We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter takes an anthropological approach to the study of global mental health among women. It explores the cultural, economic, and political determinants of women's mental health in an effort to identify directions for future research on pathways to improve women's well-being, emphasizing the role of empowerment. The chapter elaborates upon the World Health Organization (WHO) analyses, utilizing the 2009 updates on the disability-adjusted life years (DALYS) and global burden of disease to consider comparisons between women and men in the context of selected countries. It presents global trends as well as a comparison across the world's populous countries and diverse predominantly Muslim countries of high, medium, and low income, three of which have been highly affected by war. Future research on global mental health of women should be grounded in the lived experience of mental illness in an inexorably entangled nexus of relations of culture, power, gender, and meaning.
Anthropology and psychiatry as disciplines appear to have a considerable amount of common ground. Both are interested in human beings, the societies within which they live and their behaviours. A key starting difference between the two is anthropology's interest in relativism, whereas psychiatry has been interested in universalism. Also, both anthropology and psychiatry have a long history of common interest in phenomenology and the qualitative dimensions of human experience, as well as a broader comparative and epidemiological approach.
Jenkins illustrates the common ground by emphasizing that both disciplines contribute to the philosophical questions of meaning and experience raised by cultural diversity in mental illness and healing. Both disciplines also contribute to the practical problems of identifying and treating distress of patients from diverse ethnic and religious groups. Psychiatry focuses on individual biography and pathology, thereby giving it a unique relevance and transformation. Patient narratives thus become of great interest to clinicians and anthropologists. Development of specializations such as medical or clinical anthropology puts medicine in general and psychiatry in particular under a magnifying glass. Using Jungian psychology as an exemplar could lead to a clearer identification of convergence between the two disciplines. The nexus between anthropology of emotion and the study of psychopathology identified in her own work by Jenkins looks at normality and abnormality, feeling and emotion, variability of course and outcome, among others. She ends the chapter on an optimistic note, highlighting the fact that the convergence between these two disciplines remains a very fertile ground for generating ideas and issues with the potential to stimulate both disciplines.
The burdens experienced by relatives of mentally ill persons are substantial.
Aims
To study the relationship between family burden and sociocultural context.
Method
A comparative study of Euro-Americans and Latinos ascertained whether dimensions of family response are (a) non-specific to diagnostic groups; and/or (b) variable across cultural settings.
Results
Regardless of diagnosis or ethnicity, patient misery was found most burdensome and distressing. However, considerable difference in shades of meaning and nuance across groups appears in relation to what is classed similarly as ‘misery’. Only gender was significantly associated with social performance (males reported to have greater deficits). A complex cultural – ecological effect was observed among the Latino–schizophrenia group.
Conclusions
Findings suggest similarities and differences in levels of family burden in relation to socio-cultural factors across cultural and diagnostic groups. The specificity of results by objective and subjective measures, types of burden, gender, ethnicity, diagnosis, and living situation confirm the importance of context and heterogeneity in understanding family burden and distress.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.