This redefines the term as having nothing to do with whether someone has a psychiatric disorder. It addresses function, and that is a good place to have it, imo.

My concern is that function related to pathology/illness/wellness, are -personal- qualities which are typically considered independently of socio-economic factors.

An examination of the functional criteria as stated show they are dependent on factors -outside- the individual. I don't mean to argue that departures from mental wellness cannot be exacerbated by socio-economic, or political forces. Certainly, they are.

My concern is that psychiatric/psychological evaluation of personal wellness shouldn't depend upon factors that can be imposed on the person by outside forces/outside context.

As presented, the criteria for defining of an individual's health aren't truly centered on features of that individual but rather are dependent upon society providing the person a functional productive place with community. That's surely important to how communities function, and prehaps even how communities create stresses and triggers of psychiatric conditions, but it doesn't really seem to be a measure of the individual, per se.

We are a social species, and mental health is largely meaningless outside of how we work within the society.

As with physical health, there is "functioning" measure of whether or not we're "working" as in able to, say, feed ourselves or get around, but we have always looked a mental health as largely an ability to properly socialize.

Perhaps at some point we can properly distinguish the two, as we do with physical health and fitness.

Last edited Sun Sep 28, 2014, 06:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Meeting these criteria does NOT mean a person is mentally well.

It just means the dysfunction that defines their illness don't impact on these criteria. Mentally ill people are commonly productive members of society. Furthermore dysfunction is varyingly severe, and dysfunction can be limited in its domains/context. It's pretty common for mentally ill persons to still be demonstrably 'productive and fruitful and to make contributions to society (and I am not sure I even know of a single physical illness that's been defined on the basis of relative value to others?).

Not meeting these criteria does NOT mean a person is mentally unwell.

Replacing a symptom produced by your body with something that depends on the vicissitudes of others in society isn't psychology, it's a statement on the consequences of sociological fairness and chances of life.

Abilities cannot be demonstrated without opportunity to produce said activity so that it can be measured. The mentally ill are often shunned and the shunning can last far longer and produce greater and more enduring dysfunction than an iteration/recurrence of mental illness.

Certainly a person who has a mental disorder may fail at one, multiple or all of these criteria, but such a backward correlation is not dependable as defining illness.