In 2025 and 2026, the French government has decided to making mental health a major national cause.
This decision marks a major symbolic and political turning point, officially recognising the extent of psychological suffering in the population and the need to tackle it collectively.
In a context marked by the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, changes in the world of work, economic uncertainties and social upheaval, mental health has emerged as a central issue, affecting both individuals and society as a whole.
For generations, psychological suffering was a taboo subject
Disorders such as schizophrenia and autism were poorly understood, and sufferers were often excluded from society. Even common, milder psychological difficulties such as anxiety and depression were treated with secrecy and violence.
We have certainly come a long way in being able to talk openly about our psychological and emotional lives. Psychotherapy, once a subject as taboo as mental illness itself, is now commonplace.
The health insurance scheme reimburses 12 sessions with a psychologist per year, and programmes such as En thérapie have popularised the practice (even if not everyone agrees that this is a realistic representation of psychotherapy!)
However, while there seems to be a consensus on mental health promotion, the concept itself merits close examination:
- What does it really cover?
- Is it universal, objective and scientifically sound?
- Or is it a social, cultural and political construct that is open to criticism?
In this article, we look at the meaning of the concept of mental health, how it has evolved and the debates it has given rise to.
Defining mental health: between well-being and normality
Historically, the concept of mental health developed in opposition to that of mental illness. In the 19th century, psychiatry focused mainly on serious disorders (psychoses, delusions, etc.).
Gradually, in the 20th century, the field broadened to include more diffuse forms of psychological distress: anxiety, depression and stress.
Today, the concept of mental health encompasses a continuum from well-being to serious disorders.
Mental health is often defined, notably by the World Health Organisation, as a state of well-being in which a person can fulfil their potential, cope with the normal stresses of life, work productively and contribute to their community. This definition emphasises the positive dimensions of well-being, adaptation and capacity for action.
However, this approach raises a number of questions.
Firstly, it seems to set an ideal that is difficult to achieve. Who can really claim to be consistently able to manage stress, work effectively and contribute to society?
Secondly, it introduces an implicit norm: being mentally healthy means being functional in a specific social context. This can lead to a confusion between health and conformity.
A contemporary awareness
There is no doubt that mental health problems affect most, if not all, of us at some point in our lives.
- 13 million people are affected by a mental health problem every year in France. This is true regardless of social background or age: children and adolescents are also affected.
- 3 million people live with serious mental disorders (SPF data).
- 53 % of French people say they have experienced mental distress in the last twelve months, according to Ifop.
The recognition of mental health as a major national cause is part of a wider awareness of the prevalence of psychological suffering and the importance of open-mindedness in combating it.
Several factors have contributed to this development.
- The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the impact of health crises on mental well-being: isolation, uncertainty, grief and emotional overload. Young people, in particular, were identified as a vulnerable population.
- Changes in the world of work - job insecurity, increasing workloads, loss of meaning - have increased psychosocial risks. Burn-out, once considered a marginal problem, is now the subject of much debate.
- At the same time, social networks and the media have helped to bring mental health issues to the forefront, while encouraging a more open debate. Public figures are sharing their experiences, helping to reduce stigma.
In this context, making mental health a political priority seems to be a necessary response. This makes it possible to mobilise resources, raise public awareness and strengthen care systems.
The limits of the concept
Despite its undeniable importance, the concept of mental health is far from neutral. A number of criticisms have been levelled at it.
Too broad a definition
One of the main criticisms concerns the broadening of the scope of mental health. By including common experiences such as stress, sadness or worry, the concept risks pathologising normal emotions. The line between what is normal and what is pathological becomes blurred.
For example, feeling anxious before an exam or sad after a break-up is a natural human reaction. However, if we define mental health too broadly, these states can be interpreted as symptoms requiring intervention.
The medicalisation of life
This expansion is part of a wider phenomenon of the medicalisation of everyday life. Aspects of life previously considered to be moral, philosophical or social are now addressed in medical terms.
Mental health thus becomes a dominant prism through which to interpret life's difficulties. This can lead to an emphasis on individual solutions (therapy, medication) to the detriment of a reflection on the social or political causes of suffering.
For example, an employee in distress may be referred to a psychologist, without any thought being given to the working conditions that are causing the distress.
An implicit social norm
Mental health is rooted in cultural norms.
What is considered healthy behaviour in one society may not be in another. Just as it is more common in French culture to «give la bise» as a greeting (although less so since Covid) than in English-speaking cultures, for example.
The expression of emotions, relationships with work or family, the way we deal with grief and many other psychological markers vary considerably according to cultural contexts.
Promoting a universal vision of mental health can obscure these differences, raising the question of the imposition of standards from one culture on others.
In addition, the emphasis placed by mental health discourse on performance, autonomy and resilience reflects values specific to contemporary societies. Being in good mental health often means being able to adapt to the demands that society places on us in order to be docile citizens and workers.
Implicit in the notion of mental health is the idea that we MUST be mentally healthy, and that mental health is the equivalent of being happy and «normal». If we fail to meet this requirement, we may feel guilty, or feel that there is something wrong with us.
But there's absolutely nothing wrong with not being happy!
Sometimes being unhappy is even «healthy». If we've just lost our job, if we're suffering from a serious illness or if we've lost a loved one, happiness would be a strange reaction.
Even if we are diagnosed with a psychological «disorder», it's important to remember that «normality» is part of a continuum.
The political challenges of mental health
Mental health is not just an individual or medical issue: it is also a political issue.
A collective responsibility?
By making mental health a major national cause, the State is acknowledging its responsibility in terms of public policy: funding of care, prevention, training of professionals, etc., all measures that should be welcomed.
However, this recognition can be ambivalent.
- On the one hand, it helps to improve access to care, which is a very good thing.
- On the other hand, it can be accompanied by a discourse that places the burden of responsibility on individuals: everyone must take care of their mental health, learn to manage stress and develop resilience.
This transfer of responsibility to the individual can obscure the wider causes of suffering: social inequalities, precarious living conditions and discrimination.
The economics of mental health
Mental health has also become a market. Meditation applications, coaching, personal development: there are many products and services that promise to improve well-being, but it's not always clear which approaches and practices are reliable.
While the ’wellness industry« can help to reduce stigma and improve accessibility, it can also perpetuate a consumerist mentality, where wellness becomes a goal to be achieved by buying miracle solutions.
Towards a more nuanced approach
My aim as a psychologist is not to reject the concept of mental health, but to approach it with nuance.
Recognising suffering without reducing it
As a psychologist, I aim to recognise the reality of psychological suffering and propose an appropriate response in the form of psychotherapy (of course, some problems also or rather require medical treatment, and the form of psychotherapy I practise may not be suitable for everyone!).
However, it is important not to reduce every difficulty to a medical problem. Some forms of suffering have social, existential or relational roots.
I am firmly convinced that psychotherapy can be useful for most forms of psychological suffering, from the most serious and persistent disorders (where it will generally have to be part of a global approach), to everyday forms of anxiety, sadness and distress.
Balance between the individual and the community
My therapeutic approach integrates the individual and collective dimensions. Taking care of ourselves is important, but we must also take into account the importance of the social and cultural determinants of our inner life.
Accepting the complexity of the human experience
Mental health is not a stable, perfect state. It fluctuates and is linked to life events that are often unpredictable.
Rather than aiming for permanent well-being, it may be more realistic to see mental health as the ability to overcome difficulties, make sense of experiences and maintain desired relationships.
As psychiatrist Matthieu Bellhausen puts it, Great health was not the absence of conflict, but the ability to live with conflict.«
Conclusion
The designation of mental health as a major national cause in 2025 and 2026 reflects a necessary shift in public awareness. It paves the way for much-needed public policies and greater recognition of psychological suffering.
However, the concept of mental health merits closer examination. Its definition, uses and implications raise important questions. As a tool of understanding, a social norm and a political issue, it cannot be approached in a simplistic manner.
By its nature, much psychotherapeutic work is done on a one-to-one basis, as it requires confidentiality. However, in my practice I offer a space where the wider context can be integrated into the work where appropriate; where we can reflect together on how our environment contributes to the way we think, feel and relate to others.
People often come to therapy to «feel better», and they often report an improvement in their symptoms soon after starting work. But «feeling better» doesn't necessarily mean leaving the therapist's surgery jumping up and down with joy, although some days it can look like that!
Sometimes it simply means accepting the sadness you feel, or sharing it with someone else by talking about it.
My definition of mental health is not happiness, but the ability to get through life's ups and downs with a degree of strength and flexibility.
