The Lie of 'Mental Health'
People today have a concept of 'sanity' or 'mental health'. But what is this? How can a mind be 'healthy'?

THE BODY

In the medicine of the body, there is a simple definition of 'health': it is the wellbeing of the individual. An increase in the wellbeing of an individual human being is an improvement in that individual's health. We can draw up a short list of things which contribute to wellbeing:
- Ability to do things (strength, coordination, good mental abilities, lack of tiredness)
- Lack of pain or discomfort
- Longevity

A condition which impairs any of these is an illness. Asthma reduces stamina, making the sufferer tire quickly, so it impairs ability to do things. A condition that shortens life reduces longevity. A back problem may cause the sufferer constant pain. We can define these things as diseases because they impair the healthy conditions of the list above.

THE MIND

Mental health practitioners label many mental conditions as 'unhealthy'. What is the basis for this? Many of these conditions may impair the wellbeing of the individual as described above, so defining them as unhealthy is straightforward. But other 'unhealthy' conditions do not impair the wellbeing of the individual.

Someone with no conscience - born without the ability to feel sorry for hurting others - would be completely ruthless. Thich would be an advantage to that individual: it would allow him to do anything to get ahead. This does not impair his own wellbeing, yet many 'mental health' practitioners would label it as 'insanity'.

SOCIAL CONTROL

Imagine a man born into a modern Western society with bloodlust: he feels a deep and burning desire to kill people. Here are three things he could do:

(A) He could suppress his bloodlust and never kill anyone.

(B) He could join the armed forces and fight for his country, killing only when he has the legal right to do so.

(C) He could become a 'psycho killer' and murder people for pleasure.

In case (C) he would be a hunted man: he might be arrested, found not guilty by reason of insanity, and put in a secure hospital for the criminally insane. But in cases (A) and (B) this would not happen. In case (B) he might well be praised and called a hero.

So, he would only be taken for treatment if his behaviour were socially unacceptable. If he does not kill, he is not incarcerated in a secure unit. If he kills, but only under circumstances deemed acceptable under law, he is not incarcerated.

The crucial point is that he would not be locked away for treatment because of his mental condition, but rather because of his actions. He is not regarded as 'a lunatic' because of how his mind is, but because of his behaviour. The purpose of locking him away is to protect society from harm, not to make the individual well. This is policing, not medical treatment.

Suppose the same man had been born into a different society, a warrior tribe where every man is expected to be fight against the enemies of the tribe and to fight fatal duels against members of his own tribe to settle personal scores and disputes. In such a society, this man might be regarded as an ideal man, and held up as a model for young boys to imitate. The idea that his behaviour could be considered insane would be an affront to the values of his society.

It all comes down to what is socially acceptable. In any society, people who don't do as people think they should are labelled 'insane'. This has nothing to do with health.