liar but it isn't a compulsive addiction and she was fully in control of her actions. I hope she gets the sentence someone in her position deserves and the appropriate amount of public pilloring.
Look up “Asoh Defence”
The term "Mental Health Issues" is used to justify work for those who respond to the 'normal' responses of 'normal' minds of 'normal' people. Here I give the 'natural' and ordinary meaning [which includes its statistical] meaning.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.