Anthropological studies discovered that dysfunctional behaviour or abnormality is understood differently, and consequently mental illnesses are treated differently across cultures. Furthermore, meanwhile cultural differences in meanings of dysfunctional behaviour do exist, yet these differences do not foster the contention that psychological instability is altogether socially developed (Williams & Healy, 2001). To substantiate this, McCabe and Priebe (2004) contend that explanatory models of dysfunction may contrast between cultural groups and impact treatment fulfilment and consistency. In addition to that, the research findings from the above-mentioned study suggested that when genetic or scientific and supernatural explanations for disorders were thought about, Whites referred to scientific causes more recurrently than Africans, who referred to supernatural causes more regularly. The understanding and conceptualisation of mental illness might be affected by socio-cultural factors, yet the innate idea of abnormality may compel the
40
conceivable differences of those translations. Subsequently, while anthropologists recognise the different explanatory models with respect to dysfunctional behaviour, similarities prevail over societies that point to both the impact of culture and the inborn idea of mental illnesses (Williams
& Healy, 2001). In line with this understanding, Kleinman in 1978 developed explanatory models out of the analysis of Western diagnosis classifications. He discredits that these classifications are themselves culture-free elements, however, comparatively contends that these diagnostic classifications are explanatory models of Western worldview and culture, and therefore inform an officially existing phenomenon which is dependent on the Western cultural setting. Along these lines, sickness is viewed as a sociocultural phenomenon. Furthermore, it is worth noting that social experiences contrast between communities; cultural groups; practitioners; and even people, consequently these distinctions may influence the manner by which people consider and respond to disorder, alternate and assess the viability of the medicinal services accessible to them. Equally important, explanatory models were also created to contrast the frameworks of clinicians and clients, this was grounded on the reason that it is imperative to inspect the relationship and outcomes of the relation between the clients' thoughts; their health issues; and the thought of their healthcare professional (Kometsi, 2016). To substantiate this, Petkari (2015) posits that indeed, clients and helpers establish their own explanatory models for psychological maladjustment considering their cultural knowledge, and the disharmony between those models may negatively affect treatment sought by the clients. For instance, clinicians and clients may have different beliefs and values, and this affects the process of psychological services that will be rendered; and the healing therefore.
According to Williams and Healy (2001), the explanatory models presume that people construct the world in which they live in and through these constructs they make sense of and understand the social world; such constructions are self-sustaining and self-renewing. The term explanatory models (EM) refer to the person’s perception of the nature; the aetiology; and the consequences of their problem, as well as their help-seeking preferences (Kometsi, 2016; McCabe &Priebe, 2004;
Petkari, 2015; Sorsdahl et al., 2010). Furthermore, explanatory models give a structure and foundation to look at how abnormality is theorised or perceived; the persons’ reaction to illness;
and from where treatment is sought. Medical anthropologists used these approaches to grasp the essentialness of symptoms; their aetiology; onset; possible course; seriousness; and most fitting form of treatment (Charles, Manoranjitham& Jacob, 2007). In addition to that, Kometsi (2016)
41
states that help-seeking; adapting to the dysfunction; compliance to the treatment; and clients’
satisfaction of the treatment is considered as different parts of human conduct that are as well affected by explanatory models. Moreover, explanatory models are normally a mixture of emic and etic perspectives which include ethnocultural; individual; and distinguishing convictions and segments (Charles et al., (2007). More importantly, Melato (2000) contends that explanatory models are an establishment of indigenous African cosmological, religious, and social perspectives of dysfunction and health. Additionally, explanatory models of illness and health are theoretical frameworks for understanding illness and health within the context of the people being studied and are frameworks for understanding the causes which people attribute to illness. Equally important, explanatory models are not stable and unchanging, rather recurrently eccentric, alterable, perpetual, and intensely impacted by both a persons’ identity; the therapeutic context; and sociocultural elements. In addition to that, an individual's cultural attributes are again not rigid or unchangeable, but rather perpetually changing and influenced by social; religious; educational; and political components (Charles et al., 2007; Petkari, 2015).
Social construction frameworks, specifically the explanatory models of psychological instability, are important for this current study to expand comprehension of individuals’ consciousness of and convictions about dysfunctional behaviour. Most importantly, the explanatory models of disease immensely help individuals to adapt to and understand a sickness as a social reality and experience.
Substantially, explanatory models clarify and impact the significance and desires that individuals have about a specific ailment (Kometsi, 2016). According to Williams and Healy (2001), the majority of cultures and communities have set up structures for the understanding of aetiology;
symptoms; and treatment of the ailment, where these are deliberately characterised as the framework they might be viewed as a folk illness. However, this does not prevent the truth from claiming the experience of that it may likewise be viewed as a disease by mental health professionals yet essentially portrays how public perceives and understand the phenomena. On the other hand, Kometsi (2016) asserts that it is imperative to take note of that, distinctly from being socio-culturally developed, explanatory models of sickness are as well impacted by other contextual elements, these include but are not limited to level of literacy; social and economic status; occupation; ethnicity; religious connection; and prior experience with disease and healthcare.
42