Question

What if widespread dwindling mental health has less to do with what’s going on inside individuals and more to do with what’s going on outside? And instead of varying levels of sickness, we’re witnessing varying levels of sensitivity/reaction? Is the intention to heal individuals a lost cause (albeit critical) if we do not acknowledge larger issues concerning the way we live/consume/develop as a whole?

2 thoughts on “Question”

  1. If people were molecules and atoms the more friction, pressure and force you put on them the more they react. I definately feel that there isnt a rise of mentally unstable people, but rather a rise in an unstable and overloaded sensory matrix…

  2. I definitely agree with this assessment (or at least agree that it’s a good question). There seems to be a focus on treating the individual, but as Johann Hari says in his book Lost Connections, if a large percentage of the population is suffering from a certain issue or swath of issues, at a certain point it doesn’t make sense to say the problem is with the “brain chemistry” of individuals, but with macro changes in environment and society.
    I like to think of this as a psychological/sociological divide, although that’s probably imprecise. But I think too much emphasis is placed on the individual and too much onus is placed on the individual to heal, whereas the only way to treat collective problems is through collective action…

Thoughts?