By Cohort 2 Intern (Mishal Malik)
How often have we heard or ourselves called a struggling individual “crazy” just because they are different? A lot, right? Well, shocker, no shocker, it affects these precious individuals deeply. It is not only stigmatizing, but also harmful and may prevent treatment or cure. These are not mere thoughts but are backed by research as explored in the following paragraphs.
“Crazy” is not just a term, it is a tag put on a person needing help. The term “crazy” is not simply an offensive word; it can contribute to the stigma surrounding mental illness. Monahan et al. (2025) note that societal stigma can lead people experiencing psychosis to delay treatment because they fear being labelled “crazy” or “psychotic.” But why might someone fear being called “crazy” so deeply? From a social perspective, they may fear being judged, isolated, mocked, or treated differently by the people around them. Culturally, mental illness can sometimes be associated with weakness, abnormality, or even something that should be hidden from others. On a personal level, repeatedly being called “crazy” may affect how a person views themselves, making them feel as though their struggles define them. There may also be practical consequences, such as fear of how others at school, work, or even within their family might treat them if they find out they are seeking help.
Moreover, the language used to describe mental illness is not harmless or insignificant. Volkow et al. (2021) explain that “the words we use to describe mental illnesses … can impact the likelihood that people will seek help.” This suggests that stigmatizing terms such as “crazy” may contribute to an environment in which people feel less comfortable seeking mental-health support. Instead of seeing treatment as something normal that can help them, individuals may begin to associate seeking help with being “abnormal” or admitting that something is wrong with them. This can create a cycle where fear of judgment leads to silence, and that silence can prevent people from getting the support they may need.
Experimental research also demonstrates the importance of challenging the association between mental illness and being “crazy.” Vyncke and Van Gorp (2020) found that an anti-stigma message describing people with mental illness as “certainly not abnormal or crazy” reduced desired social distance and stereotype endorsement among some participants.
Mental-health labels can also influence how people categorize others. Schlier and Lincoln (2019) found “implicit categorization” associated with the labels schizophrenia and depression. This supports the concern that reducing someone to a stigmatizing label can encourage people to view them primarily through the lens of their mental illness rather than as an individual. Meaning, a person with OCD, for example, may face overgeneralization where individual human qualities are less visible because the labels may reduce someone to their habits. Their personality, interests, relationships, ambitions and other qualities can become overshadowed by the way people perceive their mental illness. They are not simply their symptoms; they are a human being with an entire identity beyond them.
Now the question arises: does using more inclusive language help reduce stigma? Well, the honest answer is although research does not show that every difference in mental-health terminology automatically changes stigma, Mallinson et al. (2022) emphasize that “it remains important to use language, which shows respect when talking to or about others.” See it as a basic human right to retain someone’s humanity in its true sense.
Setting aside academics, on a philosophical level it makes sense as the importance of respectful language can also be understood through a philosophical perspective. Immanuel Kant’s principle of human dignity holds that people should always be treated as ends in themselves, rather than merely as objects or categories. From this perspective, calling someone with a mental illness “crazy” can be morally problematic because it reduces a complex human being to a stigmatizing label.
So how do we affect change? It can start with something as simple as being more mindful of the language we use. Instead of immediately labelling someone as “crazy,” perhaps we can take a moment to understand what they are experiencing. We can listen without turning someone’s struggles into a joke, avoid making assumptions based on a diagnosis, and encourage people to seek help without making them feel as though needing help makes them less normal. Schools, families, workplaces and communities can all play a role in making conversations about mental health less taboo.
But this change is not only beneficial for the person being called “crazy.” It benefits the person doing the labelling too. When we stop reducing people to stereotypes, we become more open to understanding experiences different from our own. We may become better at communicating, connecting with others and showing empathy. Perhaps by changing the way we speak about mental health, we are not only helping someone else feel seen, but also making ourselves more understanding human beings.
Hence next time one reduces someone to a mere label such as “crazy,” put yourself in their shoes and see: do I deserve to be dehumanized? No, right? Hence the other human also does not.
Maybe the next step is not to completely change the world overnight, but simply to change the way we speak about the people around us. A person struggling with their mental health is still a person first. They are more than their diagnosis, more than their symptoms and certainly more than a label.
References:
Mallinson, M. G., Giannakopoulou, A., & Clements, A. J. (2022). The impact of linguistic form of labels on desire for social distance in mental health. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 22, 1947–1963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-022-00967-y
Monahan, Z., Stone, T., Swami, V., Dunn, K., & Hartwell, M. (2025). The use of person-centered language in scientific research articles focused on psychosis. Journal of Patient-Centered Research and Reviews, 12, 56–62. https://doi.org/10.17294/2330-0698.2120
Schlier, B., & Lincoln, T. M. (2019). The stigma of mental illness: Testing for the implicit bias in diagnostic labels. Psychiatry Research, 275, 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.03.028
Volkow, N. D., Gordon, J. A., & Koob, G. F. (2021). Choosing appropriate language to reduce the stigma around mental illness and substance use disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology, 46, 2230–2232. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-021-01069-4
Vyncke, B., & Van Gorp, B. (2020). Using counterframing strategies to enhance anti-stigma campaigns related to mental illness. Social Science & Medicine, 258, 113090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113090
Editorial Note: This article was developed by a Cohort 2 intern at the Discover Psychology Foundation and is featured in the Intern Works Exhibition.
