Promotion

WHAT IS MENTAL HEALTH? 15
this world, but can be ended by a ceasing of desire, which leads to a state of ultimate
happiness (nirvana). Poor mental health is seen as resulting from negative behaviours
done in the past. Many studies show the benefits of Buddhist meditation on mental
health. Qualities such as right understanding, right thought, right action, right livelihood
and right mindfulness are seen as necessary for good mental health. Meditation
also is important.
In Hinduism, health constitutes an appropriate balance among three entities –
mind (sattva), soul (atma) and body (sharira). There is no distinction made between
physical and mental health. Disease results from an unhealthy mind and unhealthy
body even though the soul may be pure. Balance in the body is determined by every
word, thought, action, experience, of the person. Diet is important, as is one’s
relationship with the gods, teachers and the Brahmins.
Cultural belief as well as or combined with religious belief are sometimes significant.
In Malaysia, for example, feelings of confusion are thought of and believed to be
due to a loss of ‘semangat’ or soul substance. Experiences of nervousness, hallucination
and delusion are experienced as ‘angin’ or the wind present in the stomach. Another
physical expression of what in the West we would label as a mental health problem
relates to ideas about possession by spirits. For these physical experiences, people
may turn to guidance from traditional healers. For example, in Malaya ‘Santau’, or
black magic, is applied by using traditional ingredients mixed in food or drinks (Haque
2005: 185).
This variety of cultural meaning shows there can be no ‘culture free’ definition of
mental health. Rather than the invariant, objective state envisaged by the science and
medicine of the West, we need to acknowledge that the meaning and experience of
‘mental health’ varies from culture to culture. To attempt to reach a universal, ‘objective’
definition is an alienating process which of itself demotes the mental health of
those whose lives and values will inevitably be excluded or marginalized by the
definition, and the act of defining (see also Fernando 1995).
So far it has been argued that mental health needs to be thought of a lot less
individualistically and a lot more socially and culturally than is often the case. Similarly,
it needs to be thought of a lot less ‘objectively’ and more relative to the culture,
language and experiences of people’s lives. Social and cultural norms affect it, social
values dictate how it is responded to, social actions illustrate its richness and diversity,
social interaction creates and recreates its meaning.
Even though human needs are sometimes alluded to, the predominant overall
focus of contemporary literature in the West is on individualistic, psychological constructs,
not on the social conditions, structures, contexts and processes in which individuals’
experiences are grounded. It can be argued that the consequence of this is
to miss the point, to provide patriarchal, normative starting points and to fail to
understand or address the very things that will actually make the difference.
Given these arguments, it would seem that we should not be expending all our
efforts trying to treat people ‘diagnosed’ with a (fairly arbitrary) category of mental
‘illness’, or trying to promote a version of ‘mental health’ derived from a fairly arbitrary
definition. Instead, we should be investing in the people themselves (their behaviours,
resources, thoughts, feelings, actions and aspirations) as well as the wide range of social,
environmental and cultural factors conditions in which these behaviours, feelings and