Hi,
I generally don’t comment on European politics because I don’t understand it. But something very relatable happened in Europe last week that made me sit up in my drawing room in New Delhi with a combination of dismay and schadenfreude.
Turkey’s head of state Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron needed a "mental check" (or "mental health treatment" depending on the translation). A livid France dubbed Erdoğan’s comment "unacceptable" and "rude" and said it would recall its envoy to Turkey for consultations.
Erdoğan is said to be fashioning himself as the new leader of the Islamic world. The immediate reason for his ire was Macron’s campaign to defend French secularism against radical Islam, in the aftermath of the murder of a French teacher who showed his class a cartoon of Prophet Muhammad. There are other tense geopolitical games between France and Turkey, which this article in the Guardian does a good job of explaining.
What reeled me in wasn’t any of this. I was interested in the fact that one national leader insulting another by suggesting that he’s mentally ill stoked a major global diplomatic incident.
I mean, if that spirit were to be found in Indian politics, we’d be in a permanent logjam because here, calling your opponent "mad", "mental", or "mentally unbalanced" is an entirely unremarkable, everyday occurrence.
Here are just a few examples of prominent Indian leaders using mental illnesses or even learning disorders as slurs in the past couple of years: the chief minister of one state said the CM of a neighbouring state should "get her brain examined in a hospital". The latter hit back by likening the former’s party to a "psychiatric patient". The leader of one political party called the national ruling party "schizophrenic". And the prime minister himself allegedly used dyslexia – a condition that affects nearly 35 million children in India – to take a veiled potshot at his chief political rival. Thousands of other slights, including in the country’s hundreds of local languages, probably go unreported.
Last year, the Indian Psychiatric Society even wrote to the Election Commission of India to caution politicians about using words referring to mental disorders as terms of abuse, which adds to the already massive stigma associated with such disorders. But it’s unlikely to have made any difference. Mosquitos will bite. Politicians will call each other mental. No biggie.
Using non-stigmatising language is not about ‘political correctness’
We may not like it, but politicians do exert a disproportionate influence on how their followers see the world. And the language they use both reflects and deepens social attitudes, including dangerous biases.
A 2016 study at Ohio State University showed that using language that doesn’t stigmatise could have a dramatic impact on how society perceives and treats people living with mental illness. For example, participants were more likely to agree with the statement "the mentally ill should be isolated from the community" than the almost identical statement "people with mental illnesses should be isolated from the community".
This isn’t about "political correctness", stressed Darcy Haag Granello, co-author of the study and professor of educational studies at The Ohio State University. "The language we use has real effects on our levels of tolerance for people with mental illness."
Person-first language – "people with mental illnesses" rather than "mentally ill people" – signals that we aren’t defined or diminished by our illness.
Saying "mentally ill" or "mad" is less cumbersome than saying "people with mental illness," Granello acknowledged. "But I think people with mental illness deserve to have us change our language. Even if it is more awkward for us, it helps change our perception, which ultimately may lead us to treat all people with the respect and understanding they deserve."
Aside: Donald Trump calling women "crazy" and "low IQ" is deplorable. But it is equally dangerous to casually declare the US president "mentally unstable", no matter how tempting that seems, because it associates mental illness with the worst impulses, behaviours, and criminality that human beings are capable of.
Why politicians can’t stop using mental illness as insult
Why do politicians love using mental illnesses as cusswords? A quick survey on Twitter yielded the following responses:
- Because many believe that those living with mental illness are useless and don’t deserve to be doing normal things.
- We see people with mental illness as laughing stock. That’s why such comments are successful in achieving [the effect of an] insult.
- IMO, easiest way to discredit the opponent because of the inherent bias of the public at large towards anyone with a mental health issue.
- Aim: to do character assassination of [opponent] using most derogatory term (which is not illegal) prevalent in the culture. Only "mental illnesses" fulfil the above criteria. Speaks a lot about our society n culture than about the politician who uses the term!
Here’s my tuppence worth: madness is a convenient metaphor for everything unexplainable and horrifying. It is the ultimate black hole that can absorb everything despicable and loathsome. And politicians know they can get away with their behaviour with the least chance of backlash, because people with mental illness are among the most disempowered and marginalised in society.
People with mental illness are more likely to endure violence than inflict it
Almost inevitably, days after Erdoğan’s jibe, following a dastardly knife attack in a church in Nice, Macron called the act "Islamist and terrorist madness". Blaming inhuman cruelty on "madness" is such a reflex action that the French president apparently couldn’t help using the same stigmatising language that his government had taken exception to when it was used against him.
When you call a cold-blooded killer "mad", you are not berating the killer. You are insulting – and exposing to potentially grave harm from an incensed public – "mad" people.
"In the public perception, mental illness and violence often tend to be intertwined. And much of the stigma associated with mental illness may be due to a tendency to conflate mental illness with the concept of dangerousness," says an article in The Conversation.
"This is further augmented by the media, which sensationalises violent crimes committed by people with mental illness, particularly mass shootings. The focus is often on mental illness in such reports and ignoring the fact most of the violence in society is caused by people without mental illness."
The same article cites a 2017 study by the Combating Terrorism Centre (set up to understand terrorism after 9/11), which found that of 55 attacks in the West, where 76 individuals involved were possibly influenced by Islamic State, only 27.6% had a history of psychological instability. This percentage is comparable to that found in the general population.
Dubbing all violent crimes "madness" belies this reality and legitimises public disgust and hate, and potentially incites public violence, towards those living with mental health conditions.
What’s the worst use of mental illness as abuse you’ve heard from a politician? What will it take to end this trend? Leave your thoughts in the contributions section or email me. And if you haven’t already asked your family and friends to sign up for this newsletter, please consider doing so. Taking on prejudice gets easier when we do it together.
Until next week.
Would you like this newsletter sent straight to your inbox?
Subscribe to my weekly newsletter where I dismantle myths around Sanity, discuss the best ideas from our members, and share updates on my journalism.