A “Mental Health” Crisis

The meaning of mental health has changed in recent decades, shaping how we conceptualize and use this term. So I raise the question: What exactly is mental health and how has society influenced its meaning? I will employ cultural critic Neil Postman’s five principles, as outlined in his article “Defending the Indefensible,” designed to guide students in a critical defense against culture, to call the meaning and influence of the term mental health within our larger society into question.

According to Postman, the process of definition is how a term comes to carry meaning and a larger purpose within a cultural context. Postman urges students to criticize the definition of any and all terms that we take for granted. No definitions are solidified, but rather are subject to change depending on one’s interpretation; that is, any definition is just an individual hypothesis regarding a term’s meaning. The history of the term ‘mental health’ reveals the problematic underpinnings of this pat phrase. In theory, this phrase should refer to an individual's psychological and emotional well-being. However, its general use in contemporary society has been altered to suggest a struggle with mental illness. Despite well-meaning intentions to craft a term to bypass the adverse associations attached to mental illness, this substitution still carries subtle negative connotations.

The concept of mental health continues to evolve, as it often serves as a term for general hardship, eclipsing the true weight of mental illness. When I was in a health class two years ago, the daily discussion topic was mental health. One of my friends said, “I have been suffering from mental health. I have so many assessments in a week, and I am always sad. I also don’t have a lot of friends, so I feel really lonely all the time.” Not to mention my confusion at her suffering at the hand of “mental health,” I began to also question her conceptualization of mental illness. While I cannot pretend to fully grasp my classmate’s personal experiences, her words left me with a sense that she didn’t acknowledge what a deep struggle with “mental health” looks or feels like. 

I perceived that my friend was unaware of the silencing effect that could result from her implied definition of “mental health.” The elision of mental health struggles with everyday stress, made me incapable of  revealing my inner world.. I didn’t want to minimize her experiences or add gravity to our discussion, nor did I want to appear that I was an attention seeker by disclosing heavier struggles. Using mental health updates as a seemingly harmless conversation starter also has consequences. It has now turned into a mechanism that can silence meaningful dialogue. Instead of the common check-in “How are you feeling?,” I often am asked, “How’s your mental health?” We have normalized these shallow greetings rather than formulating genuine inquiries into another’s well-being, indicating that we are asking the wrong questions. As Postman suggests, such vaguely formed questions intentionally beg for a vaguely formed answer. If we were to actually pose a question that required more specificity, both the persons who pose and respond to the question would put themselves in danger of raw and authentic moments of vulnerability.

A few weeks ago, I was walking to class and my friend started a conversation with me in an attempt to express legitimate concern for me beyond a casual check-in. She told me that she noticed I seemed really sleepy in science class, and I looked “unwell” because I seemed pale. Immediately after her expression of worry, she loudly asked, “How is your mental health right now? Like, do you need any help?” Since she had to raise her volume to be heard in the busiest hallway at my school, I instantly felt uncomfortable because I didn’t know how to respond to such an intrusive question. I wasn’t sure precisely what she meant by “help” either. Terms like “help” and “mental health” appear to have simple definitions, but unpacking their true meanings uncovers that they have multiple connotations that we often conflate. While these questions are meant to demonstrate sympathy, they are, in reality, highly invasive and personal questions that should be avoided without established trust. We refuse to question the nature of the term “mental health,” and we take its meaning for granted. Rather, Postman’s solution to asking the wrong questions is to critique and reimagine the very questions that we pose.

Postman also encourages us to reexamine unspoken metaphors that influence the way we interpret our knowledge and experiences. Underneath the surface definition of “mental health,” we discover a metaphor of the mind as an extension of the body. In unpacking the concept of mental health, we begin to see a biased medical understanding of the mind that can be diagnosed and treated just like physical ailments. Medical professionals place patients into one of two categories: healthy or sick. To be provided with medication, doctors often need to see some visible indication of a problem, as mental illness is then reduced to a disorder of the brain. We ought to question this medicalization metaphor because it implies that medication and treatments offer a complete cure to psychological distress and that we can completely equate the mind with the body. I have experienced the harm of this false equivalence personally when I was first evaluated for my mental well-being at a hospital. The way that they looked at me made me feel as though I was defined by my mental health struggles, which made me feel more like a broken object than a human being.

This subtle dehumanization is not just found in hospitals but also all over the media, which Postman states can never be neutral and ultimately shapes our perception of reality. As he writes, the grammar and phrasing of a sentence influence the viewpoints people assume, as word choices are grounded in unspoken ideologies. Thus, the words written on social media can unintentionally create a toxic environment in an effort to promote mental health. The Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) posts campaigns, ads, and articles by individuals writing about their psychological struggles. Posts from MHCC on Instagram seemingly promote positive messages, such as “Asking for help is not a weakness.” While this mantra is meant to destigmatize mental health treatment, it perpetuates the stereotype that seeking help is a weakness just by mentioning this trope. Another post from MHCC states in bold font: “Just Breathe,” suggesting an overly simplistic solution to complicated and deeply personal issues. While these exhortations might bring hope to some, treating this subject so lightly could lead those who live with symptoms of mental illness to feel infuriated and alienated.  

Using Postman’s five principles, we can unpack how language shapes the everyday definition of mental health and the experience of those who live with mental illness. Even though we may not have ill intentions, it is important to examine the way we discuss and present mental illness, as our words could carry potential harm if they “other” individuals rather than give them a space to talk. Many metaphors creep into our language, and we must be vigilant to avoid perpetuating their harm as well. We must stop using damaging metaphors embedded in statements like “They’re losing it,” or “They seem pretty low,” as these euphemisms can lead to isolation for those who struggle with mental well-being. Postman begs us not only to question our assumption of terms like mental illness, but also how we actively use language to shape their meaning. Thus, I urge us to examine not only the words we use, but also the ones that surround us, in order to dissect their true meaning and their effect on the lived experiences of others. 

Works Cited

Mental Health Commission of Canada. Photo of It’s a Strength. Instagram, 1 Oct. 2020, www.instagram.com/p/CFzU1NejmX_/?igshid=1r7v4w9ywmi0j.

Mental Health Commission of Canada. Photo of Just Breathe. Instagram, 19 Oct. 2020, www.instagram.com/p/B1R9b0PlwkB/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link. 

Postman, Neil. “Defending Against the Indefensible.”  Conscientious Objections: Stirring Up Trouble About Language, Technology, and Education. Toronto: Random House of Canada Limited, 1988.