Structural competency, which calls attention to systemic issues like racism, violence, and poverty, is necessary in addressing societal injustices but falls short in its critiques of psychiatry. A new chapter published in Mad Studies Reader: Interdisciplinary Innovations in Mental Health argues that structural competency does not challenge traditional understandings of “mental illness.”
The author, a psychosis researcher with lived experience, Nev Jones of the University of Pittsburgh, writes:
“. . . a major form of structural oppression is in fact reified if social determinants and structural competency writings do not explicitly and visibly interrogative their own role in power-knowledge hierarchies that subordinate those deemed Mad, leave the reduction of madness to pathology unchallenged, and fail to deeply engage with user/survivors and the alternative social identities and “knowledges” they have painstakingly forged.”
Wow, I like what I’ve read so far. I’d like to discuss things with this Ned Jones, because I feel there is a need to innovate some new, clearer descriptions of his complex and fucking brilliant insights. I get immediately what he’s saying and his is an AK47 that needs to be fired. I want to help him fire it so can someone help me to contact him? You don’t understand – the brain maybe able to solve the complex riddles of existence, but it can’t do simple things like figure out how to contact Ned Jones. You can now contact me on Facebook (anyone can, and you can add me because I’d like a few more mad or psychiatry-critical people in my life!) And it’s https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=658372233 (I hope). Anyway, I’m having some weird kind of twitching episode that’s similar to low blood sugar, so I’d better go. I know I’m useless like Frank Spencer in all practical affairs but I’m damn good on a Yo-Yo.
Report comment
I ‘m pretty certain Nev Jones is a female.
Report comment
Thank you Someone – I thought Nev was short for Neville (and perhaps Neville is or can be a female name) – I hope I didn’t cause offense to anyone. Thank you so much Someone for putting me right.
Report comment
Here’s her work email:
[email protected]
She’s a good psych researcher.
Report comment
It’s stupid to think sharks and dolphins can ever be bedfellows when theirs is a predator-prey relationship.
Which means it’s time the people at “Mad Studies” understood the animal they’re dealing with.
Report comment
Really good. “Structural competency (SC) points to systemic issues as the causes of illnesses and health disparities.” I hope this way of thinking gains more traction, because it’s important. Our systems of governance (political, economic, social, and religious) are dangerously dysfunctional on each their own; their combination is a recipe for disaster and we’re cooking up quite a storm.
Report comment
Isn’t it obvious why structural competence does not challenge the concept of ‘mental illness’? The DSM, psychiatry, and pharmaceutical industries blame mental illness on systemic problems like racism, violence, and poverty. And this is called the ‘structural adequacy’ or ‘structural inadequacy’ story. Structural competence is not included in mental illnesses. It is not discussed. Because if it is discussed, the facts about the mind and mental illnesses will come to light. This is not in the interest of DSM, psychiatry and pharmaceutical companies. Financial interests must align. The ‘revolving door capital’ between the DSM, psychiatry and pharmaceutical companies must not be undermined. Perhaps for this reason, structural adequacy does not come as a guest to “mental and mental illnesses”. Best regards..
Report comment
Anyone who wants to play psychiatry’s games oughta know this: PSYCHIATRY MAKES THE RULES AND LIKES IT THAT WAY
Report comment