To this day there is still a huge misunderstanding of mental illnesses and how individuals experiencing symptoms are affected. Specifically with the up and downs of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and many individuals associate the disorders with certain aspects only due to mainstream media. These mental illnesses manifest themselves vastly different in each individual with the given disorder. Society needs to work on better understanding the true symptoms of an individual with these mental illnesses. As time progresses, mental illness has become more mainstream and as such should be better understood by the public.
Imagination gone wild along with a sense of craziness and lack of order is what is often thought of when society pictures individual with a mental illness. Often times these are, the more serious aspects of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and not what everyone with mental illness goes through. Society often pictures the more extreme symptoms of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder rather than milder symptoms. Affecting nearly 2. 5 million people in the United States alone, there still is a great deal of misunderstanding of life with mental illness (Hughes 49-50).
The two faces that exist with mental illness are often not separated but rather grouped together and sadly often only remembered for the severe cases. Another common misconception is how an individual with a mental illness obtains it. Specifically with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, mental illness can be passed down genetically or simply be obtained due to a chemical imbalance in the brain. Additionally with many cases there is a misunderstanding in many people when these disorders may develop in an individual.
All of these issues can be improved upon by educating society as a whole, and making it so people with mental illness do not feel an immense amount of stigma (Hughes 49-50). Treating mental illness dates back to the late 1940’s where the first successful case of treatment for bipolar disorder occurred with the reintroduction of lithium salts. Additionally there is a better understanding that bipolar disorder can occur in children with children often showing more manic cycles than mood swings (Hughes 49-50).
While treatment has progressed over time, educating the public on what signs of Bipolar disorder look like and how to deal with it has not as much. In order for individuals with Bipolar disorder to be able to live a life free of judgment the public needs to be educated. Library’s today will possess books with alternative treatment ideas for individuals with mental illness, and one question that is raised is whether this type of information should be available to individuals with mental illness who clearly need treatment that is most efficient (Hughes 49-50).
The issue isn’t whether or not the information is valid, but rather how all the different treatment styles might conflict with one another. Having someone self educate themselves on what treatment is best for their situation is likely not as good as hearing it from a medical professional. Additionally another issue is what treatment style is the best for an individual with mental illness, whether it be medication or therapy as some examples. Another question that is brought up via the accessibility of this information is should all options be available to the mentally ill regardless of the proven effectiveness of each treatment.
This type of issue is one reason educating the public on the best way to deal with mental illness, as a whole is essential. Despite this problem society at the very least should be knowledgeable about what people around them have to go through. While members of society often stigmatize individuals with mental illness, additionally there is often a negative viewpoint possessed by the medical professionals assigned to treat them. It is thought that the mainstream media sources and in some cases, medical officials contribute negatively to these people’s viewpoints rather than positively (Sieff 1-2).
Often times it is not the material that is being presented that is negative, but rather the way that the material is presented. This can be troublesome and often time is based on who is in charge of the material. Specifically one thing that is often examined by the mass media is something called frames. Frames are how someone interprets the material that is presented to them. Additionally, frames are able to show repetition in action and can be quite useful for explaining the constant behaviors of an individual with mental illness (Sieff 2). Despite frames usefulness the positive use of them often does not occur.
Often times some sort of depiction of mental illness is presented in a form of mainstream media. A survey in 1991 even depicted mental illness as what was depicted most in the mainstream media in the United States (Sieff 2). Often times what was most damaging to the reputation of people with mental illness status was how they were depicted as being different from “normal” (Sieff 2). This essentially branded them as outsiders in their community and often times led to them being branded with a negative connotation. This likely led to the notion that still exists today in society regarding mental illness as a whole.
Often times the media coverage given to mental illness, as a whole is largely false and inaccurate to how a majority of members with mental illness live life as a whole. Nearly 80 percent of cartoons curated were shown to depict one or more negative aspects of mental illness as a whole in some of their pieces (Sieff 3). This is often problematic as cartoons are showcased to a younger audience and though they may not necessarily know or understand what they are being exposed to, they are still being exposed to a channel of negativity that is not necessary in society.
If anything, it can be responsible for even more forms of discrimination in society that is not necessary. To progress society’s view of mental illness as a whole in terms of media coverage likely what could be changed is how the information regarding mental illness is presented to the public, especially the words used to describe individuals (Sieff 9). If society as a whole made a conscious effort to not brand people with mental illness as anything other than members of society, likely situations would be improved for everyone.
Schizophrenia specifically is an illness that affects the mind of its host. How members of society with schizophrenia function are similar to one another, often hearing voices and having a hard time functioning in society positively. Often times the drastic actions that individuals with schizophrenia display is what society thinks about mental illness as a whole (Tsuang, Faraone, Glatt 1). While this is a common example of what people can expect as signs of mental illness, labeling someone based on how members grouped with them act is not healthy in society.
As a whole if individuals were based solely on their own actions a better understanding of mental illness would be displayed to the public. While it is on society as a whole to better understand someone with mental illness, it is also on the affected individual to seek help when necessary. In cases where an individual is displaying signs of the disorder, it is ideal to have a support system in place (Tsuang, Faraone, Glatt 119). Despite this notion it is not always possible for a support system to already be put in place if someone is experiencing symptoms for the first time.
This is a time where having understanding people in the world could help those who need help to get it. While this is true of people with schizophrenia, it is also applicable to anyone with a mental illness. The bottom line is that society is not yet at a place where all members with mental illness feel respected as members of society. The future of mental health is improving. Over time it is likely that things will continue to get better, but in order for that to happen society needs to do their part as well. People need to show more compassion and understanding and likely societal norms will improve as well.