According to Holland (2012), campaigns that focus on condemning stigmatization of mental illness by policing language end up perpetuating mental illness further instead of achieving its original intent of challenging stigma. Holland (2012) presents a valuable insight that, instead of challenging stigma or stereotypes as intended by anti-stigma advocates in the media, the words, storyline, and imagery they condemn end up being associated with mental illness. Anti-stigma and mental health literacy campaigns have failed to close the gap between viewpoints by the public, or the lay, and professionals, or experts, regarding mental illness. Instead, anti-stigma campaigns in the media are used as a form of “editorial gloss” that further promote social exclusion. Over time, mental illness has been attributed to a social infraction, a perception that informs stigmatization in the contemporary context. Besides, there is a worrying concern of disproportionate reporting of mental illness stories in the media in a manner that contributes to misrepresentation.
Holland (2012) presents an example of Australia-based StigmaWatch campaign by SANE intended to receive complaints of media reports and use of offensive terms related to mental illnesses such as careless headlines or offensive words. However, there is a general misconception and reduced judgment about the significance of media content as highlighted by StigmaWatch. StigmaWatch has inappropriately been highlighting stories based on the assumed influence of predetermined notions. Although the roles of StigmaWatch is a welcome trend in the portrayal of mental illnesses, Holland (2012) expresses criticism of StigmaWatch’s context of condemning the use of terms as “crazy,” “nutter,” “lunatic,” “schizophrenic,” and “bipolar” concerning their impacts on the audiences. Holland (2012) notes that StigmaWatch features virtually pleasing stories at the expense of stories of individuals experiencing mental distress.
Holland (2012) considers anti-stigma campaigns problematic because they neither respond to the complexities of the psychiatric realities of mental illness nor communicate the experiences of people living with mental illness. In an attempt to police language related to mental illness, it is imperative to examine how a term or word considered injurious should be used or deployed otherwise to avoid the injury, a goal that most anti-stigma campaigns remarkably fail to achieve. Holland (2012) proposes that anti-stigma advocates should ensure their criticism present succinct and convincing messages to the audience to avoid unintended consequences.
References
Holland, K. (2012). The Unintended Consequences Of Campaigns Designed To Challenge Stigmatising Representations Of Mental Illness In The Media. Social Semiotics, 22(3), 217-236.
