> That's called ‘euphemism treadmill’: newly invented euphemisms will soon be hijacked for pejorative use. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill (and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphemism#Context_and_drift)

Ah, I wrote a paper on euphemisms in first and second languages when I was in college but hadn't heard about this before, I'm excited to check into it more, thank you!

> Anyway, science and healthcare can't and shouldn't change its vocabulary every time fourteen-year-olds on Reddit decide they are done with one pejorative term and start stigmatizing another one.

I agree that I don't want science to necessarily change its terms because a sub-cultural group decided it offended them; sometimes maybe, but not always, as having consistency of terms can make it easier to replicate research. I think the irony with the case "mental health" is that it used to be called "mental hygiene," so the term did change over time.

I also think one of the aspects of science is trying to come up with new linguistic ways to parse the world—recategorizing things as more research is conducted. Maybe it's less getting rid of the term "mental health" but creating a new category that distinguishes from it.

I think the challenge with the term "mental health" is less about a new stigma and more about the history of the term[0]:

> The mental hygiene movement, in its origins and reflecting Beers’ experience in mental hospitals, was primarily and basically concerned with the improvement of the care of people with mental disorders. In Beers’ own words: “When the National Committee was organized, in 1909, its chief concern was to humanize the care of the insane: to eradicate the abuses, brutalities and neglect from which the mentally sick have traditionally suffered.” 4.

> It was at a later stage that the Committee enlarged its program to include the “milder forms of mental disability” and a greater concern with preventive work. The rationale behind this shift was the belief that “mental disorders frequently have their beginnings in childhood and youth and that preventive measures are most effective in early life”, and that environmental conditions and modes of living produce mental ill health.

I think the term "mental health" can carry that cultural history, of being used to treat the more extreme versions of mental health, not the more common, less severe occurrences.

I also found this quote and wonder how much what the term covers has changed over time:

> The First International Congress of Mental Health was organized in London by the British National Association for Mental Hygiene from 16 to 21 August, 1948...Only one concept of mental health was put forward, by J.C. Flugel, Chairman of the Conference’s Programme Committee: “Mental health is regarded as a condition which permits the optimal development, physical, intellectual and emotional, of the individual, so far as this is compatible with that of other individuals.”

It almost seems as "mental health" was proposed to encompass physical, intellectual, and emotional development. Which may make sense if "mental" is defined as overarching, however, I imagine many today would see the "mental" as related to the brain.

So while I think yes, sometimes we change terms because they've gained new stigma over time, I think this may be a case where it started with stigma. Maybe not.

--

[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408392/