Bipolar 2 From Inside and Out

Posts tagged ‘political activism’

Is Stigma a Problem? Is Systemic Breakdown?

Some people who have mental illnesses say that stigma is a problem. Others say that’s not the real problem – a lack of social or political action is. I say, why not combine the two?

Stigma Fighters ( and other organizations such as the International Bipolar Foundation (, the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) (, and even Facebook groups, promote the eradication of the stigma surrounding mental health issues. They say that mental illness is stigmatized in our society – some even deny that it exists – because people don’t understand it. This happens when churches say that mental illness is a sign of sin or refuse to welcome people with mental problems into their congregations or have any kind of outreach to them. It happens when a person is honest about having a mental illness and tells her boss or friends about it and receives negative feedback, incomprehension, or the back-away-slowly-and-don’t-make-eye-contact look.

People who believe that stigma is a problem say that stigma is one of the largest reasons that people refuse to seek treatment for their mental disorders. Being seen going into a psychiatric clinic, people finding out that the person sees a psychiatrist, and being ignored or discounted when talking about mental illness are seen as ways that stigma propagates.

People who believe that stigma is a problem promote education as the main solution. If more people understood what mental illness is and how many people suffer from it, they would be less likely to discriminate against those who have mental conditions. Stories about celebrities who have mental dysfunctions or whose relatives do are considered inspiring and helpful. Stars who speak out encourage others to seek treatment (though it’s increasingly true that public expressions of mental illness diagnoses are tied to specific online therapy businesses).

People who believe that political action is necessary also try to effect changes in people’s thinking, but, more importantly, support changes in the systems that are supposed to provide services to the mentally ill. These systems include schools where mental illness plays no part in the curriculum; lack of beds for psychiatric patients in hospitals; the response of police to calls regarding people with mental disturbances; the number of medical schools that provide no information to doctors; the lack of psychiatrists, especially in rural communities, which mean people must wait a long time for services or have no access to them at all; politicians who put mental health issues low on their list of priorities; law enforcement that reacts with deadly violence to calls involving persons with mental illnesses; and health insurance and EAP (Employee Assistance Programs) that treat mental illness differently than physical illness or even addictions. NAMI promotes grassroots activism as one facet of the appropriate response to such problems (

People advocating for political change also see education as one partial solution to the problems caused or exacerbated by insurance companies, educators, medical schools, media, law enforcement personnel, correctional facilities, and politicians. Political action is seen as the right course to take to improve conditions. (Though it should be noted that people have sent books about the breakdown in societal responses to mental illness to politicians and receive only standardized, unhelpful “thank you” letters that are mostly signed and sent by staffers rather than the political figure.)

I say that education is the best response to both of these problems. Education of the general population about the realities of mental illness will lead to less stigma. Education of the voters, their representatives, and their local communities will help to lessen the inequities and difficulties that now abound.

This will not be easy. Education about the realities of mental illness is hard to convey to either citizens at large or politicians and others who have some degree of authority. Until it touches their own lives, people will largely be blind to the problems. Educational campaigns and the testimony of celebrities may help educate individuals. But politicians are likewise only affected by the aspects that touch their own lives, such as the public revelations by those like Kitty Dukakis (wife of former presidential candidate Michael Dukakis), who has been quite open about her mental difficulties and her ECT treatments (

What I fear is that these individual occurrences will motivate only a small number of people enough to make a change in society as a whole. It’s easy enough to say, “Oh, Catherine Zeta-Jones has bipolar disorder. Too bad for her, but that doesn’t affect me” or “Someone in my family has a mental illness, but my constituents won’t support legislation to benefit the homeless mentally ill or to provide halfway houses in their neighborhoods. Better to spend my time and influence on stopping terrorism or drugs.”

But until or unless something changes, mental health will still be swept aside or ignored outright. People at large need to understand that just because mental illness hasn’t touched their lives so far, it still could in the future. Public officials and public servants need to believe that mental illness issues are vital to their communities and something that can be made better if only they have the courage and compassion to make the necessary changes.

Stigma-fighting or political action? Both are problems that need solving and education is at least part of the solution to both. And it appears that it’s up to us, those who have mental illnesses, to do the educating.

Make a one-time donation to keep this blog going.

Choose an amount


Or enter a custom amount


Your contribution is appreciated.


On Stigma Fighting and Political Advocacy

Lately, I’ve noticed a trend in mental health circles. It’s a question of philosophy on some levels. What should we, as people concerned about mental health, mental illness, and society, be doing with our time and energy?

The two choices boil down to fighting stigma and political advocacy. They each have their motivation and their adherents.

The stigma fighters (including the organization Stigma Fighters) maintain that the way to make things better for the mentally ill is to erase the stigma that surrounds mental illness (particularly serious mental illness, or SMI). And there’s no doubt that there is stigma. The mentally ill are feared and blamed for violence in society. They do not get jobs or lose jobs because of their conditions. They hesitate to enter treatment for fear that friends or family will find out.

While mental illness is no longer the “secret family shame” that led to family members being “put away quietly,” kept locked in the attic, and never mentioned, many families do still find that mental illness – in themselves or their loved ones – is something to hide. Something not to discuss in polite company. Something to ignore the existence of.

People who fight stigma usually do so with information and education. Celebrities – even the British royal family – speak openly about conditions such as bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, OCD, and other of the more common diagnoses. You undoubtedly have heard the PSAs on television that explain that mental health is important and that seeking treatment is not something to be ashamed of.

Are the stigma fighters making a dent in the stigma? It’s hard to say. At least they seem to have opened a conversation about mental health, mental illness, treatments including medications, mental illness among men, suicide, and other problems we face.

Still, the political advocates say, all that stigma fighting has done nothing to increase the number of psychiatric beds available or the number of psychologists caring for rural populations, the homeless, or people with schizophrenia and other psychoses that are foreign to most people’s experience. What we need are people who will bring up these and other issues with legislators and influencers at the local, state, and national levels; who will present proposals that may do some good in increasing access and funding; and who will advocate for improvements such as training for first responders in how to address mental health concerns.

And it’s true. All these things – and more – are needed. We may debate the wisdom of involuntary commitment or compulsory medication, but they are certainly topics that need to be explored if a consensus is ever to be reached. Most people in the mental health community admit that the system is broken and needs to be fixed – or possibly re-thought from the ground up.

Where do I stand on this debate? I feel that one or the other is not enough. It’s not an either/or situation. It seems to me that unless there is some real progress made in fighting stigma, the voting public and the legislators will not understand the realities of mental illness, the need for change, and what needs to be done to fix the system. Unless we engage in spreading information and changing people’s minds about what being mentally ill means, support for policy changes will be thin on the ground. And unless we come up with some solutions that people understand and support, nothing will change.

Myself, I work mostly in the stigma fighting camp. I don’t have the political acumen, contacts, and energy that real activism takes. I know it is vitally important, but it is not something I can do very much or very well.

What I can do, through my blogs and my books, is help with the information and education, spreading the word about mental health and mental illness, and helping alleviate the stigma that accompanies them. I also intend to start looking for opportunities in my writing to comment on the larger societal issues and proposed solutions and help with education about them as well.

To solve the problems surrounding mental illness, we must all do what we can, and what we do best.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: