In the book, Ethan Watters intents to show how over the last years, typically American conceptions of mental illness have been exported to the rest of the world. According to Watters, the DSM (the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), also referred sometimes as the “bible” of the profession, and it has become the worldwide standard. In his book, Watters brings his argument with four different case studies that give an insight of the situation in other places around the world when it comes to different mental illness and how those places handle the situation. The first case study centers on the death of an atrophied 14-yeal old in Hong Kong, who fells to her death in 1994, in plain daylight.
…show more content…
But he often emphasizes the cultural differences that sometimes do not go along with the Western ideals of how to diagnose, treat, and cure a mental disease. Thereafter, I agree with the author when it comes to demonstrating that Western mental health ideals might not be the most convenient approach to mental illness around the world because different cultures have different beliefs and different ways to approach situations, and because a one -fits-all disease model of mental illness might not be the best approach for every place around the …show more content…
Once again the ideal of a single approach to everyone is brought up by Watters so states the question of whether is a good thing that everyone around the world approaches a matter the same way without considering that there are different cultures which deal with things differently than anyone else around the globe. Another important thing that Watter says during this case study follows, “This emphasis on the social over the psychological becomes critical when one considers how one might heal from tragic events” (p. 93). Different people might heal different than others, and like Watters presents in the case of the victims of the disaster, they might have benefit form counseling, but the way they healed, seemed to be by working together to reunite and try to bring their homes back recover from the disaster, but united. That is something to be considered when trying to help others in moments of despair. And as much as those trauma counselors wanted to help, they never considered the way those people might have chosen to try and heal. In some instances, Watters explains how many locals being interviewed by the researchers, were often confused and they did not know that they could say ‘no’. this goes to
But he often emphasizes the cultural differences that sometimes do not go along with the Western ideals of how to diagnose, treat, and cure a mental disease. Thereafter, I agree with the author when it comes to demonstrating that Western mental health ideals might not be the most convenient approach to mental illness around the world because different cultures have different beliefs and different ways to approach situations, and because a one -fits-all disease model of mental illness might not be the best approach for every place around the …show more content…
Once again the ideal of a single approach to everyone is brought up by Watters so states the question of whether is a good thing that everyone around the world approaches a matter the same way without considering that there are different cultures which deal with things differently than anyone else around the globe. Another important thing that Watter says during this case study follows, “This emphasis on the social over the psychological becomes critical when one considers how one might heal from tragic events” (p. 93). Different people might heal different than others, and like Watters presents in the case of the victims of the disaster, they might have benefit form counseling, but the way they healed, seemed to be by working together to reunite and try to bring their homes back recover from the disaster, but united. That is something to be considered when trying to help others in moments of despair. And as much as those trauma counselors wanted to help, they never considered the way those people might have chosen to try and heal. In some instances, Watters explains how many locals being interviewed by the researchers, were often confused and they did not know that they could say ‘no’. this goes to