This chapter presents the results of an analysis of in-depth interviews with a snowball sample of 45 people who identified as working professionals diagnosed with bipolar disorder or major depression. It explores three dimensions of their experience: disclosure versus concealment of their diagnosis on the job, exposure to discrimination in the workplace based on their mental illness diagnosis, and identity strategies they used to manage the status inconsistency between being a professional and having a mental illness diagnosis. The findings reveal how people learn to calculate when it is safe to disclose their diagnosis on the job, especially after experiencing discriminatory treatment such as being fired or demoted. They also indicate that applying for workplace modifications to accommodate symptoms of mental illness may be met with unprofessional and unsupportive reactions on the part of managers, Human Resources professionals, and coworkers, which could explain in part why so few participants in this sample sought them. When it comes to balancing inconsistent statuses, the findings demonstrate how people distance themselves from their mental illness identity in favor of the more prized status of working professional as a means of self-preservation. The chapter concludes with a call for sweeping changes in workplace culture to minimize fear and shame and maximize inclusion of people diagnosed with mental illness, allowing them to flourish in careers in which they may realize their full potential.

In the United States, nonreligious people face stigma, prejudice, and discrimination because they are viewed as immoral and distrustful. This is partly because of othering, by which nonreligious people are subjugated to a minority status. Othering also occurs in academic research and writing. Applying feminist principles can improve research about nonreligious populations. Grounded in results of a US-based online study, we recommend two feminist principles to facilitate the study of nonreligion: (1) rejecting othering of minority groups, and (2) intersectionality. As a result of applying these principles, the nuanced differences between nonreligious groups can be better understood and the complex identities of nonreligious people can be more accurately represented. Researchers benefit from increased accuracy and understanding of nonreligion via better informed theoretical and methodological decisions and nonreligious people benefit from their more accurate representation in academic research.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract