Understanding Deviation from Ideal Mental Health: A Secondary School Essay
This work has been verified by our teacher: 15.01.2026 at 20:45
Homework type: Essay
Added: 15.01.2026 at 20:00
Summary:
The essay explores Jahoda’s criteria for ideal mental health, its strengths and limitations, and the challenges of defining abnormality beyond cultural bias.
Deviation from Ideal Mental Health: A Comprehensive Exploration of Psychological Well-being and Abnormality
Discussions about mental health often centre on disorders, deficits, and the presence of illness. However, genuine understanding of psychological well-being reaches far beyond this negative framing. Mental health is not simply the absence of distress or deviant behaviour, but the realisation of positive functioning – a dynamic state in which individuals can fully engage with life, relationships, and their own potential. For psychologists and practitioners in the United Kingdom, it is increasingly important to define abnormality not simply by what is statistically rare or socially disapproved, but by contrasting it with the standards of healthy, flourishing minds.
This essay explores the concept of ‘Deviation from Ideal Mental Health’ (DIMH) as a criterion for abnormality. It will examine the features of ideal mental health, rooted in Marie Jahoda’s influential work; consider the theoretical and historical foundations; evaluate the model’s strengths and limitations; and reflect on its application in contemporary psychology, including cultural perspectives and practical challenges. Ultimately, the essay aims to offer a nuanced view, acknowledging both the promise and the pitfalls of defining psychological abnormality in relation to ideal well-being.
---
Conceptualising Ideal Mental Health
To meaningfully discuss deviation from ideal mental health, we must first clarify what ‘ideal’ entails. Rather than conceiving health as a passive lack of illness, ideal mental health is an active, positive state. It is characterised by well-being, the capacity to adapt, and the pursuit of self-fulfilment.Marie Jahoda, a prominent social psychologist, was instrumental in advancing this perspective. In 1958, she proposed six core criteria for what constitutes optimal psychological functioning:
1. Self-Actualisation: Inspired by Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, this refers to the realisation of one’s fullest potential and personal growth. It is the drive behind creative achievements, like those of Virginia Woolf or Alan Turing, whose work reflected intense engagement with their talents and ambitions, albeit complicated by personal struggles. 2. Positive Self-Attitude: This is a baseline of self-acceptance and realistic self-appraisal. Instead of self-aggrandisement, it includes the ability to acknowledge strengths and weaknesses, as seen in the compassionate self-reflection found in the works of British poets such as Philip Larkin. 3. Autonomy: Autonomy implies independence of thought and behaviour. It involves making choices aligned with personal values, rather than uncritically adopting societal expectations or peer pressures—a value celebrated in British education, where critical thinking is often emphasised in curriculum standards such as the A Level Extended Project Qualification. 4. Resistance to Stress: Robust mental health involves managing and coping effectively with stress, uncertainty, or adversity. For example, the societal resilience shown during events like the Blitz in World War II has become almost mythic in British collective memory, reflecting communal and individual capacities for endurance. 5. Accurate Perception of Reality: This median avoids both excessive pessimism and groundless optimism, favouring clarity in seeing oneself and the world. Literature such as Orwell’s “1984” starkly warns of the dangers in losing touch with reality. 6. Environmental Mastery: The ability to adjust and thrive within various settings, be it school, workplace, or community. This is related, too, to integration – the balancing of conflicting emotions or impulses.
Jahoda’s framework is deeply influenced by humanistic psychology, in particular the works of Maslow and Carl Rogers, which focus on growth and self-direction. The ‘ideal’, therefore, becomes not a static endpoint, but a process of striving – a concept explicitly acknowledged in modern positive psychology.
---
Defining Abnormality Through Deviation from Ideal Mental Health
Traditional definitions of abnormality in British psychology include statistical infrequency (behaviours or traits markedly uncommon in the population), deviation from social norms (violating accepted cultural standards), and failure to function adequately (inability to cope with ordinary demands of life). Each brings its own challenges, such as cultural bias or subjectivity.DIMH proposes a different standpoint. Rather than measuring people against pathology or popularity, it asks how closely an individual matches the hallmarks of psychological health. Abnormality, in this model, is defined by the absence or shortfall of these positive attributes – for instance, chronic inability to manage stress, persistent low self-esteem, or rigid thinking.
What sets DIMH apart is its holistic concern. It does not reduce individuals to symptoms or deficits. Rather, it considers broad factors—emotional, cognitive, social, and personal—and their interconnectedness. Thus, a person who is intellectually gifted but severely lacking in social skills, or who is successful at work yet fundamentally unfulfilled, may not be deemed ‘well’ in this model, even if they do not meet the criteria for a diagnosable disorder.
Such an approach is consistent with trends in UK educational and therapeutic settings, where fostering resilience, adaptability, and emotional intelligence is increasingly a part of mental health promotion – for example, through the PSHE (Personal, Social, Health and Economic) curriculum in schools.
---
Critical Evaluation of Jahoda’s Criteria
While compelling, Jahoda’s ideal is fraught with practical and philosophical difficulties.Operational Challenges
Many features of ideal mental health—such as self-actualisation or autonomy—are inherently subjective and elusive to measure. Whereas ‘low mood’ or ‘panic attacks’ can be more readily quantified, concepts like ‘environmental mastery’ lack clear, universally agreed thresholds. Psychological assessment tools, such as self-report questionnaires or structured interviews, may yield inconsistent outcomes depending on context or the respondent’s self-awareness.Cultural Relativity
Jahoda’s model emerged from a Western, individualistic context, where personal autonomy and self-realisation are highly prized. However, these values are far from universal. Among some British Asian communities, for example, interdependence and family cohesion may be regarded as more crucial than autonomy. Similarly, resistance to stress may manifest as stoicism in some cultures or emotional expressiveness in others. Imposing a singular standard risks ethnocentrism, marginalising those whose ideals of health diverge.Unrealistic Expectations
An ongoing criticism is that the ‘ideal’ is exactly that: an ideal, not a baseline reality. Most people experience periods of low self-worth, lack of direction, or diminished coping. By setting the bar so high, the model risks pathologising ordinary human experience. Shakespearean heroes, from Hamlet to Macbeth, display inner conflict and emotional extremes; yet, these states can also prompt reflection and change. Expecting consistency in mood, perspective, or function is arguably not only unrealistic, but perhaps antithetical to the complexity of human life.Neglect of Situational Factors
Another limitation is context. Mental health is rarely static; it ebbs and flows with circumstance. For example, fear and avoidance are maladaptive in daily London life, but highly appropriate in response to immediate threat. Someone who copes poorly after bereavement is not necessarily ‘abnormal’, but rather displaying a natural, if painful, response. By failing to properly contextualise behaviour, DIMH risks overdiagnosis or mislabelling.Empirical Support
Research on the validity of Jahoda’s framework is mixed. While positive psychology (e.g., Seligman's PERMA model) maps onto several of Jahoda’s criteria and evidence supports benefits of positive emotions, resilience, and social relationships, there remains debate about how best to operationalise and measure these qualities in clinical and community settings.---
Contemporary Applications and Alternatives
Despite its flaws, the DIMH approach has influenced both clinical practice and policy in the UK. With the steady shift towards recovery-oriented mental health services, therapy goals increasingly emphasise not merely the control of symptoms, but the cultivation of skills, relationships, and purposeful living. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), widely used in NHS services, encourages not only the restructuring of negative beliefs, but also the development of resilience and adaptive coping—qualities directly linked to Jahoda’s notions.Mental health promotion campaigns, such as ‘Time to Change’ or Mind’s public initiatives, echo the focus on emotional literacy, self-acceptance, and social integration. The Healthy Schools Programme, for instance, encourages enhanced well-being for students, reinforcing many of Jahoda’s ideals.
Alternative models have emerged to supplement or challenge the DIMH perspective. The World Health Organisation’s definition encompasses a state of well-being in which individuals realise potential, cope with normal stresses, and contribute to community—a close echo of DIMH, yet acknowledging wider determinants of health such as poverty or discrimination. The ‘dual continuum’ model further highlights that absence of illness does not equate to presence of well-being; one may feel alienated and empty while being technically ‘symptom-free’. Recovery models, gaining ground in UK mental health policy, focus on the lived experiences, individuality, and empowerment of those with mental health difficulties.
Future directions may involve refining Jahoda’s approach using culturally sensitive tools, dynamic assessment methods, and interdisciplinary research, ensuring an inclusive and nuanced understanding of mental health.
---
Conclusion
Reflecting on the concept of deviation from ideal mental health, it is clear that Jahoda’s vision challenged psychologists to think more holistically about psychological well-being. By proposing a set of positive criteria, she redirected focus from pathology to possibility, shaping practice and policy in the UK and beyond. Nevertheless, the model is not without flaws: it struggles with measurement, cultural bias, and the temptation to pathologise adaptively human responses.An integrated perspective is required—one that values the aspirational ideals of growth and well-being, whilst recognising contextual and cultural variability, and avoiding one-size-fits-all judgements. In a diverse, ever-changing society, mental health care and assessment must be both compassionate and flexible, supporting all people to pursue their individual paths toward flourishing, whatever form that may take. Such an approach is most likely to foster genuine well-being in clinical settings, schools, and communities alike.
Rate:
Log in to rate the work.
Log in