Dave's Progress. Chapter 121: All Power to You.

Recently, at the Media Action Group for Mental Health, where I do my voluntary work, we have been trying to define exactly what the purpose of our organization is and what it should be doing to reduce the stigma surrounding mental illness. As a small, local charity, perhaps we sometimes feel overwhelmed by how big the problem of stigma is and are, therefore, concerned that we tackle areas in which we feel that we can actually bring about some change. We have started this process, then, by asking ourselves three questions- what is stigma? what impact does stigma have on people with mental illness? and finally, if stigma were removed, what would the benefits be?
So, as I wrote my own little piece on these questions, I began to wonder about another, related subject. And that is the question of just why the movement to reduce the stigma around mental ill health seems to lack any significant political, social, economic or cultural power. Perhaps it does have some momentum and weight, but hardly on the same scale as that for the movements for racial or female equality, or gay rights.
After all, it is not as if mental illness is some rare phenomenon, only affecting a few people. If the often quoted statistic is correct, then one in four people will be affected by mental illness, in some way, during the course of their lives. Rates of those experiencing anxiety and depression seem to be going through the roof, and more serious illnesses, like schizophrenia, are said to affect at least 1% of the population. 1% may not sound like much, but coupled with the overall figures, the sheer numbers would seem to provide for a movement with significant impact. So why is it that when, for example, I asked a visiting journalist from our local newspaper to explain why he had written a certain headline which I found derogatory to people with mental ill health, his response was to simply say that I was reducing the argument to "semantics" and that, anyway, "your average person in the street couldn't care less about mental illness"? I should have pointed out to him that sometimes our argument is all about "semantics" and the language people use to describe mental illness or those experiencing it and that with one in four people being, in some way, affected by mental illness, if they're not bothered about it, then they should be. Unfortunately, as is so often in life, I only thought of this devastating response after our meeting!
So, why is it that when it comes to mental illness most people "couldn't care less" unless they are directly affected? We all, for instance, have to obey certain rules of conduct and take care with the language we use in terms of race, gender and homosexuality or else risk alienating ourselves from mainstream thought and models of behaviour. Why is this different for mental illness?
Well, it seems to me that while the ideologies which fed racism, sexism or homophobia are decidedly on the wane, the ones feeding the stigma around mental illness are still very much alive. One only has to look at portrayals of mental illness in the media or in film and literature to know this. So, there appears to be a very real social feeling that it is OK to laugh at, sneer, or induce fear about, mental illness. Levels of factually correct knowledge about mental ill health seem very low aswell, which perhaps feeds negative attitudes and discriminatory behaviour.
It seems, then, that many with mental illness are trapped in a vicious circle, kept in a certain social and cultural position by stigma. Similarly, in terms of our economic or political clout, stigma appears to keep us at a certain level. Many still feel that those who govern should not be allowed to if they have had a mental illness, despite figures such as Winston Churchill now being known to have suffered from depression for much of his life. Indeed, when a statue of Churchill wearing a straight-jacket was unveiled some years ago, obviously to make a point about stigma and mental illness, it was regarded by some as an insult to his memory. Many of those in high or "professional" jobs seem loath to disclose histories of mental illness for fear of reprisals. In terms of our economic power, it is the case that 70% of those with experience of psychotic illness remain poor and unemployed, so how can we ever hope to make an impact in the way that the gay rights movement did with the power of "the pink pound".
So, politically, economically, socially and culturally, the mental health movement would seem to lack momentum, and the only way to combat this would seem to be to continue to attempt to erode stigma in whatever ways we can. One can only hope that more of those experiencing mental ill health, particularly those in powerful positions, will speak out about their illnesses and some sort of tipping point will be reached. One understands that disclosure of this sort is fraught with difficulties because of stigma, but only by speaking out can stigma be reduced. To those who do decide to do this, then, I wish all power to you.