“Neuroecosocial” isn’t an improvement over “biopsychosocial.” “Neuro” is even more dangerous than “bio” – it gives psychiatry the privilege of having their spurious biological preoccupation first in line, and it goes “bio” one better by aiming our attention directly at the brain. I’m glad the authors are focused more on the social and physical environment by adding “eco,” but any parsing snippets of words into a technical label is messy. It always leaves relevant disciplines out, and referring to human emotions and suffering that way diverts us from the main point – we are human beings who think, feel, act, suffer and succeed. It objectivizes us as “things” to be studied by “experts.” If I had to use a multi-hypenated label, I would use – in order of importance – “phenomenological-psycho-social-eco.” I would omit biology entirely – it invites psychiatry to dive in to protect its guild interest, and it invites individuals to interpret their and others’ lives in medical terms. The whole run-on naming business is wrong. Why not just say “emotional suffering”? That invites us to apply our whole human selves, as sufferers and supporters of others, without specialized mumbo jumbo. We can talk to and listen to each other, empathize, support, and use our whole minds and souls to love each other, change environments, fight for justice, be close to those who are hurting. Any human undertaking that works we can use – poetry, music, spirituality, religion, touch, talk, peer support, “therapy” stripped of exploitation, sociology – whatever. My pet peeve – “mental health” just sucks us into the medical model. It’s hard to use those two words together without being drawn to bio-thinking. It perpetuates the fiction that that there are people who don’t suffer, and a separate group who are “mentally ill.” We all suffer and struggle at times; we’re not “ill” or “different” because we run into something very hard.