Mental health awareness is an issue that has gained a following of advocates over recent years; however, most mental health advocates emphasize a division frame, which typically segregates depressed individuals from functioning in society even further. Many individuals living with depression are ostracized for their depressive behavior and thus are victimized due to their inability to be continually happy and integrate into social situations. Therefore, I challenge society to transform their rhetoric of mental health awareness by utilizing the identification frame, which will bring unity to tough social subjects such as depression. A good example of identification framing can be found in the Ted Talks video, “The taboo of …show more content…
Björnsdóttir has said regarding the nature of society’s rhetoric. It is more than once that I have heard suicide defined as a selfish act by those who do not have depression. It is more than once that I have heard people tell me to just be happy. I know all too well that a lack of mental health education to society along with poor rhetoric can alter the severity of depressed individual’s symptoms. Don’t get me wrong, mental health advocacy is amazing but without the right framing depressed individuals continue to suffer more alone than ever. Advocates with the right framing, like Ms. Björnsdóttir, are depressed individuals real hope. Truly, she saves us, when she says, “We need to deconstruct these ‘padded walls’ surrounding mental illness and we need to do it together” (Bjornsdottir n.p.).
Works Cited
Björnsdóttir, Silja. “The Taboo of Depression.” YouTube. TedxReykjavík, 4 July 2014. Web. 17 Oct. 2015.
Burke, Kenneth. "Traditional Principles of Rhetoric." A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: U of California, 1969. 20-65. Print.
Christiansen, Adrienne E., and Jeremy J. Hanson. "Comedy as Cure for Tragedy: Act up and the Rhetoric of Aids." Quarterly Journal of Speech 82.2 (1996): 157-70. Print.
Ivie, Robert L. Democratic Dissent and the Trick of Rhetorical Critique. 3rd ed. Vol. 5. Bloomington, IN: Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions, 2005.