Wilmer 1 Sam Wilmer Professor Susan Ingram English 1103 9 November 2012 The Need for Public Mental

Health without Positive Psychology There are times when reality trumps positivity. This philosophy applies to my view about the governments use of positive psychology in public mental health. While the government has started to at least address mental health, they are taking the wrong approach. I agree with those people who call for a government that promotes the overall mental health of its people; however, it is not okay for a government to put up a smokescreen, positive psychology, which encourages people to ignore what the situation really is. Positive psychology is used as a smokescreen as part of politics, and the only reason it remains intact is the laziness of the people in the United States. The government should not promote public mental health by using positive psychology; they should strive to educate the people on what mental health is and how it can be treated or improved. As mental health and mental illness have become more and more a problem for society, the need for proper definitions of both mental health and mental illness is essential. Mental health is described as the presence of positive affect, absence of negative affect, and satisfaction with life. Mental illness is characterized by alteration in thinking, mood or behavior associated with distress or impaired functioning (Center for Disease Control 1). Public mental health is a huge problem that is ever growing in the United States. Twenty six percent of Americans ages eighteen and older suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder each year, and the estimated

Wilmer 2 lifetime prevalence of an adult having a mental disorder is forty six percent (Center for Disease Control). Clearly this is an issue that can and should be addressed. Positive psychology is the display of all that is right about people, or you are fine just the way you are (Thompson e1). The government uses positive psychology because of the fact that people that have positive emotions are generally healthier and happier. The Center for Disease control has used positive psychology in particular in their plan to improve public mental health. While there plan is very broad and doesnt give any real specifics (How unfamiliar, a government agency not giving specifics) its determination to use positive psychology is something that could cause potential problems in the future. As I have noted earlier, positive psychology is a sort of smokescreen to make things seem better than what they actually are. If the CDC continues to use positive psychology I fear that it will never catch on with the public. Part of the problem with public mental health is that it is such a new topic. Today governments around the world, including our own, neglect the issue of mental health. They mostly ignore public mental health, because for a long time no one really knew what it exactly was or what to do about it. Now that there is a stable definition for what public mental health is and a growing field of experts who are beginning to create plans for the government to execute, the government needs to put those plans into practice. As research continues to achieve new heights and psychologists are able to see new trends, then there could be policies that are more efficient in stabilizing the mental health of society. Mental health should be promoted to raise its value among families and society, so government and business and improve policies (Herrman 42).

Wilmer 3 To effectively promote public mental health the government needs to spend money, the amount is not as important as to where they are spending it. Right now there are programs such as the Division of Adult and Community Health that have some sort of policy to further mental health. But I argue that this program does not do enough. The CDC should put more of its money that is appropriated to it in advertising to spread the awareness of what mental health actually is. There is a common misconception that if you arent mentally ill, you are mentally healthy. I doubt there are many people who know about this misconception except for experts in the field and CDC employees. The government should strive to educate the public on these issues and that alone will raise the level of public mental health. More people will be able to evaluate themselves and then decide whether to get help, see their doctor etc. The education can be through multiple mediums, the easiest and least costly would be the internet. The government could run advertisements on TV that have a web address in them. From there people could go to the website and learn about both mental health and mental illness. That would benefit the general welfare of citizens in the United States. Most of the arguments against public mental health stem from the issue that government should not be trying to monitor our thoughts. The idea that government should be limited to the principles the founders of the constitution intended. The major flaw in this argument is that the founders of our nation knew that there was no such thing as a perfect government, so they intended for our laws to change as the years went by. Also, if the government should not be the medium to promote mental health, then what institution could? The government is the only institution that has the power and authority in the U.S. to promote legitimate public mental health policy, which is becoming something that is essential when discussing the betterment of society

Wilmer 4 as a whole. The objectors are either scared of the future, or are reluctant to help others or even themselves with an issue they probably dont even understand. A possible counter argument could be that being mentally healthy is subjective, or that it is impossible to define mental health. While the definition of mental health is relatively new, it does hold up against most criticisms. It is hard to find a situation where a person has almost no negative mental health affects, but that could be considered as just their personality. Mental health works sort of like a balance scale, the positive mental health affects must be greater than the negative ones. While I agree to a point that the definition of mental health is subjective, that still is not an argument against public mental health. We dont fully understand pollution, but we have laws that prohibit excessive release of carbon monoxide into the atmosphere. The same theory applies to mental health. There should be a proactive approach in public mental health. Taking on the problem in a sensible way before we understand is ok as long as the government is sure it wont do more harm than good in the long run, and having these two definitions will help make sure of that. Another counter argument that some might make is the one that promotes positive psychology. Positive psychology is a great idea in theory, but in practice on a large scale it never really catches on. People are too cynical in todays world that is full of bank crises, hurricanes, and genocide to believe the government when they say You are great! In the United States it is almost common knowledge that what most politicians say isnt true, or is intended to mislead you. The idea of positive psychology works great in small scale instances but in a country the size of the U.S. it wont have any traction. It is what every wants to believe but it is not what everyone will believe and that is a problem. Also, the American ideal is to invent and then reinvent, that failure leads to success. It is ironic that a U.S. government agency is promoting an

Wilmer 5 idea that directly contradicts that. Using positive psychology will be a waste of time and resources that could be spent on more effective solutions. Positive psychology limits the scope of what the government agency could do to help fix public mental health, and it will fail in the public sphere. The last counter argument is one of the most talked about issues today, the national deficit, and the cost of the program. Before I make my argument I want to be clear, the deficit is important, it is just not important in the way people think it is. The most common misconception is that in a few years China is going to own our country. Its ironic that people think this, because the fact that China is buying our debt shows their confidence in our economy. They think that it will be a good investment, that we will pay them back and then some! On top of this, the deficit is only a problem if our growth rate is negative, which it isnt. All of that being put out there, the cost of a program to support public mental health through advertising could be instituted even in todays economic climate. Especially when we currently spend more money on defense than the next seventeen countries combined do. Clearly there must be some money in our massive budget to put into a public mental health program. In the public sphere today, there is barely any knowledge of public mental health at all. As I have noted before, the government should make more of an effort to educate the public on the issues concerning mental health. However, there is currently a lack of interest in the public that is driving away any potential progress for public mental health policy. It would be reasonable to ask the question, that even if the public becomes educated on the issues, does that really change anything? Sadly the answer to this question is largely unknown. The public responds to variety of issues differently. Most issues concerning the collective body do not attract as much attention, but the issues that affect each individual on a personal level, like

Wilmer 6 abortion, marriage equality, etc., get as much attention as possible. A recent example would be the Affordable Care Act. Healthcare law before the act was passed was largely just protections and limits on Health Care providers. After the law was passed, people all of the sudden had strong opinions on health care, something that 93% of Americans already had. This was because of the individual mandate that requires every person to have health care. Unlike the Affordable Care Act, public mental health has no rallying point, or something that can stir up deliberation on the issue. Public mental health is becoming a more and more prevalent issue in the world stage today, and groups are starting to call for change. There must be an increase in the funding and development of public mental health institutions and policies now that there is a sold definition of what it actually is. One of the leading theories to put public mental health into practice, the use of positive psychology, will not hold up in practice and will waste precious resources. There needs to be widespread knowledge of all of these issues, so the public can decides what it wants to do for its self.