{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.040697674418604654, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005813953488372093, 'mean_word_length': 5.15, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A stigma perspective on recovery

Recovery, as outlined by Bellack and Drapalski, describes a process through which a person aims to live “a satisfying, hopeful and contributing life even with limitations caused by illness”, striving for “full human potential or ‘personhood’”. It is thus about healing identity, and somehow it sounds like a positive, optimistic echo to the spoilt identity observed by Goffman (1963) in his classic work on stigma 1. In many ways, “recovery” and “stigma” seem to be related, but contrary concepts. While recovery claims a “half full” glass of opportunities, stigma points out the “half empty” glass of discrimination and devaluation. Where recovery sees challenges, stigma identifies obstacles. Is “recovery” thus just a new, positive way to describe the same ongoing struggle of persons with mental illness for a better life?