Mental Health In Music: Does It Need To Be Censored?

After years of discrimination, people with mental health disorders are slowly becoming more accepted within modern society. Because of this, mental health disorders are beginning to be explored in mainstream music by artists and bands such as Imagine Dragons, Shawn Mendez and Bebe Rexha. This can be naively seen as a purely positive move, due to breaking the silence surrounding those suffering from mental health disorders. Despite this, there are some criticisms: subjects of songs that address suicide and self-harm can be triggering as well as the danger of promoting incorrect stereotypes. In short, we must ask ourselves whether we should censor songs addressing mental health within music (both partially and completely). This is a difficult question to address, but ultimately, such a decision, while a prima facie solution to the problems these songs raise for people with mental health disorders, is both unjustified and undermines the benefits that music can do for those with mental health problems.

It is hard to debate that the expression of mental health within music is imperceptibly important due to it breaking the isolation of mental health conditions. For those suffering, particularly from conditions involving depression, one of the largest problems is the feeling of not being understood and feeling unwanted by others. Friends may insist this is not the case; they want the person around. However, sometimes words are not enough to break the walls of a mental disorder. Music, on the other hand, has been shown to break down these walls. Through music, they can feel that there is someone out there who understands. They can see someone who has had the same struggles that they have had but keeps living. Musicians become role models–and listeners can use these musicians as motivation to recover or keep going with treatment. An example of this is Shawn Mendez’s “In My Blood”. The song talks about his struggles with anxiety, but how he can’t give up because it’s “in his blood”. By doing this, he has reached out to thousands with mental health disorders, providing hope and belief that individuals can recover. Due to the strong impact that such music has, it seems ridiculous to even suggest a full censorship of mental health within popular music, due to the powerful impact it can have on those suffering and recovering from mental health problems.

However, apart from establishing that complete censorship is out of the question, the debate becomes cloudy when it comes to partial censorship and the negative side of mental health problems. It could be argued that some songs should not be made available to the public due to it triggering suicidal thoughts or self-harm. It is a tragic fact that sometimes people with mental health problems turn to unhealthy coping mechanisms such as self-harm and suicidal thoughts. This, paired with the fact that the main audience for such songs is those with mental health disorders, it can be deemed inappropriate to allow possible triggering into mainstream music. For example, it could be argued that songs such as “Bleeding Out” by Imagine Dragons and “If I Die Young” by The Band Perry, should not be made available due to the risk of triggering those who suffer from mental health problems. This argument can be made even stronger by the empirical evidence of urban myths around “Gloomy Sunday” in 1933 which claimed that a series of suicides were caused by the release of the song. On top of this, a study done by Sandra Garrido and Emery Schubert Moody melodies: Do they cheer us up? A study of the effect of sad music on mood suggested that, while participants insisted depressing songs helped them in some way, it was shown that the music merely deepened their depression. This study reduces the leap to asserting that songs with suicidal content could possibly lead to someone commiting suicide and therefore could be an indication to allowing the partial censorship of the expression of mental health in music.

This can be a particularly emotive argument due to the tragic nature of suicide, and therefore requires strong defences. One defence is that scientific evidence (though limited) suggests that there is no link between people who commit suicide and listen to music containing triggers for suicide. This is reflected in the 2003 study from the Catholic University of America The impact of rock videos and music with suicidal content on thoughts and attitudes about suicide, which acknowledged that suicide was more present in the consciousness of the participants in the study after listening to music with suicidal content in, but did not increase their risk of suicide. This study would therefore disagree that we can assert from Garrido and Schubert’s that people are more likely to commit suicide from listening to music with suicidal content.  On top of this, the suicides from the song “Gloomy Sunday” was never substantiated. As a result, an argument for partial censorship of the expression of mental health in music cannot be argued for based on this link, as there is no evidence for it.

It is hard to defend such music in mainstream on the basis of constricted evidence unless paired with other arguments. A far stronger defence is of the role that the negative side of mental health plays in making role models. If we were to partially censor the expression of mental health in music to purely the positive, then we would only portray an idealised version of mental health and recovery. This would be unachievable to those recovering, and could make their mental health problems worse, as they would feel that they were failing in their recovery, reinforcing the belief that they are inadequate or not good enough. In reality, the truth is that recovery is a struggle which needs to be fought through. This is why the lead singer of Imagine Dragons, Dan Reynolds, is an important positive role model to millions as he doesn’t just present the positive (such as “It’s Time”) but he also presents his struggles with mental health and discusses them in order to present a realistic form of recovery which is sustainable. On top of this, by expressing feelings of suicide and self harm through music, it allows those with mental health issues to accept them and deal with them in a healthy way, preventing the bottling up of emotions which leads to unhealthy coping mechanisms. Therefore, though there are concerns about songs which contain suicide and self-harm, the risk (already deemed small by scientific evidence) is outweighed by the positives of creating realistic role models expressing the negative side of recovering in healthy ways and therefore should not be censored.

Despite this issue being overcome, there is a separate issue of how mainstream music can promote inaccurate stereotypes about mental health. For instance, the video for Bebe Rexha’s “I’m A Mess” portrays a person being locked up in an old-fashioned mental asylum and being restrained by doctors in white coats. Though this has been how mental health has been treated in the past, it is not how it is being treated today. However, it may discourage those who need treatment as they may see it as an accurate representation of mental health treatment today. Therefore, it could be argued that inaccurate representations of mental health should be censored within music as it prevents treatment for those with mental health conditions, an important step to recovery.

However, such videos are important to accept the reality of the past of the mental health profession. The hard truth is that mental health treatment has been abominable. Treatments themselves were often painful and life changing, such as electro-shock therapy. Even worse, the conditions within psychiatric hospitals have in the past been awful, with lack of hygiene, as well as inadequate food and water, which were revealed in documentaries such as Silent Minority, during the change from the asylum system to community care. Even now, the attitudes towards mental health today can be shocking: we still use words like “crazy,” “insane,” and “mad” as insults, which further increases the isolation of those with mental health problems. Some people still even deny whether mental health problems are a “genuine condition”. Therefore, the fears expressed by Bebe Rexha seem justified, as there is still some intolerance within society. On top of this, it seems reasonable to release this into mainstream music, as a way of getting these fears heard. These fears should not be ignored and censored but dealt with instead.

There are some issues with the expression of mental health within mainstream music, such as possibly triggering unhealthy coping mechanisms in those with mental health disorders and promoting negative stereotypes. However, these do not justify the partial or complete censoring of it. This is due to people only benefiting from mental health within music by representing mental health and the fears of those with a disorder in an accurate way. However, this can still be an uncomfortable conclusion, due to the possible triggering of suicide. However, this can be down more to the emotive nature of the subject rather than an incorrect balancing of the risks and benefits. When such emotive issues come up, it can be uncomfortable to conclude. This should not discourage people from discussing the issues around mental health, as it is only through discussion and mistakes that we reach the truth and a better life for those with mental health conditions.

Susie Clark

Susie Clark is an undergraduate at Southampton University studying a BA in History and Philosophy. She is also the author of the blog “Philosopher Ad Absurdum” which provides critical, engaging and entertaining commentary on the philosophical world around us. It also helps engage those studying AQA Philosophy with their studies.