Download Rhinehart Alley Rhinehart Ted Gournelos CMC 200 22 February

Rhinehart 1
Alley Rhinehart
Ted Gournelos
CMC 200
22 February 2013
Works Cited
Anderson, Mark. 2003. “‘One flew over the psychiatric unit’: mental illness and the media.”
Journal Of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing 10: 297-306. doi: 10.1046/j.13652850.2003.00592.x.
In Mark Anderson’s article, he discusses the ways in which the mentally ill are portrayed
in film and newspapers in his native country of the U.K. He conducts a discourse analysis on
much literature and many studies that have been conducted relating to this topic, dividing his
research into how the mentally ill are represented in film, looking at “films that have historically
been recognized as having significant influence on public audiences” (Anderson 2003, 299), how
the mentally ill are represented in the national press, and the relationship between the two.
Anderson then goes onto discuss the myths associated with their depictions, and concludes with
three points that connect the mentally ill and the media. This article will be relevant to my paper
as it points out key stereotypes that have been created and perpetuated by films discussed, as
well as how the role of the newspaper functions in adding to their stereotype. This article could
have been improved by adding in original research or studies in which the ideas presented are put
into place and the results observed.
Rhinehart 2
Donaldson, Elizabeth. 2005. “The Psychiatric Gaze: Deviance and Disability In Film.” Atenea 25
(1): 3148. http://ezproxy.rollins.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir
ect=true&db=aph&AN=17479903&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Elizabeth Donaldson’s article discusses how the psychiatric gaze is defined in differing
films and various aspects in the media, as well as the recurring themes in each. She researches
this by conducting a content analysis on multiple films that feature illnesses such as multiple
personality disorder and schizophrenia; then does a discourse analysis on books and scholarly
sources written on the same subject. Her goal is to analyze the ever changing psychiatric gaze in
differing films/ media depictions of the ill, and her results conclude that the gaze changes
according to whomever receives the benefit, which is mostly centered around profit. This piece is
relevant to my own paper because it highlights critical continuity errors among the attitudes
towards the mentally ill.
Horwitz, Allan V. 2002. “Mental Illness as Social Constructions.” In Creating Mental Illness.
Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.
In Horowitz's Creating Mental Illness, his chapter “Mental Illnesses as Social
Constructions,” claims that the fear and proliferation of mental illnesses in our modern society
can be traced back from certain groups who have benefited from classifying various
psychological conditions as mental illnesses (208). He then goes onto evaluate the classifications
of different mental illness, and then redefines them according to his research. He points out flaws
Rhinehart 3
in the current disease-based classification system, that was heavily influenced by
pharmaceuticals and corrupt in the ways in which they were defined. He gives examples of how
pharmaceutical corporations can manipulate advertising to work the classification system to their
advantage, by producing generalization of their drugs that create a feeling of widespread
suffering, and in turn widespread acceptance of the drug. After Horwitz lays out his own
classification system, he concludes his chapter by clarifying that no one condition is the same
and cannot be treated as so, when determining the mental health of someone, it is important to
understand if they are dealing with an internal struggle or are responding to a social condition. I
think that Horowitz's chapter is particularly helpful due to his detailed classification system, and
an insight to the diagnosing method of the mentally ill.
Horwitz, Allan V. 2002. “The Extension of Mental Illnesses Into the Community.” In Creating
Mental Illness. Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.
In Horowitz’s chapter “The Extension of Mental Illnesses Into the Community,”
Horowitz summarizes many community studies from all over the world on mental illness, and
concludes that these studies are used to deduce mental illness as a vast and widespread public
health problem that is mostly untreated. He states that this view perpetuates feelings of
unreasonable economic costs and insufficient mental health services; all of this leading to the
inevitable answer: everyone must rely on prescription medications in hopes of triumphing their
illnesses (88). He reflects that most of the surveys diagnose mental illness to a person when in
reality it is an outcome of stressful social situations and not of psychological problems (106).
This chapter is relevant in that Horowitz illuminates key problems in the survey method of many
Rhinehart 4
communities investigating mental illness, and also illuminates the need to carefully look at social
situations and evaluate those causes in detail rather than generalizing different social responses
as mental illness.
Kondo, Naomi. 2008. “Mental Illness in Film.” Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 31 (3): 250252. doi: 10.2975/31.3.2008.250.252.
In Kondo’s article she discusses the different trends that have recently evolved in the
roles played by the mentally ill in film. Her article is different and enlightening because she has
schizophrenia and offers a first hand perspective into what she thinks of the media’s portrayal of
people like her. She discusses the fallacies of the link between the mentally ill and violence, the
mentally ill and a love connection between doctor/patient, and the falsity that humor can cure
mental illness, (or that it can be cured at all). She goes on to discuss how the depiction that
mental illness ruins and deteriorates a person is false and infuriating as well as the contradictory
claim that mental illness can make a person great, as seen in A Beautiful Mind and Aviator.
Nairn, Ray, Sara Coverdale, and John H. Coverdale. 2011. “A Framework for Understanding
Media Depictions of Mental Illness.” Academic Psychiatry 35 (3): 202-6. doi:
10.1176/appi.ap.35.3.202.
Narin, Ray, Sara Coverdale and John H. Coverdale’s article although short, provides a
useful outline of the many aspects of the depictions of mental illness. The authors divide their
short column by breaking down the key elements of society that we use to understand each other,
Rhinehart 5
with the goal to provide professionals working in the mental health field with a framework that
lets them understand each aspect of culture in play. These elements are: language in use, culture,
social practices, and institutions; the authors then provide a framework for how these elements
work together and separately, as well as explain the implications for psychiatrists who work with
the mentally ill. This breakdown of the different areas in which we as a society pull from in order
to understand each other, proves helpful because it sheds light on aspects that are not thought of
on the surface and gives a deeper understanding on the topic.
Sieff, Elaine. 2003. “Media Frames of Mental Illness: The Potential Impact of Negative Frames.”
Journal of Mental Health 12 (3): 259-69.
http://ezproxy.rollins.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t
rue&db=aph&AN=10282723&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
In Elaine Sieffs article, she explores how the frames put forth by the media effect
societies views on mental illness. She conducts an in depth discourse analysis on the
understanding of media frames, negative and positive as well as individual frames. Through her
research she aimed to discover how consumers reacted to differing frames of mental illness as
presented by the media, and concluded that the negative frames put forth by the media perpetuate
the recurring association of negative feelings towards the mentally ill. I think this article is
relevant because understanding frames and how media presents the mentally ill is key to
understanding how they are presented in films as well. I would say the only thing that would
improve this article is to actually test and experiment the claims that are put forth by Sieff
because this would provide a greater understanding of how frames work.
Rhinehart 6
Stout, Patricia A., Jorge Villegas, and Nancy A. Jennings. 2004. “Images of Mental Illness in the
Media: Identifying Gaps in the Research.” Schizophrenia Bulletin 30 (3): 543-561.
http://ezproxy.rollins.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/614450448
?accountid=13584.
In Stout, Villegas and Jennings’ article, they explore the gaps that exist in much of the
previous research done on the mentally ill and the media. They focus on highlighting faults they
have found in nearly all studies examined, narrowing their focus to only those studies published
from 1990-2003. They point out flaws such as that half of the studies recently conducted were
held outside of the United States, where differing media and cultural systems make the data near
impossible to compare. Unforeseen and hidden facts brought about by the authors make this
article helpful and relevant to my topic because they illuminate flaws and otherwise looked over
details about key studies on the subject matter. The authors conclude that unfortunately most
studies done on the portrayal of the mentally ill in the media fall short of providing accurate
observations of their conclusions, creating a need for more precise research on the topic.
Whitaker, Robert. 2002. “Too Much Intelligence.” In Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad
Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill. Massachusetts: Perseus
Books.
In chapter 4 Too “Much Intelligence” of Robert Whitaker’s Mad In America, Whitaker
discusses the history of treatments given to the mentally ill in promises to cure them. Although
Rhinehart 7
the shocking list of painful and irrational solutions seems endless, he discusses some of the most
prominent ones beginning in the late 1800’s. As the chapter moves through the time period and
goes into further depth of every new treatment as it arose, the author also reveals how the doctors
thought of the very patients they were trying to cure. The doctors seemed ever eager to find new
ways to help their patients, although it seemed as if all ethical reasoning was disregarded as a
whole. I think this chapter is crucial to understanding the treatment of today’s mentally ill
because it lays down a foundation of how the patients were once treated and transcends into how
they are treated today.
Whitaker, Robert. 2002. “The Nuremberg Code Doesn’t Apply Here.” In Mad in America: Bad
Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill.
Massachusetts: Perseus Books.
In chapter 10 “The Nuremberg Code Doesn’t Apply Here” of Robert Whitaker’s Mad In
America, a more recent history of the medical treatment of the mentally ill is discussed. The
chapter begins by informing of why the Nuremberg Code was created, and how it became basic
law to any human subject testing. Although the Nuremberg laws were widely accepted, the field
of psychiatry and mental health didn’t seem to comply with these laws. Whitaker explains in
detail how nearly all researchers were only looking to further their medical careers, and
completely disregarded their ethical obligations to the people they were studying; nearly all
doctors studying the mentally ill at the time aimed to heighten and make symptoms worse for
their psychotic patients by giving them fatal elixirs of hallucinogenic drugs. “Nobody stepped
up to question the ethics of such experiments. All anyone saw was that scientific knowledge was
Rhinehart 8
being pursued , and soon other American scientists were proudly detailing how they too had
given psychedelic agents to the mentally ill” (Whitaker 2002, 237). The doctors knowingly
treated their patients with drugs that would make their symptoms worse, although when telling
them what they were going to do, (Nuremberg law) this information was conveniently left out.
Whitaker then concludes his chapter by giving a detailed account from one of the misinformed
victims of this type of treatment; he then recounts that through 50 years of patient deceit and
attempting to make schizophrenic symptoms worse, there have been no advances in care that
resulted from these unethical practices (250).
“On my honor, I have not given, nor received, nor witnessed, any unauthorized assistance on
this work”