Stardust

I'm glad it resonanted I forgot I wrote this haha. The topic is still often comes up in my mind however. It is concerning how often environmental and historical context is ignored when it frequently plays a huge, often foundational, role in causing various issues (though perhaps not always the sole cause). It's positive that there's increasing evidence against the simplistic "chemical imbalance" theory. Neurodivergence is a concept I'm somewhat on two minds about. On one hand, I'm glad that things have gained a more positive reframe, largely thanks to the work of activists. On the other hand, it still boxes people in (or out, for that matter) with reductionist labels, rather than genuinely celebrating someone's unique individuality. It's also based on a sense of permanence; some aspects may be permanent, but certainly not all. Furthermore, in some cases, I see these conditions glorified in ways that don't make sense to me, given the real troubles they can present. Another concern is that support is often only provided once individuals label themselves. This hasn't truly changed, and people should be able to get help without needing a label, especially for issues that are not uncommon. Only in severe cases, I believe, might there be a need for more focused care and specific highlighting. Labels should primarily be a term of convenience to aid support, and context matters greatly in their application. It often feels that dealing with issues before they become significant, like preventative care, isn't encouraged. The concept of mental hygiene has become popular and certainly has its uses. However, it still feels linked to the broader mental health paradigm, essentially acting as a softer version of the diagnosis paradigm. For it to be truly effective, it would need to be liberated from this reactive paradigm and shift towards a more holistic model of ongoing, preventative care.