Professional Documents
Culture Documents
vii
viii Contents
4.1 The dual continua model of mental health and mental illness page 74
4.2 Adjusted odds ratio of any 2005 mental illness (MDE, GAD,
or PA) for change and stability in level of mental health compared
with adults who stayed flourishing (Keyes et al., 2010) 78
6.1 Brain structures involved in mental disorders 104
6.2 Two neurons in synaptic contact 108
6.3 The synapse and associated structures 110
7.1 Merton’s anomie theory of deviance: responses to anomie 134
9.1 Stressors, stress, and distress 182
9.2 The stress vs. strain curve in the engineering stress model 186
9.3 A two-way classification of stressors 190
9.4 Publications per year on four types of stressors, 1981–2014 198
10.1 Representation of the buffering effects model 215
10.2 Representation of the main effects model 216
12.1 Socioeconomic status and psychopathology 246
12.2 Odds ratio of being unemployed more than 1 percent of the year,
versus employed, for schizophrenics and controls. Adjusted for age,
sex, calendar year, and marital status, with 95 percent confidence
bands (Agerbo et al., 2004) 254
12.3 The Midtown Manhattan study 256
12.4 Fatalism model of SES and psychological disorder 258
15.1 Conceptual framework of African American women’s mental
well-being 306
15.2 Median annual income and household wealth 309
15.3 Individual and household poverty rates by race, 2012 310
15.4 Marital status by race, 2014 312
17.1 Depression vectors showing the initial levels and subsequent
changes as birth cohorts aged six years (1995–2001 ASOC survey) 339
17.2 Anxiety and anger vectors showing the initial levels and subsequent
changes as birth cohorts aged six years (1995–2001 ASOC survey) 340
xi
xii Figures
xiii
Boxes
xv
List of Contributors
xvii
xviii List of Contributors
Adrianne Frech, PhD Bruce G. Link, PhD
Assistant Professor, Sociology, The University Distinquished Professor of Sociology and Public
of Akron Policy, University of California at Riverside
We are pleased to offer the third edition of A Handbook for the Study of Mental
Health. While the second edition is only seven years old, recent changes to psychi-
atric classification systems (DSM-5), mental health services, and policy called for a
new edition. Eric Wright took over as co-editor given his expertise in mental health
systems and policy, and we undertook a substantial revision of the contents of the
volume. Several new chapters in Part I address DSM-5 and psychiatric nosology,
and raise important questions for future researchers. Part III includes a new chapter
on community mental health organizations, another on adolescent suicide and public
health interventions, as well as a new chapter on mental health policy. The Epilogue
is also a new addition; it is addressed to researchers and provides guidelines for inte-
grating disparate areas of scholarship in the sociology of mental health and illness.
These new additions make the Handbook an essential resource for scholars, and we
thank our new authors for their contributions and insights. Returning authors worked
hard to substantially revise their chapters, and we thank them for their tireless com-
mitment to the Handbook. We also completely rewrote the introductions to each part
to provide a framework for the ensuing chapters. As with the previous two editions,
proceeds from this volume benefit the American Sociological Association Section on
Mental Health.
xxi
Foreword
The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), established at the end of World
War II, had an important influence on the growth of medical sociology and especially
on social research in mental health. Its first director, Robert Felix, sought to include
the social sciences as basic sciences for the study of mental health issues and prob-
lems. He strongly supported PhD training and extramural research and contributed
to the growth of sociology, anthropology, and psychology as disciplinary areas. The
fact that initially public support for sociology largely came through NIMH rather than
other disease-oriented institutes explains the dominance of mental health concerns
within the development of medical sociology. With increasing numbers of sociologists
trained in NIMH programs, medical sociology became one of the largest and most
active sections of the American Sociological Association (ASA). Felix was commit-
ted to bringing a public health perspective to the study and treatment of persons with
mental illness, a viewpoint that began to erode during the Reagan administration when
politics forced NIMH into a more insular disease perspective. The public health view
has now again gained traction on the nation’s health agenda, with a renewed interest
in social determinants of health and socioeconomic and ethnic/racial disparities.
In earlier decades, training programs encompassed broad areas of social psy-
chology, social organization, and social methodology; this breadth encouraged the
wide range of substantive interests and theoretical and methodological approaches
exhibited in this Handbook. NIMH predoctoral and postdoctoral awards supported
my training in the 1950s, and probably many, if not most, of the contributors to this
Handbook had similar support during their disciplinary training. I have been involved
for more than fifty years in running such training programs at the University of
Wisconsin and Rutgers University; in the earlier decades these programs had a strong
focus on promoting and expanding knowledge and methods in the basic areas of the
discipline. Many of those who participated in these and related programs have con-
tributed importantly not only to mental health but also to their disciplines. Programs
funded today are much more focused on problem areas and interdisciplinary efforts,
xxiii
xxiv Foreword
but it remains essential for researchers to be strongly involved with the conceptual,
theoretical, and methodological advances in their disciplines if they are to be effective
partners in interdisciplinary collaborations.
This Handbook nicely informs readers on conceptual, substantive, and policy
aspects of mental health. A core issue that engages every aspect of mental health
research and practice is the conceptualization of mental health itself: Is it seen most
usefully in terms of discrete disorders or in terms of continua of affect and function?
There is some resurgence of interest in conceptualizing positive mental health as well,
although determining the role of culture and values in framing what is seen as posi-
tive remains a difficult challenge. The American Psychiatric Association has recently
introduced version 5 of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-5). Whatever one might think of DSM, it will continue to have an important
role in reimbursement arrangements, disability determinations, legal contests, and
the promotion and marketing of drugs and other therapies. We clearly need a reliable
classificatory basis for research, for treatment assessment, and for communication,
but absence of a theoretical basis for DSM entities and disagreements about its inclu-
siveness leave much room for controversy and debate. It remains uncertain whether
social understanding is enhanced more by a focus on discrete disorders as defined
by DSM or whether we might benefit more by attention to dimensional conceptual-
izations and inquiries linked to underlying biological processes. Both are important
and respond to different purposes and needs, but it is clear that the balance among
approaches requires further study and reexamination.
The excesses of pharmaceutical marketing, its role in expanding concepts of
disorder, and its influence on drug research and professional education have done a
great deal to undermine trust in psychiatric research results and psychiatric expertise.
Selective publication of drug trials in research funded and controlled by pharmaceuti-
cal companies has cast suspicion on the validity of psychiatric knowledge and effec-
tiveness claims. There is now a considerable backlash against many of the marketing
and funding practices of these large companies and much greater skepticism among
educators, editors of major journals, and the media. Social research has been an
important antidote to this negative pattern and has contributed importantly to reveal-
ing and understanding these patterns of professional and commercial self-interest and
how they have helped shape trends in the mental health sector.
The substance of mental health inquiry is very much focused on the study of
developmental processes across the life course and the influence on those processes
of social stratification and important social institutions such as the family, the labor
market, and work. Social and epidemiological surveys have become the core tools
for many of these studies that seek to understand human development and social
behavior across age cohorts and historical periods while being sensitive to the crucial
way in which biological predispositions interact with social context and the environ-
ment. Surveys have become larger, technically more sophisticated and longitudinal
Foreword xxv
in scope, and the ability to link varying sources of data makes it increasingly possi-
ble to examine causal ideas with more credibility. Randomized studies remain the
“gold standard” because social selection is so powerful and pervasive and difficult
to discount, but increasingly, natural experiments, longitudinal databases, and the
use of instrumental variables and sophisticated multivariate approaches make causal
interpretations more convincing in the typical instance in which randomization is not
feasible or ethical.
We value knowledge and understanding for their own sake, but most of us study
mental health issues and are supported by research agencies because of the expecta-
tion that enhanced knowledge will improve people’s lives. The American health sys-
tem, even more its mental health system, is dysfunctional and in shambles. Dealing
effectively with serious mental illness involves many sectors from general medicine
to the criminal justice system, but there is little effective coordination or integration.
The Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, seeks to address some of these persistent
challenges. Some of what we already know has been implemented in a constructive
way, but far too much of what we have learned remains to be applied. Whether we
are concerned with broad social determinants such as extreme poverty, child abuse
and neglect, inferior schooling, and stigmatization on the one hand or the lack of
access to mental health services and a lack of appropriate balance in treatment among
medication, supportive care, and rehabilitative services on the other, there remains a
great gap between what we know and what gets done. Some positive changes have
occurred, such as the growing acceptance of mental health as an important aspect
of health, the move to greater health insurance parity, more coverage for serious
mental illness in public programs such as Medicaid, and more accessibility to treat-
ment and trained mental health professionals. But as this Handbook makes clear, the
social determinants of mental health problems and their management will continue to
remain challenging for scientists, professionals, and policy makers.
David Mechanic
Rutgers University
Part I
Theoretical Perspectives on Mental Health and Illness
Introduction to Part I
Teresa L. Scheid and Eric R. Wright
Mental health and mental disorder represent two different areas of theory, research,
and policy implications, reflecting our common tendency to dichotomize healthy and
sick, normal and abnormal, sane and insane. David Mechanic (2006) argues that the
term “mental health” has no clear or consistent meaning, and in terms of the socio-
logical literature, this is generally true. Mental health is not merely the absence of
disease or disorder; it involves self-esteem, mastery, and the ability to maintain mean-
ingful relationships with others. While most of us fall short of optimal well-being (or
happiness), those who experience mental health problems or psychological distress
have been the focus of most sociological research.
However, definitions of mental health problems, illnesses, or disorders are also
not so straightforward. Following Horwitz (2002b), “mental diseases” reflect under-
lying internal dysfunctions that have universal features (i.e. schizophrenia and to
a lesser degree bipolar disorder). A valid “mental disorder” reflects some internal
psychological system that is unable to function as it should, and this dysfunction
is socially inappropriate. For most disorders, symptoms are not specific indicators
of discrete, underlying diseases (such as schizophrenia), instead many conditions
arise from stressful social conditions (such as depression, anxiety, eating disorders).
Cultural processes shape the symptoms associated with mental disorders, and it is
important to distinguish mental disorders from normal reactions to social stressors.
Horwitz (2002b) uses the terminology of “mental illness” to refer to those conditions
which a particular group has defined as a mental illness (and often point to behaviors
that are deemed deviant, for example homosexuality in previous psychiatric clas-
sifications). For simplicity, we will use the term mental health problem or disorder
in this introduction – but students should keep in mind the implications of using
the term mental illness. In Chapter 1, Horwitz argues that sociological approaches
regard mental health and mental health problems as aspects of social circumstances.
He provides a very thorough overview of how various social conditions affect levels
of mental health and mental health problems, and in turn how social contexts shape
1
2 Teresa L. Scheid and Eric R. Wright
the definition as well as the response to mental health problems. Chapter 1 develops
a framework for a sociological understanding of mental disorder and mental health
problems and also directs the reader to other chapters in the volume that illustrate
Horwitz’s arguments.
In assessing mental disorders there are a variety of terms with which the student
needs to be familiar. Epidemiology refers to the study of the distribution of illness
in a population. Morbidity is the prevalence of diseases in a population, whereas
comorbidity is the co-occurrence of disease and associated risk factors. Hence
epidemiological research not only assesses rates of disease, but by identifying who is
susceptible to particular conditions it can lead us to an understanding of the specific
causes of a disorder or disease. Point-prevalence refers to the percentage of the popu-
lation affected with an illness at a given point in time; lifetime prevalence refers to the
percentage of the population ever affected with an illness. Incidence rate is the rate at
which new cases of an illness or disorder form in the population; for example, many
are now concerned with the prevalence rate at which depression is found among all
age groups and the fact that incidence rates seem to be increasing for young women.
However, in order to arrive at estimates of how many people suffer from mental disor-
ders or illnesses, there needs to be some way to determine who has a mental disorder
and who does not. This is not as simple as one might expect. In Chapter 2, Jerome C.
Wakefield and Mark F. Schmitz provide an overview of how researchers have meas-
ured and assessed mental disorders and illness. They emphasize that there have been
two different approaches to differentiating between mental health and illness. First,
there are theories that view mental health and illness in terms of a continuum, with
health and illness at opposite ends of the poles, and most of us falling somewhere in
between. In other words, there are varying degrees of healthy and sick, normal and
abnormal. Second, there are theories that conceptualize health and illness as oppo-
sites, a categorical dichotomy, where a person is labeled as either sick or well based
on culturally defined criteria.
Medical science and psychiatry are organized around elaborate, formal systems of
diagnoses, or an array of dichotomous indicators of whether or not a person has one
or more particular illnesses or disorders. These are carefully detailed in the American
Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), which
is used in clinical practice as well as in a great deal of epidemiological research
to determine whether or not someone has a mental disorder – and to some extent
the severity of illness – in the general population. Currently in version 5, the DSM
provides the classification system by which clinicians and researchers can identify
(i.e., diagnose) distinct mental disorders. These disorders are assumed to be discrete
(i.e., they do not overlap with on another). The classification of mental disorders is
referred to as psychiatric nosology and has always been controversial. Sociologists
have demonstrated that the DSM overstates the amount of mental disorder, view-
ing all evidence of psychiatric symptoms, regardless of their cause, as evidence of
Theoretical Perspectives on Mental Health and Illness 3
of mental health, which ranges from languishing to flourishing. The “Complete State
Paradigm” includes continuum measures of both mental health and mental disorder.
This is a model which moves sociologists well beyond debates over the validity of
diagnostic criteria and to a more useful approach to understanding the mental health
profile of a given community or population. Keyes then provides data on the preva-
lence of languishing and flourishing.
What are the research implications of using categorical versus dimensional meas-
ures of mental disorder and distress? Jason Schnittker takes up this question in
Chapter 5. Schnittker is critical of the assumption made by psychiatric classifica-
tion systems that mental disorders constitute discrete, distinct categories and what he
refers to as taxonicity. He describes an alternative, a network approach, which focuses
on the relationships between symptoms. Rather than focusing on the causes of mental
disorders, the network approach sees the relations between symptoms as a system of
causes. Research can also examine the pathways between symptoms, and how some
symptoms can cause other symptoms. Consequently, the network approach offers a
way to examine comorbidities between mental health problems. Chapter 5 is a critical
chapter for future researchers.
Behind debates over how to measure mental health disorders and distress lies
a more fundamental question: What is the cause of such mental health problems?
Etiology refers to theories about the causes of illness, yet the etiology of mental
illness or disorder is not yet understood or known, despite the widespread belief in a
biological, genetic, or neurological model. Frances (2013, p. 18) argues there is no
way to decide who is normal, nor any useful definition of mental disorder. Frances
(2013, p. 21) argues that even schizophrenia, a mental disorder that is widely assumed
to have some genetic component, “is a construct, not a myth, not a disease. It is a
description of a particular set of psychiatric problems, not an explanation of their
cause.” A focus on a “set of psychiatric problems” is consistent with the network
approach described by Schnittker in Chapter 5.
Since the 1980s, the medical model of mental disorder has been dominant, where
mental illness is conceptualized as a disease and increasing reliance is placed upon
neuroscience to diagnose mental disorders, and medication to provide treatment
while psychotherapy is deemphasized. The biological approach to mental illness and
the evidence from neuroscience is described in Chapter 6 by Sharon Schwartz and
Cheryl Corcoran; they also address the role sociologists can play in future research.
Cooperation between sociology and psychiatry faces fundamental obstacles as a
result of diverging theoretical perspectives and research agendas (Coopers, 1991).
Most critical is the issue posed by Mirowsky and Ross (1989a) – do mental disorders
represent disease entities, or are mental disorders related to social contexts that affect
rates of generalized distress, abnormal behavior, and social deviance? Traditionally,
sociologists have viewed mental disorder as deviance from institutional expecta-
tions – often referred to as social reaction theory (Horwitz, 1982; Perrucci, 1974;
Theoretical Perspectives on Mental Health and Illness 5
Scheff, 1984; Turner, 1987). Rather than focusing on the individual, sociologists
focus on the social context of illness and treatment, and also take a critical or opposi-
tional stance to the biomedical model of mental disorders as diseases (Turner, 1987).
Consequently, mental disorder is generally referred to as abnormal behavior or
simply disorder as opposed to mental illness. Peggy A. Thoits in Chapter 7 provides
a comprehensive analysis of the various sociological approaches to mental health and
illness, describing stress theory, structural strain theory, and labeling theory (labeling
theory is described more fully in Chapter 19 in Part III).
If mental health and illness (or disorder) are indeed, in some part, produced by
social context, one would expect some degree of cultural variability in the prevalence
and symptomology of behaviors and disorders characterized as mental illness or
insanity. While some form of mental illness is universal (i.e. all cultures characterize
some forms of behavior as mental illness or disorder), there is much disagree-
ment over whether specific categories of mental illness are indeed universal (Patel
& Winston, 1994). Recent research challenges the widely held belief that rates of
schizophrenia are culturally invariant (Morgan, McKenzie, & Fearon, 2008). The
question of the universality or culturally specific nature of mental illness presents a
test of the medical etiology which asserts that the source of mental illness is biolog-
ical, neurological, biochemical, or genetic. If the cause of mental illness is organic
in nature, then such behaviors will be invariant across different cultures. However,
evidence demonstrates that the social environment influences both the course and
the outcome of psychosis (Morgan, McKenzie, & Fearon, 2008). Harriet P. Lefley in
Chapter 8 examines the role of cultural context in defining mental health and men-
tal illness and provides an overview of cross-cultural research on the prevalence of
mental health problems. The relationship between culture and the experience of stress
is described, as are a variety of culture-bound syndromes. Services and interven-
tions to treat mental health problems follow from beliefs about the etiology of these
problems, and Chapter 8 introduces the reader to diverse mental health systems.
As this overview should indicate, there is much more research that needs to be
done to extend our understanding of mental health and illness before we will be able
to resolve the ongoing debates on the existence and causes of mental illnesses, much
less on suitable treatments. We do know that social conditions and environments are
critical not only in understanding what constitutes a mental health problem, but in
the course and outcome of mental health problems as well. However, the mecha-
nisms through which the social environment influences mental health have not been
thoroughly studied (Morgan, McKenzie, & Fearon, 2008). Part II will direct more
focused attention to the social context of mental health and illness.
1
An Overview of Sociological Perspectives
on the Definitions, Causes, and Responses
to Mental Health and Illness
Allan V. Horwitz
Introduction
Why do some people seem to be always cheerful while others are often sad? Most of
us believe that our moods have to do with aspects of our personalities that make us
more or less depressed, anxious, or exuberant. Others might think that temperaments
result from biological factors such as our genes and neurochemicals. People usually
also assume that therapies that change their states of mind are the natural response
6
1 Sociological Perspectives on Mental Health and Illness 7
to mental problems. These treatments might involve psychotherapies that modify the
way people view the world or drugs that alter their brain chemistry. Typical approaches
to the nature, causes, and cures of various states of mind emphasize individual traits,
temperaments, and behaviors.
Sociological approaches to psychological well-being are fundamentally different.
Unlike psychological and biological perspectives that look at personal qualities and
brain characteristics, sociologists focus on the impact of social circumstances on
mental health and illness. The distinctive emphasis of sociological approaches lies
in how processes such as life events, social conditions, social roles, social structures,
and cultural systems of meaning affect states of mind. Social perspectives assume
that different individuals who are in the same circumstances will have similar levels
of mental health and illness. That is, what determines how good or bad people feel
does not just depend on their own personalities or brains but also on the sorts of social
conditions that they face. These conditions vary tremendously across different social
groups, societies, and historical eras.
Some important social influences involve how many stressful life events people
confront (Holmes & Rahe, 1967; Chapter 9 in this volume). These events include
such things as getting divorced, losing a valued job, having a serious automobile
accident, receiving a diagnosis of a serious physical illness, or having a close friend
or relative die. Especially serious stressors such as being a victim of a violent crime,
natural disaster, military combat, or physical or sexual abuse during childhood are
particularly powerful causes of adverse mental health outcomes (Dohrenwend, 2000).
The more frequently such events occur and the more serious they are, the worse any
person’s mental health is likely to be.
Other social causes of poor mental health lie in persistent living conditions that do
not appear at a particular time and then go away but that are rooted in ongoing circum-
stances (Turner, Wheaton, & Lloyd, 1995; Chapter 12 in this volume). For example,
people who live in social environments that feature high rates of poverty, neighbor-
hood instability, crime rates, dilapidated housing, and broken families are likely to
have high rates of psychological distress (Ross, 2000; Wight, Ko, & Aneshensel,
2011). Other enduring stressful circumstances involve troubled marriages, oppressive
working conditions, or unreasonable parents. Sociological perspectives predict that
especially taxing living conditions, roles, and relationships are related to low levels
of psychological well-being, over and above the qualities of the particular individuals
who must deal with these situations.
Many sociologists study how social conditions affect levels of mental health.
Others look at the social reactions to mental health problems. Some factors that lead
people to respond to emotional difficulties in different ways involve social char-
acteristics such as gender, ethnicity, age, and education (Schnittker, 2013). These
traits make people more or less likely to define themselves as having some kind of
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
DANCE ON STILTS AT THE GIRLS’ UNYAGO, NIUCHI
I see increasing reason to believe that the view formed some time
back as to the origin of the Makonde bush is the correct one. I have
no doubt that it is not a natural product, but the result of human
occupation. Those parts of the high country where man—as a very
slight amount of practice enables the eye to perceive at once—has not
yet penetrated with axe and hoe, are still occupied by a splendid
timber forest quite able to sustain a comparison with our mixed
forests in Germany. But wherever man has once built his hut or tilled
his field, this horrible bush springs up. Every phase of this process
may be seen in the course of a couple of hours’ walk along the main
road. From the bush to right or left, one hears the sound of the axe—
not from one spot only, but from several directions at once. A few
steps further on, we can see what is taking place. The brush has been
cut down and piled up in heaps to the height of a yard or more,
between which the trunks of the large trees stand up like the last
pillars of a magnificent ruined building. These, too, present a
melancholy spectacle: the destructive Makonde have ringed them—
cut a broad strip of bark all round to ensure their dying off—and also
piled up pyramids of brush round them. Father and son, mother and
son-in-law, are chopping away perseveringly in the background—too
busy, almost, to look round at the white stranger, who usually excites
so much interest. If you pass by the same place a week later, the piles
of brushwood have disappeared and a thick layer of ashes has taken
the place of the green forest. The large trees stretch their
smouldering trunks and branches in dumb accusation to heaven—if
they have not already fallen and been more or less reduced to ashes,
perhaps only showing as a white stripe on the dark ground.
This work of destruction is carried out by the Makonde alike on the
virgin forest and on the bush which has sprung up on sites already
cultivated and deserted. In the second case they are saved the trouble
of burning the large trees, these being entirely absent in the
secondary bush.
After burning this piece of forest ground and loosening it with the
hoe, the native sows his corn and plants his vegetables. All over the
country, he goes in for bed-culture, which requires, and, in fact,
receives, the most careful attention. Weeds are nowhere tolerated in
the south of German East Africa. The crops may fail on the plains,
where droughts are frequent, but never on the plateau with its
abundant rains and heavy dews. Its fortunate inhabitants even have
the satisfaction of seeing the proud Wayao and Wamakua working
for them as labourers, driven by hunger to serve where they were
accustomed to rule.
But the light, sandy soil is soon exhausted, and would yield no
harvest the second year if cultivated twice running. This fact has
been familiar to the native for ages; consequently he provides in
time, and, while his crop is growing, prepares the next plot with axe
and firebrand. Next year he plants this with his various crops and
lets the first piece lie fallow. For a short time it remains waste and
desolate; then nature steps in to repair the destruction wrought by
man; a thousand new growths spring out of the exhausted soil, and
even the old stumps put forth fresh shoots. Next year the new growth
is up to one’s knees, and in a few years more it is that terrible,
impenetrable bush, which maintains its position till the black
occupier of the land has made the round of all the available sites and
come back to his starting point.
The Makonde are, body and soul, so to speak, one with this bush.
According to my Yao informants, indeed, their name means nothing
else but “bush people.” Their own tradition says that they have been
settled up here for a very long time, but to my surprise they laid great
stress on an original immigration. Their old homes were in the
south-east, near Mikindani and the mouth of the Rovuma, whence
their peaceful forefathers were driven by the continual raids of the
Sakalavas from Madagascar and the warlike Shirazis[47] of the coast,
to take refuge on the almost inaccessible plateau. I have studied
African ethnology for twenty years, but the fact that changes of
population in this apparently quiet and peaceable corner of the earth
could have been occasioned by outside enterprises taking place on
the high seas, was completely new to me. It is, no doubt, however,
correct.
The charming tribal legend of the Makonde—besides informing us
of other interesting matters—explains why they have to live in the
thickest of the bush and a long way from the edge of the plateau,
instead of making their permanent homes beside the purling brooks
and springs of the low country.
“The place where the tribe originated is Mahuta, on the southern
side of the plateau towards the Rovuma, where of old time there was
nothing but thick bush. Out of this bush came a man who never
washed himself or shaved his head, and who ate and drank but little.
He went out and made a human figure from the wood of a tree
growing in the open country, which he took home to his abode in the
bush and there set it upright. In the night this image came to life and
was a woman. The man and woman went down together to the
Rovuma to wash themselves. Here the woman gave birth to a still-
born child. They left that place and passed over the high land into the
valley of the Mbemkuru, where the woman had another child, which
was also born dead. Then they returned to the high bush country of
Mahuta, where the third child was born, which lived and grew up. In
course of time, the couple had many more children, and called
themselves Wamatanda. These were the ancestral stock of the
Makonde, also called Wamakonde,[48] i.e., aborigines. Their
forefather, the man from the bush, gave his children the command to
bury their dead upright, in memory of the mother of their race who
was cut out of wood and awoke to life when standing upright. He also
warned them against settling in the valleys and near large streams,
for sickness and death dwelt there. They were to make it a rule to
have their huts at least an hour’s walk from the nearest watering-
place; then their children would thrive and escape illness.”
The explanation of the name Makonde given by my informants is
somewhat different from that contained in the above legend, which I
extract from a little book (small, but packed with information), by
Pater Adams, entitled Lindi und sein Hinterland. Otherwise, my
results agree exactly with the statements of the legend. Washing?
Hapana—there is no such thing. Why should they do so? As it is, the
supply of water scarcely suffices for cooking and drinking; other
people do not wash, so why should the Makonde distinguish himself
by such needless eccentricity? As for shaving the head, the short,
woolly crop scarcely needs it,[49] so the second ancestral precept is
likewise easy enough to follow. Beyond this, however, there is
nothing ridiculous in the ancestor’s advice. I have obtained from
various local artists a fairly large number of figures carved in wood,
ranging from fifteen to twenty-three inches in height, and
representing women belonging to the great group of the Mavia,
Makonde, and Matambwe tribes. The carving is remarkably well
done and renders the female type with great accuracy, especially the
keloid ornamentation, to be described later on. As to the object and
meaning of their works the sculptors either could or (more probably)
would tell me nothing, and I was forced to content myself with the
scanty information vouchsafed by one man, who said that the figures
were merely intended to represent the nembo—the artificial
deformations of pelele, ear-discs, and keloids. The legend recorded
by Pater Adams places these figures in a new light. They must surely
be more than mere dolls; and we may even venture to assume that
they are—though the majority of present-day Makonde are probably
unaware of the fact—representations of the tribal ancestress.
The references in the legend to the descent from Mahuta to the
Rovuma, and to a journey across the highlands into the Mbekuru
valley, undoubtedly indicate the previous history of the tribe, the
travels of the ancestral pair typifying the migrations of their
descendants. The descent to the neighbouring Rovuma valley, with
its extraordinary fertility and great abundance of game, is intelligible
at a glance—but the crossing of the Lukuledi depression, the ascent
to the Rondo Plateau and the descent to the Mbemkuru, also lie
within the bounds of probability, for all these districts have exactly
the same character as the extreme south. Now, however, comes a
point of especial interest for our bacteriological age. The primitive
Makonde did not enjoy their lives in the marshy river-valleys.
Disease raged among them, and many died. It was only after they
had returned to their original home near Mahuta, that the health
conditions of these people improved. We are very apt to think of the
African as a stupid person whose ignorance of nature is only equalled
by his fear of it, and who looks on all mishaps as caused by evil
spirits and malignant natural powers. It is much more correct to
assume in this case that the people very early learnt to distinguish
districts infested with malaria from those where it is absent.
This knowledge is crystallized in the
ancestral warning against settling in the
valleys and near the great waters, the
dwelling-places of disease and death. At the
same time, for security against the hostile
Mavia south of the Rovuma, it was enacted
that every settlement must be not less than a
certain distance from the southern edge of the
plateau. Such in fact is their mode of life at the
present day. It is not such a bad one, and
certainly they are both safer and more
comfortable than the Makua, the recent
intruders from the south, who have made USUAL METHOD OF
good their footing on the western edge of the CLOSING HUT-DOOR
plateau, extending over a fairly wide belt of
country. Neither Makua nor Makonde show in their dwellings
anything of the size and comeliness of the Yao houses in the plain,
especially at Masasi, Chingulungulu and Zuza’s. Jumbe Chauro, a
Makonde hamlet not far from Newala, on the road to Mahuta, is the
most important settlement of the tribe I have yet seen, and has fairly
spacious huts. But how slovenly is their construction compared with
the palatial residences of the elephant-hunters living in the plain.
The roofs are still more untidy than in the general run of huts during
the dry season, the walls show here and there the scanty beginnings
or the lamentable remains of the mud plastering, and the interior is a
veritable dog-kennel; dirt, dust and disorder everywhere. A few huts
only show any attempt at division into rooms, and this consists
merely of very roughly-made bamboo partitions. In one point alone
have I noticed any indication of progress—in the method of fastening
the door. Houses all over the south are secured in a simple but
ingenious manner. The door consists of a set of stout pieces of wood
or bamboo, tied with bark-string to two cross-pieces, and moving in
two grooves round one of the door-posts, so as to open inwards. If
the owner wishes to leave home, he takes two logs as thick as a man’s
upper arm and about a yard long. One of these is placed obliquely
against the middle of the door from the inside, so as to form an angle
of from 60° to 75° with the ground. He then places the second piece
horizontally across the first, pressing it downward with all his might.
It is kept in place by two strong posts planted in the ground a few
inches inside the door. This fastening is absolutely safe, but of course
cannot be applied to both doors at once, otherwise how could the
owner leave or enter his house? I have not yet succeeded in finding
out how the back door is fastened.