A Fear of Falling Ill

It is clear that certain illnesses have intense social implications within societies, especially mental illness. The social constructions and definitions of illness greatly affect the way we perceive, and ultimately treat those who are diagnosed. These definitions are contextually defined within a certain social climate in order to control citizens.

Mental illness is largely a social definition. Surely there are chemical definitions and components that help to distinguish and diagnose those with chemical imbalances with certain illnesses, but this has only been done after the symptoms of said illnesses have been labeled as problematic. For instance, ADHD diagnoses have risen by over 40% in the U.S. in the past 8 years. In a society that has become hyper surveyed and monitored, disorder is a negative characteristic that defies the control of the powerful. As parents and teachers begin to see behaviors that don’t necessarily fit the model of extreme control that is deemed as good, safe, and necessary for our society, they characterize children as Ill because their uncontrollable. Here, something is wrong with the child,

and their “condition” is medicalized, when ten years ago diagnoses were not nearly as common. Hyper-medicalization mixed with hyper control leads to more socially-defined illnesses. This is similar to the premise of Schulz’s piece on depression in Japan, and how depression-related doctor visits in Japan increased by 46% from 1999-2003, only after the illness became socially relevant. Conrad sums this idea up in saying that “medical knowledge about illness and disease is not necessarily given by nature but is constructed and developed by claims-makers and interested parties.”

When “undesirable” traits become illness, there are grounds for othering on the basis of diagnosed issues. Having illnesses characterized by undesirable traits backed up with science allows those with power to gain support in upholding “desirable” traits and stigmatizing “undesirable” ones. In Lam et al.’s piece on views of mental illness in China, it is clear that mental illness is characterized largely by forsaking values that the culture holds with the utmost respect. Filial piety and reverence for elders is very important in Chinese culture, and those who may not be able to uphold those values due to their mental illnesses should be made into examples. After all, these values are the backbone of Chinese societies. When a name can be put to this characterized failure, it is ultimately viewed forever with stigma and shame. Now that mental illness carries with it these characteristic implications for familial duties, the illness in itself becomes a source of shame rather then the inability to uphold the values themselves. In this case, those with mental illness in China cannot escape the stigma.

While mental illness may be perceived differently in places around the world (which is to be expected), we can all agree that this illness is not often met with pure acceptance, nor is it normalized. In this case, institutions can exercise their power by sectioning those with mental illness off (by way of institutionalizing or sociallyshaming) so they do not disturb the order and balance of society. Social influence even has the power to alter the way the illness is experienced by the victim, like with the ways in which people in Ghana, India, and America experience hearing voices. Those who live in a local culture of medicalization (Americans) were more likely to feel negatively about their relationships with voices as well as use diagnostic terminology when speaking about the nature of their exchanges with those voices. This is no surprise as medicalization runs rampant in U.S. culture, and these labels play such a huge role in the way illness is understood.

What it really troubling is the fact that societies reproduce these tendencies, even knowing that it is problematic. For instance, in Lam’s piece, there was a quote from a family member that stated “We can be thrown out of society for this.” Clearly mental illness has occurred in this person’s family, and yet they still almost justify the stigma attached to their own family by perpetuation the fear of social rejection. When it comes to mental illness, we fear what we do not know. Disparaging victims of mental afflictions helps to distance the very real possibility of being affected ourselves. In placing feelings of shame on those with mental illness, society can then begin to place the blame on those individuals, claiming that something is inherently wrong with them that couldn’t possibly happen to any “normal” individual including someone who might be affected indirectly like a family member. Humans experience feelings of threat when the possibility of illness is upon them, so making the possibility seem less through disparaging and stigmatizing those who have mental illness is a good coping strategy when riddled with fear. Then again, this fear plays into the social control piece. If society fears mental illness, they know it is somehow undesirable, and therefore the behavioral characteristics are also undesirable, so those with power can continue to bring out desirable behaviors in society. People are too afraid to act otherwise, for fear of what those undesirable behaviors could mean.