Mental health issues are not new. What is new is how we choose to define them for our times and how we choose to address them. Some things, we have made progress on. Like, how we now know more about dementia and treat people who have it better. Some things, we are on the process of learning more about. Like, how some countries are seeing that schizophrenia is not the untreatable disease it was once thought of, but that it is reversible if intervention is given early enough and if the needs of the person who has it can be addressed holistically. And on some things, I would argue, we are sliding backwards.
For instance, I would argue that these days we have become more tolerant of and open to what would be considered as mean-spirited and ethically wrong behaviors in the past. Greed is now just thought of as a right to claim as much resource as one can, and "competition" is now the word for leaving behind "the weak". Mental health professionals become complicit in this when they refuse to take a stand on matter of values and principles. And attaching oneself to trendy movements for social justice is not taking a stand.
Sure, a movement can gain traction if it argues for what is just and moral, gain a lot of supporters, and finally break through mainstream acceptance. But, how do we tell if the movement that started out as a campaign against injustice begins to perpetuate injustices itself? How can we truly scrutinize any claims if we do not allow genuine discourse and dissent on it?
I would argue that a responsive and ethical mental health practice is one that does not do away with personal accountability while addressing systemic wrongdoings. Most people would shy away from discussing this topic openly because they do not want to be caught up in what they see as an unsolvable problem of morality calculus. How do we begin to tell where the need for systemic change begins and where the question of personal accountability ends? How do we measure one person's wrongdoings against another person's righteousness?
But, I believe those questions are not really that hard to answer. And, as mental health professionals or psychologists, it falls upon us to explore human conditions, including that of the question of morality. We already have the answer to some aspects of them. We just need to build on those. Why do we need to build on previously settled ethical debates? Because we do not want to slide backwards to a time when clearly defined wrongdoings and injustices are permissible again. Because if we got this far, if your once outlier social justice movement successfully argued your case to the broader public, why should we suddenly stop and just accept that we will continue to commit wrongdoings as human beings? Sure, not all mistakes are grave or severely harmful. But, some are.
The discussion will be long and challenging. But, it must be sincere. Passive-aggressive murmurs are not acceptable. Come out in the open with your beliefs and put it up to test against opposing beliefs. Established institutions have a heavier burden of responsibility to take this on in a more transparent and accountable manner. From the more abstract and broad strokes of ideas, let us get into the specifics. Otherwise, any comforts offered are false comforts and any attempt at bridging "us versus them" begins to look nothing more like an effort to curb personal accountability and, in doing so, perpetuate systemic injustice.
