Astute scholars involved with Global Mental Health (GMH) have recently noted “the hostile intellectual climate” which dominates the field. Indeed, since its inception, the discipline has been the recipient of many critiques by anthropologists, social scientists and local service user organizations, which have emphasized its role in promoting Western biomedical interventions that lack in cultural validity and neglect the role of socio-economic determinants of mental health . In doing so, it has been perceived as failing to address the ‘ecologies of suffering’ of the people with whom it claims to engage. However, key advocates of the GMH movement have recently responded to these critiques by claiming that the discipline had undertaken efforts to practically address these issues.

Continue reading