You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Is mental illness a disease like any other, lying in the brain and waiting to be diagnosed — or is it a label applied by society to behaviour it finds disturbing, distressing or simply deviant? No area of the sociology of health throws the contrast between the biomedical and social models into sharper relief than mental health, because here the very existence of "illness" as an objective category has been radically questioned. This lesson examines the sociological study of mental health and illness: the anti-psychiatry critique of Thomas Szasz; Erving Goffman's analysis of the total institution and the "mortification" of the self; David Rosenhan's celebrated "being sane in insane places" study; the labelling theory of mental illness developed by Thomas Scheff; and the social patterning of mental illness by class, gender and ethnicity. As with physical illness, the examinable skill is to weigh the social-constructionist account — which treats mental illness as a meaning and a label — against the realist position that mental distress is genuinely real, while recognising that the two need not be wholly opposed.
Key Definition: The social construction of mental illness is the argument that what counts as "mental illness" is not simply read off the brain by neutral science but is defined, diagnosed and labelled through social processes — by the exercise of professional power, by cultural norms of "normal" behaviour, and by the social reaction to people who breach them. This need not deny that mental distress is real; it questions whether such distress is best understood as disease.
This lesson addresses a core bullet of the AQA A-Level Sociology (7192) specification, Paper 2 (Topics in Sociology), Section A — Health:
The specification expects you to describe (AO1) the sociological accounts of mental illness (anti-psychiatry, the total institution, labelling, social patterning), apply (AO2) them to an Item, and evaluate (AO3) the social-constructionist case against the realist objection. The vocabulary fixed here — labelling, total institution, the medical model of mental illness, residual rule-breaking — recurs in the social-construction and health-professions lessons.
The dominant framework is the biomedical (medical) model applied to the mind. It treats mental illness as analogous to physical illness: as a set of disorders with biological (often neurochemical or genetic) causes, identifiable through diagnostic categories and treatable by medical means — chiefly medication, and historically by hospitalisation. Psychiatry, as a branch of medicine, claims the authority to diagnose and treat these conditions. The model's strengths are real: it has produced effective treatments, reframed distress as illness rather than moral failure or demonic possession, and underpins the case for treating mental and physical health with parity.
Sociologists, however, raise distinctive objections to the biomedical model in the mental-health field specifically, because diagnosis here rests far less on objective physical signs (a blood test, a scan) than on the interpretation of behaviour and reported experience against a norm of the "normal". This makes the boundary between "mentally ill" and "eccentric", "distressed" or merely "deviant" unusually open to social definition — which is precisely the opening the constructionist and anti-psychiatry critiques exploit.
The most radical challenge comes from Thomas Szasz (1961), whose book The Myth of Mental Illness gave the anti-psychiatry movement its title. Szasz, himself a psychiatrist, argued that "mental illness" is a myth — a category error. His reasoning: a genuine disease is a demonstrable physical lesion or malfunction of the body; but most "mental illnesses" are not demonstrable physical diseases, but rather "problems in living" — distressing experiences, unconventional beliefs or behaviour that deviate from social and moral norms. To call these "illnesses", Szasz argued, is to disguise what are really moral and social judgements about how people ought to live as if they were medical facts.
For Szasz this had a sharp political edge. By medicalising deviant or distressing behaviour, psychiatry becomes an instrument of social control dressed up as medical care: it can detain, treat and stigmatise people not because they have a demonstrable disease but because their behaviour is socially unacceptable, and it can do so coercively (through compulsory detention) in a way that would be unthinkable for "problems in living" not labelled as illness. Szasz therefore opposed involuntary psychiatric treatment as a violation of liberty. His argument is the purest social-constructionist position on mental illness — but also the most contested, since critics argue it understates the genuine reality and suffering of severe mental distress.
If Szasz attacked the concept of mental illness, Erving Goffman attacked the institution that treated it. In Asylums (1961), based on fieldwork in a large psychiatric hospital, Goffman developed the concept of the total institution: a place of residence and work where a large number of people, cut off from wider society, lead an enclosed, formally administered life — psychiatric hospitals, prisons, monasteries, boarding schools and barracks all qualify. Within the total institution, Goffman argued, the inmate undergoes a systematic "mortification of the self": on admission the person is stripped of the supports of their former identity — their clothes, possessions, name, privacy and autonomy — and subjected to the institution's routines, surveillance and rules.
Crucially, Goffman argued that the institution does not simply treat the patient; it reshapes them. Inmates learn to adapt to "the system", developing strategies of compliance, withdrawal or manipulation, and the institution can produce an "institutionalised" person whose dependence and passivity are effects of the institution itself rather than symptoms of their original condition. This is a profound sociological claim: some of what is taken to be "mental illness" in long-stay patients may be iatrogenic — produced by the very institution meant to cure it (compare Illich, lesson 1). Goffman also analysed the "betrayal funnel" by which a person is brought to the institution, often by the cooperation of family and professionals, and the "moral career" of the mental patient. His work was hugely influential in the critique of institutional psychiatry and the later shift towards community care (the running-down of large asylums).
graph TD
A["Admission to the total institution"] --> B["Mortification of the self"]
B --> C["Stripped of possessions, name, privacy, autonomy"]
C --> D["Subjected to routines, surveillance and rules"]
D --> E["Inmate adapts: compliance, withdrawal, manipulation"]
E --> F["The 'institutionalised' self: passivity and dependence"]
F --> G["Some 'illness' is iatrogenic — produced by the institution"]
The most famous empirical challenge to psychiatric diagnosis is David Rosenhan's (1973) study, published in the journal Science as "On Being Sane in Insane Places". Rosenhan and a small number of healthy "pseudopatients" presented at psychiatric hospitals reporting a single, vague symptom (claiming to hear an unfamiliar voice saying words such as "empty" and "thud"). Beyond this one fabricated complaint, they reported their genuine life histories and behaved entirely normally. All were admitted, most with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, and once admitted they ceased simulating any symptom whatever — yet the label stuck. Staff interpreted their ordinary behaviour through the diagnosis: note-taking was recorded as a symptom, normal life histories were re-read as pathological, and on discharge their condition was typically described as "in remission" rather than as a misdiagnosis. Rosenhan reported that, by contrast, some genuine patients detected that the pseudopatients were not ill.
Rosenhan drew a stark conclusion: the normal and the abnormal could not be reliably distinguished, and the diagnostic label, once applied, powerfully shaped how all subsequent behaviour was interpreted — a vivid demonstration of the "sticky label" and the self-fulfilling power of psychiatric categorisation. The study became a cornerstone of the labelling and social-constructionist case. It is essential, however, to treat it carefully and critically: it is a small, much-debated study, its methods and even (in later years) its veracity have been questioned, and defenders of psychiatry argue that reporting a fabricated hallucination is precisely the kind of input a diagnostic system is meant to act on. In the exam, cite Rosenhan as an illustration of the labelling argument, not as decisive proof, and acknowledge the critical debate around it — this is a model of the citation integrity examiners reward.
The labelling insight was developed into a systematic theory by Thomas Scheff (1966) in Being Mentally Ill. Scheff applied labelling theory (from the sociology of deviance) to mental illness through the concept of residual rule-breaking. Societies have countless norms governing "normal" conduct — including unspoken, taken-for-granted residual rules about how one should look, speak, hold eye contact and behave. Breaches of these residual rules (talking to oneself, dressing oddly, failing to make appropriate eye contact) are common and usually ignored, denied or rationalised. But when such residual rule-breaking is labelled as "mental illness", Scheff argued, a powerful process is set in motion.
The labelled person is cast into the social role of the mentally ill — a role for which there are ready-made cultural stereotypes (learned from childhood and reinforced by the media). Once labelled, the person may be rewarded for playing the stereotyped role and punished for trying to return to "normal", and others increasingly interpret their behaviour through the label. The result can be a self-fulfilling prophecy in which the label stabilises deviance: residual rule-breaking that might have been transitory becomes a fixed "career" of mental illness. Scheff's controversial claim was that the societal reaction (the label) is, in many cases, the single most important determinant of whether residual rule-breaking develops into stable mental illness. This is the interactionist account at its most developed, and it draws directly on Goffman's stigma (lesson 2): the spoiled identity of the "mental patient" shapes the experience as much as any underlying condition.
| Stage in Scheff's model | What happens |
|---|---|
| Residual rule-breaking | A person breaches the unspoken rules of "normal" conduct (common and diverse in origin) |
| Societal reaction | The behaviour is labelled as mental illness rather than ignored or rationalised |
| Role-taking | The person is cast into the stereotyped social role of the mentally ill |
| Reinforcement | They are rewarded for playing the role and blocked from returning to "normal" |
| Stabilised deviance | A self-fulfilling prophecy fixes a "career" of mental illness |
Whatever one's view of the constructionist debate, mental illness is not randomly distributed: rates of diagnosis and treatment are systematically patterned by class, gender and ethnicity. This patterning can be read in two ways — as evidence that social conditions cause distress (a structural reading) or that diagnosis is socially biased (a labelling reading) — and the most sophisticated answers hold both possibilities in view.
| Social division | The pattern (described qualitatively) | Structural reading | Labelling reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class | Higher rates of diagnosed mental illness in lower socio-economic groups | Poverty, insecurity, poor housing and powerlessness cause distress (cf. Marmot, lesson 3) | The behaviour of poorer people is more readily labelled and detained |
| Gender | Women diagnosed more often with depression and anxiety; men over-represented in deaths by suicide and in alcohol-related diagnoses | Women's social roles, caring burdens and material disadvantage cause distress (cf. Doyal, lesson 4) | "Emotional" distress is more readily recognised and medicalised in women; men's distress is hidden by masculinity |
| Ethnicity | Some minority-ethnic groups over-represented among those compulsorily detained and diagnosed with severe illness, under-represented in talking therapies | Racism, discrimination and exclusion cause psychological distress | Racialised stereotypes lead services to read minority behaviour as dangerous/pathological (cf. institutional racism, lesson 5) |
The class pattern fits the social-determinants tradition: the chronic stress of poverty, insecurity and low control is a plausible cause of mental ill health, just as it is of physical ill health (Marmot's psychosocial mechanisms). The gender pattern mirrors the morbidity–mortality paradox of lesson 4 — women's higher reported distress and men's higher suicide rate reflect both the gendered distribution of social stress and the gendered norms (femininity makes distress expressible; masculinity conceals it until it becomes fatal). The ethnicity pattern is the most contested: the over-representation of some minority groups among the compulsorily detained can be read as evidence that racism causes distress and that psychiatric services interpret minority behaviour through racialised stereotypes — a fusion of the structural and labelling readings that connects directly to institutional racism (lesson 5). The decisive sociological point is that this social patterning is itself an argument against a purely biomedical account: a condition lying simply "in the brain" would not be so systematically distributed by class, gender and ethnicity.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.