A growing wave of psychological research and theory is turning the spotlight away from the individual mind and highlighting the profound impact of relationships on mental health. New arguments from the field of relational psychology challenge the traditional view that mental disorders are rooted solely within the individual, calling for a social and interpersonal understanding of mental wellbeing—a perspective with sweeping implications for how Thai society approaches mental health care.
Traditionally, much of Western psychology and psychiatry has pictured the mind as an isolated entity, separate from the body and the world outside. This perspective, which has shaped global mental health systems—including those in Thailand—traces back centuries to the philosophical ideas of René Descartes and was further entrenched by major figures like Freud. As a result, mainstream diagnoses and treatments from psychodynamic through cognitive-behavioral approaches commonly treat psychological distress as a problem to be fixed within the individual, focusing on internal conflicts, thoughts, or dysfunctions (see: Psychology Today).
This classic “individualistic model” labels conditions as “mental disorders”—implying that something has gone wrong inside a person’s brain. For Thais raised with a strong sense of communal family and society, this Western framing can seem foreign yet is embedded in imported diagnostic criteria, medical training, and policies.
But a rising group of psychologists and psychotherapists are introducing what is known as the “relational model of mind.” This approach sees the mind not as a private chamber, but as fundamentally social—emerging and shaped by interactions, attachments, and the realities of lived relationships. According to this perspective, suffering and psychological distress often arise less from internal faults and more from adverse interpersonal experiences, such as trauma, emotional neglect, abuse, or a lack of connection, especially during formative years.
Proponents of relational psychology point out that while Freud’s early work suggested social and environmental roots of distress, his later models turned inward to stay in step with prevailing scientific norms of his era. However, starting from the 1980s, relational models again gained traction, drawing on attachment theory, infant research, and twentieth-century philosophical movements that rejected the idea of the isolated mind.
Empirical support for the relational model comes from decades of developmental psychology and attachment theory. Research shows that infants are never truly isolated; from birth, they are attuned to caregivers’ emotions and needs, engaging in dynamic exchanges that lay the foundation for psychological well-being. As leading infant research pioneer Colwyn Trevarthen wrote, “the story of human infancy told by philosophers and medical and psychological sciences has been rewritten.” These findings deeply resonate with Thai cultural beliefs in close family ties, extended kin networks, and collectivist values (see: Trevarthen, 2010).
According to the relational model, to address mental suffering, the focus must be on relational repair and supportive social environments, rather than only ‘fixing’ internal faults. This means that therapy and even public health strategies should recognize and heal interpersonal rifts, social traumas, or environmental stressors, especially as they play out in families, workplaces, and communities.
Prominent advocates in the field warn that the continued dominance of the individualistic model is partly due to its fit with Western ideologies of self-sufficiency and capitalism. In contrast, the relational approach not only reframes how we view mental illness but also invites a critique of broader societal and systemic forces that can perpetuate psychological distress—such as inequality, social disconnection, or toxic institutional cultures.
For Thailand, where modernization and urbanization have increased individual pressures and eroded some traditional support networks, these findings offer both a challenge and an opportunity. Local mental health experts, such as senior clinical psychologists at the Department of Mental Health, Ministry of Public Health, have highlighted rising rates of stress, anxiety, and loneliness among urban youth. Community health workers and social scientists have further reported that family breakdowns and social fragmentation are linked to rising mental health problems (WHO Thailand Mental Health Profile).
Embracing a relational framework in Thailand would mean greater investment in community-based mental health, strengthening family cohesion programs, and training practitioners to work with clients’ social networks—not just their private ‘internal worlds.’ Local Buddhist practices, which emphasize interconnectedness (ปฏิจจสมุปบาท, Paticca Samuppada) could align seamlessly with this model, supporting holistic care that integrates social, spiritual, and emotional healing.
In the classroom, this research is also relevant. Thai teachers and counselors might identify students’ struggles not as isolated faults but as partly rooted in their relationships with peers, parents, and community. As one academic at a major Bangkok university observes, “We need to look beyond the individual child to broader patterns of support and distress in the environment.”
Internationally, the relational model’s influence is visible in trauma-informed care and community mental health initiatives in countries with diverse cultural backgrounds. For example, Māori mental health frameworks in New Zealand explicitly tie individual wellbeing to collective, whānau (family) and community connections (Te Whare Tapa Whā Model). For Thai practitioners, similar culturally grounded approaches could deepen impact and reach.
Looking forward, these findings suggest future directions for Thai mental health policy. Key priorities may include integrating relational training in psychology and psychiatric curricula, supporting parent-infant bonding programs, addressing bullying and social isolation in schools, and developing community groups for high-risk populations such as the elderly or migrants. Additionally, destigmatizing mental health by framing suffering as a shared human experience—not just a private flaw—could encourage earlier intervention and support for those in need.
The relational turn in psychology is not just a philosophical shift but an invitation for Thai society to rethink mental health as a fully social and shared concern. For individuals struggling with anxiety, depression, or trauma, the message is clear: you are not alone, and healing is often relational at its core. For policymakers, schools, and families, the imperative is to foster conditions of belonging, compassion, and sustained social support.
For Thai readers, practical recommendations are to cultivate open dialogues with family and friends, seek support in social networks during times of distress, and consider mental health services that emphasize connection and understanding. Health professionals are also urged to look beyond symptoms and listen to patients’ relational stories, while policymakers should promote mental health in families and communities through targeted programs and campaigns.
For further reading on relational psychology and its emerging influence in global and Thai mental health practices, see: The Myth of the Isolated Mind on Psychology Today, WHO Thailand Mental Health Profile, and Attachment in Psychotherapy.