Category Archives: Wellness Model

Dysfunction is Evidence of Our Humanness.

Simultaneous mutual interaction of all human system components is required for sustainability.

There is a joke that circulates among mental health professionals. Why do only 26% of people have a diagnosable mental disorder? . . . Because the other 74% haven’t been diagnosed yet.

We are all psychologically dysfunctional in some way. “Mental illnesses are so common that almost everyone will develop at least one diagnosable mental disorder at some point in their life” (Scientific American). 

Why do we treat the mentally ill with contempt, trepidation, and ridicule? We are hard-wired to fear and isolate mental illness, and we have been misinformed by history and the disease model of mental health. There are four common misconceptions about psychological dysfunctions. They are (1) abnormal and selective, (2) a consequence of behavior, (3) solely mental, and (4) psychotic. 

Let us deconstruct these misconceptions, beginning with the latter.

A dysfunctional person is psychotic.

There are two degrees of mental disorder: neuroses and psychoses. When someone sees, hears, or responds to things that are not actual, they are having a psychotic episode. While few persons experience psychosis, everyone has moderate-and-above levels of anxiety, stress, and depression. We are universally neurotic. Since the overwhelming majority of mental disorders are neuroses, we are all dysfunctional to some extent.

A dysfunction is abnormal or selective. 

A neurosis is a condition that negatively impacts our emotional wellbeing and quality of life but does not necessarily impair or interfere with normal day-to-day functions. It is a standard part of natural human development. One-in-four individuals have a diagnosable neurosis. According to the World Health Organization, nearly two-thirds of people who have a neurosis reject or refuse to disclose their condition. Include those who dispute or chose to remain oblivious to their dysfunction, we can conclude that mental disorders are common, undiscriminating, and impact us all in some fashion or another. Many of us have more than one disorder; depression and anxiety are commonly comorbid, often accompanied by substance abuse. 

A dysfunction is the consequence of a person’s behavior. 

Combined statistics prove that 89% of neuroses onset at adolescence or earlier. In the rare event conditions like PTSD or clinical narcissism begin later in life, the susceptibility originates in childhood. Most psychologists agree that a neurosis is a consequence of childhood physical, emotional, or sexual disturbance. Any number of things can cause this. Perhaps parents are controlling or do not provide emotional validation. Maybe the child is subjected to bullying or from a broken home. Behaviors later in life may impact the severity but are not responsible for the neurosis itself. It is never the child’s fault, nor reflective of their behavior. There is the likelihood no one is intentionally responsible. This disputes moral models that we are to blame for our disorder, or it is God’s punishment for sin.  

A dysfunction is solely mental.

To early civilizations, mental illness was the domain of supernatural forces and demonic possession. Hippocrates and diagnosticians of the 19th century looked at the relative proportions of bodily fluids. Lunar influence, sorcery, and witchcraft are timeless culprits. In the early 20th century, it was somatogenic. The biological approach argues that neuroses are related to the brain’s physical functioning, while pharmacology promotes it as chemical or hormonal imbalance. However, the simultaneous mutual interaction of all human system components—mind, body, spirit, and emotions—is required for sustainability and recovery.

The disease model focuses on the history of deficit behavior. The American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) brief definition of neurosis contains the following words: distressing, irrational, obsessive, compulsive, dissociative, depressive, exaggerated, unconscious, and conflicts. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the APA, uses words like incapable, deceitful, unempathetic, manipulative, difficult, irresponsible, and incompetent. 

This ‘defective’ emphasis has been the overriding psychiatric perspective for over a century. The disease model is the chief proponent of the notion that the mentally ill are dangerous and unpredictable. We distance ourselves and deem them socially undesirable. We stigmatize them. The irony is, we are them. 

  • Over one-third of family members hide their relationship with their dysfunctional child or sibling to avoid bringing shame to the family. They are considered family undesirable, a devaluation potentially more life-limiting and disabling than the neurosis itself. 
  • The media stereotypes neurotics as homicidal schizophrenics, impassive childlike prodigies, or hair-brained free-spirits. One study evidenced over half of U.S. news stories involving the dysfunctional allude to violence. 
  • Psychologists argue that more persons would seek treatment if psychiatric services were less stigmatizing. There are complaints of rude or dismissive staff, coercive measures, excessive wait times, paternalistic or demeaning attitudes, pointless treatment programs, drugs with undesirable side-effects, stigmatizing language, and general therapeutic pessimism. 
  • The disease model supports doctor-patient power dominance. Clinicians deal with 31 similar and comorbid disorders, 400 plus schools of psychotherapy, multiple treatment programs, and an evolving plethora of medications. They cannot grasp the personal impact of a neurosis because they are too focused on the diagnosis. 

A recent study of 289 clients in 67 clinics found that 76.4% were misdiagnosed. An anxiety clinic reported over 90% of clients with generalized anxiety were incorrectly diagnosed. Experts cite the difficulty in distinguishing different disorders or identifying specific etiological risk factors due to the DSM’s failing reliability statistics. Even mainstream medical authorities have begun to criticize the validity and humanity of conventional psychiatric diagnoses. The National Institute of Mental Health believes traditional psychiatric diagnoses have outlived their usefulness and suggests replacing them with easily understandable descriptions of the issues. 

Because of the disease model’s emphasis on diagnosis, we focus on the dysfunction rather than the individual. Which disorder do we find most annoying or repulsive? What behaviors contribute to the condition? How progressive is it, and how effective are treatments? Is it contagious? We derisively label the obvious dysfunctional ‘a mental case.’

Realistically, we cannot eliminate the word ‘mental’ from the culture. Unfortunately, its negative perspectives and implications promulgate perceptions of incompetence, ineptitude, and unlovability. Stigma, the hostile expression of someone’s undesirability, is pervasive and destructive. Stigmatization is deliberate, proactive, and distinguishable by pathographic overtones intended to shame and isolate. 90% of persons diagnosed with a mental disorder claim they have been impacted by mental health stigma. Disclosure jeopardizes livelihoods, relationships, social standing, housing, and quality of life. 

The disease model assumes that emotional distress is merely symptomatic of biological illness. The Wellness Model focuses on the positive aspects of human functioning that promote our wellbeing and recognize our essential and shared humanity. The Wellness Model emphasizes what is right with us, innately powerful within us, our potential, and determination. Recovery is not achieved by focusing on incompetence and weakness; it is achieved by embracing and utilizing our inherent strengths and abilities. 

Benefits of the Wellness Model

  • Revising negative and hostile language will encourage new positive perspectives
  • The self-denigrating aspects of shame will dissipate, and stigma becomes less threatening. 
  • A doctor-client knowledge exchange will value the individual over the diagnosis.
  • Realizing neurosis is a natural part of human development will generate social acceptance and accommodation. 
  • Recognizing that they bear no responsibility for onset will revise public opinion that  people deserve their neurosis because it is the result of their behavior. 
  • Emphasizing character strengths and virtues will positively impact self-beliefs and image, leading to more disclosure, discussion, and recovery-remission. 
  • Realizing proximity and susceptibility will address the desire to distance and isolate. 
  • Emphasis on value and potential will encourage accountability and foster self-reliance.

The impact of a neurosis begins at childhood; recovery is a long-term commitment. The Wellness Model creates the blueprint and then guides, teaches, and supports throughout the recovery process by emphasizing our intrinsic character strengths and attributes that generate the motivation, persistence, and perseverance to recover. 

The adage, treat others as you want to be treated, takes on added relevance when we accept that we all experience mental disorder. In fact, dysfunction is evidence of our humanness.

A referenced copy of this article is available: rechanneling@yahoo.com.

Dysfunction in the LGBTQ Community

The LBGTQ+ community is 1.5-2.5 times more likely to have anxiety and depression

Establishing a Wellness Model for LGBTQ+ Persons with a Mental Disorder

Abstract. Firmly establishing wellness models in mental health requires nothing less than a reformation of language, power structure, and perspective throughout the mental healthcare community and beyond. 

65 million U.S. adults and 18.5 million adolescents have major depression and anxiety. Estimates show that 60% of those with anxiety also have depression symptoms, and both are comorbid with substance abuse. The LBGTQ+ community is 1.5-2.5 times more likely to have anxiety and depression than their straight or gender-conforming counterparts. Similar numbers hold for LGBTQ+ persons with other mental and emotional disorders. Anxiety and depression are primary causes of the 56% increase in adolescent suicide over the last decade. High school LGBTQ+ students are almost five times as likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers, and 40% of transgender adults have attempted suicide in their lifetime.

Wellness must become the central focus of mental health because the disease model has provided grossly unsatisfactory results. Rather than obsessing on disease and deficits, wellness models emphasize the character strengths and virtues that generate motivation, persistence, and perseverance essential to recovery. Psychological science is there, but it needs positive implementation through program integration, positive evaluation, transparency, and information management. Empathy and communication must supersede etiology and misdiagnosis. 

Wellness impacts more than mental health; it is a paradigmatic perspective that seeks to promote a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being. This paper will show how the wellness model’s sociological emphasis on character strengths and attributes not only positively impacts the self-beliefs and image of a mentally ill person but resonates in sexual and gender-based identities and portends well, the recovery-remission of an LGBTQ+ person with a mental illness.  

Introduction

To illustrate the wellness model’s potential impact, this paper focuses on LGBTQ+ persons with anxiety and depression disorders, which comprise 42% of diagnosable dysfunctions in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). It posits what is learned can be applied to the remaining 58% of mental disorders that impact an LGBTQ+ person’s emotional wellbeing and quality of life. “There is an urgent need to develop and disseminate tailored evidence-based interventions that improve the health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) youth. (Wilkerson et al., 2016, p. 358). 

Depression and anxiety are the two most common forms of mental dysfunction impacting millions of U.S. adults who find themselves caught up in a densely interconnected network of fear and avoidance of social situations. Johns Hopkins (2020) reports that around 25 million U.S. adults have a depressive illness, and 45 million, anxiety. Adolescent numbers fluctuate between 8 and 18 million (CDC, 2020; NIMH, 2017); the actual number indeterminate. Statistics are even less reliable for the LGBTQ+ community because large-scale mental health studies rarely include sexual and gender identity (NAMI, 2020b). “Federally funded surveys only recently have begun to identify sexual minorities in their data collections” (Medley et al., 2020, p. 1). Experts estimate the infection rate in the LBGTQ+ community is 1.5 to 2.5 times higher “than that of their straight or gender-conforming counterparts” (Brenner, 2019, p. 1).

Depressive illnesses tend to co-occur with anxiety and substance abuse (Johns Hopkins, 2020). “Some estimates show that 60% of those with anxiety will also have symptoms of depression, and the numbers are similar for those with depression also experiencing anxiety” (Salcedo, 2018, p. 1). Anxiety and depression are primary causes of the 56% increase in adolescent suicide over the last decade (Curtin & Heron, 2019). “High school students who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual are almost five times as likely to attempt suicide compared to their heterosexual peers,” and “40% of transgender adults have attempted suicide in their lifetime” (NAMI, 2020b, p. 1). 

Anxiety is the most common mental dysfunctions, impacting the emotional wellbeing and quality of life of adults and children who find themselves caught up in a densely interconnected network of fear, worry, and apprehension. The psychological and sociological toll can be overwhelming. Physically, anxiety can cause sweating, trembling, fatigue, and rapid heartbeat, lower the immune system and increase the risk of heart disease risk. Persons with depression may experience a lack of interest and enjoyment of daily activities, significant weight fluctuation, insomnia or excessive sleeping, enervation, inability to concentrate, feelings of worthlessness, guilt, and recurrent thoughts of death or suicide. Anxious and depressed persons frequently generate images of themselves performing poorly in social situations (Hirsch & Clark, 2004; Hulme et al., 2012) for fear of being found out as unlikeable, stupid, or annoying. Accordingly, they avoid speaking in public, expressing opinions, or even fraternizing with peers. Symptoms can be repressive and intractable, imposing irrational thought and behavior (Richards, 2014; Zimmerman et al., 2010) that govern perspectives of personal attractiveness, intelligence, and competence (Ades & Dias, 2013). Over time, these self-beliefs become automatic negative thoughts (Amen, 1998) that determine initial reactions to situations or circumstances. 

Mental Health and LGBTQ+ Culture

Halloran and Kashima (2006) define culture as “an interrelated set of values, tools, and practices that is shared among a group of people who possess a common social identity” (p. 140). Culture impacts,

how mental illness is perceived or diagnosed, how services are organized and how they’re funded. It also affects how patients express their symptoms…and how they cope in the range of their community and family supports. (Daw, 2001, p. 1)

Studies and research indicate that mental health culture is underscored by the same interrelated attributions to mental health stigma: public opinion, media representation, family rejection, distancing, and the diagnosis itself. These attributions are similarly LGBTQ+ cultural influences along with heterosexualism and victimization. Both are impacted by history, while the disease model remains the primary contributor to mental health culture.   

LGBTQ+ culture is defined by its sexual and gender identity as distinct from the heterosexual and cisgender community (NAMI, 2020b). Subcultures within the community comprise “a diverse set of groups, including distinct groups based on sexual orientation and gender identity” (Lewis et al., 2017, p. 861), each struggling to develop their recognition. LGBTQ+’s social identity is shaped by oppression and its role in overcoming it. The community faces “numerous challenges and instances of heterosexism and homophobia in their daily lives” (UW-Madison, 2020, p. 1), including “discrimination, prejudice, denial of civil and human rights, harassment, and family rejection” (NAMI, 2020b, p. 1). The contrast in social culture is underscored by 26 countries with legalized same-sex marriage versus 73 countries where homosexual activity between consenting adults is illegal (Equaldex, 2020) and 8 countries where it is punishable by death (ILGA, 2019). LGBTQ+ people worldwide are confronted by “violence, arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, torture, and execution, according to Amnesty International” (WEF, 2018, p. 1). Because of this cultural disparity, this paper limits its focus to LGBTQ+ mental health issues in the United States. 

Transition

Working within a wellness model of mental health has become a central focus of international policy (Slade, 2010). As psychologist Kinderman (2014) writes, “we need wholesale and radical change, not only in how we understand mental health problems but also in how we design and commission mental health services” (p. 1). Decades of pathographic focus in psychological research and studies, negative diagnostic attributions, stereotyping and stigma, public and institution resistance, and a doctor-client power dominance factor in the need to transition to a wellness paradigm.

Firmly establishing wellness models in mental health requires nothing less than a reformation of language, power structure, and perspective throughout the mental healthcare community and beyond. Rather than obsessing on disease and deficits, wellness models emphasize the character strengths and virtues that generate motivation, persistence, and perseverance to recovery. Psychological science is there but needs implementation through program integration, positive evaluation, transparency, and information management. Empathy and communication must supersede etiology. This paper does not endorse a total dissolution of medical model approaches, but a review of their efficacy and the psychological effectiveness of their pathographic dominance is highly warranted. 

Redefining Mental Health

Government agencies define mental illness as a “diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder of sufficient duration to meet diagnostic criteria” that can “result in functional impairment which substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities” (Salzer et al., 2018, p. 3). This ‘defective’ emphasis has been the overriding psychiatric perspective for centuries. 

The pathographic or disease perspective of diagnosis and recovery focuses on the history of an individual’s suffering to facilitate diagnosis. Schioldann (2003, p. 303) defines pathography as a

historical biography from a medical, psychological, and psychiatric viewpoint. It analyses a single individual’s biological heredity, development, personality, life history and mental and physical pathology, within the socio-cultural context of his/her time, in order to evaluate the impact of these factors upon his/her decision-making, performance and achievements. (Kőváry, 2011, p. 742)

One only needs the American Psychological Association’s (APA, 2020) definition of neurosis to comprehend the mental health community’s pathographic focus. The 90-word overview contains the following words: distressing, irrational, obsessive, compulsive, dissociative, depressive, exaggerated, unconscious, conflicts, anxiety, disorders. DSM-3 abandoned the word ‘neurosis’ in 1980, but it remains the go-to term in the mental health community. Coined by a Scottish physician in 1776, neurosis defined itself as functional derangement of the nervous system. Pathography focuses “on a deficit, disease model of human behaviour,” whereas the wellness model focuses “on positive aspects of human functioning” (Mayer & May, 2019, p. 159). 

Studies and researchportray the mental healthcare community drowning in pessimism (Henderson et al., 2014; Khesht-Masjedi et al., 2017; Pryor et al., 2009). “There is evidence to indicate the problem may be endemic in the medical health community” (Gray, 2002, p. 3), and universally systemic (Knaak et al., 2017). Noted psychologist Alison Gray (2002) argues that more disordered persons would seek treatment if psychiatric services were less stigmatized and stigmatizing. Patients commonly report instances where a staff member was inordinately rude or dismissive. They cite coercive measures, excessive wait times, paternalistic or demeaning attitudes, treatment programs revolving around drugs with undesirable side-effects, stigmatizing language, and general therapeutic pessimism (Henderson et al., 2014; Huggett et al., 2018). Clients with more severe complications or illnesses are often deemed “difficult, manipulative, and less deserving of care” (Knaak et al., 2017, p. 2). Nurses and clinicians cite a lack of collegial support, insufficient knowledge and training, and the fear of client self-harm (Henderson et al., 2014), leading them to over-diagnose and over-prescribe (Huggett et al., 2018).

Transitioning from the disease model’s pathographic language to the optimistic and encouraging language of wellness models is everyone’s responsibility in the mental health community―its institutions, associations, practitioners, researchers, media, and clients. In the growing opinion of clinical psychologists, empathy and communication must take precedence over etiology. 

We must move away from the disease model, which assumes that emotional distress is merely symptomatic of biological illness, and instead embrace a model of mental health and well-being that recognizes our essential and shared humanity. Our mental health is largely dependent on our understanding of the world and our thoughts about ourselves, other people, the future and the world. (Kinderman, 2014, p. 3

Language and Perspective

Language generates and supports perspective, and linguists agree that the relationship between language and power is mutual (Ng & Deng, 2017). Language influences thought and action. Terms like incapacity, deceit, unempathetic, manipulative, and irresponsible describe DSM-5 traits for various disorders. The argument is not that these descriptions are invalid; they are overwhelmingly negative and perceptually hostile. Judging by public opinion, media representation, and mental health stereotype and stigma, these words help frame the perception of a person with a mental disorder (DeMare, 2016; Pinfold et al., 2005; Pryor et al., 2009).

Realistically, we cannot eliminate the word ‘mental’ from the culture. The disease model’s guide for 70 years is called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Unfortunately, the word ‘mental’ is a limited description of a disorder, and its negative implications support perceptions of incompetence, unworthiness, and undesirability. It is the dominant source of stigma, shame, and self-denigration. Psychologically, the word mental defines a person or their behavior as somehow extreme or illogical. Adolescents derisively assign the term to the unpopular, different, and socially inept. The urban dictionary defines mental as someone silly or stupid. 

Hostile and demeaning language is pervasive throughout mental healthcare promulgated by the disease or medical model’s pathographic undercurrent. This perspective influences public opinion, study and research, media representation, the doctor-patient power structure, community interrelationships, and client self-beliefs and image. Transitioning from the disease model to wellness models requires constructing a more reasonable mental health perspective by addressing misunderstanding, misinformation, and the overriding focus of the disease model on diagnosis, disorder, deficit, and denigration. 

Misinformation is generated by the psychological community’s difficulty finding agreement due to changing criteria, “substantial discrepancies and variation in definition, epidemiology, assessment, and treatment” (Nagata et al., 2015, p. 724), and the intractability of the American Psychiatric Association. There are four common misconceptions about mental disorders. They are (1) abnormal and selective, (2) a consequence of behavior, (3) solely mental, and (4) psychotic. These are corrected by the universality, age of onset, and complementarity of mental illness and clearly differentiating psychosis from neurosis. 

Universality. A recent article in Scientific American speculates that “mental illnesses are so common that almost everyone will develop at least one diagnosable mental disorder at some point in their life” (Reuben & Schaefer, 2017, p. 1). It is a standard part of natural human development. One-in-four individuals have a diagnosable mental disorder. According to the World Health Organization, nearly two-thirds of people who believe they have a mental disorder reject or refuse to disclose their condition. Include those who dispute or chose to remain oblivious to their dysfunction, and we can conclude that mental disorders are common, undiscriminating, and universally impacting. 

Age of Onset. The onset of a disorder is a consequence of early psychophysiological disturbance, according to Mayoclinic (2019). Perhaps parental behaviors are overprotective or controlling or do not provide emotional validation (Cuncic, 2018). The receptive juvenile might be the product of bullying, abuse, or a broken home. “LGBT youths experience greater stressors from childhood into early adulthood, such as child abuse and unstable housing, that exacerbate mental health problems” (Mustanski et al., 2016, p. 527). LGBTQ+ youth experience disproportionately high rates of verbal and physical harassment and other types of peer victimization (Berlan et al., 2010; Reisner et al., 2015). “Gender minority youth had approximately four-fold higher odds of experiencing any bullying or harassment in the past year” (Reisner et al., 2015, pp. 35-36).

Childhood/adolescent exploitation or abuse are generic terms to describe a broad spectrum of experiences that interfere with a youth’s optimal physical, cognitive, emotional, and social development (Steele, 1995). Any number of situations or events can trigger the susceptibility to onset; it could be hereditary, environmental, or some traumatic experience (Mayoclinic, 2019; NIH, 2019). Statistically, the LGBTQ+ community is at “a higher risk than their heterosexual counterparts for traumatic life experiences such as childhood physical, psychological, and sexual abuse” (Bandermann, 2014, p. 3).

Despite the implication of intentionality in the words’ abuse’ and ‘exploitation,’ a toddler might sense abandonment and develop emotional issues when a parent is preoccupied (Lancer, 2019). The child/adolescent is not accountable for their dysfunction; there is the likelihood no one is intentionally responsible. Similarly, with the scientific affirmation that, while sexual and gender-based identities may have a genetic or biological basis, they are not chosen, and the LGBTQ+ person is not accountable; unlike mental illness, there is no implicit or explicit responsible party.

Undoubtedly, this sociological model conflicts with moral models that claim, “mental illness is onset controllable, and persons with mental illness are to blame for their symptoms” (Corrigan 2006, p. 53), and sexual and gender-based orientation is a choice.

Complementarity. To early civilizations, mental illness was the domain of supernatural forces and demonic possession. Hippocrates and diagnosticians of the 19th century looked at the relative proportions of bodily fluids. Lunar influence, sorcery, and witchcraft are timeless culprits. In the early 20th century, it was somatogenic. The biological approach argues that neuroses are related to the brain’s physical functioning (McLeod, 2018), while pharmacology promotes it as chemical or hormonal imbalance. Carl Roger’s study of the cooperation of human system components to maintain physiological equilibrium produced the word ‘complementarity’ to define simultaneous mutual interaction. All human system components must work in concert; they cannot function alone. The simultaneous mutual interaction of all human system components—mind, body, spirit, and emotions—is required to sustain and recover from a mental dysfunction. The same mutual interaction is evident in sexual and gender-based identities as it is in all persons.

Psychosis and Neurosis. There are two degrees of mental disorder: neuroses and psychoses. When someone sees, hears, or responds to things that are not actual, they are having a psychotic episode. While few persons experience psychosis, everyone has moderate-and-above levels of anxiety, stress, and depression. A neurosis is a condition that negatively impacts our emotional wellbeing and quality of life but does not necessarily impair or interfere with normal day-to-day functions. Since the overwhelming majority of mental disorders are neuroses, humans are all dysfunctional to some extent. 

“Language reveals power, reflects power, maintains existing dominance, unites and divides . . . and creates influence.” (Ng & Deng, 2017, p. 15). The similar impact of the wellness model on the mentally ill and the LGBTQ+ person is evident. Revising negative and hostile language to embrace a positive dialogue of encouragement and appreciation generates new perspectives that positively contribute to self-beliefs and image, leading to more disclosure, discussion, and, in the case of mental illness, recovery-remission. The self-denigrating aspects of shame should dissipate; stigma becomes less threatening. 

Accepting that mental illness and sexual and gender-based identities are ubiquitous and non-discriminating should make it easier to embrace the subject within the family structure. Realizing their proximity and general susceptibility should mitigate the desire to distance and isolate. Accepting their social pervasiveness should alleviate the prejudice, ignorance, and discrimination attached to mental illness (Khesht-Masjedi et al., 2017; Pescosolido, 2013; Pinfold et al., 2005; Wood & Irons, 2017), as well as sexual and gender-based identities (Adamczyk & Liao, 2018; Dodge et al., 2016; Lewis et al., 2017). Recognizing that neither the mentally ill nor the LGBTQ+ person is accountable disputes the belief that they are weak or amoral and their condition a reflection of behavior. (Condition is herein defined as the state of something with regard to its quality.)

Resistance to Recovery-Remission

The term stigma-avoidance defines those who fear that public disclosure could, potentially, stigmatize and discredit them. Statistics from the National Bureau of Economic Research “find that survey respondents under-report mental health conditions 36% of the time when asked about diagnosis” (Bharadwaj et al., 2017, p. 3). A recent study by Salzer et al. (2018) reveals that only one-third of disordered persons were in recovery-remission in 2017. The lower recovery-remission rates may be partly due to the inability to afford treatment due to anxiety-induced financial and employment instability (Gregory et al., 2018). More than 70% of social anxiety disorder patients, for example, are in the lowest economic group (Nardi, 2003).

The LGBTQ+ community’s resistance to disclose a mental disorder, seek treatment, or accept diagnosis is due to the same attributions that underscore general reticence: stigmatization, victimization, public opinion, media representation, family rejection, and the diagnosis itself. 

Stigmatization 

Mental health stigma is the hostile expression of the abject undesirability of the afflicted. 90% of survey respondents with a mental disorder claim they have been impacted by mental health stigma (NAMI 2020a). Stigmatization is deliberate and proactive, distinguishable by pathographic overtones intended to shame and isolate (Pryor et al., 2009). Disclosure of a mental disorder jeopardizes livelihoods, relationships, social standing, housing, and quality of life (Huggett et al., 2018; Pinfold et al., 2005; Sowislo et al., 2016; Wood & Irons, 2017). “The deleterious effects of stigma and prejudice on the health of sexual minority individuals have been well-documented across both physiological and psychological domains” (Dodge et al., 2016, p. 1). 

For LGBTQ youth, the minority stress theory posits that their health is affected by the degree to which their social environment stigmatizes sexual and gender minorities and the extent to which LGBTQ+ youth in these environments are expected to hide their nonconformity. (Wilkerson et al., 2016, p. 359)

Mental health stigma is expressed within three categories:

  • Tribal stigma devalues.
  • Moral character stigma implies amorality and weakness.
  • Abominations of the body stigma refers to physical deformity or disease (Pryor et al., 2009).

Mental disorder occupies the last two categories. Ignorance equates a mental disorder with weakness or contributing behavior, while the medical model focuses on the disease and deformity aspect. LGBTQ+ persons share the added onus that their sexual and gender-based identity is socially and culturally tribal.

Victimization

“Community-based samples of LGBT youths have shown that as many as 30% may experience psychological distress at clinically significant levels” (Mustanski et al., 2016, p. 527). A study of the effects of cumulative victimization on LGBTQ+ youth’s mental health found that they “experience greater mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, suicide attempts, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) . . . than do heterosexual and cisgender individuals” (Mustanski et al., 2016, p. 527). Contributors include internalized homophobia, stigma consciousness, identity concealment, and experiences of heterosexism and victimization. (Heterosexism is the sociological term for discrimination or prejudice against gay people by heterosexuals who assume heterosexuality is the normal sexual orientation). Sexual and gender-identity minorities are disproportionally subject to bullying, harassment, and other peer victimization (Berlan et al., 2010; Reisner et al., 2015). The LGBTQ+ community is “one of the most targeted communities by perpetrators of hate crimes in the country” (NAMI, 2020b, p. 1). 

Because of the greater risk of victimization in LGBT individuals compared with heterosexuals starting as early as adolescence, research is needed that examines how trajectories of sexual orientation-based victimization across development influence the risk for mental health problems for LGBT people. (Mustanski et al., 2016, p. 528)

Public Opinion 

Although recognition, attributions, and service use may reflect prejudice associated with mental illness, the heart of stigma lies in social acceptance” (Pescosolido, 2013, p. 8). The image of the dangerous, unpredictable, mentally ill person is still widely endorsed by the public (Corrigan & Watson, 2002; Pinfold et al., 2005). Stuart and Arboleda-Flórez (2012) analysis of two surveys (1990/2006) on public perception found, “between 80-100 percent of respondents . . . favoured involuntary hospitalization for that disorder when they thought that violence was an issue” (p. 7). 

Attitudes toward sexual and gender-based identity became substantially more accepting between the 1970s, the most significant shift among 18- to 29-year-olds (Adamczyk & Liao, 2018; Dodge et al., 2016). “It is clear that Americans have become more accepting of same-sex sexual behavior and relationships, but it is unclear how universal those changes are and whether they are due to age, time period, or cohort” (Twenge et al., 2016, p. 10).

Persons tend to be more supportive, in part, “because gay men and lesbians are then seen as less responsible for their orientation” (Adamczyk & Liao, 2018, p. 4). An overwhelming share (92%) of the U.S. LGBTQ+ community believe “society has become more accepting of them in the past decade and expect it to grow even more accepting in the decade ahead” (Pew, 2020, p 1). However, many rights and benefits afforded to LGBTQ+ individuals depend on region, race and ethnicity, political persuasion, educational attainment, economics, and religiosity (Adamczyk & Liao, 2018; Dodge et al., 2016; UW-Madison, 2020). Religion is strongly associated with negative beliefs about the justifiability of LGBTQ+ “sexual behavior and marriage” (Twenge et al., 2016, p. 8). The degree of intolerance is denominational and subject to frequency of attendance. Jews and moderate-to-liberal protestants are more tolerant than Baptists, fundamentalists, and Catholics (Adamczyk & Liao, 2018; Schnabel, 2016). The Pew (2020) study shows that 29% of LGBTQ+ persons have felt unwelcome in a place of worship;

Heterosexual women consistently demonstrate more positive attitudes toward sexual and gender minority groups than heterosexual men who are “traditionally expected to more rigidly conform to gender explicitly heteronormative norms and stereotypes” (Dodge et al., 2016, p. 4). Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men are significantly more positive than attitudes toward transgender people (Adamcyzk & Liao, 2018; Lewis et al., 2017), whereas “bisexual individuals commonly report experiencing stigma, prejudice, and discrimination from both heterosexual and gay/lesbian individuals” (Dodge et al., 2016, p. 1).

Education and interpersonal contact mitigate prejudicial attitudes and behaviors towards both the mentally disordered and LGBTQ+ individuals. Contact-based education has emerged as the most influential factor in public attitude and behavior towards people with mental health problems (Pinfold et al., 2005; Corrigan, 2006). “Multiple studies have found that knowing someone who is LGBTQ+ is associated with more supportive attitudes” (Adamczyk & Liao, 2018, p. 10), and “may increase knowledge, reduce anxiety, and increase empathy” (Lewis et al., 2017, p. 862). This benefit has not crossed over to transgender people, likely, because “personal contact is relatively small” (Lewis et al., 2017 p. 871).

According to the Pew Research Center (Pew, 2020), 30% of the LGBTQ+ community reported they have been threatened or physically attacked, 21% treated unfairly by an employer, and 58% the target of slurs or jokes. Heterosexism inflicts itself on individual, familial, institutional, employment, political, and cultural levels, and openly occurs in educational, career, religious, and social settings (Bandermann, 2014; Lewis et al., 2017). 

While public opinion has drastically improved for the LGBTQ+ community, the perception of the dangerous and unpredictable mentally disordered person who should be isolated has not changed substantially in decades (Stuart & Arboleta-Flórez, 2012). A primary goal of wellness models is mitigating mental health stigma by changing the public perspective. 

Media Representation 

A 2011 study revealed that nearly half of U.S. media stories on mental illness mention or allude to violence (Pescosolido, 2013). News and social media, propelled by far-right politics, fundamentalism, and other fringe organizations, contribute to discrimination and prejudice. Analysis of film, television, and tabloid presentations identify three common misconceptions: people with mental illness are homicidal maniacs, they have childlike perceptions of the world that should be marveled, or they are rebellious, free spirits (Corrigan, 2006). Portrayals of sexual and gender-based identity in the latter half of the 20th century were, generally, stereotypical exaggerations. “Beginning in the 1990s, some highly likable gay and lesbian television and media characters began to appear in the media” (Adamczyk & Liao, 2018, p. 10). Still, there is an abundance of gay-themed portrayals designed to arouse feelings of shock, betrayal, and titillation. Media coverage commonly promotes images that negatively impact the self-beliefs and image of LGBTQ+ and mentally ill persons. 

Family Rejection

Family-stigmatization is the rejection of an LGBTQ+ or mentally dysfunctional child or sibling. A 2008 literature review found around 38% of family members “attempt to hide their relationship in order to avoid bringing shame to the family” (Stuart a& Arboleda-Flórez, 2012, p. 8). Another study showed that 34% of LGBTQ+ persons reported rejection by family members, 49% reported unfair treatment, and “52% were subject to anti-gay remarks from family members” (Bandermann, 2014, p. 3). The implication of familial undesirability impacts a mentally disordered and LGBTQ+ person’s sense of positive self, a devaluation more potentially “life limiting, and disabling than the illness itself” (Stuart & Arboleda-Flórez, 2012, p. 3). “The difficulties of living with psychiatric distress are magnified by the experience of rejection” (Gray, 2002), which can lead to psychological and physiological health issues, substance abuse, and addiction.

Etiology and Misdiagnoses 

Etiology and diagnosis drive the disease model. Which disorder do people find most repulsive, and which poses the most threat? What behaviors contribute to the disorder? How progressive is the disorder, and how effective are treatments? (Corrigan, 2006). It is essential to recognize how these attributions affect public perception, treatment options, and client self-beliefs and image. 

“Until the 1950s, most homosexual persons studied by psychologists and others were prisoners or mental patients, so it was easy to conclude that these were linked” (McFarland, 2018, p. 1). In 1973, the APA announced homosexuality was no longer an illness. DSM diagnostic criteria change dramatically from one edition to the next. Lynam and Vachon (2012) cite therapists’ concern that criteria are “added, removed, and rewritten, without evidence that the new approach is better than the prior one” (p. 483). The social fears described in the DSM-II in 1968 became social phobia in the DSM-III (1980), and social anxiety disorder in 1994’s DSM-IV, resulting in the nickname, the ‘neglected anxiety disorder.’

Revisions, substitutions, and contradictions between DSM’s are never universally accepted. Even under the best circumstance with a knowledgeable and caring clinician, it is difficult to obtain a proper mental disorder diagnosis. In addition to the nine types of depression, four anxieties, and eight obsessive-compulsive disorders, the current DSM lists five types of stress response and ten personality disorders, each sharing similar traits and symptomatology with varying degrees of impact. Bipolar personality disorder, for example, shares characteristics and symptoms with generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and panic disorder (Sagman & Tohen, 2009). The most common comorbidities associated with anxiety are major depression, panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and alcohol abuse/dependence. For example, social anxiety disorder is often comorbid with avoidant personality disorder, eating disorders, schizophrenia (Cuncic, 2018; Vrbova et al., 2017), ADHD, and agoraphobia (Koyuncu et al., 2019).

The Social Anxiety Institute (Richards, 2019) reports that an estimated 8.2% of patients had generalized anxiety, but just 0.5% were correctly diagnosed. A recent Canadian study by Chapdelaine et al. (2018) reported, of 289 participants in 67 clinics meeting DSM-4 criteria for social anxiety disorder, 76.4% were improperly diagnosed. 

Self-Esteem

Maslow’s (1943/1954) hierarchy of needs reveals how childhood disturbance can disrupt natural human development. Healthy growth requires satisfying fundamental physiological and psychological needs. The experience of detachment, exploitation, or neglect may disenable the subject from satisfying their physiological and safety needs and or the need to belong and experience love, which can impact the acquisition of self-esteem

If the child is criticized, overly controlled, or not given the opportunity to assert itself, it begins to feel insecure in its ability to survive, and may then become overly dependent on others, develop low self-esteem, and experience a sense of shame or doubt in its own abilities. (Vanderheiden & Mayer, 2017, p. 15)

Research on persons with depression and anxiety reveals how the disease model “diminishes hope, self-esteem, self-efficacy, empowerment, and quality of life.” (Garg and Raj, 2019, p. 124). LGBTQ+ youth rejected because of their identity have much lower self-esteem, are more isolated, and have less support than those accepted by their families (House, 2018). 

Self-esteem determines one’s relation to self, to others, and the world. Self-esteem is the umbrella for all the positive self-qualities that structure optimal functioning, e.g., self -respect -resilience, -efficacy, -reliance, -compassion, -value, -worth, and other intrinsic wholesome attributes. Self-esteem provides the recognition that one is consequential and worthy of love. A grassroots poll by Unite UK (2016) found that 62% of LGBTQ+ persons believe they have low self-esteem. Exposure to historical alienation, ambiguous public opinion, adolescent bullying, heterosexualism, and other harmful elements, in time, will have an impact on an LGBTQ+ person’s self-beliefs and image (Unite UK, 2016). 

Recovery

Recovery is an individual process. Humans have unique DNA and disparate sensibilities, memories, and abilities. One-size-fits-all approaches are inadequate to fully address the personality’s dynamic complexity and its owner’s uniqueness. Mental illness is ubiquitous and non-discriminating; dysfunction embraces every walk of life. As well, “the LGBTQ+ community encompasses a wide range of individuals with separate and overlapping challenges regarding their mental health” (NAMI, 2020b, p. 1). 

Recovery is “about seeing people beyond their problems – their abilities, possibilities, interests, and dreams – and recovering the social roles and relationships that give life value and meaning” (Slade, 2010, p. 2). Recovery programs must be fluid, integrating multiple traditional and non-traditional approaches developed through client trust, cultural assimilation, and therapeutic innovation. Any analysis must consider the subject’s environment, hermeneutics, history, and autobiography in conjunction with their wants, beliefs, and aspirations. Otherwise, the personality complexity is not valued, and the treatment inadequate.

Positive Psychology and the Wellness Model

In 2004, the World Health Organization began promoting the advantages of the wellness perspective, declaring health “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (Slade, 2010, p. 1). The World Psychiatric Association states, “the promotion of well-being is among the mental health system” (Schrank et al., 2014, p. 98). As psychologists point out, “psychological well-being is viewed as not only the absence of mental disorder but also the presence of positive psychological resources” (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009, p. 468). 

The wellness model’s chief facilitator is positive psychology (PP), which originated with Maslow’s (1943/1954) seminal texts on humanism; APA president Seligman legitimized it in 1998. Positive psychology and other optimistic approaches focus on the inherent ability, “not only to endure and survive, but also to flourish” (Mayer & May 2019, p. 160). 

Positive psychology is a relatively new field (since 1998) that, ostensibly, complements rather than replaces traditional psychology. Defined as the science of optimal functioning, PP’s objective is “to study, identify and amplify the strengths and capacities that individuals, families, and society need to thrive” (Carruthers & Hood, 2004, p. 30). Cultural psychologist Levesque (2011) describes optimal functioning as the study of how individuals attempt to achieve their potentials and become the best that they can be. 

Studies support the utilization of positive psychological constructs, theories, and interventions for enhanced understanding and improvement of mental health. PP interventions have “improved wellbeing and decreased psychological distress in mildly depressed individuals, in patients with mood and depressive disorders, [and] in patients with psychotic disorders” (Chakhssi et al., 2018, p. 16). As Carruthers and Hood (2004) point out, “The things that allow people to experience deep happiness, wisdom, and psychological, physical and social wellbeing are the same strengths that buffer against stress and physical and mental illness” (p. 30).

The academic discipline of positive psychology continues to develop evidence-based interventions that focus on eliciting positive feelings, cognitions, or behaviors (Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2018). Positive psychology offers promising interventions “to support recovery in people with common mental illness, and preliminary evidence suggests it can also be helpful for people with more severe mental illness” (Schrank et al., 2014, p. 99). 

Positive Psychology 2.0.  

One of the early challenges of positive psychology was its inattention to the negative aspects of character. Recognizing this, psychologists advocated a more holistic approach to embrace the dialectical opposition of human experience. As one psychologist put it, “people are not just pessimists or optimists. They have complex personality structures” (Miller, 2008, p. 598). Positive Psychology 2.0 (PP 2.0) evolved as a correction to the singular focus on optimism to embrace a more inclusive and balanced perspective (Rashid et al., 2014). 

The disease model of mental health bases recovery on the remission of symptoms or the suspension of substantial interference or limitation (ADAMHA, 2012; Salzer et al., 2018). The wellness model maintains that individuals with a mental disorder can live satisfying and fulfilling lives regardless of symptoms or impairments associated with the diagnosis (Slade, 2010). Schrank et al. (2014) describe recovery as people “(re-) engaging in their life on the basis of their own goals and strengths, and finding meaning and purpose through constructing and reclaiming a valued identity and valued social roles” (p. 98). By emphasizing wellness over dysfunction, the positive psychology movement aims to destigmatize mental illness by emphasizing “the positive while managing and transforming the negative to increase wellbeing” (Mayer & May, 2019, p. 163). Perkins and Repper (2003, p. 3) write: 

People with mental illness who are in recovery are those who are actively engaged in working away from Floundering (through hope-supporting relationships) and Languishing (by developing a positive identity), and towards Struggling (through Framing and self-managing the mental illness) and Flourishing (by developing valued social roles).  

Concluding Thoughts

Thomas Insel (2013), director of the National Institute of Mental Health, is “re-orienting its research away from DSM categories” (p. 2), declaring that traditional psychiatric diagnoses have outlived their usefulness (Kinderman, 2014). NIMH is transforming diagnosis based on emerging research data and a doctor-patient communication dynamic rather than on the current symptom-based categories. Kinderman (2014) suggests replacing traditional diagnoses with easily understandable descriptions of the issues.

A simple list of people’s problems (properly defined) would have greater scientific validity and would be more than sufficient as a basis for individual care planning and the design and planning of services. (1)

In mental health, recovery-remission is a realized, long-term mitigation of symptoms. Wellness impacts more than mental health; it is a paradigmatic perspective that seeks to promote a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being. Its sociological emphasis on optimal human functioning, designed to counter the pathographic focus of other models, not only positively impacts the self-beliefs and image of a mentally ill person but resonates in sexual and gender-based identities and portends well, the recovery-remission of an LGBTQ+ person with a mental illness. 

There are many approaches to recovery. Psychology textbook author, Farreras (2020) cites 400 different schools of psychotherapy. Mayer and May (2019) characterize current positive psychology as “a balanced, interactive, meaning-centred and cross-cultural perspective” (p. 156) that considers equally “positive emotions and strengths and negative symptoms and disorders” (Rashid et al., 2014, p. 162). Positive psychology works best in conjunction with other programs (CBT, for example), and its mental health interventions have proved successful in mitigating symptoms of depression, anxiety, and other disorders. “Growing research suggests that a positive psychological outlook not only improves ‘life outcomes’ but enhances health directly” (Easterbrook, 2001, p. 23).

Training in prosocial behavior and emotional literacy might be useful supplements to specific interventions. Behavioral exercises enhance the execution of resilient and generous social skills. Positive affirmations have enormous subjective value as well. Data supports mindfulness and acceptance-based interventions to re-engage and regenerate positive thoughts, feelings, and memories. Castella et al. (2014) suggest motivational enhancement strategies to help clients overcome resistance. Ritter et al. (2013) tout the benefits of positive autobiography to counter destructive thoughts and behaviors. The importance of considering the nuanced and unique dynamics inherent in the relationships among emotional expression, intimacy, and overall relationship satisfaction for dysfunctional individuals and LGBTQ+ persons, should be thoroughly investigated (Montesi et al., 2013).

However, this paper balks at throwing out the baby with the bathwater, positing that the current diagnostic system should be utilized as a part of a more thorough analysis that embraces communication and emphasizes the character strengths that generate motivation, persistence, and perseverance towards recovery-remission. All “patients with mental disorders deserve better” (Insel, 2013, p. 2). 

References

ADAMHA. (2012). S. 1306 (102nd): ADAMHA Reorganization Act. 102nd Congress (1991–1992). [Online.] https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/senate-bill/1306/text  

Adamczyk, A. & Liao, Y.-C. (2018). Examining Public Opinion About LGBTQ+-Related Issues in the United States and Across Multiple Nations. Annual Review of Sociology, 45(1): 1-27 (2018). doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-073018-022332

Ades, T. & Dias, S. (2013). Social Anxiety Disorder: Recognition, Assessment and Treatment. (Online.) NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 159. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK327649/.

Amen, D. G. (1998). Change Your Brain, Change Your Life: The Breakthrough Program for Conquering Anxiety, Depression, Oppressiveness, Anger, and Impulsiveness. New York City: Three Rivers Press.

APA. (2020). Neurosis. (Online definition.) Dictionary of Psychology. American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.  https://dictionary.apa.org/neurosis 

Bandermann, K. M. (2014). “Exploring Coping Mediators between Heterosexist Oppression and Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Persons. ” Ph.D. Dissertation: University of Tennessee, 2014. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/3108

Berlan, E. D., Corliss, H. L., Field, A. E., Goodman, E., &  Austin, S. B. (2010). SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND BULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS IN THE GROWING UP TODAY STUDY. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(4): 366–371 (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.10.015

Bharadwaj, P., Pai, M. M., & Suziedelyte, A. (2017). Mental Health Stigma. Economics Letters, 159 (57-60). doi:  10.3386/w21240

Carruthers, C., & Hood, C. D. (2004).  The Power of Positive Psychology. Parks and Recreation.  .file:///C:/Users/rober/ OneDrive/ Pending/New%20Psychobiography/carruthers%20x.pdf 

Castella, K. De., Goldin, P., Jazaieri, H., Ziv, M., Heimberg, R. G., & Gross, J. L. (2014).  Emotion beliefs in social anxiety disorder: Associations with stress, anxiety, and well-being. Australian Journal of Psychology, 66:139–148 (2014). doi: 10.1111/ajpy.12053.

CDC. (2020). Data and Statistics on Children’s Mental Health. [Online.]  Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control  https://www.cdc.gov/ childrensmentalhealth/ data.html 

Chakhssi, F., Kraiss, J. T., Sommers-Spijkerman, M., & Bohlmeijer, E.T. (2018). The effect of positive psychology interventions on well-being and distress in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders: a systematic review and metaanalysis. BMC Psychiatry 18:211: 1-17 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1739-2..

Chapdelaine A., Carrier J-D., Fournier L., Duhoux A. Roberge P. (2018) Treatment adequacy for social anxiety disorder in primary care patients. PLoS ONE 13(11): (2018). doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0206357.

Corrigan, P. (2006). Mental Health Stigma as Social Attribution: Implications for Research Methods and Attitude Change. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 7(1): 8-67 (2006). doi: 10.1093/clipsy.7.1.48

Corrigan, P. W., & Watson, A. C. (2002). Understanding the impact of stigma on people with mental illness. World Psychiatry, 1: 16-20 (2002).

Cuncic, A. (2018). How Social Anxiety Affects Dating and Intimate Relationships. verywellmind. https://www.verywellmind.com/adaa-survey-results-romantic-relationships-3024769.

Curtin, S. C. & Heron, M. (2019). Death Rates Due to Suicide and Homicide Among Persons Aged 10–24: United States, 2000–2017. (Online.) National Center for Health Statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db352-h.pdf 

Daw, J. (2001), Culture counts in mental health services. (Online.) American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/monitor/dec01/culture 

DeMare, N. (2016). Exaggerations and Stereotypes of Schizophrenia in Contemporary Films. Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 7(1):1/1. http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1474/exaggerations-and-stereotypes-of-schizophrenia-in-contemporary-films.

Dodge, B., Herbenick, D., Friedman, M. R., Schick, V., Fu, T.-C., Bostwick, W., Bartelt, E., Muñoz-Laboy, M., Pletta, D., Reece, R., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2016). Attitudes toward Bisexual Men and Women among a Nationally Representative Probability Sample of Adults in the United States. PLoS One, 11(10). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164430

Easterbrook, G. (2001). Psychology discovers happiness. I’m OK, You’re OK. The New Republic, Article 27,  p. 136

Equaldex. (2020). Status of LGBT Laws by Country. Equaldex. https://www.equaldex.com/

Farreras, I. G. (2020). History of mental illness. In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener (Eds), Noba textbook series: Psychology. Champaign, IL: DEF publishers. http://noba.to/65w3s7ex

Garg, R., & Raj, R. (2019). A cross-sectional study of self-stigma and discrimination among patients with depression. Open Journal of Psychiatry & Allied Sciences, 10(2): 124-127 (2019). doi: 10.5958/2394-2061.2019.00027.2.

Gray, A. J. (2002). Stigma in Psychiatry. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 95(2): (2002). doi: 10.1258/jrsm.95.2.72

Gregory. B., Wong, Q. J. J., Craig, D., Marker, C. D., & Peters, L. (2018). Maladaptive Self-Beliefs During Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for social anxiety disorder: A Test of Temporal Precedence. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 42(3): 261–272 (2018). doi.org/10.1007/s10608-017-9882-5

Halloran, M., & Kashima, E. (2006). Culture, social identity, and the individual. In Individuality and the group: Advances in Social Identity. London: Sage. doi:org/10.4135/9781446211946.n8.

Henderson, C., Noblett, J., Parke,  H., Clement, S., Caffrey, A., Gale-Grant,  O., Schulze,  B., Druss,  B., Thornicroft, G. (2014). Mental health-related stigma in health care and mental health-care settings. Lancet Psychiatry,  1(6): 467-482 (2014). doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(14)00023-6.

Hirsch, C. R. & Clark, D. M. (2004) Information-processing Bias in Social Phobia. Clinical Psychology Review, 24(7): 799-825 (2004). doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2004.07.005.

House, Harris. (2018). LGBTQ+ Addiction Factors: The Importance of Self-Esteem, (Online). Harris House. https://www.harrishousestl.org/LGBTQ+-addiction-factors-the-importance-of-self-esteem/ 

Huggett, C., Birtel, M. D., Awenat, Y. F., Fleming, P., Wilkes, S., Williams, S., Haddock, G. (2018). A qualitative study: experiences of stigma by people with mental health problems. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 91: 380–397 (2018). doi: 10.1111/papt.12167

Hulme, N., Hirsch, C., & Stopa, L. (2012). Images of the Self and Self-Esteem: Do Positive Self-Images Improve Self-Esteem in Social Anxiety? Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 41(2): 163–173 (2012). doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2012.66455

ILGA. (2019). State-Sponsored Homophobia report. (Online.) ILGA World. https://ilga.org/state-sponsored-homophobia-report 

Insel, T. (2013). Post by Former NIMH Director Thomas Insel: Transforming Diagnosis. (Online.) Washington, DC: National Institute of Mental Health. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/directors/thomas-insel/blog/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

Johns Hopkins. (2020). Mental Health Disorders Statistics. (Online.) The Johns Hopkins University, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, and The Johns Hopkins Health System.https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/mental-health-disorder-statistics 

Khesht-Masjedi, M.F., Shokrgozar, S.,  Abdollahi, E.,  Golshahi, M., & Sharif-Ghaziani, Z. (2017). Exploring Social Factors of Mental Illness Stigmatization in Adolescents with Mental Disorders. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 11(11) :(2017). doi:  10.7860/JCDR/2017/27906.1083.

Kinderman, P. (2014). Why We Need to Abandon the Disease-Model of Mental Health Care. (Online.) Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/why-we-need-to-abandon-the-disease-model-of-mental-health-care/ 

Knaak, S., Mantler, E., & Szeto, A. (2017). Mental illness-related stigma in healthcare. Barriers to access and care and evidence-based solutions. Healthcare Management Forum, 30(2): 111-116 (2017). doi: 10.1177/0840470416679413

Kőváry, Z. (2011). Psychobiography as a method. The revival of studying lives: New perspectives in personality and creativity research Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 7(4), 739-777 (2020). doi: 10.5964/ejop.v7i4.162

Koyuncu, A., İnce, E. , Ertekin, E., & Tükel R. (2019). Comorbidity in social anxiety disorder: diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Drugs in Context 2019, 8. doi:10.7573/dic.212573

Lancer, D. (2019). What is Self-Esteem? (Online.) PsychCentral. https://psychcentral.com/lib/what-is-self-esteem/ 

Levesque, R. J. R. (2011). Optimal Functioning. In Levesque R. J. R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Adolescence. New York City: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1695-2

Lewis, D. C., Flores, A. R., Haider-Markel, D. P., Miller, P. R., Tadlock, B. L., & Taylor J. K. (2017). Degrees of Acceptance: Variation in Public Attitudes toward Segments of the LGBT Community. Political Research Quarterly,  70(4): 861–75 (2017). doi/full/10.1177/1065912917717352

Lyliard, R. B. (2001). Social anxiety disorder: comorbidity and its implications. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 62(Suppl1): 17-24 (2001).

Lynam, D. R. & Vachon, D. D. (2012). Antisocial Personality Disorder in DSM-5: Missteps and Missed Opportunities. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(4): 483– 495 (2012). doi: 10.1037/per0000006

Maslow, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4): 370–396 (1943).

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivations and Personality.  New York City: Harper & Brothers; Early edition.

Mayer, C.-H., & May, M. (2019). The Positive Psychology Movement. PP1.0 and PP2.0. In C-H Mayer and Z. Kőváry (Eds.), New Trends in Psychobiography (pp. 155-172). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-916953-4_9.

Mayoclinic. (2017). Social anxiety disorder (social phobia). Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/social-anxiety-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20353561.

Mayoclinic. (2019). Mental Illness. (Online.) Mayo Clinic. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mental-illness/symptoms-causes/syc-20374968 

McFarland, S. G. (2018). How psychology has helped society accept homosexuality. (Online.) Psychology Teacher Network. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/ptn/2018/05/society-accept-homosexuality 

McLeod, S. (2018). The Medical Model. (Online.) Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/medical-model.html

Medley, G., Lipari, R. N., Bose, J., Cribb, D. S., Kroutil, L. A., & McHenry, G. (2020). Sexual Orientation and Estimates of Adult Substance Use and Mental Health: Results from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-SexualOrientation-2015/NSDUH-SexualOrientation-2015/NSDUH-SexualOrientation-2015.htm

Miller, A. (2008). A Critique of Positive Psychology— or ‘The New Science of Happiness.’ Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3-4): 591-608 (2008).  

Montesi, J. L., Conner, G. T., Gordon, E. A., Fauber, R. L. (2013). On the Relationship Among Social Anxiety, Intimacy, Sexual Communication, and Sexual Satisfaction in Young Couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior 42: 81–91 (2013). doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-9929-3.

Mullen, R. F. (2018). Social Anxiety Disorder. (Online.). https://rechanneling.org/page-20.html

Mustanski, B., Andrews, R., Puckett, J. A. (2016). The Effects of Cumulative Victimization on Mental Health Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Adolescents and Young Adults. American Journal of Public Health, 106(3): 527–533 (2016). doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302976

NAMI. (2020a). Mental Health by the Numbers. [Online}. National Alliance on Mental Health. https://www.nami.org/mhstats 

NAMI. (2020b). LGBTQI. (Online.) National Alliance on Mental Illness. https://www.nami.org/Your-Journey/Identity-and-Cultural-Dimensions/LGBTQI

Nagata, T., Suzuki, F., Teo, A.R. (2015).Generalized Social Anxiety Disorder: A still‐neglected anxiety disorder 3 decades since Liebowitz’s review. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 69(12): 724-740 (2015).  doi: org/10.1111/pcn.12327

Nardi, A.E. (2003). The social and economic burden of social anxiety disorder. BMJ, 327 (2003).doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.515

Ng, S. H., & Deng, F. (2017). Language and Power. (Online.) Intergroup Communication. doi:10.1093/acrefore/ 9780190228613.013.436

NIH. (2019).Child and Adolescent Mental Health. (Online.) National Institute of Health. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/child-and-adolescent-mental-health/index.shtml 

NIMH. (2017). Any Anxiety Disorder. (Online.) National Institute of Mental Health.  https://www.nimh.nih.gov/ health/statistics/ any-anxiety-disorder.shtml 

Perkins R., & Repper, J. (2003). Social Inclusion and Recovery. London: Baillière Tindall.

Pescosolido, B. A. (2013). The Public Stigma of Mental Illness. What Do We Think; What Do We Know; What Can We Prove? Journal of Health and Social Behavior 54(1): 1-21 (2013), doi: 10.1177/0022146512471197

Pew. (2020). A Survey of LGBT Americans. (Online.) Pew Research Center. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/06/13/a-survey-of-lgbt-americans/ 

Pinfold, V., Thornicroft, G., Huxley, P., Farmer, P. (2005). Active ingredients in anti-stigma programmes in mental health. International Review of Psychiatry, 17(2): 123–131 (2005). doi: 10.1080/09540260500073638

Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., Monroe, A. E., Patel, A. (2009). Stigmas and Prosocial Behavior Are People Reluctant to Help Stigmatized Persons in S. Stürner, M. Snyder (Eds.) The Psychology of Prosocial Behavior, (pp.59-80). New York City: John Wiley and Sons.  doi: 10.1002/9781444307948.ch3

Rashid, T., Anjum, A., Chu, R., Stevanovski, S., Zanjani, A., & Lennox, C. (2014). Strength based resilience: Integrating risk and resources towards holistic well-being. In G. A. Fava & C. Ruini (eds.), Increasing psychological well-being in clinical and educational settings,8: (Vol. 8, pp. 153–176). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Reisner, S. L., Greytak, E. A., Parsons, J. T., & Ybarra, M. (2015).  Gender Minority Social Stress in Adolescence: Disparities in Adolescent Bullying and Substance Use by Gender Identity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(3): 243-256 (2015).  doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.10.275

Reuben, A., & Schaefer, J. (2017). \Mental Illness Is Far More Common Than We Knew. [Online.] Scientific American. Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/mental-illness-is-far-more-common-than-we-knew/

Richards, T. A. (2014). Overcoming Social Anxiety Disorder: Step by Step. Phoenix, AZ: The Social Anxiety Institute Press.

Richards, T. A. (2019). What is Social Anxiety Disorder? Symptoms, Treatment, Prevalence, Medications, Insight, Prognosis. (Online.) The Social Anxiety Institute, Inc. https://socialphobia.org/social-anxiety-disorder-definition-symptoms-treatment-therapy-medications-insight-prognosis.

Ritter, V., Ertel, C., Beil, K., Steffens, M. C., & Stangier, U. (2013). In the Presence of Social Threat: Implicit and Explicit Self-Esteem in Social Anxiety Disorder. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 37(6): 1101-1109 (2013)doi: 10.1007/s10608-013-9553-0.  

Salcedo, B. (2018). The Comorbidity of Anxiety and Depression. (Online). National Alliance on Mental Illness.  https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/January-2018/The-Comorbidity-of-Anxiety-and-Depression 

Salzer, M. S., Brusilovskiy, E., & Townley, G. (2018). National Estimates of Recovery-Remission from Serious Mental Illness. Psychiatric Services, 69(5): 523-528 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201700401

Sagman, D., & Tohen. M. (2009). Comorbidity in Bipolar Disorder. (Online.). Psychiatric Times. https://www.psychiatrictimes. com/view/comorbidity-bipolar-disorderSchnabel, L. (2016) Gender and homosexuality attitudes across religious groups from the 1970s to 2014: Similarity, distinction, and adaptation. Social Science Research, 55: 31-57 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.09.012

Schotanus-Dijkstra, M., Drossaert, C. H. C., Pieterse, M. E., Walburg, J. A., Bohlmeijer, E. T., & Smit, F. (2018).  Towards sustainable mental health promotion: trial-based health-economic evaluation of a positive psychology intervention versus usual care. BMC Psychiatry 18:265: 1-11 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1825-5

Schrank, B., Brownell, T., Tylee, A., & Slade, M. (2014). Psychology: An Approach to Supporting Recovery in Mental Illness. East Asian Arch Psychiatry, 24: 95-103 (2014).

Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing Well-Being and Alleviating Depressive Symptoms with Positive Psychology Interventions: A Practice-Friendly Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 65(5): 467–487 (2009). doi: 10.1002/jclp.20593

Slade, M. (2010). Mental illness and well-being: the central importance of positive psychology and recovery approaches. BMC Health Service Research 10 (26): 1-17 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-26 10(26)

Sowislo, J. F., Lange, C., Euler, S., Hachtel, H., Walter, M., Borgwardt, S., Lang, U. E., & Huber, C. G. (2016). Stigmatization of psychiatric symptoms and psychiatric service use: a vignette‑based representative population survey.  European Archive of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 267(4): 351-357 (2017). doi: 10.1007/s00406-016-0729-y.

Stangl, A. L.,  Earnshaw, V. A., Logie, C. H., van Brakel, W., Simbayi, L. C., Barré, I., & Dovidio, J. F. (2019). The Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework: a global, crosscutting framework to inform research, intervention development, and policy on health-related stigmas. BMC 17(31): 1-13 (2019).https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1271-3

Steele, B. F.  (1995). The Psychology of Child Abuse. Family Advocate, 17 (3): 29-23.

Stuart, H., & Arboleda-Flórez, J. (2012). A Public Health Perspective on the Stigmatization of Mental Illnesses. Public Health Reviews, 34: Epub ahead of print.

Twenge, J. M., Sherman, R. A., Wells, B. E. (2016). Changes in American Adults’ Reported Same-Sex Sexual Experiences and Attitudes, 1973–2014. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(7): 1713–1730(2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0769-4

Unite UK. (2016). What is causing Low Self-Esteem in the LGBTQ+ Community? (Online.). Unite UK. https://uniteuk1.com/2018/06/low-self-esteem-LGBTQ+-community/

UW-Madison. (2020). LGBTQ+ Culture and Life in the U. S. (Online.) University of Wisconsin-Madison. https://iss.wisc.edu/resources/LGBTQ+/LGBTQ+-culture-2/LGBTQ+culture/#:~:text=LGBTQ+%20issues%20have%20emerged% 20 as%20a%20 major%20social,on%20geographical%20location%2C%20local%20culture%2C%20and%20individual%20backgrounds.          

Vanderheiden, E., & Mayer, C.-H. (2017). An introduction to the value of shame―Exploring a health resource in cultural contexts.  In E. Vanderheiden, C-H. Mayer (Eds.) The Value of Shame. Exploring a Health Resource in Cultural Contexts (pp, 1-42). New York City: Springer Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-53100-7

Vrbova, K., Prasko, J., Ociskova, M., & Holubova, M. (2017). Comorbidity of schizophrenia and social phobia – impact on quality of life, hope, and personality traits: a cross sectional study. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 13: 2073-2083 (2017). doi:10.2147/NDT.S141749

WEF. (2018).  This is the state of LGBTI rights around the world in 2018. World Economic Forum.  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/lgbti-rights-around-the-world-in-2018/

WHO. (2019). Mental disorders affect one in four people. (Online.) World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/whr/2001/media_centre/press_release/en/#:~:text=Mental%20disorders%20affect%20one%20in%20four%20people%20Treatment,neurological%20disorders%20at%20some%20point%20in%20their%20lives.

Wilkerson, J. M., Schick, V. R., Romijnders, K. A., Bauldry, J., & Butame, S. A. (2016). Social Support, Depression, Self-Esteem, and Coping Among LGBTQ+ Adolescents Participating in Hatch Youth. Health Promotion Practice. 18(3): 358-365 (2016). doi:  10.1177/1524839916654461

Wood, L., & Irons, C. (2017) Experienced stigma and its impacts in psychosis: The role of social rank and external shame. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 90, 419–431 (2017). doi: I:10.1111/papt.12127.

Yeilding, R. (2017). Developing the Positive in Managing Social Anxiety. (Online.) National Social Anxiety Center. https://nationalsocialanxietycenter.com/2017/09/18/developing-positive-managing-social-anxiety/.

Zimmerman, M., Dalrymple, K., Chelminski, I., Young, D., & Galione, J. H. (2010). Recognition of irrationality of fear and the diagnosis of social anxiety disorder and specific phobia in adults: implications for criteria revision in DSM-5. Depression and Anxiety, 27(11): 1044-9 (2010). doi: 10.1002/da.20716.

ONLINE GROUP: STRATEGIZING YOUR PSYCHOLOGICAL DYSFUNCTION

You Deserve to Be Treated with Dignity and Respect

I invite you to join our online family. If you are committed to alleviating those symptoms of neuroses (disorders) that impact your emotional wellbeing and quality of life, contact me. This is a no-fee discussion and support group. 

I have studied, researched, and written about psychological dysfunctions for well over a decade. I have facilitated groups, workshops, and practicums for various dysfunctions. I utilize the Wellness Model of mental healthcare, which focuses on the character strengths and attributes that generate the motivation, persistence, and perseverance that enable recovery. 

My work with individuals and groups emphasizes communication and empathy. As someone who has been dealing with my own dysfunction (social anxiety disorder) for decades, I understand what you are going through on a personal level, and I know how the mental healthcare community functions. 

While each of the 31 dysfunctions listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has its characteristics and symptoms, they are similar in how they affect your emotional wellbeing, affect your self-esteem, image, and self-beliefs. These similarities are how we can relate to and support each other.

Your confidentiality is paramount to this group. Your email is shared only with your permission. We are on a first-name basis during our sessions, and you may choose an alias if that makes you comfortable. 

We want these sessions to be relaxed and joyful experiences where you can share your stories and concerns with others. 

Once you contact us, I will open a channel of dialogue so that I can get to know your needs and concerns before any online participation. That will allow you to get to know me better before you decide to participate.

You are not alone, it is not your fault, and you deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

There Is No Shame in Mental Illness

What is shame? The painful feeling of humiliation or distress that comes from the sense of being or doing a dishonorable, ridiculous, or immodest thing; the feeling that you are less than, unbefitting, or undesirable. 

What causes shame of a mental dysfunction. History, culture, the disease model of mental healthcare, and mental health stigma (MHS).

Why you should not be ashamed. History is crude and inconsistent, culture is misinformed, the disease model is exploitive and archaic, and MHS is generated and sustained by prejudice, ignorance, and discrimination based on disinformation.

The most famous definition of shame is “feeling ridiculous, embarrassed, humiliated, chagrined, mortified, shy, reticent, painfully self-conscious, inferior, and inadequate.”[i] There are many aspects and degrees of shame; volumes have been written about shame’s types and complexities. Here is what some of the experts write. “Shame is painful, [ii] incapacitating,[iii] and uncontrollable.[iv] Shame makes you feel powerless,[v] inferior, and worthless.[vi] “To feel shame is to feel seen, acutely diminished.[vii]

Shame makes you want to escape, to become invisible. It elicits self-defensive reactions that can make you feel inadequate or become hostile and aggressive. Shame is inescapable, embracing every aspect of the human experience.[viii] 

Shame is not all bad. Shame alerts you to wrongness. You have done something wrong (you are bad), someone has wronged you (they are bad), or you feel wrong (you are inadequate). Shame can be revealing, cathartic and motivational, promoting change, growth, and broadened self-awareness. 

Right now, I am only concerned about the shame you feel because of your mental dysfunction. Everyone has some degree of psychological disturbance. It is a universal and undiscriminating condition; it infects during childhood rendering you unaccountable. So why do you feel shame? Because mental illness is historically denigrating and culturally feared and scorned – beliefs perpetuated by the disease model of mental health and reinforced by MHS claims that you are disgusting, distressing, frightening, and undesirable. 

The disease model of mental health focuses on what is wrong with you. It labels you by your diagnosis, and you cease to be a person. You are then lumped in with others similarly diagnosed and labeled as schizophrenics, paranoiacs, depressive persons, persons with anxiety. You are then stereotyped by the most descriptive symptoms and characteristics of your dysfunction using terms utilized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (e.g., incapable, deceitful, unempathetic, manipulative, irresponsible). Then and ignorant (misinformed) and prejudiced (fearful) society stigmatizes or brands you as personifications of that stereotype.

Labels, stereotypes, and stigma are inaccurate representations because of the “implied expectations of how people with mental health problems may behave.” [ix] You may share or resemble symptoms or characteristics of a dysfunction (who doesn’t), but the sum of the label and stereotype is not the sum of the person. You are not your dysfunction.

_________________________

I invite you to join our online group, Strategizing Your ‘Mental’ Disorder. If you are committed to alleviating those symptoms that impact your emotional wellbeing and quality of life, contact me. This is a no-fee discussion and support group. You are not alone, it is not your fault, and you deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

________________________

Mental Health Stigma is the hostile expression of the abject undesirability of a human being who has a mental illness. Stereotypes of mental illness “often include an exaggerated sense of dangerousness.” [i] (Ironically, the early asylums in Spain and Egypt were built to protect the mentally ill from the dangerous and violent members of society.)[ii] The stigma or branding does not need to be true or accurate; it just has to be believed. Its only purpose is to separate you from the rest of society, which assumes they are normal, and you are not. 

What are the factors or attributes in MHS? Mental health stigma is formed facilitated by ignorance (misinformation), prejudice (fear), and discrimination (false superiority). Stigma supports and is supported by public opinion, media misrepresentation, the mental healthcare industry, and the disease model of mental health. 

First of all, studies show that the aversion to mental illness is socially hard-wired. Society considers you dangerous, unpredictable, and socially undesirable. Society wants to distance themselves and isolate you because of their deep-rooted fear and realization of their own susceptibility. 

The media stereotypes anyone with a dysfunction as an unpredictable, hysterical, and dangerous schizophrenic. Half of news stories on ‘mental’ illness allude to violence. A person with a mental illness is either a homicidal maniac, autistic, or a rebellious, hair-brained, free spirit. 

Healthcare professionals are often undertrained and inflexible. You know how your disorder impacts your emotional wellbeing and quality of life far better than your doctor. Clinicians deal with 31 similar and comorbid disorders, over 400 schools of psychotherapy, multiple treatment programs, and an ever-increasing plethora of medications. 

The mental healthcare community is drowning in pessimism. There is evidence to indicate the problem is endemic in the medical health community and universally systemic, which means that it impacts you personally, and the current model of healthcare is the culprit. 

Clients report instances where staff members are rude or dismissive. Complaints include coercive measures, excessive wait-times, paternalistic or demeaning attitudes, one-size-fits-all treatment programs, medications with undesirable side-effects, and stigmatizing language. 

The ‘defective’ or disease emphasis has been the overriding psychiatric perspective for over a century. By the 1952 publication of the first DSM, the focus had drifted from pathology (the science of the causes and effects of your dysfunction) to pathography (the breakdown of your psychological shortfalls, categorizing them to facilitate diagnosis). Pathography focuses on a deficit, disease model of human behavior. Which disorder poses the most threat? What behaviors contribute to the disorder? Are you contagious? What sort of person has a mental illness? It is these attributions that form public opinion, stigma, and your self-beliefs and image. 

The disease model and the DSM’s diagnostic system is under increasing scrutiny for its misdiagnosis, constant criteria revisions, symptom comorbidity, one-size-fits-all recovery programs, and general negativity. The Wellness Model of mental health focuses on your character strengths and virtues that generate the motivation, persistence, and perseverance to recover. A battle is not won by focusing on incompetence and weakness; it is won by knowing and utilizing your strengths and attributes. That is how you recover―with pride and self-reliance and determination―with the awareness of what you are capable. 

Why you should not be ashamed   

(History is crude and inconsistent, culture is misinformed, the disease model is exploitive and archaic, and MHS is generated and sustained by prejudice, ignorance, and discrimination based on disinformation.)

Recognizing that shame is a fundamental part of human nature allows you to confront it and realize, while others may attempt to shame you, it is up to you whether you chose to be shamed. No one can make you feel shame; it is entirely of your own volition. What is there to be ashamed of? Mental illness is universal and undiscriminating. Everyone is dysfunctional in one way or another. You are not responsible for being infected. You did not deal yourself the cards. You should only feel shame if your dysfunction negatively impacts your emotional wellbeing and quality of life, and you refuse to do something about it.

_____________________

i Goldberg C. (1991). Understanding shame. New Jersey/London: Jason Aronson.

ii Benda, J., Kadleĉík, P., Loskotová, M. (2018). Differences in self-compassion and shame in patients with anxiety disorders, patients with depressive disorders and healthy controls. Československá psychologie / ročník LXII (6), 520-541.

iii Keen, N., George, D., Scragg, P., Peters, E. (2017). The role of shame in people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 56, 115–129 (2017). doi:10.1111/bjc.12125.

iv Camp, A.R. (2018). Pursuing Accountability for Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence: The Peril (and Utility?) of shame. Boston University Law Review, 98: 1677-1736.

v  Vanderheiden, E., & Mayer, C.-H. (2017). An introduction to the value of shame―Exploring a health resource in cultural contexts.  In E. Vanderheiden, C-H. Mayer (Eds.) The Value of Shame. Exploring a Health Resource in Cultural Contexts (pp, 1-42). New York City: Springer Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53100-7

vi Murphy, S.A., & Kiffin-Petersen, S. (2017). The Exposed Self: A Multilevel Model of Shame and Ethical Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 141, 657–675 (2017). doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3185-8.

vii Miceli, M., & Castelfranchi, C. (2018). Reconsidering the Differences Between Shame and Guilt. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 14(3), 710-733 (2018). doi:10.5964/ejop.v14i3.1564.

viii Okano, K. (1994). Shame and Social Phobia: A Transcultural Viewpoint. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 58(3), .http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MDL/oka.htm

ix Huggett, C., Birtel, M.D., Awenat, Y.F., Fleming, P., Wilkes, S., Williams, S., Haddock, G. (2018). A qualitative study: experiences of stigma by people with mental health problems. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 91, 380–397 (2018). doi:10.1111/papt.12167

x Pryor, J.B., Reeder, G.D., Monroe, A.E., Patel, A. (2009). Stigmas and Prosocial Behavior Are People Reluctant to Help Stigmatized Persons in S. Stürner, M. Snyder (Eds.) The Psychology of Prosocial Behavior, (pp.59-80). New York City: John Wiley and Sons.  doi:10.1002/9781444307948.ch3

xi Stuart, H., & Arboleda-Flórez, J. (2012). A Public Health Perspective on the Stigmatization of Mental Illnesses. Public Health Reviews, 34: Epub ahead of print.

You Deserve to Be Treated with Dignity and Respect.

This is a personal message to those of you whose emotional wellbeing and quality of life are impacted by a ‘mental’ disorder. I write as someone who knows what you are going through, and who understands the system. I have dealt with social anxiety disorder throughout my life. I have spent the last 16 years researching and developing methods to alleviate the impact of mental dysfunctions. I know the disease model of mental health has been ineffective and demeaning, and I emphasize the importance of adopting a Wellness Model that treats you with dignity and appreciation for your abilities and potential. 

You are not alone.

  • 1 in 5 adults and 1 in 6 children (ages 6-17) have a diagnosable mental illness.
  • 20 million adults and 5 million adolescents experience mild to major depression.
  • Anxiety disorders impact 45 million adults and 13 million adolescents .
  • 60% of those have both anxiety and depression. Substance abuse is often comorbid.
  • The estimated rate of infection for minorities is 1.5-2.5 times higher.
  • Anxiety and depression are the primary causes of the 56% increase in adolescent suicide over the last decade.
  • Sexual and gender-based adolescents are almost five times more likely to attempt suicide.

There are four essential facts I want you to recognize.

Number 1: You are not abnormal. A disorder, or what they used to call a neurosis, is a common part of natural human development. Mental health professionals have a saying. Question: Why do 26% of American adults have a diagnosable mental disorder? Answer: Because the other 74% haven’t been tested.  Scientific American speculates that mental disorders are so common, almost everyone will develop at least one diagnosable disorder at some point in their life. It is, simply, a condition that negatively impacts your emotional wellbeing and quality of life. 

Number 2: It is not your fault. You were infected, most likely, during your childhood. In the rare event onset happened later in life, the susceptibility originated in your childhood. The infection is a consequence of some physical, emotional, or sexual disturbance. It could be hereditary, environmental, or the result of trauma. Any number of things could have caused it. Perhaps your parents were controlling or did not provide emotional validation. Perhaps you were bullied, or you are from a broken home. It is never your fault and it may be no one’s fault.

Number 3: Forget what you have been told. You have been negatively informed by the disease model of mental health, and influenced by mental health stigma. The disease model focuses on diagnosis, deficit, and denigration. Through its diagnostic process, you cease to be an individual and become your disorder. The Wellness Model emphasizes your character strengths and virtues that generate the motivation, persistence, and perseverance to recover.

You are not ‘mental.’ Not only is the description inaccurate, it promotes hostile perceptions of incompetence, unworthiness, and undesirability. It is the dominant source of stigma, shame, and self-loathing. It feeds the pervasive public stereotype of the dangerous and unpredictable, deranged person who should be isolated in an institution. 

They once thought mental illness was demonic possession. They blamed it on the moon, sorcery, witchcraft, and bodily fluids. In the early 20th century, it was your cellular structure. The biological approach says it is in your brain; the pharmacological approach pushes drugs to balance your chemistry and hormones. The fact is that simultaneous mutual interaction of your human system components is required for sustainability of life and your disorder.

Your dysfunction is not ‘mental,’ biologic, hygienic, neurochemical, or psychogenic, but all of these things facilitated by all your human system components – your mind, body, spirit, and emotions working in concert. Realistically, we cannot eliminate the word ‘mental’ from the culture. The disease model’s guide for 70 years is called the Diagnostic  and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. So, we have to change the common perception of the word. The Wellness Model’s primary objective is the reformation of language, power structure, and perspective throughout the mental healthcare community and beyond.

And finally, number 4: You deserve better ― from the ‘mental’ healthcare industry, your doctor, family, peers, media, and community. ‘Mental’ illness is a stigma, formed by ignorance, prejudice, and discrimination. It is supported by public opinion, family rejection, a misinformed community, media misrepresentation, and the disease model of mental health. No wonder so many avoid treatment, reject diagnosis, or refuse to disclose their condition.

General public opinion considers you dangerous, unpredictable, and socially undesirable.

37% of family members hide their relationship with their child or sibling in order to avoid bringing shame to the family. Many disordered are family undesirable, a devaluation more life-limiting, and disabling than the illness itself.

The media stereotypes you as a hysterical, unpredictable, and dangerous schizophrenic. Half of news stories on ‘mental’ illness allude to violence. You are either a homicidal maniac, an emotionally challenged childlike prodigy, or a rebellious, hair-brained, free spirit.

Healthcare professionals are often undertrained, misinformed, and inflexible. You know how your disorder impacts your emotional wellbeing and quality of life far better than your doctor. Clinicians deal with 31 similar and comorbid disorders, over 400 schools of psychotherapy, multiple treatment programs, and a constantly evolving plethora of medications, but they do not know the personal impact of your disorder.

The mental healthcare community is drowning in pessimism. There is evidence to indicate the problem is endemic in the medical health community, and universally systematic, which means that it impacts you personally, and the disease model is the culprit. Clients report instances where staff members are inordinately rude or dismissive. Complaints include coercive measures, excessive wait-times, paternalistic or demeaning attitudes, one-size-fits-all treatment programs, medications with undesirable side-effects, stigmatizing language, and general therapeutic pessimism.

The etiology-driven, disease model defines you as incapable, deceitful, unempathetic, manipulative, difficult, irresponsible, and incompetent. These descriptions are straight from the manual. This ‘defective’ emphasis has been the overriding psychiatric perspective for over a century. By the 1952 publication of the first DSM, the focus had drifted from pathology (the science of the causes and effects of diseases) to pathography (the breakdown of an individual’s problems, categorizing them to facilitate diagnosis). Pathography focuses on a deficit, disease model of human behavior, Which disorder poses the most threat? What behaviors contribute to the disorder? Are you contagious? What sort of person has a mental illness? It is these attributions that form your self-beliefs and image.

To iterate, the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders describes 31 dysfunctions. Most share symptomatology and are comorbid. Estimates show that 60% of those with anxiety also have symptoms of depression, and both are comorbid with substance-abuse. The following are closely related to or comorbid with social anxiety: major depression, panic disorder, alcohol abuse, PTSD, avoidant personality disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, substance abuse, eating disorders, schizophrenia, ADHD, and agoraphobia.

Diagnostic criteria change dramatically from one edition to the next. Causes and symptoms are added, removed, and rewritten without evidence that the new approach is better than the prior one. Researchers cite substantial discrepancies and variation in definition, epidemiology, assessment, and treatment. One clinic reports that 8.2% of their clients had generalized anxiety; 0.5% were correctly diagnosed. A study of 67 clinics reported that 76.4% of social anxiety clients were improperly diagnosed.

That is why the Wellness Model focuses on the individual over the diagnosis. The disease model focuses on the diagnosis. The Wellness Model emphasis your character strengths and attributes that generate the motivation, persistence, and perseverance to recover. A battle is not won by focusing on incompetence and weakness; it is won by knowing and utilizing our strengths, and attributes. That is how we recover―with pride and self-reliance and determination―with the awareness of what we are capable.

Recoveryis an individual process. There is no one right way to do or experience recovery. You are not toasters, mass-produced in a factory. You have unique DNA. There has never been a single human being with your sensibilities, memories, and abilities. Your personality is comprised of distinct phenomena generated by everything experienced in your lifetime. It formed itself by core-beliefs and developed through social, cultural, and environmental experiences. It is your current being and the expression of that being―your inimitable way of thinking, feeling, and behaving.

One-size-fits-all approaches have never been able to address the complexity of your individual personality. Any evaluation and treatment program must comprehensively address your individual complexity. Recovery programs must be innovative, fluid, and targeted.

Clinicians must assimilate your culture and earn your trust. They do not have to become you; they must attempt to understand your culture in order to relate to you. An LGBTQ+ person will not be served well by a fundamentalist Baptist psychotherapist. Any clinician or program must consider your environment, history, and autobiography in conjunction with your wants, needs, and aspirations.

You deserve to be treated with dignity, and appreciation.

Your dysfunction has impacted your life since childhood; recovery is a long-term commitment. The Wellness Model creates the blueprint then guides teaches and supports you throughout the process of recovery, but you must do the work. The Wellness Model helps you reengage your intrinsic character strengths and attributes that generate the motivation and persistence and perseverance to recover.

Any suggestion of undesirability is a devaluation more life-limiting and disabling than the illness itself. You deserve to be treated with dignity and appreciation. 

Video: Wellness Model

The Wellness Model of Mental Health in the 21st Century

The disease or medical model has been the approach towards mental health since the dawning of civilization. It is called the pathographic perspective. Pathography is the history of our suffering. The Wellness Model focuses, not on our disease and deficits, but on our character strengths, virtues, and achievements. A disorder, condition, or dysfunction is what used to be called a neurosis. A neurosis is a common part of natural human development. It is, simply, a condition that negatively impacts our emotional wellbeing and quality of life. 

ReChanneling.org

Positive Psychology and the Wellness Model

The Disease Model focuses on the problem; the Wellness Model emphasizes the solution.

The disease or medical model of ‘mental’ health focuses “on a deficit, disease model of human behavior.” The wellness model focuses “on positive aspects of human functioning.”[i] This disease model ‘defective’ emphasis has been the overriding psychiatric perspective for well over a century.

We must move away from the disease model, which assumes that emotional distress is merely symptomatic of biological illness, and instead embrace a model of mental health and well-being that recognizes our essential and shared humanity. Our mental health is largely dependent on our understanding of the world and our thoughts about ourselves, other people, the future and the world.[ii]

In 2004, the World Health Organization began promoting the advantages of the wellness perspective, declaring health, “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”[iii] The World Psychiatric Association agrees, stating, “the promotion of well-being is among the goals of the mental health system.”[iv] As positive psychologists point out, “psychological wellbeing is viewed as not only the absence of mental disorder but also the presence of positive psychological resources.”[v]

The wellness model’s chief facilitator is positive psychology (PP), which originated with Maslow’s[vi] seminal texts on humanism, and was legitimated by Seligman as American Psychological Association president in 1998. The focus of positive psychology and other optimistic approaches, is on virtues and strengths “not only to endure and survive, but also to flourish.”[vii]  PP describes recovery as people “(re-) engaging in their life on the basis of their own goals and strengths, and finding meaning and purpose through constructing and reclaiming a valued identity and valued social roles.”[viii]

Positive psychology is a relatively new field (since 1998) that ostensibly complements and supports rather than replaces traditional psychology. “Positive psychology serves as an umbrella term to accommodate research investigating positive emotions and other positive aspects such as creativity, optimism, resilience, empathy, compassion, humor, and life satisfaction.”[ix]

PP has been defined as the science of optimal functioning, its objective “to study, identify and amplify the strengths and capacities that individuals, families and society need to thrive.”[x] Cultural psychologist Levesque[xi] describes optimal functioning as the study of how individuals attempt to achieve their personal potentials and become the best that they can be.

Research has shown that positive psychology interventions “improved well-being and decreased psychological distress in mildly depressed individuals, in patients with mood and depressive disorders, [and] in patients with psychotic disorders.”[xii] Studies supports the utilization of positive psychological constructs, theories, and interventions for enhanced understanding and improvement of ‘mental’ health. “The things that allow people to experience deep happiness, wisdom, and psychological, physical and social wellbeing are the same strengths that buffer against stress and physical and mental illness.”[xiii]

A range of approaches promoting wellbeing have been tested in intervention research.  A recent study found positive psychology interventions showed “significant improvements in mental well-being (from non-flourishing to flourishing mental health) while also decreasing both anxiety and depressive symptom severity.”[xiv] Continuing research suggests that a positive psychological outlook not only improves life outcomes but enhances health directly.[xv] A meta-analysis of 51 studies with 4,266 individuals utilizing therapies focusing on mindfulness, autobiography, positive writing, gratitude, forgiveness, or kindness, found PPIs “significantly enhance well-being . . . and decrease depressive symptoms.“[xvi]  

The academic discipline of positive psychology continues to develop evidence-based interventions that focus on eliciting positive feelings, cognitions or behaviors.[xvii] Independent research shows PPIs “decreased psychological distress [in individuals] with mood and depressive disorders [and] patients with psychotic disorders . . . improving quality of life and well-being.”[xviii] Positive psychology offers promising interventions “to support recovery in people with common mental illness, and preliminary evidence suggests it can also be helpful for people with more severe mental illness.”[xix]

Disease (Medical) Model

  • Pathography/etiology
  • DSM intractability
  • Systemic pessimism
  • Disease, deficit and denigration
  • One-size-fits-all recovery programs
  • Doctor-client power relationship
  • Rampant Misdiagnosis

Wellness Model

  • Communication
  • Optimal functioning
  • Emerging research data
  • Positive language, perspective
  • Client strengths and abilities
  • Program integration
  • Individual dynamics

Positive Psychology

  • Optimal human functioning
  • Support and enhance traditional psychology
  • Emphasize character strengths & attributes
  • Evidence-based interventions
  • Balanced, holistic perspective

Positive Psychology 2.0.  One of the early challenges of positive psychology was its inattention to the negative aspects of the individual. Recognizing this imbalance, psychologists advocated a more holistic approach to embrace the dialectical opposition of human experience. Positive Psychology 2.0 (PP 2.0) evolved as a correction to this singular focus on optimism so that it could “move forward in a more inclusive and balanced matter,[xx] incorporating both positive and negative aspects of the holistic individual. As one psychologist put it, “people are not just pessimists or optimists. They have complex personality structures.”[xxi] PP 2.0 recognizes the individual achieves optimal human functioning by living a meaningful life that comes through full engagement. PP 2.0 is a balanced approach, one that “equally considers positive emotions and strengths and negative symptoms and disorders.”[xxii]

The positive psychology perspective maintains that individuals with a ‘mental’ disorder can live satisfying and fulfilling lives regardless of symptoms or impairments associated with the diagnosis.[xxiii] Positive psychology aims “to emphasize the positive while managing and transforming the negative to increase well-being.”[xxiv] 

Positive psychology focuses on enhancing wellbeing and optimal functioning rather than ameliorating symptoms. By emphasizing wellness rather than dysfunction, the positive-psychology movement aims to destigmatize ‘mental’ illness. Positive psychologists believe “the constructive use of positive psychology perspective is generally needed in contemporary research to complement the long tradition of pathogen orientation.”[xxv]

——————-


[i] Mayer, C.-H., & May, M. (2019). The Positive Psychology Movement. PP1.0 and PP2.0. In C-H Mayer and Z. Kőváry (Eds.), New Trends in Psychobiography (pp. 155-172). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-916953-4_9.

[ii] Kinderman, P. (2014). Why We Need to Abandon the Disease-Model of Mental Health Care. (Online.) Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/why-we-need-to-abandon-the-disease-model-of-mental-health-care/ 

[iii] Slade, M. (2010). Mental illness and well-being: the central importance of positive psychology and recovery approaches. BMC Health Service Research 10 (26), 1-17 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-26 10(26)

[iv] Schrank, B., Brownell, T., Tylee, A., & Slade, M. (2014). Psychology: An Approach to Supporting Recovery in Mental Illness. East Asian Arch Psychiatry, 24, 95-103 (2014).

[v] Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing Well-Being and Alleviating Depressive Symptoms with Positive Psychology Interventions: A Practice-Friendly Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 65(5), 467–487 (2009). doi:10.1002/jclp.20593

[vi] Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4): 370-396 (1943). doi.org/10.1037/h0054346; Maslow, A. (1954). Motivations and Personality.  New York City: Harper & Brothers; Early edition.

[vii] Mayer, C.-H., & May, M. (2019). The Positive Psychology Movement. PP1.0 and PP2.0. In C-H Mayer and Z. Kőváry (Eds.), New Trends in Psychobiography (pp. 155-172). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-916953-4_9.

[viii] Schrank, B., Brownell, T., Tylee, A., & Slade, M. (2014). Psychology: An Approach to Supporting Recovery in Mental Illness. East Asian Arch Psychiatry, 24, 95-103 (2014).

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Carruthers, C., & Hood, C. D. (2005).  The Power of Positive Psychology. Parks and Recreation.  .file:///C:/Users/rober/ OneDrive/ Pending/New%20Psychobiography/carruthers%20x.pdf 

[xi] Levesque, R. J. R. (2011). Optimal Functioning. In Levesque R. J. R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Adolescence. New York City: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1695-2

[xii] Chakhssi, F., Kraiss, J. T., Sommers-Spijkerman, M., & Bohlmeijer, E.T. (2018). The effect of positive psychology interventions on well-being and distress in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders: a systematic review and metaanalysis. BMC Psychiatry 18:211, 1-17 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1739-2.

[xiii] Carruthers, C., & Hood, C. D. (2005).  The Power of Positive Psychology. Parks and Recreation.  .file:///C:/Users/rober/ OneDrive/ Pending/New%20Psychobiography/carruthers%20x.pdf 

[xiv] Schotanus-Dijkstra, M., Drossaert, C. H. C., Pieterse, M. E., Walburg, J. A., Bohlmeijer, E. T., & Smit, F. (2018).  Towards sustainable mental health promotion: trial-based health-economic evaluation of a positive psychology intervention versus usual care. BMC Psychiatry 18:265, pp. 1-11 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1825-5

[xv] Easterbrook, G. (2001). Psychology discovers happiness. I’m OK, You’re OK. The New Republic, Article 27,  6

[xvi] Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing Well-Being and Alleviating Depressive Symptoms with Positive Psychology Interventions: A Practice-Friendly Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 65(5), 467–487 (2009). doi:10.1002/jclp.20593

[xvii]  Schotanus-Dijkstra, M., Drossaert, C. H. C., Pieterse, M. E., Walburg, J. A., Bohlmeijer, E. T., & Smit, F. (2018).  Towards sustainable mental health promotion: trial-based health-economic evaluation of a positive psychology intervention versus usual care. BMC Psychiatry 18:265, pp. 1-11 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1825-5

[xviii] Chakhssi, F., Kraiss, J. T., Sommers-Spijkerman, M., & Bohlmeijer, E.T. (2018). The effect of positive psychology interventions on well-being and distress in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders: a systematic review and metaanalysis. BMC Psychiatry 18:211, 1-17 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1739-2.

[xix] Schrank, B., Brownell, T., Tylee, A., & Slade, M. (2014). Psychology: An Approach to Supporting Recovery in Mental Illness. East Asian Arch Psychiatry, 24, 95-103 (2014).

[xx] Wong, P. T. P., & Roy, S. (2017). Critique of positive psychology and positive interventions. In N. J. L. Brown, T. Lomas, & F. J. Eiroa-Orosa (eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Critical Positive Psychology, pp 142-160. London, UK: Routledge.

[xxi]  Miller, A. (2008). A Critique of Positive Psychology— or ‘The New Science of Happiness.’ Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3-4), 591-608 (2008).  

[xxii] Rashid, T., Anjum, A., Chu, R., Stevanovski, S., Zanjani, A., & Lennox, C. (2014). Strength based resilience: Integrating risk and resources towards holistic well-being. In G. A. Fava & C. Ruini (eds.), Increasing psychological well-being in clinical and educational settings (Vol. 8, pp. 153–176). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

[xxiii]  Slade, M. (2010). Mental illness and well-being: the central importance of positive psychology and recovery approaches. BMC Health Service Research 10 (26), 1-17 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-26 10(26)

[xxiv] Mayer, C.-H., & May, M. (2019). The Positive Psychology Movement. PP1.0 and PP2.0. In C-H Mayer and Z. Kőváry (Eds.), New Trends in Psychobiography (pp. 155-172). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-916953-4_9.

[xxv] Ibid.

Why We Should Avoid the Term ‘Mental.’

“everyone will develop at least one diagnosable disorder”

‘Mental’ Disorder

  • Condition that negatively impacts your emotional wellbeing and quality of life.
  • Called a neurosis by DSM prior to 1980.
  • Facilitated by mind, body, spirit, and emotions working in concert.
  • Source of shame, stigma, and self-denigration.
  • Correctible inability to function in a ‘normal’ or satisfactory manner.
  • A normal facet of human development.

Language generates and supports perspective. Language influences thought and action. Not only is the word ‘mental’ inaccurate in describing a disorder, but its negative perspectives and implications promulgate perceptions of incompetence, unworthiness, and undesirability. It is the dominant source of stigma, shame, and self-denigration. Realistically, we cannot eliminate the word ‘mental’ from models of healthcare. Still, we should utilize it sparingly, and only to differentiate a disorder from a physical injury or ailment.

The first descriptions that come to mind when one utilizes the word ‘mental’ are crazy and insane. A person with a disorder is not crazy or insane. She or he is someone who has a common malfunction that negatively impacts their emotional wellbeing and quality of life. Scientific American speculates that ‘mental’ disorders are so common that almost everyone will develop at least one diagnosable disorder at some point in their life.[i] A disorder is a normal facet of human development that infects at adolescence or earlier. A person cannot be held accountable for their disorder. They did not make it happen; it happened to them. 

In political correctness, the word ‘mental’ defines a person or their behavior as extreme or illogical somehow. During our schooldays, anyone unpopular or different was derisively called ‘mental’ or ‘mental’ retard. The urban dictionary defines mental as someone silly or stupid. The word was used for attention, involving nonsensical references and actions, usually involving violent or divisive behavior, resulting in the general amusement and hilarity of onlookers. Add the words illness or disorder onto the adjective, ‘mental,’ and we have the public stereotype of dangerous and unpredictable, deranged persons who cannot fend for themselves, necessitating isolation in an institution. 

Dictionary definitions of the adjective ‘mental’ are: (1) of or relating to the mind or (2) of, relating to, or affected by a disorder of the mind. A disorder is not mental. It is administered and facilitated by the mind, body, spirit, and emotions working in concert.

To the early civilizations, ‘mental’ illnesses were the domain of supernatural forces and demonic possession. Hippocrates and diagnosticians of the 19th century favored the humours (bodily liquids). Lunar influence and sorcery and witchcraft are timeless culprits. In the early 20th century, it was somatogenic.[ii][iii] The biological approach argues that mental disorders are related to the brain’s physical structure and functioning.[iv] The pharmacological approach promotes it as an imbalance in brain chemistry. The first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,[v] created to address the influx of veteran shell shock (PTSD), leaned heavily on environmental and biological causes. 

Carl Roger’s study of the cooperation of human system components to maintain physiological equilibrium produced the word complementarity to define simultaneous mutual interaction. All human system components must work in concert; they cannot function alone. Integrality describes the inter-cooperation of the human system and the environment and social fields. A disorder is not biologic, hygienic, neurochemical, or psychogenic. It is a collaboration of these, and other approaches administered by the simultaneous collaboration of the mind, body, spirit, and emotions.

There is no legitimate argument against mind-body collaboration in disease and wellness. We know that emotions are reactive to the mind and body and vice versa. Spirit is not ethereal or otherworldly, but a natural component of human development. While some suggest spirit as the seat of emotions and character, the three are distinct entities. Spirit forms the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person. Emotions are the expressions of those qualities, responsive to the mind and boy.[vi] 

In deference to a wellness paradigm, focusing on the word disorder (a correctable inability to function healthily or satisfactorily) and avoiding the mental description will help alleviate the healthcare system’s negativity. Changing negative and hostile language to embrace a positive dialogue of encouragement and appreciation will open the floodgates to new perspectives and positively affect the disordered person’s self-beliefs and image, leading to more disclosure, discussion, and recovery-remission. The self-denigrating aspects of shame will dissipate; mental health stigma become less threatening. The concentration on character strengths and virtues, propagated by humanism, PP2.0, and other wellness-focused alliances, will encourage client accountability and foster self-reliance, leading to a confident and energized social identity. 

Transitioning from the disease model’s pathographic language to the optimistic and encouraging perspective of wellness models is everyone’s responsibility in the mental health community―its institutions, associations, practitioners, researchers, media, and clients. When ‘mental’ is essential for focus or differentiation, we recommend utilizing quotation marks (‘mental’) to diffuse its negative and harmful perspectives.

You are not accountable for the hand you have been dealt. You are responsible for how you play the cards.

___________________________________

[i] Henderson, C., Noblett, J., Parke,  H., Clement, S., Caffrey, A., Gale-Grant,  O., Schulze,  B., Druss,  B., & Thornicroft, G. (2014).     Mental health-related stigma in health care and mental health-care settings. Lancet Psychiatry,  1(6), 467-482 (2014). doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(14)00023-6.

[ii]  Khesht-Masjedi, M.F., Shokrgozar, S.,  Abdollahi, E.,  Golshahi, M., & Sharif-Ghaziani, Z. (2017). Exploring Social Factors of Mental Illness Stigmatization in Adolescents with Mental Disorders. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 11(11) (2017). doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/27906.1083.

[iii] Pryor, J.B., Reeder, G.D., Monroe, A.E., & Patel, A. (2009). Stigmas and Prosocial Behavior Are People Reluctant to Help Stigmatized Persons in S. Stürner, M. Snyder (Eds.) The Psychology of Prosocial Behavior, (pp.59-80). New York City: John Wiley and Sons.  doi:10.1002/9781444307948.ch3

[iv] Gray, A.J. (2002). Stigma in Psychiatry. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 95(2): (2002). doi:10.1258/jrsm.95.2.72

[v] Knaak, S., Mantler, E., Szeto, A. (2017). Mental illness-related stigma in healthcare. Barriers to access and care and evidence-based solutions. Healthcare Management Forum, 30(2), 111-116 (2017). doi:10.1177/0840470416679413

[vi] Mullen, R. F. (2018). Social Anxiety Disorder. (Online.). https://rechanneling.org/page-20.html

ReChanneling Inc

ReChanneling.org rechanneling@yahoo.com

Do not sell my personal information. CCPA. Policy.

LIFE SUPPORT FOR RECOVERY-REMISSION DURING COVID19.

I am your guide, your teacher, your companion.

Individual Life Support.

I am always in your corner throughout the process of recovery, from your program’s inception through your core-work, your neural network restructuring, the imple-mentation, and onto your recovery for as long as it takes. Your disorder has impacted your life in varying degrees since adolescence; recovery is a long-term commitment. I am your guide, your teacher, and your companion. I am with you every step of the way. 

What is a mental ‘disorder’ in the wellness model of recovery? A mental disorder is any of the many neuroses that negatively impacts your emotional wellbeing and quality of life. It is defined as the inability to function healthily or satisfactorily and it is correctible. There are nine types of depression, several anxiety disorders, nine obsessive-compulsive disorders, five types of stress response, and ten personality disorders sharing similar traits and symptomatology. Every personality, experience, and cause of onset is unique. Every individual is affected differently, in varying degrees of intensity and impact. Rather than focusing on what is wrong with you, however, the wellness model emphasizes your character strengths and abilities that facilitate your recovery. You have always had the power to change; you need to embrace it and make it work for you. In the words of Nelson Mandela, you are the master of your fate and the captain of your destiny.

There are five steps to an effective platform of recovery. The first is customizing a program that addresses your individual needs and personality. Next is the core-work of learning the techniques and mechanisms that will lead you towards recovery. Simultaneously, we will go through the process of restructuring your neural network. The fourth step is going out, together, into the community, to implement what you are learning through positive exposure. Finally, it is achieving remission or one-year recovery. But my support does not have to stop there, because recovery is a journey, not a final destination. Replacing your negative thoughts, behaviors, and self-image with positivity and empowerment holds the key to your future wellbeing and happiness and I am with you every step of the way.

One-size-fits-all approaches are inadequate to address the complexity of the individual personality. The insularity of cognitive-behavioral therapy, positive psychology, and other methods cannot comprehensively address the personality’s dynamic complexity. Recovery programs must be fluid. Addressing the complexity of the individual personality demands integrating multiple traditional and non-traditional approaches, developed through client trust, cultural assimilation, and therapeutic innovation. 

Any recovery program must consider your environment, hermeneutics, history, and autobiography in conjunction with your wants, needs, and aspirations. Absent that your complexity is not valued, and the treatment inadequate. A working platform showing encouraging results for most disorders is an integration of positive psychology’s optimum human functioning with CBT’s behavior modification, neuroscience’s network restructuring, and other personalized supported and non-traditional approaches. You are not your disorder. You are an individual who is impacted by a disorder―a person unique and special, unlike any other. Your recovery must reflect that individuality. 

Over the past decade, I have facilitated groups and practicums for persons with depression, anxiety, and other disorders. I have created programs to facilitate recovery. 40 countries have accessed my work, and my latest article on social anxiety disorder is due for release by Springer. As an individual who battled severe social anxiety for 30 years, I understand the value and necessity of creating a platform of recovery entirely focused on your individual needs and personality. 

Currently, the COVID19 crisis makes it impossible for us to go into the community and implement all the hard work we do together, but that should not discourage your recovery efforts. We will prioritize the core-learning and neural network restructuring in preparation for the implementation phase post COVID19. You will be even better prepared and more confident.

Every challenge presents opportunity, and the platform for recovery we prepare together will be even more durable. I urge you to resist the temptation to procrastinate your recovery during this crisis. The comprehensive, personalized level of commitment I provide to my clients severely limits the number of persons I can help. If your condition is affecting your emotional wellbeing and quality of life, now is the best opportunity to do something about it. Get in touch with me as soon as possible, so we can create your individualized program and begin your recovery process. You deserve the best life possible, and nothing should hold you back. For all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these, “It might have been.”