After listening to wednesday's lecture on the need to belong, I thought that I would add a couple of comments in relation to the point put forward that people have been institutionalised because they are considered "bad apples" (bad apple effect).
Firstly, having worked with clients who have been institutionalised for many years, I have observed that the concept of who should be institutionalised because they are "bad apples" has changed over the years. For example, many of the elderly people who resided in institutionalised settings in the past and now reside in residential settings were were placed in institutions because they were different or frail (including having hair lips, cleft pallets or hunch backs), or because they expressed antisocial behaviours that today would be corrected with parenting skills training or drugs such as Ritolin. These people, if born today, would receive medical or behavioural support while young, and be raised as normal children within the community.
Secondly, for those who were placed in institutions in the past, the flow-on effect has been life long, and consesquences of being judged different and in need of institutionalisation for many has been negative in some or many respects. For example, after years of exposure to institutional regimes, clients become dependent on others for support with all or many of their daily living needs including personal hygeine, banking, shopping, work, and attending social activities. Insitutional regimes result in clients becoming institutionalised in terms of daily routines so that they become anxious if routines are changed or if new people come into their environment and do not know the routines. Competitition in terms of survival of the fittest in institutions results in clients being constantly concerned about the safety of their own belongings and vigilent that their belongings are safely locked away where no-one else can get them. Competition for survival also results in clients hording or gorging their food so that no-one else can eat it. Also, people who have been institutionalised are exposed to public attitudes of prejudice based on the stereotype of insititutionalised people being violent, aggressive, and less than worthy of community membership.
A point that I would like to make is that people who have been classified in the past as "bad apples", and therefore placed in insitiutions have been exposed to a lifetime of treatment by institutions, fellow clients and society that they would not experience today because they would not be considered "bad apples", would hopefully receive the medical or behavioural support required to live as everyday citizens, and therefore would have the opportunity to grow from childhood into adulthood with independence and without experiencing the dependency, prejudice and isolation experienced in the past.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
stereotyping people with mental illness and disabilities
I read with interest Bec's blog on stereotypes relating to mental illness (http://beccakara.blogspot.com/). Having worked in disabilities for the last six years with people who have a dual diagnosis of intellectual disability and mental illness, there were some issues in the blog that struck a chord and that I would like to add further comment to.
In terms of stereotypes, Bec argued that "[the] most common stereotype is that mental illness sufferers are dangerous individuals", as "[they] lack the ability to control their behaviour and are unpredictable" (2007, para. 2). This is a stereotype that myself and colleagues are confronted with often by people in the community. For example, when asked by people from the wider community what we do for a living, myself and my colleagues have found that our explanation of our role as a carer for those with a dual diagnosis results in comments such as "oh, you work with those 'maddies'". Also, recently I was asked by a gentleman what I do for a living. When I explained that I work in group homes with people who have a disability or dual diagnosis, his face visibly changed from being warm and friendly to having a look of horror, and he immediately asked me if I am afraid of the clients because people like that are dangerous and violent.
Bec also stated that stereotyping of individuals who have a mental illness includes being classed as "inadequate in character and lacking in common sense and initiative" (2007, para. 3). May I add from experience that this stereotype is not only experienced by those with a mental illness or dual diagnosis. It is also a stereotype experienced by staff who care for them.
For example, I and my colleagues have regular contact with a health professional who I have observed treating members of our community who do not have a mental illness with respect, courtesy, and an assumption of intelligence. In contrast, myself, my colleagues and the clients we care for are treated by the same health professional in a condescending manner, with raised voice, exaggerated facial expressions, and with body language that suggests that the health professional does not want to get too close to any of us.
Bec (2007, paras. 5 & 6), has argued that mass media is responsible for the formation of stereotypes regarding people with a mental illness, and mass media is responsible for maintaining such stereotypes. Consistent with this argument, a report completed by the senate select committee on mental health (2006, p. 3) has found that the media does influence stereotypes of people with mental illness by reinforcing negative stereotypes, including representations of the mentally ill being violent, dangerous and unpredictable.
The senate select committee on mental health has also found though, that there are other social influences that have ensured the develpment and reinforcement of stereotypical misconceptions of people with a mental illness in our society. For example, in Australia mental health legislation makes reference to "detention and detainment" of the mentally ill, implying an association between mental illness and criminal behaviour (Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, 2006, p. 2). Also, in Australia, there are no standards for addressing misrepresentations in the media relating to mental illness (Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, 2006, p. 5).
Evidence suggests that stereotying of people who have a mental illness leads to stigmatisation (Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, 2006, p. 1). Evidence also suggests that stigmatisation influences prejudice experienced by people with a mental illness in terms of how they are treated by the wider community; the way in which people with a mental illness cope in society; and, the way in which society provides support for the mentally ill (Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, 2006, pp. 1-5). For example, it is argued that stigmatisation leads to discrimination against the mentally ill from various sectors of the community including health professionals, social organisations and the general population(Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, 2006, p. 1); stigmatisation leads to inhibition of the mentally ill in terms of seeking treatment support, and seeking employment and workplace support (Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, 2006, pp. 2&3); also, stigmatisation creates "barriers to mental health promotion" (Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, 2006, p. 5).
In her blog, Bec argued that one way of reducing stereotyping and stigmatisation of people with a mental illness is through education (2007, para. 7). According to the senate select committee on mental health (2006, p. 6), the media (which is currently held in some way responsible for stereotypical beliefs about people with a mental illness) would be a particularly effective forum for presenting health campaigns to increase public awareness and understanding of mental health issues, while reducing stigmatisation and prejudice associated with stereotypical beliefs related to the mentally ill.
References:
Bec's Blog (2007). Blog 1, Mental Illness Stereotypes. [online version] http://beccakara.blogspot.com/
Senate Select Committee on Mental Health (2006). Promotion, Prevention and Early Intervention. Parliament of Australia [online version] www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/mentalhealth_ctte/report/co7.htm.
In terms of stereotypes, Bec argued that "[the] most common stereotype is that mental illness sufferers are dangerous individuals", as "[they] lack the ability to control their behaviour and are unpredictable" (2007, para. 2). This is a stereotype that myself and colleagues are confronted with often by people in the community. For example, when asked by people from the wider community what we do for a living, myself and my colleagues have found that our explanation of our role as a carer for those with a dual diagnosis results in comments such as "oh, you work with those 'maddies'". Also, recently I was asked by a gentleman what I do for a living. When I explained that I work in group homes with people who have a disability or dual diagnosis, his face visibly changed from being warm and friendly to having a look of horror, and he immediately asked me if I am afraid of the clients because people like that are dangerous and violent.
Bec also stated that stereotyping of individuals who have a mental illness includes being classed as "inadequate in character and lacking in common sense and initiative" (2007, para. 3). May I add from experience that this stereotype is not only experienced by those with a mental illness or dual diagnosis. It is also a stereotype experienced by staff who care for them.
For example, I and my colleagues have regular contact with a health professional who I have observed treating members of our community who do not have a mental illness with respect, courtesy, and an assumption of intelligence. In contrast, myself, my colleagues and the clients we care for are treated by the same health professional in a condescending manner, with raised voice, exaggerated facial expressions, and with body language that suggests that the health professional does not want to get too close to any of us.
Bec (2007, paras. 5 & 6), has argued that mass media is responsible for the formation of stereotypes regarding people with a mental illness, and mass media is responsible for maintaining such stereotypes. Consistent with this argument, a report completed by the senate select committee on mental health (2006, p. 3) has found that the media does influence stereotypes of people with mental illness by reinforcing negative stereotypes, including representations of the mentally ill being violent, dangerous and unpredictable.
The senate select committee on mental health has also found though, that there are other social influences that have ensured the develpment and reinforcement of stereotypical misconceptions of people with a mental illness in our society. For example, in Australia mental health legislation makes reference to "detention and detainment" of the mentally ill, implying an association between mental illness and criminal behaviour (Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, 2006, p. 2). Also, in Australia, there are no standards for addressing misrepresentations in the media relating to mental illness (Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, 2006, p. 5).
Evidence suggests that stereotying of people who have a mental illness leads to stigmatisation (Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, 2006, p. 1). Evidence also suggests that stigmatisation influences prejudice experienced by people with a mental illness in terms of how they are treated by the wider community; the way in which people with a mental illness cope in society; and, the way in which society provides support for the mentally ill (Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, 2006, pp. 1-5). For example, it is argued that stigmatisation leads to discrimination against the mentally ill from various sectors of the community including health professionals, social organisations and the general population(Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, 2006, p. 1); stigmatisation leads to inhibition of the mentally ill in terms of seeking treatment support, and seeking employment and workplace support (Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, 2006, pp. 2&3); also, stigmatisation creates "barriers to mental health promotion" (Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, 2006, p. 5).
In her blog, Bec argued that one way of reducing stereotyping and stigmatisation of people with a mental illness is through education (2007, para. 7). According to the senate select committee on mental health (2006, p. 6), the media (which is currently held in some way responsible for stereotypical beliefs about people with a mental illness) would be a particularly effective forum for presenting health campaigns to increase public awareness and understanding of mental health issues, while reducing stigmatisation and prejudice associated with stereotypical beliefs related to the mentally ill.
References:
Bec's Blog (2007). Blog 1, Mental Illness Stereotypes. [online version] http://beccakara.blogspot.com/
Senate Select Committee on Mental Health (2006). Promotion, Prevention and Early Intervention. Parliament of Australia [online version] www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/mentalhealth_ctte/report/co7.htm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)