From the four humours and lobotomies to where we are now, our understanding of psychology has evolved dramatically over time, and with the network of the human brain being comparable to that of the universe, the field of psychological study is constantly expanding.
We are learning new ways to understand each other, share spaces with one another, and it is important that the language we use when speaking about mental health shares that same view of progress.
Historical Marginalisation
For us to recognise the importance of linguistic evolution, we must acknowledge where we first started. In the past, people with mental illnesses were treated as subhuman, their entire being overlooked in light of their condition.
The word “crazy” was used in the 1570s to describe someone as “diseased, sickly”, and in the 1580s to describe something as “broken, impaired, full of cracks or flaws” (etymonline, n.d.). “Insane” comes from the Latin insanus meaning “mentally damaged”, and “Maniac” comes from the Greek maniacus, meaning “affected with mania, raving with madness” (etymonline, n.d.).
The language used around mental health was initially intended to belittle, dehumanise and distance sufferers, excluding them from society and discounting their experiences, and despite our scientific progress since then, these words often seep into our modern conversations. When we use the same language, regardless of whether the context or intention surrounding the words have changed, this effect of marginalisation remains the same.
Over-simplification
It is not uncommon to hear someone casually describe themselves as “so OCD” when they prefer tidier spaces, or “bipolar” when they change their mind. However, the reality of these mental illnesses is far more in-depth and challenging than the surface level stereotypes that they are often associated with.
The over-simplification of these mental illnesses in the way in which they are discussed comes with the consequence of erasure, where an individual’s experiences may be diminished by being seen as something “relatable”. If symptoms of mental illness are minimised and brushed off as everyday problems, this could lead to sufferers not seeking the psychological support and attention that they actually need.
Additionally, the misuse of mental illness in everyday language ignores any nuance, throwing a single blanket across the spectrum of individual symptoms and difficulties that may be experienced under one diagnosis. This runs the risk of leading to misdiagnosis.
For example, ‘it takes an average of 14-17 years for someone to start to receive the correct diagnosis and effective treatment after they begin experiencing OCD symptoms’ (Migala, 2023), and this is often attributed to the way in which OCD is misrepresented in our everyday language. The casual way in which we use these labels can drastically impact someone’s ability to recognise real symptoms of mental illness in themselves.
Person-first
The person-first narrative surrounding discussion of disabilities, health conditions and other illnesses began with ‘The Denver Principles’, where the People with AIDS Advisory Committee (1983) wrote: “we condemn attempts to label us as “victims,” a term which implies defeat, and we are only occasionally “patients,” a term which implies passivity, helplessness, and dependence upon the care of others. We are “People With AIDS.””
When we describe someone by saying that they, for example, “are schizophrenic”, rather than that they “are a person with schizophrenia”, their mental illness is put before any other identifiers. Through language, this person is presented not by their humanity, but as an embodiment of their diagnosis.
This is why it is important that the emphasis is based upon person-first language when discussing mental health, so that people with mental illnesses are still entitled to the dignity of their own personhood; mental illness is a part of their lives rather than something that defines their entire being.
Conclusion
As we evolve as a species, we will face the ongoing issue of things becoming outdated. The way we spoke about mental health hundreds of years ago would horrify us now, and perhaps the way we speak now will horrify the generations to come.
It is not expected for us all to be ahead of the curve and perfect all the time, but the very least we can do is try our best to be understanding of those around us by taking care with our language. This is something we can all learn to do, one word at a time.
References
Crazy – etymology, origin & meaning. (n.d.). etymonline. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://www.etymonline.com/word/crazy
Insane – etymology, origin & meaning. (n.d.). etymonline. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=insane
Maniac – etymology, origin & meaning. (n.d.). etymonline. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=maniac
Migala, J. (2023, August 22). What Are the Criteria for an OCD Diagnosis? NOCD. https://www.treatmyocd.com/what-is-ocd/info/ocd-stats-and-science/what-are-the-criteria-for-an-ocd-diagnosis
People with AIDS Advisory Committee. (1983). The Denver Principles. https://data.unaids.org/pub/externaldocument/2007/gipa1983denverprinciples_en.pdf
