somatisation vs psychologisation

Now suppose that somatization is positively sanctioned by cultural norms, which it appears to be in a number of societies, whereas psychologization is stigmatized, the case classically described in Chinese culture. There will then be pressure to selectively perceive and express the physiological components of the psychophysiological symptoms of distress, and to deny and suppress the psychological ones. The former will be socially efficacious, the latter socially unacceptable and inefficacious. One will have grown up a witness to the expert deployment of the former coping style, but will have had little experience of the latter. In fact the cultural sources of social support will be structured in terms of somatic patterns of help seeking (e.g., medical facilities and treatments), but not psychological ones (e.g., psychotherapy), and this implies as well the idioms we learn to use to nuture and help. I think I need not belabor the point. Somatization can be at times culturally supported, socially useful, and personally availing.
nb, nuture当作nurture?