A global rise in depression and anxiety has intensified questions about the roots of today’s mental health challenges. In a provocative analysis, a writer argues that shifting cultural norms over the past decades have reshaped how societies understand and respond to mental well-being.
In the Netherlands, health authorities report a notable rise in euthanasia requests tied to psychological suffering. Among Dutch patients who chose euthanasia in 2024, mental distress accounted for about one-tenth of cases. This signals a broader public health challenge that crosses borders and calls for thoughtful, long‑term solutions. Data from Dutch health authorities show that emotional suffering is an increasingly important factor in end‑of‑life decisions, underscoring the need for accessible mental health care and compassionate support.
While many narratives point to the COVID-19 era as a primary driver, the analysis argues that the crisis extends beyond the last few years. The pandemic worsened preexisting vulnerabilities through lockdown isolation, but the roots lie in a culture that medicalizes ordinary emotions and links vulnerability to weakness. This environment can magnify distress and hinder proactive coping.
Experts trace the shift back more than two decades. In a broad study, a Western cultural movement—the therapeutic culture—portrays emotional struggles as threats to personal stability. By the 1990s, emotional intelligence and the celebration of vulnerability were trending, a path amplified by digital technology and social media. Online platforms can intensify loneliness and emotional strain, even as they connect people across the world.
Thailand, with high levels of social media use, faces similar questions about how digital life affects mental health. Thai youth increasingly participate in online communities, yet cultural norms around politeness, saving face, and restraint can complicate open discussions about emotions. This context calls for balanced approaches that foster real-world connection, resilience, and well-being without stigmatizing normal feelings.
The perspective discussed suggests a global therapeutic culture that can inadvertently foster dependency and inaction. It invites educators, clinicians, and families to rethink how resilience is cultivated in schools, communities, and homes. Education systems might benefit from integrating resilience-building and emotional literacy alongside traditional subjects, while aligning with culturally resonant practices such as mindfulness rooted in Thai and Buddhist traditions.
For Thailand, practical steps include promoting mindfulness and open conversations about emotions at home, in schools, and in communities. Encouraging adaptive coping strategies and robust social support networks can help address emotional challenges while respecting cultural norms. Mental health care should be accessible, stigma-free, and culturally sensitive, empowering individuals to seek help when needed.
Ultimately, the discussion reminds readers that addressing mental health requires looking beyond immediate crises to understand the cultural narratives shaping our responses to emotions. Grounding conversations in local context and proven strategies can help Thailand build healthier, more resilient communities.
Data and insights draw from research across Europe and the United Kingdom, illustrating the global scope of this issue. In Thailand, ongoing public health campaigns and community programs play a crucial role in strengthening resilience and fostering healthier attitudes toward emotional well-being.