Sociology of Mental Illness: the Study of the Un-institutionalized Mentally Challenged in Abeokuta, Ogun State. Nigeria
Sociology of Mental Illness: the Study of the Un-institutionalized Mentally Challenged in Abeokuta, Ogun State. Nigeria
Sociology of Mental Illness: The Study of the Un-institutionalized Mentally Challenged in Abeokuta, Ogun State. Nigeria
BY
DR. J. O. SHOPEJU*; DR. C. A. ONIFADE* AND DR. A. DIPEOLU**
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
*DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE
ABEOKUTA
**DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE
ABEOKUTA
CONTACT: E-mail address: [email protected]
Mobile phone 08037125917
Sociology of Mental Illness: The Study of the Un-institutionalized Mentally Challenged in Abeokuta, Ogun State. Nigeria
The focus of this paper is on the poor/economically disadvantaged, non-institutionalized and socially classified as mentally challenged (or considered to be mad) people who roam the streets of Abeokuta, the capital of Ogun State, Nigeria. It attempts to address the issue of mental illness as a social construction. It is felt that the ability of these people to survive without formal care, should be a source of study that will assist in shedding some light into the problems confronting several individuals and groups within the society. For example, if we consider the fact that majority of these people live as isolated selves, it will focus our minds into the need to understand, appreciate, and come to terms with the fact that, as Erickson (2001) says, “. . ..the inability of some people to come to terms with their own isolated selves is counter-pointed by their inability to relate with others on interpersonal one-to-one basis.” The point is that many of these people took off at one time or the other from societies, which exerted pressure on them to tow the line of social expectations. These expectations, as defined by the social institutions (religion, family, economic, political — both the civilian and military, and education), govern their lives and also serve as the support system, and that it is the failure of the same system to continue to provide the so much needed support that has assisted in boxing them into a corner and thereby severing them from the existing conventional social relationships. It is also felt that with better understanding of the underlying factors influencing the behaviours and the lives of these people, and with a little assistance from the rest of us, they would cope better with some of the problems confronting them. In short, we feel strongly and agree with the view of Carol Gill, a Ph. D. holder, wheelchair user and co-organizer “Bioethics Symposium” who expressed the view that “we should be examining the barriers society has erected that demoralize people to the point that they find it too difficult to live with their disability, when the focus should be on our inability to muster the resources they need to live” (Nugent, 2005).
Literature Review
The more one reads about mental illness, sees or interacts with some of the mentally challenged, or those whom society considers as mentally ill, the more the question about the reality of the problem comes to the mind. Also the more the question crops up the harder it is to arrive at a conclusion regarding what mental illness really is. An attempt to define mental illness helps to expose the ambiguity and the futility involved. This fact guided the thought of Mechanic (1980) in his book, “Mental Health and Social Policy.” For example, Webster’s Third New International dictionary defines insanity as, “such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having a mental capacity to enter into a particular relationship, status or transaction or as excuses one from criminal and civil responsibilities.” One can infer from this definition that the law has been assigned the role of determining what behaviours and who fits into this category. Of course, the law is manmade and influenced by the types of behaviours identified, compiled and classified as “unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding.” In short, the law can only ruminate on what is already in existence. Thus, the law in response to the evidence adduced before fits them into this predetermined categories. The point here is that the law, is culturally determined by the society or the social structure. That is, the social structure, in one way or the other determines who is mentally ill, cured, and who should continue to bear the label. Another question is how does the law conclude that one person is sane while the other is not? This point needs some clarification. That the social structure determines what falls into the category of mental illness is a source of concern because it introduces subjectivity into the meaning, definition and interpretation given to the “behaviours” in question. Let us