FreeArticlesArchive

Mental health is a term thrown about a lot -- true particularly over the last few decades -- but the full meaning of mental health is typically overlooked. When casual discussions of mental health occur, the focus is often on serious mental disorders: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, sociopathic behavior, and even Alzheimer's. What's left out in such conversations is that mental health is a factor is all of our lives: every one of us.

Thinking on mental health typically focuses on disorder. Someone who has a condition is psychologically unwell; being free of a condition makes one mentally well. This reasoning is problematic in different ways. Firstly, there are many people who do, in fact, have mental health disease go without being diagnosed. The world is full of people with undiagnosed mental conditions.

The second problem is that mental health is not simply an absence of a diagnosed condition, or presenting symptoms. In other words, mental health isn't simply about lacking; mental health is equally about having.

Optimal mental health means being successfully able to cope with life setbacks; having productive and healthy interactions with family members and friends; having, at the very least, functional relationships with co-workers and other informal acquaintances; and being able to successfully acclimate to society. These are elements that can certainly be lacking in someone without any sort of identifiable mental or emotional illness.

In the event that one does lack these coping and social interaction capabilities, would they be considered mentally ill? Very unlikely under current definitions. But perhaps current definitions should be changed. An argument could be made that the lack of coping or interaction skills does, in fact, indicate mental illness, particularly when acting out, or the use of drugs or alcohol, is a response to poor coping. Habitually angry or addicted people don't typically fall under the label of mentally ill. Were this to change, large numbers of people might be encouraged to get some form of mental health care.

Taking this approach -- defining typical dysfunction as indications of mental or psychological illness, and subsequently encouraging treatment for such -- would surely come up against opposition. Arguments in opposition might include the thinking that labeling and treating basic dysfunctions would be a case of overkill, would intrude on people's lives, and would be tantamount to medicating scores of people. But does this really constitute a legitimate counter argument? There's no absolute law that requires mental health to be an intrusive experience, or some type of pharmaceutical experience. No one is suggesting that pharmaceuticals be passed about in even greater quantity than they are now.

What mental health should -- should -- encourage is coping technique, not the alteration of one's reality. Going about it this way -- keep the reality, alter the inappropriate coping mechanisms -- needn't involve any sort of medication cycle whatsoever. Mental health treatment history is extensive, and only fairly recently has it involved treatment with medication. Treating psychological function does not require the usage of pharmaceuticals, and that reality needs to be emphasized.