Activists seeking to create social change must decide whether to expend more resources trying to change the behavior of individuals or institutions. For example, a climate activist could spend their days urging people to stop flying in airplanes, or they could spend their days urging the government to outlaw excessive flying. Some social change theorists argue that the second tactic is more effective than the first. Are they correct? I use the environmental movement and the animal liberation movement as case studies to examine this question from an empirical perspective. I conclude that while attempts to change individual behavior should not be entirely abandoned, they should be used with caution because of their tendency to distract the public from the need for institutional reform and their tendency to alienate potential allies. Seeing that, for decades, the animal movement’s main strategy has been to urge individuals to change their dietary behavior, this movement would greatly benefit from this knowledge.

The sociological model of mental illness (Weitz, 2020, pp. 146-148) offers a much needed contrast to the disproportionate dominance of the medical model in research, public policy, and popular discourse (Weitz, 2020, pp. 145-146 & 158-160). Unfortunately, the sociological model receives little attention in comparison (Mulvaney, 2001), although there has been a slight revival in recent years. However, the bulk of research on mental illness within the sociological model is predominantly quantitative, relying heavily on statistics and reducing complex systemic processes to various separated variables (Chandler, 2019; Mullaney, 2016; Spates & Slatton, 2021). Both sociological and psychological research on mental illness tend to be dominated by a highly quantitative focus on ‘social factors’, and generally shy away from examining the role of macro-level social structures and institutions. Consequently, even the sociological model of mental illness tends to fall short of implicating the underlying socio-economic system as a potential contributor to psychological harm and distress. This paper offers critiques of the medical model of mental illness and highlights both the strengths and shortcomings of work in the sociological model. I will also attempt to address these issues by providing a sociological and philosophical analysis of how the capitalist socio-economic system, and systems of oppression in general, shapes social constructions of mental illness and inflicts chronic stress and stigma, leading to much of the psychological distress that many people currently experience.