Reconceptualizing Mental Health: Beyond the DSM-5

• Cultural Sensitivity
• DSM-5
• Dimensionality
• Holistic Wellness
• Mental Health
• Mental Models
• Neurodivergence
• Psychiatry

Introduction: Reconceptualizing Mental Health Beyond DSM-5

Mental health, an intricate and profoundly subjective phenomenon, transcends simplistic categorizations. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), a pivotal yet controversial tool in psychiatry, endeavors to encapsulate the vast expanse of human psychological experiences within rigid, one-dimensional classifications. This compendium, ubiquitously employed by clinicians and researchers globally, has indelibly influenced the discourse and praxis surrounding mental health. However, the DSM-5’s reductionist approach frequently truncates the complexity of human experiences, relegating individuals to a mere assemblage of symptomatic criteria. Although these labels can provide a semblance of structure and direction for therapeutic intervention, they simultaneously constrict individuals within predetermined confines, neglecting the intricate nuances of their lived realities.

In this essay, we shall embark on a critical examination of the DSM-5’s inherent limitations, advocating for a more dynamic, multidimensional paradigm in the comprehension of mental health. We shall traverse the historical evolution of the DSM-5, scrutinize the real-world repercussions of its application, and elucidate the escalating phenomenon of self-labeling. Furthermore, through the exploration of specific case studies—bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, and neurodivergent conditions such as autism and ADHD—we shall illuminate the deficiencies of extant labeling practices and delineate the potential advantages of a more flexible, contextually sensitive model. Ultimately, we shall propose a reclassification of mental health conditions that harmonizes with both psychological intricacies and spiritual dimensions, offering a progressive trajectory that embraces the multifaceted nature of mental well-being.

The History and Origins of the DSM-5

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), represents the latest iteration in a series of publications that have profoundly shaped the field of psychiatry for over half a century. Its origins trace back to the early 20th century, a period marked by an increasing impetus to standardize psychiatric diagnoses across diverse clinical settings. The inaugural edition of the DSM, published in 1952, was a modest endeavor, cataloging slightly over a hundred disorders, yet it signaled the beginning of an era of psychiatric codification¹.

Over subsequent decades, the DSM evolved, reflecting not only the expanding corpus of psychiatric knowledge but also the shifting cultural and societal norms that influence mental health discourse. By the time the DSM-5 was unveiled in 2013, it had burgeoned into a comprehensive compendium, encompassing nearly 300 disorders, each meticulously delineated by specific diagnostic criteria¹. The development of the DSM-5 was a rigorous process, involving extensive research and deliberation among leading mental health professionals, with the stated objective of creating a more precise and inclusive diagnostic tool².

However, despite its ambition and scope, the DSM-5 has not been immune to criticism. Detractors argue that the manual tends to over-pathologize behaviors that could be considered within the spectrum of normal human experience, thereby transforming everyday emotions and behaviors into medicalized conditions³. Additionally, the DSM-5 has been critiqued for its cultural biases, as it predominantly reflects Western perspectives on mental health, often neglecting the diverse and culturally contingent ways in which mental health is understood and expressed across the globe².

Additionally, the DSM-5’s reliance on symptom-based checklists as the primary method for defining mental disorders has been a point of contention. This method, while facilitating standardized diagnoses, frequently oversimplifies the complexity of mental health, reducing the rich tapestry of individual experiences to a series of binary tick boxes. Consequently, diagnoses derived from this approach may not always encapsulate the underlying nuances of an individual’s mental health, leading to classifications that are at once both reductive and potentially misleading⁴.

The Real-World Consequences of the DSM-5 and Self-Labeling

The influence of the DSM-5 extends far beyond the confines of clinical practice, permeating the fabric of everyday life and shaping how individuals conceptualize and label their own mental health. One of the most profound real-world consequences of the DSM-5 is its role in the oversimplification and over-categorization of mental health conditions. By distilling complex human experiences into a list of discrete symptoms, the DSM-5 promulgates a reductive view of mental health, wherein individuals are expediently categorized and treated based on rigid diagnostic criteria. This approach has precipitated a concerning trend toward over-medication, as healthcare providers frequently resort to these labels to justify pharmacological interventions, often without a comprehensive exploration of the underlying psychosocial factors contributing to an individual's distress².

The issue of over-medication, particularly with psychotropic drugs, has reached alarming proportions, with many individuals being prescribed multiple medications to manage an array of symptoms. While these pharmaceuticals can be indispensable for some, they are not without significant side effects and can engender a dependency that further complicates the individual’s mental health landscape². Furthermore, the DSM-5’s propensity to pathologize normal human behaviors—redefining common experiences such as sadness or anxiety as medical conditions—exacerbates this problem, placing undue stress on individuals and straining an already overburdened healthcare system².

Compounding these issues is the prolific trend of self-labeling, which has become particularly prevalent on social media platforms like TikTok. In these digital spaces, individuals often self-diagnose based on cursory descriptions or shared experiences, creating an echo chamber where certain labels become fashionable and widely adopted⁴. For instance, conditions like anxiety, depression, and ADHD have gained substantial traction on these platforms, often based on generalized symptoms that many people encounter at various points in their lives. This trend has fostered a culture where self-diagnosis is not only commonplace but also celebrated, despite the inherent risks of mislabeling and misunderstanding⁵.

As Bhattacharjee notes, "the constant comparison to others on social media can create a sense of inadequacy and dissatisfaction with one's own life, leading to a negative impact on mental health"⁶. Beyond that, social media often presents a distorted view of reality, showcasing only the positive aspects of life while hiding struggles and challenges, thereby creating unrealistic expectations. This environment fosters the widespread self-diagnosis of conditions like anxiety and depression based on generalized symptoms shared online. The echo chamber effect amplifies these self-diagnoses, blurring the line between clinical diagnoses and normal variations of human experience, leading to a society increasingly focused on labels rather than the holistic well-being of individuals.

Case Studies: Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, Depression, Anxiety, and Neurodivergent Conditions

The limitations of the DSM-5 become particularly pronounced when one examines specific mental health conditions such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, and neurodivergent conditions like autism and ADHD. While these labels ostensibly provide a framework for diagnosis, they frequently fail to encapsulate the full spectrum of experiences that individuals with these conditions endure. The DSM-5’s approach, rooted in symptomatology, often neglects the deeper psychological, environmental, and cultural dimensions that contribute to the manifestation and experience of these disorders.

Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia

Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are two of the most misunderstood and heavily stigmatized mental health conditions. Individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder are often labeled based on the presence of manic or depressive episodes, yet these labels do not adequately capture the variability in how these episodes manifest or the underlying causes that precipitate them. The DSM-5’s focus on symptoms such as “pressured speech” or “flight of ideas” reduces the complexity of the disorder to a mere checklist, ignoring the broader context of the individual’s emotional depth, environmental triggers, and psychosocial factors.

Schizophrenia is similarly reduced to a series of symptoms such as hallucinations or delusions, which are often pathologized without considering the context in which they occur. According to Ghaemi, the DSM-5’s approach "pathologizes normal experiences, ignoring the broader context in which they occur"⁷. The DSM-5 categorizes these experiences as abnormal, yet from a metaphysical perspective, these symptoms could be seen as reflections of a person’s deeper consciousness or as manifestations of their struggle with reality. The rigid labeling in the DSM-5 can prevent individuals from exploring these aspects of their experiences, limiting their understanding and potential for growth.

Depression and Anxiety

Depression and anxiety are among the most frequently diagnosed mental health conditions globally, yet their prevalence reveals significant flaws in the DSM-5’s approach. These conditions are often treated as isolated disorders, detached from the broader systemic issues that may underlie them, such as societal pressures, economic instability, or unresolved personal trauma. The DSM-5’s criteria for depression and anxiety frequently lead to over-diagnosis and, consequently, over-medication, as individuals are swiftly labeled based on symptoms like persistent sadness or excessive worry⁸.

However, these symptoms are not always indicative of a pathological disorder; they can also be natural responses to life’s vicissitudes. By labeling these experiences as disorders, the DSM-5 inadvertently pathologizes normal human emotions, leading to interventions that may not address the root causes of an individual’s distress. On top of that, the widespread prescription of antidepressants and anxiolytics, while beneficial for some, can foster dependency and produce side effects that further complicate an individual’s mental health journey⁹.

Neurodivergent Conditions

Neurodivergent conditions like autism and ADHD present another challenge to the DSM-5’s rigid categorization. These conditions are often understood through a deficit model, where the focus is on what the individual lacks compared to neurotypical standards. For example, ADHD has historically been treated with medications like lithium to curb hyperactivity, which often led to negative consequences such as cognitive dulling and emotional numbing³. The DSM-5’s approach to ADHD and autism typically emphasizes the management of symptoms rather than understanding the unique strengths and perspectives these individuals bring.

The DSM-5’s labeling of neurodivergent conditions often ignores the broader context of a person’s life, including their environment, relationships, and personal goals. This narrow focus can lead to interventions that suppress rather than support the individual’s natural tendencies, preventing them from fully realizing their potential. In contrast, a more holistic approach would recognize the diversity of neurodivergent experiences and encourage supportive environments that allow these individuals to thrive.

The Global Mental Health Crisis and Its Roots in Imperialism and Capitalism

The global mental health crisis is not merely a manifestation of individual pathology; it is inextricably linked to the pervasive structures of imperialism and capitalism that have come to dominate much of the world. These systems, driven by an insatiable pursuit of profit and power, engender environments that are inherently stressful, exploitative, and alienating. As a result, the mental health of individuals within these systems is continually imperiled, with the relentless pressures of daily life precipitating widespread anxiety, depression, and other mental health conditions.

Imperialism as a Root Cause

Imperialism, in its various forms, has had a devastating impact on the mental health of populations around the world. The legacy of colonialism continues to affect the mental well-being of people in formerly colonized nations, where the imposition of foreign cultures, languages, and values has led to a loss of identity and cultural dislocation¹⁰. This cultural erasure, combined with the economic exploitation that often accompanies imperialism, creates a breeding ground for mental health issues. The displacement, marginalization, and systemic oppression that result from imperialist practices leave individuals and communities struggling with trauma, loss, and a deep sense of alienation.

Capitalism’s Impact on Mental Health

Capitalism, with its emphasis on productivity, competition, and consumerism, exacerbates these issues by creating a society where self-worth is often measured by economic success. In such a system, individuals are pressured to constantly perform, compete, and consume, leading to chronic stress and anxiety¹¹. The commodification of every aspect of life under capitalism, from education to healthcare, means that even basic needs are tied to financial success, further intensifying the pressures on individuals. Those who struggle to meet these demands are often left feeling inadequate, leading to feelings of depression, anxiety, and hopelessness.

Moreover, capitalism promotes individualism at the expense of community, undermining the social support networks that are essential for mental well-being. The isolation and fragmentation of communities, driven by the demands of the capitalist economy, leave many individuals without the social connections that are crucial for coping with life’s challenges. This lack of social support, combined with the relentless pursuit of profit, leads to a society where mental health issues are not just common but are often exacerbated by the very systems that are supposed to support us¹².

The Need for Systemic Change:

Addressing the global mental health crisis requires more than just individual treatment; it necessitates a fundamental change in the systems that contribute to this crisis. This means challenging the structures of imperialism and capitalism that prioritize profit over people and view mental health as an individual issue rather than a societal one¹³. By addressing the root causes of mental health issues, such as economic inequality, social injustice, and cultural dislocation, we can begin to create a society that supports mental well-being for all.

A systemic approach also demands a reevaluation of how mental health is understood and treated on a global scale. Different cultures possess diverse understandings of mental health, and these perspectives must be respected and integrated into any global mental health framework. This necessitates moving beyond a one-size-fits-all model, such as the DSM-5, toward a more inclusive, culturally sensitive approach that acknowledges the richness and diversity of human experience.

Comparing the DSM-5 to the Global Context

While the DSM-5 stands as a dominant force in the realm of mental health diagnosis and treatment within the United States and other Western nations, it is far from the sole framework employed on a global scale. Diverse cultures and healthcare systems have cultivated their own paradigms for understanding and addressing mental health, often presenting stark contrasts to the DSM-5’s approach. By juxtaposing the DSM-5 with these international models, we can more fully appreciate its limitations and underscore the critical importance of cultural sensitivity in the domain of mental health care.

The ICD-11 and a Broader Perspective

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD), now in its 11th edition, is widely used across the globe as a comprehensive framework for diagnosing and treating health conditions, including mental health disorders. Unlike the DSM-5, which is singularly focused on mental health, the ICD encompasses a broad spectrum of diseases and health conditions, situating mental health within the wider context of overall health. This broader perspective facilitates a more integrated approach to treatment, recognizing that mental health cannot be fully comprehended in isolation from physical health, social circumstances, and environmental influences¹⁴.

The ICD-11 also tends to be less prescriptive than the DSM-5, offering more flexibility in how mental health conditions are diagnosed and treated. This flexibility is particularly important in culturally diverse contexts, where the manifestations of mental health conditions can vary widely. For example, the ICD-11 allows for the consideration of cultural norms and practices in diagnosing mental health conditions, acknowledging that what is considered a disorder in one culture might be seen as normal or even positive in another¹⁵.

Eastern Approaches to Mental Health

In many Eastern cultures, mental health is understood in ways that differ significantly from the Western medical model. For instance, traditional Chinese medicine views mental health as a balance between the body's energies, with mental health issues arising when this balance is disrupted. Similarly, in India, Ayurveda treats mental health as part of the overall harmony between the body, mind, and spirit, with an emphasis on holistic treatments that include diet, lifestyle, and spiritual practices¹⁶.

These Eastern approaches stand in contrast to the DSM-5’s tendency to categorize and treat mental health conditions based solely on symptomatology. Eastern models often prioritize prevention, balance, and the interconnectedness of physical and mental health over the diagnosis and treatment of discrete disorders. This holistic perspective provides valuable insights into mental health, highlighting the limitations of the DSM-5’s more reductionist approach.

Indigenous Models of Mental Health

Indigenous cultures around the world have their own unique understandings of mental health, often rooted in a deep connection to community, land, and spirituality. In many Indigenous cultures, mental health is not seen as an individual issue but as something that is deeply interconnected with the well-being of the community and the natural world¹⁷. For example, in many Native American cultures, mental health issues are understood as a disruption in the harmony between the individual, their community, and the environment.

These Indigenous models emphasize the importance of community support, traditional practices, and a deep connection to the natural world in maintaining mental health. They challenge the DSM-5’s focus on individual pathology, offering a more relational and ecological perspective on mental well-being. By acknowledging and integrating these Indigenous perspectives, mental health care can become more inclusive and respectful of the diverse ways in which mental health is understood across cultures.

The Importance of Cultural Sensitivity

The comparison of the DSM-5 with these international models accentuates the critical importance of cultural sensitivity in mental health care. Mental health cannot be reduced to a universal formula; it is inherently shaped by cultural, social, and environmental factors that vary widely across the globe. While the DSM-5’s rigid categories and symptom-based approach may be effective in some contexts, they can be restrictive or even detrimental in others.

To provide truly effective mental health care, it is imperative to move beyond the DSM-5’s narrow framework and embrace a more flexible, culturally sensitive approach. This entails recognizing the value of diverse cultural perspectives on mental health and being open to integrating these perspectives into mental health care practices. By doing so, we can create a more inclusive and effective system that better meets the needs of individuals in a complex and interconnected world.

The Multidimensional Model of Mental Health

The prevailing approach to mental health, epitomized by the DSM-5, frequently falls short in capturing the full complexity of human experiences. By distilling mental health conditions into a mere checklist of symptoms, the DSM-5 overlooks the intricate interplay of various factors that contribute to an individual’s mental well-being. To address these shortcomings, we propose a multidimensional model of mental health that offers a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of mental health conditions.

Psychosocial Dynamics Space

Axis 1: The Label Location in Space

The first axis of the model represents the label or diagnosis itself. In the traditional DSM-5 framework, this label is static and defines the individual based on a set of symptoms. However, in the multidimensional model, the label is seen as a point in mental space that locates the individual within a broader spectrum of experiences. This approach acknowledges that a diagnosis is not a fixed identity but a reference point that can change as the individual’s experiences evolve¹⁸.

Axis 2: The Broader Area of Symptoms

The second axis represents the connection between an individual’s specific symptoms and the broader range of symptoms associated with their diagnosis. This axis acknowledges that while individuals may share a diagnosis, the intensity, combination, and interaction of their symptoms can vary significantly. By mapping these connections, the multidimensional model allows for a more nuanced understanding of how symptoms relate to each other and how they contribute to the overall mental health experience. This axis highlights the complexity of mental health conditions, where symptoms are not isolated but exist within a larger network that influences the individual’s experience¹⁹.

Axis 3: Depth – Internal Factors

The third axis represents the depth of the mental health condition within the individual. It delves into how deeply the symptoms and experiences affect the person's inner world, including their psyche, emotional state, and cognitive processes. This axis allows for a richer understanding of how layered and profound the condition is internally, acknowledging that some conditions may be deeply embedded in the person’s psyche, influencing their overall sense of self and worldview¹⁹.

Axis 4: External Factors – The Societal and Cultural Context

The fourth axis represents the external factors that influence an individual’s mental health. These factors include societal expectations, cultural norms, economic conditions, and environmental influences. By incorporating this axis into the model, we recognize that mental health is not solely an internal issue but is deeply affected by the world around us. This axis helps to contextualize the individual’s mental health within the larger social and cultural framework, providing a more holistic understanding of their condition²⁰.

Sociocultural Impact Space

Axis 1: Social Identity – Connection to Label

This axis in the intersectional space correlates with the Label axis in the main model. It represents how an individual's social identity—such as race, gender, sexuality, or socioeconomic status—intersects with their mental health label. The connection between social identity and mental health labels can significantly influence how a person experiences their condition, how they are treated by others, and how they access care. For example, the stigma associated with certain diagnoses may be amplified or diminished depending on a person's social identity²¹.

Axis 2: Cultural Context – Connection of Symptoms

This axis relates to the Connection of Symptoms axis in the main model. It represents the cultural context in which symptoms are experienced and interpreted. Cultural background can influence how symptoms are perceived, expressed, and managed. For example, what is considered a symptom of a disorder in one culture might be seen as a normal behavior in another. This axis acknowledges that cultural norms and values shape the experience of mental health and the connection between different symptoms¹⁸.

Axis 3: Economic Impact – Depth of Internal Experience

This axis corresponds to the Depth of Internal Experience axis in the main model. It represents how economic factors—such as financial stability, access to resources, and employment status—impact the depth and intensity of a person’s mental health condition. Economic pressures can exacerbate the internal experience of mental health conditions, making symptoms more severe or more difficult to manage. This axis recognizes that the economic environment in which a person lives plays a critical role in the depth of their mental health experiences²².

Connecting the Two Spaces: Mental Health and Intersectionality

The concept of intersectionality is crucial in understanding how various aspects of an individual’s identity interact to shape their mental health. The multidimensional model connects mental health with intersectionality by recognizing that individuals do not exist in isolation but are influenced by multiple intersecting factors, such as race, gender, sexuality, and socioeconomic status. The Quadricone Prism, a visual representation within the model, illustrates how these intersecting factors can create a unique mental health landscape for each individual. This approach emphasizes the need to consider the whole person, rather than focusing on a single aspect of their identity or condition²¹.

Benefits of the 3D Model

The multidimensional model offers several advantages over the traditional DSM-5 approach. First, it provides a more nuanced and personalized understanding of mental health, recognizing that individuals are not defined by their diagnosis but by their unique experiences. Second, it incorporates external factors, such as societal and cultural influences, which are often overlooked in traditional models. Third, the dynamic nature of the multidimensional model allows for a more flexible and adaptive approach to mental health care, where individuals are seen as constantly evolving rather than being confined to a fixed label¹⁹.

By adopting the 3D model, mental health professionals can offer more holistic and culturally sensitive care, better meeting the needs of individuals in a diverse and complex world. This model not only addresses the limitations of the DSM-5 but also provides a framework for understanding mental health in a way that is inclusive, dynamic, and responsive to the realities of human experience.

Renaming of Mental Health Conditions

The terminology used in mental health, particularly as defined by the DSM-5, often fails to encapsulate the full complexity and variability of the conditions it seeks to label. Traditional labels, rooted in a medicalized model of mental health, can inadvertently pathologize behaviors and states of being that may, in other contexts, be understood as natural variations of human experience. To move toward a more comprehensive and compassionate understanding of mental health, it is essential to consider renaming these conditions in a way that better reflects both the psychological and spiritual dimensions of these experiences.

The Case for Renaming

Traditional labels such as "bipolar disorder," "schizophrenia," and "autism" are laden with historical baggage and stigma. These terms often reduce complex and multifaceted experiences to a set of symptoms, effectively diminishing the individual's lived experience. Furthermore, these labels are frequently rooted in outdated concepts of mental health that do not adequately account for the interplay between mind, body, and spirit.

For example, "bipolar disorder" might be reframed to reflect the energy dynamics within an individual, recognizing that what is often labeled as mania or depression could be understood as fluctuations in energy levels or vibrational states. Such a renaming could help reduce the stigma associated with these conditions, allowing for a more holistic approach to treatment that honors the individual’s experience²³.

Similarly, "schizophrenia" could be reinterpreted to acknowledge the possibility that individuals might be perceiving reality on a different plane rather than simply being disconnected from reality. This perspective aligns with research that suggests a more nuanced understanding of what is often labeled as psychosis, where altered states of consciousness may play a role in these experiences.

Examples of Renaming:

• Bipolar Disorder might be retitled as "Dynamic Energy Syndrome" to better reflect the cyclical fluctuations in energy and mood that characterize the condition.
• Schizophrenia could be redefined as "Multi-Reality Experience," acknowledging the possibility that individuals may be engaging with multiple levels of reality.
• Depression might be reclassified as "Temporal Disconnect Disorder," emphasizing the individual's struggle with past-focused thinking that detracts from their present experience.
• Anxiety could be reinterpreted as "Future-Oriented Stress Response," highlighting the anticipatory worry that defines the condition.
• Autism could be redefined as "Sensory Processing Divergence," focusing on the unique ways that individuals process sensory information.
• ADHD might be relabeled as "Energetic Focus Divergence," underscoring the divergent ways in which individuals with ADHD allocate their energy, encompassing both hyperactivity and intense focus on specific tasks.

These redefinitions aim to shift the focus from pathology to a broader, more empathetic understanding of the individual’s experience. By renaming these conditions, we can begin to dismantle the barriers of stigma and foster a more inclusive and supportive environment for those navigating mental health challenges.

Implications of Renaming

Renaming mental health conditions would not only change how these conditions are perceived by society but also how they are treated. By adopting terminology that emphasizes the individual’s unique experience and the interplay between internal and external factors, mental health professionals can approach treatment in a more holistic and person-centered way. This could lead to more effective interventions that consider the whole person, rather than just addressing symptoms in isolation²⁴

In addition, the renaming process would align seamlessly with the multidimensional model discussed earlier, which emphasizes the dynamic and interconnected nature of mental health. By employing language that mirrors this complexity, we can better support individuals on their mental health journeys, helping them to understand that their experiences are valid and that they are not merely defined by a diagnosis.

Planting the Seeds for Future Exploration

As we continue to deepen our understanding of mental health, the concepts introduced in this essay form the groundwork for a broader exploration into how various aspects of identity, experience, and environment intersect to shape mental well-being. The multidimensional model and the redefined terminology represent the beginning of this journey, offering a dynamic framework that acknowledges the intricate and multidimensional nature of mental health.

Conclusion

The current approach to mental health, as institutionalized in the DSM-5, has provided a necessary framework for diagnosis and treatment, but it also imposes significant limitations. The DSM-5's rigid categorization of mental health conditions often oversimplifies the vast and varied experiences of individuals, reducing complex human emotions and behaviors to a set of diagnostic criteria. This reductionist approach has led to over-medication, over-pathologization, and a focus on control rather than understanding, ultimately stifling the holistic care that individuals require.

The rise of self-labeling on platforms like TikTok further complicates the mental health landscape. While these platforms offer a space for shared experiences, they also create echo chambers that reinforce superficial understandings of mental health conditions. The DSM-5's influence permeates these discussions, leading to a culture where labels are adopted without the nuance and depth that a professional diagnosis might provide.

In response to these challenges, this essay has proposed the renaming of mental health conditions to better align with both psychological and spiritual realities. Terms such as "Dynamic Energy Syndrome" for bipolar disorder and "Multi-Reality Experience" for schizophrenia reflect a more nuanced understanding of these conditions. These redefinitions, grounded in the multidimensional model introduced here, emphasize the complexity and interconnectedness of mental health, moving beyond the limitations of the DSM-5.

The justification for these changes lies in the need for a mental health model that embraces the full spectrum of human experience. The proposed Quadricone Prism model offers a framework that acknowledges the interplay between internal and external factors, depth of experience, and cultural context. By moving beyond the DSM-5, this model provides a path forward that is more inclusive, culturally sensitive, and responsive to the realities of those navigating mental health challenges.

As we move forward, the goal is not just to rename and reframe mental health conditions but to fundamentally rethink our approach to mental health. This involves shifting from a focus on symptom control and medication to one of understanding, support, and holistic care. It means embracing the complexity of mental health and recognizing that every individual’s experience is unique, deserving of an approach that honors that individuality.

The journey toward a more comprehensive mental health model is ongoing. This essay provides a foundation, but the work is far from complete. It is a call to action for mental health professionals, policymakers, and society at large to rethink our approach, to move beyond labels and symptoms, and to build a future where mental well-being is understood in all its dimensions.

Citations