Running head: How stigma impacts on the relationships between people with mental illness and others
Abstract
A majority of those with mental illnesses face double challenges. The first challenge such individuals face is the struggle with the disabilities as well as the various symptoms associated with the disease. However, there is a second set of challenges individuals living with disabilities. This includes the prejudice as well as stereotypes which are informed by the various misconceptions in regard to mental illnesses.
Introduction
It is important to note that people who live with mental illnesses are denied some of the very things that have come to be synonymous with a good and healthy life. This includes but is not in any way limited to satisfactory healthcare, safe housing as well as good jobs. However, they are also denied interaction with a diverse group of individuals. In this text, I concern myself with how stigma impacts on the relationship between people with mental illness and others.
Stigma
It is difficult to fathom the impact of stigma on the relationship between people with mental illness and others without first understanding the nature as well as forms of stigma. According to Blaine (2007), stigma can be taken to be a disapproval of sorts from the society, family as well as other groupings directed at an individual as a result of his beliefs and/or characteristics which in one way or the other differ from what is the norm at the societal level. Indeed, Ervin Goffman classified the experience of mental illness as one of the three forms of stigma. The other forms of stigma in this case includes a certain distinction as a result of a deformity and lastly, an association with a given belief, religion or race.
Reasons for stigmatization at a familial level
Literature review point out that amongst those who are stigmatized most in the society are those with a wide range of mental illnesses. It can be noted that the discrimination of people with mental illnesses is not restricted to the societal setting alone but also at the family level. Because mental illnesses are in some settings associated with superstitious beliefs as well as misinformed myths, even the closest family member may demonstrate indifference when it comes to relations with the affected individual. Blaine (2007). is of the opinion that the family aggravates the situation by restricting and form of contact between the mentally ill individual and others.
Here, family members may display some reluctance when it comes to inviting other people into their homes. Some of the reasons which can be invoked to explain this reluctance includes the unpredictability of the mentally ill person especially around an unfamiliar person as well as the fear of what others might think of them on realization that a member of the family is mentally ill.
Further, Heatherton & Hebl (2000) is of the opinion that when the society s not appreciative of those with mental illnesses, families who harbor an individual; with mental illness may well defined tendencies towards withdrawal. In such a case, families may end up disregarding relationships that have existed previously so as to protect not only themselves but also the mentally ill individual. However, in some cases, families tend to show withdrawal signs against the mentally ill individual as opposed to previous relationships.
This is particularly the case with families which consider their previous relationships to be more significant and worth and hence see he mentally ill individuals as some sort of a ‘spoiler.’It is important to note that when family members restrict their interaction with the mentally ill individual, they aggravate an already bad situation by invoking fear and the feeling of exclusion amongst those suffering from mental illnesses. This strains their ability to show affection or appreciation and instead, they end up being more aggressive and indifferent.
Reasons for stigmatization at a social/societal level
When it comes to stigmatization at the social level, Green (2009) is of the opinion that a number of things constellate to inform the tendency. To begin with, the stereotypes held by some individuals as to the causes and nature of mental illnesses is the main culprits to stigmatization. Gerhard (2001) notes that indeed, a large portion of stigmatization of those with mental illnesses is championed by the society.
However, what comes about as largely surprising is that stigmatizing views are not only from those with no understanding as to the nature of mental illness but also from relatively informed members of the public who are not only well trainees but also well versed on matters revolving around mental illness.At the societal level, three approaches at stigmatization stand out.
First is what is referred to as fear as well as exclusion. Here, the assumption is that individuals who suffer from mental illnesses must be referred and interaction with them must hence be kept at a minimal level. Further, this approach seems to advocate that people with mental illnesses must be excluded from their society as a result of their unpredictability.
It is important to note that this misconception has been informed largely by the movies which have in several instances depicted mentally ill individuals as lunatics who are beyond redemption and whose actions have no boundaries. An example of a movie in this case would be “Insanitorium” a psychological horror movie that depicts mentally ill individuals doing despicable things including thoughtless killings. According to George (2006) movies like these fuel misconceptions as well as stereotypes against mentally ill individuals.Next, there is authoritarianism. Here, the misconception is that it is impossible for people suffering from mental illness to make their own decisions.
It therefore follows that any decision including that in which they may be affected adversely in one way or the other is made their behalf. Last but not least is benevolence. In this regard, the outlook is that individuals who suffer from mental illness nee and must be cared for because in one way or the other, they are childlike. It is important to note that the approaches indicate above are in no way conclusive but they non-the-less give a picture of what informs he downturn in interaction as well as interrelations between people wit mental illnesses and others.
Stigma: a brief analysis of the behavioral impact
According to Jones, Farina & Hastorf (2001), stigma against those with mental illnesses and the behavioral impact of the same can be categorized into four. That is, help withholding, avoidance, treatment which can be taken to be largely coercive and lastly institutionalization of segregation. Studies done in the past have indicated that there is a general tendency not only from the society but also from members of the family to limit interaction between themselves and those said to be suffering from mental illness.
In a General Social Survey done sometimes in 1996, a majority of residents were socialize or interact, undertake work with, or even have a relative marry an individual with a mental illness. Hence in that regard, it may be noted that social avoidance is a norm rather than a rarity and it affects the very interaction between individuals with mental illness and others. Further, according to Weiner (2009), a good number of members of the public are of the opinion that those suffering from mental illnesses i.e. schizophrenia should be segregated in facilities which house others with the same illnesses.
The way forward: eliminating stigma against people with mental illnesses
Though stigmatization against those with mental illnesses is well entrenches into the society, Hamilton & Sherman (1994) is of the opinion that concerted efforts can inform the elimination of the same irregardless of its enduring nature. Eagly & Chaiken (2006) proposes three approaches to challenging stigmatization of those with mental illnesses. This includes the sensitization of people at the societal as well as familial level on the reasons why stigmatization is not appropriate.
This includes making these two groups understand that individuals with mental illnesses are just like any other person apart just that they have an illness (like any other) and hence instead of being shunned, they should be embraced and appreciated in addition to being accepted fully not only at the familial setting but also at the societal level. This approach is largely based on the fact that a majority of stigmatization events against those with mental illnesses tend to be informed by stereotypes which can be eliminated through the enhancement of awareness campaigns at the societal level.
The second approach includes the enactment of legislation that criminalizes any form of discrimination or stigmatization against those living with mental illnesses. Though this looks far fetched, it could be the only way to get some members of the society to advance their ill informed agenda against those with mental illnesses.Third is the involvement of all the stakeholders in the efforts against the elimination of stigmatization. In this context, stakeholders include the families of those living with mental illnesses, the members of the society, the government, well-wishing agencies as well as church organizations.
In so doing, there shall be an all inclusive approach top the issue of stigmatization; something that shall go a long way towards the elimination of the vice. Allport (2001) is of the opinion that efforts to eliminate stigmatization should be intensified at the familial level as this is the unit in which those with mental illnesses spend most of their time with.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be noted that thanks to research, significant gains have been made as far as understanding mental illness stigma is concerned. This includes the dimensions of the stigma and the various stereotypes which inform the stigmatization which is largely discriminatory. However, more research needs to be done on self-stigma which in one way or the other is regarded as significantly complex than the other forms of stigmatization.
References
Allport G.W. (2001). The nature of prejudice. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books
Eagly A.H. & Chaiken S. (2006). The social psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Hamilton D.L. & Sherman J.W. (1994). Stereotypes: Handbook of social cognition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum
Weiner B. (2009). Judgments of responsibility: a foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: Guilford Press
Jones E.E., Farina A., & Hastorf A.H (2001). Social stigma: the psychology of marked relationships. New York: Freeman;
George R. (2006). Contemporary Social Theory and its Classical Roots: The Basics (Second Edition), McGraw-Hill
Gerhard, F. (2001). STIGMA: How We Treat Outsiders, Prometheus Books
Green, G. (2009). The end of stigma? Changes in the social experience of long term illness. Taylor & Francis
Heatherton, K., & Hebl, H. (2000). The Social Psychology of Stigma. The Guilford Press.
Blaine, B. (2007). Understanding the Psychology of Diversity, SAGE Publications Ltd,
