Timothy Kelly recently authored a challenge to Robert Whitaker’s position on the increasing use of psychiatric drugs being “the driving force” in the rising numbers of people in the U.S. declared mentally disabled because of an assigned psychiatric diagnosis. He stated that Whitaker has “missed the mark” in his writings, and he called for a complete shift of emphasis away from targeting the damaging effects of psychiatric drugs and the related DSM diagnoses that provide the so-called medical justification for modern psychiatry to promote their pervasive brain disease/drug treatment model.
Instead, Kelly proposes an agenda that he believes creates less “polarization” (he refers to it as “loosening up polarizations”) by avoiding “debates” and seeking more “common ground” with psychiatry and other advocacy groups. He wants us to refocus our work on “reformist efforts” with apparent greater emphasis on academic investigation and an implied legislative agenda that targets broader socio-economic factors such as poverty, deficits in housing, racism, and mass incarceration. All of these factors, he believes, better explain the increasing numbers of people receiving SSI/SSDI disability benefits for “mental illnesses.” Kelly labels his approach, as do other authors he cites, a theory of “structural violence.”
Does Kelly’s approach truly grasp the critical relationship between the struggle against psychiatric abuse and the overall forms of “structural violence” within the larger economic and political system? Will Kelly’s approach actually grow (or stagnate) the necessary political movement that can lead us towards ending psychiatric abuse and related human rights violations? Does Kelly’s critique diminish the historical significance of Whitaker’s Anatomy of an Epidemic by focusing criticism on a single aspect of his overall analysis? What can we unite with in Kelly’s critique, and what needs to be criticized and rejected in his proposed strategy for future work in our movement?
Let’s begin by stating that Kelly raises some thought-provoking ideas about institutional violence in America. Kelly’s call to broaden our analysis of psychiatric oppression to address issues of “structural violence” in the larger economic and political system is both important and necessary; other writers here at MIA have made similar suggestions. His thoughts on what constitutes ‘the driving force” in the rise in diagnosed “mental illness” and disability rates in America deserves further discussion (more on this in Part 2). So at first glance his ideas appear to be on a positive tack.
However, the content of his overall critique and his specific call for a new road forward in the struggle against psychiatric abuse should give serious pause to those who yearn for a world free of all forms of human oppression. Let’s review some of his main ideas and proposals.
“I chart an alternative perspective on psychosocial disability that calls for a decentering of psychiatric drugs in both public discourse and advocacy.
“I’d like to see us shift our attention from debates about medication, loosening up polarizations that hamper our ability to work effectively on these issues…
“I suggest refocusing reform efforts… {on}…the identification of areas where interests align among advocacy groups that may otherwise strongly disagree about the role of psychiatric treatment in recovery.”
To Timothy Kelly and all others who advocate an approach that calls for less polarization, and seeking more common ground and accommodation with psychiatry (and other advocacy groups), and calls for a strategic academic and legislative shift away from targeting the damage caused by psychiatric drugs and DSM diagnoses/labeling (and I am assuming also away from targeting forced drugging and hospitalization and Electro-shock), we must shout a resounding NO, a thousand times over!
This approach fails to grasp every key lesson that history has taught us about how to make meaningful social change in the world. Name one significant historical battle for much needed social change which was NOT preceded by an enormous level of social polarization PRIOR to the actual birth of meaningful social transformation.
Imagine for a moment telling Frederick Douglass, John Brown, Rosa Parks, Stokely Carmichael, MLK, Huey Newton, and Malcolm X, that their writings and actions are too polarizing, and that they need to focus more broadly on education, and patiently making slow legislative change. And, once again, imagine urging these same heroic activists to back off their political exposure of racial inferiority and their radical organizing efforts against specific examples of racial violence and discrimination because they are being just too controversial and might be alienating potential allies for their cause. How absurd this advice sounds today!
Today the movement against psychiatric abuse is only in its earliest stage of development; we have barely scratched the surface of what is necessary and possible. At this time in history we are merely a serious nuisance to Biological Psychiatry and the institutions that prop it up; they march on, totally unfettered and with complete impunity. The drugging, the diagnosing, and the use of force are expanding every day. How can we stand by, while thousands upon thousands of people are being harmed by psychiatric drugs, psychiatric labeling, Electro-shock, and the rampant use of force? Then justify this by saying that we need to avoid polarization and focus our work on the so-called more important “broader” political issues; all of which ends up being rechanneled into more academic research and some sort of slow legislative agenda?
Now do not misunderstand me, I am not advocating that we just put our heads down and narrowly (or blindly) fight the daily battles against psychiatric abuse. No, we must adopt a political strategy of walking on two legs of struggle. That is, while fighting the particular daily battles we must always link these specific fights to the broader issues of systemic and ‘structural violence’ within the larger economic and political system. Neither leg of the overall struggle can be effectively conducted without the other. Combining particular battles with broader political exposure will grow the movement; narrowly focusing on one leg (in a less confrontational and more reformist way, as Timothy Kelly has proposed) will ultimately paralyze the forward motion of our movement and lead to demoralization and political dead ends.
Those activists (such as Monica Cassani, Laura Delano, Nancy Rubenstein de Giudice and others) who are leading the daily battles (in Underground Railroad-like fashion) by organizing psych drug withdrawal activity, education and support groups, while at the same time challenging Biological Psychiatry’s oppressive disease/drug model of so-called “treatment,” must be fully supported and encouraged to expand their efforts. This vital activity not only provides critically needed social support for people in desperate need (and most importantly actually saves human lives), but also creates fertile ground for new activists to emerge out of their daily battles for survival.
As psychiatric survivors begin to lift their heads and ask the question, “how the hell did this happen to me?” they will be exposed (if we do our work correctly) to the truth about the harmful theories and practices of Biological Psychiatry (in collusion with the Big Pharma) that has created a psychiatric disaster of enormous human proportions. Psychiatric survivors and other dissidents working inside the mental health system may eventually draw links to an even broader systemic analysis of how the economic and political institutions (centered in a profit-based system) have created the material conditions for these types of human forms of oppression to occur. This same overall approach can be applied to all other important political movements (such as stopping the destruction of the environment) and could eventually lead to a merging of multiple forms of human rights struggles challenging the current status quo in unprecedented ways.
We must firmly and resolutely plant our pole against psychiatric abuse by educating minds and organizing forces in particular battles. If polarization in society develops as a result of our political activism, this will only prove that we are doing exactly what history demands of us. Bring it on!
I respectfully challenge Timothy Kelly and others who might support his position on “loosening polarizations” to answer the following questions: Is it true that psychiatric labeling/diagnosing is currently unsupported by real science and at the same time very harmful to many people? Do psychiatric drugs, Electro-shock, and the use of ‘force’ cause FAR more harm than good to those who feel they must (or are forced to) endure it?
How can anyone rightfully claim that strongly expressed affirmative answers to the above questions should be labeled (in a very negative way) as unduly biased, “one sided,” or “dogmatic” when there is mounting scientific evidence to support such a firm and passionate response? On the contrary, these are becoming objective truths that we should never (ever!) shy away from expressing. They can be determined through a combination of legitimate science and a summation of the mounting evidence contained in the narratives of a rising number of psychiatric survivors who are now speaking out. How is this fundamentally any different than declaring that the theory of human evolution is a proven matter of scientific fact, and then unabashedly promoting it throughout society, no matter who might be offended by such discourse or how much polarization might result?
As an aside to this question about psychiatric drug use, is it not true that if science and government were not ruled by the bottom line of profit, and organizations such as the FDA were actually interested in protecting the masses from harmful drugs, then most of the current psychiatric drugs (not medications!) in the market place would never have seen the light of day? This would mean that many of the people today that are currently psychologically wedded (or physically dependent/addicted) to these drugs would never have ended up becoming upset, embarrassed, or defensive about those activists that are now declaring these drugs to be primarily harmful to people.
While analogies comparing the struggle against racial oppression and psychiatric abuse have some limitations, it is true that many black people in this country (under extreme duress) incorporated a historically common occurring inferiority complex of the oppressed, and also accepted many of the oppressive labels and language used to describe them as a racial minority. The struggle of African-American people in this country throughout its entire history (and still today) has had to sharply take on this deeply ingrained kind of thinking. We are currently facing similar struggles in today’s mental health system.
So, by analogy, this again means that we must never feel we should avoid criticizing psychiatric labeling, and definitely not shy away from challenging those that advocate that people should embrace their psychiatric labels as some type of personal identity. Now I urge everyone to take a careful look (here) at the resource that Timothy Kelly promoted in his blog as a so-called “bright spot” in the work of certain mental health advocacy groups. Having youth from different racial minorities “proudly” holding up signs stating “I am Bi-polar” or “I have Borderline Personality Disorder” is very sad, and definitely not my vision of human progress or empowerment.
We need to make the issues of psychiatric abuse powerful dividing line questions on every street corner and in every home, barber shop, and community mental health clinic etc. throughout society. The more polarization we create around these dividing line issues now, the better we can advance our movement and create more favorable material conditions for social change and future unity to be accepted more broadly throughout the entire society!
To achieve the above goals means we must find very selective ways to disrupt business as usual in situations where we can make a decisive difference in a particular struggle, and attract appropriate mass attention, as well as, gather new forces for future battles. Our movement currently lacks the present day seminal moments of political struggle that might have parallels to such historic events as the 1912 Bread and Flowers factory strike in Lawrence, Ma, the Civil Rights boycotts, marches, and sit-ins in the 50’s and 60’s, or the nationwide shutdown of college campuses in 1970 after the invasion of Laos during the Vietnam War. These types of critical moments in American history will never occur in our movement’s future if we adopt a more academic, legislative, and overall passive approach to fighting psychiatric abuse.
Creating more polarization around the issues of psychiatric abuse DOES NOT mean becoming more uncivil, dogmatic, or unnecessarily confrontational. Nor does it mean “demonizing” or cutting off dialogue with rank and file psychiatrists or members of system supported advocacy groups. On the contrary, we must have an overall activist strategy of “uniting all who can be united” around a firmly set pole (of theory and practice), with banner flying high, that is based on the highest degree of principled struggle, using both the best science and personal narratives of psychiatric survivors available at the time.
In the 50 years since his death on February 21, 1965 can anyone deny that Malcolm X was one of the greatest thinkers and orators in the Civil Rights/Black Liberation Movement, and perhaps in all the significant political movements in modern times. Despite the deepest disdain and political attacks directed towards him by the American establishment and its media, can anyone say that he was ever uncivil, disrespectful, or unwilling to engage in political discourse. And, while under these extremely difficult circumstances he was able to sustain the most honest, truthful, and unwavering presentation of the historical struggle of the African-American people fighting for total emancipation.
And yes, Malcolm X was a very polarizing and yet positively transformative figure in our history. On a personal level, it is interesting to note that while in high school I was taught by the American media and others in authority to hate this man. I am ashamed to admit that at that young age I was pleased to hear that he had been brutally assassinated. However, while in college, after reading his autobiography and learning the true history of racial oppression in America, I grew to love and deeply respect this man as a true revolutionary fighter for all of humanity.
There are, indeed, important parallels and lessons to be learned from the rich history of Black Liberation and Civil Rights struggles in America, and all this directly applies to our current movement against psychiatric abuse today. Let us struggle and learn without reservation or fear of controversy. Yes, Timothy, (I say, again, respectfully) we can do better.
