The expanding global mental health field has paid little attention to evaluating the culture of psychiatry prevailing in in-patient settings across Africa. For example, in Zimbabwe in-patient psychiatry has been heavily pathologising, with over-reliance on the diagnosis of schizophrenia and on antipsychotic polypharmacy. It is not helpful that the next generation of African doctors are learning unmediated Western psychiatry, with little credence given to background cultural factors and mentalities shaping presentations. Some of the psychiatric and social consequences of this for patients in Zimbabwe are discussed.

This is a brief exploration of the ethical issues raised for psychiatrists, and for universities, schools and wider society, by the demand that they attend mandatory training as part of the UK government's Prevent counter-terrorism strategy. The silence on this matter to date on the part of the General Medical Council, medical Royal Colleges, and the British Medical Association is a failure of ethical leadership. There is also a civil liberties issue, reminiscent of the McCarthyism of 1950s USA. We should refuse to attend.

A series of editorials in this Journal have argued that psychiatry is in the midst of a crisis. The various solutions proposed would all involve a strengthening of psychiatry's identity as essentially ‘applied neuroscience’. Although not discounting the importance of the brain sciences and psychopharmacology, we argue that psychiatry needs to move beyond the dominance of the current, technological paradigm. This would be more in keeping with the evidence about how positive outcomes are achieved and could also serve to foster more meaningful collaboration with the growing service user movement.

In 2007 the UK Government announced a substantial expansion of funding for psychological therapies in England to provide better support for people with conditions such as anxiety and depression. Will these services result in the medicalisation of normal distress? Or are they simply an evidenced-based solution for a previously unmet need? In this debate Derek Summerfield and David Veale discuss the issues raised by these controversial proposals.

What is ‘mental health’ during the societal crisis and upheaval occasioned by war? Perhaps the primary psychological effect of war on victims generally is through their witnessing the destruction of a social world embodying their history, identity, values and roles of everyday life. Such suffering has largely to be resolved collectively, in this same social world, albeit one which has been intentionally weakened. Thus, as the World Health Organization and other authorities confirm, the major thrust of humanitarian interventions must be towards the depleted social fabric and its institutions, for herein lie the sources of resilience and capacity for recovery for all (Kawachi & Berkman, 2000). Beyond that, history has shown that social or political reform is the best medicine, and for victims of oppressive violence this means acknowledgement and justice (Summerfield, 2002).

The mental state of people affected by war and other disasters has been a subject of special interest to academic researchers and practitioners in humanitarian assistance and public health for over two decades. The last decade in particular has seen a rise in the number of papers published in scholarly journals around the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) debate. Anthropologists have rarely engaged in this debate. Nevertheless, some of the most illuminating contributions have come from socio-medical anthropology (Last, 2000).