Such a shame that toxic concepts such as “Mad Pride” are leaking from U.S. and other Western “progressive mental health” circles into Latin America and the 3rd World, as these present themselves as revolutionary but in fact promote imperialist mentalities.
There can be no “Galileo of modern psychiatry.” Galileo was a scientist.
A more appropriate analogy might be to a prominent alchemist.
Since “mental illness” is clearly a fraudulent concept, ANY “testing” of drugs in the name of fighting such should be seen as equally fraudulent, and criminal.
The “new paradigm” should be that ALL such “testing” should be outlawed, period. Many laws prohibit fraudulent medical practice, so this should not be seen as new or radical.
On the other hand, if the current paradigm is to hold there should be no opposition to also promoting drugs and rituals meant to free one from demonic possession, etc.
I think you’re picking up on my basic criticism of this series as expressed in the previous chapter, that labeling atypical thought, behavior and emotion in terms of “psychiatric disorder” — in and of itself — medicalizes and invalidates human experience. Even when there may be genuine insights lurking amid the semantic obfuscation.
Excellent summation.
There is nothing about âmadâ that implies âmentally illâ in the modern sense.
“Mental illness” was initially considered (or promoted) as a scientific, humane term for what was previously called “madness.” They are interchangeable in terms of their offensiveness in that sense.
On your other point, if someone takes an offensive term like “bitch” and morphs it into the positive term “bitchin,” the original implications of the term remain; the same with “mad skills,” etc.
But all this ambiguity reinforces my main point about broad brushing survivors’ self-identification with the term “mad.” I never said no one should ever use it for any reason.
When has anything ever been “resolved” at MIA? That’s the point of discussion, to air different perspectives, right?
What does that notion of “reclaiming” even mean anyway? In this case, as you say, “mad” is not used by the psychiatric system, so whom is it being “reclaimed” from? As Kindred Spirit and myself have both pointed out, “mad” is a substitute for “mentally ill” — but both are oppressive for the same reasons essentially.
I would surely prefer to be called crazy or mad than “mentally ill,” it’s more honest, without pretensions to science or objectivity. But both are about othering — whether self-othering or by others.
Again, the ambiguity is exactly why the term should NOT be claimed by its adherents as a blanket term to represent victims of psychiatry, many of whom chafe at the use of the term in their names.
Sort of…you validate my earlier point that since the term has so many meanings to so many people it should not be adopted as an “identity” since this would clearly create confusion. (Actually “gay” is a much more cut & dried term.)
We have seen how terms like “peer” have been appropriated by the system to replicate the same basic setup as before, but with people who have been exploited by psychiatry performing the role of “mental health worker.” It is the same sort of situation with the word “mad.”
I am surprised that David Oaks would print the above statement — composed years after the true survivor movement had been totally co-opted to the point of re-incorporating “mental health” language — without citing the 1982 Toronto statement.
The 1982 Toronto statement, which articulated the original principles of the survivor movement AGAINST PSYCHIATRY — and which ALSO can be found on the Mindfreedom website — has not been mentioned at all. The essence of this staetement is expressed in point 26: We believe that the psychiatric system cannot be reformed but must be abolished.
Read the statement put together at the apex of the actual survivor movement:
There is a difference though between calling something “psychiatric” rather than saying “emotional” or “psychological,” as the latter two are not medical terms implying disease.
The notion of “disorders” is a related but not identical issue; I think Szasz called “disorder” a “weasel word” designed to obscure the deception implied by “mental illness.”
To revert to the general theme of PG’s “Psychiatric Disorders” series —
The problem with thoroughly deconstructing psychiatry’s claim to legitimacy, then framing these discussions as being about “psychiatric disorders,” is that simply by labeling something a “psychiatric disorder” one is supporting the so called “medical model” — i.e. to call something “psychiatric” is to accept the premise that it is a medical issue. To practice psychiatry requires a medical degree, as opposed to a zillion forms of psychotherapy which do not consider themselves fields of medicine.
I am aware of and admire your work first of all, so I want to put that out there up front.
But this is not about personalities, and I do not speak of anyone personally here or suggest that the author or anyone involved is not well motivated.
The issue is people identifying as “mad,” which I see as not only self-effacing, but also as validating the idea of “mental illness” as a real thing, albeit mislabeled. But changing the label does not change the fact of people being “othered” based on their reaction to a system designed to sacrifice our humanity to the demands of profit and exploitation.
As for division, comments on this thread clearly demonstrate that the divisions are already there, and need to be examined rather than denied. I did not create them. But I notice that people with a more feelgood approach to things tend to see those with a more analytical political approach as creating the divide simply by articulating it.
I’ll pass, as I am not currently active, for one, and also because this is not a personal issue to be worked out between two people — the inherent contradictions of survivors using the term “mad” (as can be seen in the way the issue resonates with many here) need to be explored and discussed as widely and publicly as possible, and I think this thread is a good example.
I would never oppose people getting together to have a good time and support one another. However there are objective conditions inherent to the capitalist system which will continue to traumatize people and make them crazy until they are eliminated. To romanticize people’s response to this as “madness” ignores the context. And this is the problem as I see it.
I wish you luck in terms of the intended purpose. I just don’t want this being misunderstood as a solution on a mass level, and I don’t want to see people identifying as “mad” and feeling good about it, because they are in essence demeaning themselves.
hit
As you accurately point out, the term has different meanings for different people, which is why it should never be used in a literal sense or as an “identity.”
As I mentioned, “Madness Network News” “mad” was used ironically, and was used by survivors; “Mad In America” is not as survivor or AP publications, and as such never really got the joke.
I agree Laura O bit the nail on the head very articulately.
Maybe it will help take people’s minds off the annoying reality that nothing will change without struggling against and defeating the power behind psychiatry, i.e. raging capitalism. So far hugs have had little effect.
You gave up — that’s the gist. The result the system wants. There is no “end run” — psychiatry will be our enemy till after the revolution has been won.
Aside from the absurd notion that the issue is “psychiatry vs. love,” and the solution is to ship ourselves somewhere to be with our own kind, consider the obvious elitism in the notion that those most negatively affected by psychiatry — prisoners, working class women, school children, and in general the most disenfranchised in society — would have the wherewithal to travel such a distance. And for what? A bunch of feelgood platitudes and a misplaced notion of “special”-ness?
I shudder to see what statements come out of this proposed event.
Yes I changed it — how do I submit my new email?
I am aware of what you changed and why. Just “speaking my truth.” đ
Additionally the original movement (also known as the movement) used terms like “madness” as a form of ironic humor — NOT as a literal identity.
I would say check out the Madness Network News archives online, but unfortunately they have been appropriated by a group of opportunists who had and have NOTHING to do with the anti-psych movement, past or present.
Removed for moderation.
What about conscious survivors who don’t identify as “mad” but are pissed off as hell with this system, and with “survivors” who call themselves “mad”?
I am not “proud” that my soul has been turned inside out by this system. I am outraged and motivated to overthrow that system.
Mad is a “woke” euphemism for “mentally ill.” We need to dispense with both concepts.
Judi Chamberlin used to wear a shirt that said “Women aren’t mad they’re ANGRY.” It’s something we should take to heart all these years later.
Frisbee anyone?
Psychotherapy is not a consistent entity, i.e. it refers to many different things. ALL psychiatry is based on the fraud of “mental illness,” however, so it’s appropriate to broad brush it as destructive and fraudulent.
Yes Steve M., psychiatry is working just as it is meant to.
You mean Torrey is still alive? That’s depressing.
Actually psychiatry works hand-in-glove with the ruling class and political/military establishment, the aren’t just “doing as the Romans do.”
Removed for moderation.
There are some good reasons to contribute to MIA if one has bucks to spare.
One of them would not be a belief that MIA will promote the demise and ultimate abolition of psychiatry.
MIA is opposed to abolitionism and in fact perpetuates the idea that emotional turmoil is a primarily a problem with the individual rather than the toxic system we live under.
Do you have a public email or other possible ways of contacting you Birdsong? You might want to be in touch with others who share your anti-psychiatry perspectives.
Thanks for the info.
It always helps to convey an understanding to these creeps that the eyes of many are upon them.
What was the alleged basis for this? Did anyone attend the hearing?
There are already abolitionist groupings and activities. MIA is not an anti-psychiatry organization so you won’t find them here is all.
Psychiatry cannot be opposed in a “mainstream” manner; the two are opposites.
Removed for moderation.
All this focus on âpsychiatryâ is a bit old fashioned. Today, the vast majority of psychiatric drugs are prescribed by general practitioners.
They are still prescribed based on psychiatric ideology and a belief in “mental illness.” And it is exactly this mentality that needs to be exposed and defeated.
It should be noted however that Mr. Oaks has made it very clear since the (temporary) defeat of the original movement that his ensuing efforts have NOT been anti-psychiatry, but an attempt to forge “unity” among disparate and opposing sectors of opinion loosely related to some sort of dissatisfaction with psychiatry as it currently exists.
I should add that the Szaszes and Breggins have always been an infinitesimal speck in the shrink population.
Damn. This is supposed to be an anti-psychiatry movement and yet focusing on psychiatry is “old fashioned”?
The mental patients liberation movement was and remains ANTI-PSYCHIATRY. Except we don’t say “mental patient” any more, we say survivor.
And we never spoke of shrinks as “allies.” Though some, like Peter Breggin and Thomas Szasz, clearly were in many ways.
Those who believe in “mental illness” and practice psychiatry are NOT anti-psychiatry; this includes all shrinks unless they are among the few involved in exposing the psychiatric system. These people can NEVER speak for us.
Psychiatry must be exposed as a tool of social control rather than medicine.
A safer more humane world must be brought into existence via revolution. Psychiatry works to preserve the unjust corporate-dominated system under which we live.
Well…l guess as long as you dissent to the “right” things in the “right” way.
The term “consumer” is bullshit anyway, unless you’re referring to the consumption of misinformation and neurotoxins.
I canât imagine why anyone would ever want to unite psychiatric survivors with psych. consumers.
Good to see people making these connections.
Though psych survivors might help the “consumers” see through the hype and ultimately become survivors.
Why not one of you too, Someone?
Arguments based on emotion are not really arguments.
Plus an oppressor by definition has a power advantage in the “discussion.”
Yes, absolutely.
I saw no personal attacks on David Oaks, simply rebuttals of what could easily be construed as attacks by David on those who see psychiatry as their enemy.
David is one of many survivors of psychiatry who have been leading the struggle against psychiatric oppression on many levels for many years, not all of whom do so in a high-profile, personality based manner. His views are respected as worthy of consideration, just as are those of others. Here he seems to consider those his disagrees with as “haters,” and this is what people are responding to.
Removed for moderation.
Smooshing together counseling and psychiatry is pretty clearly confusing the issues as far as I’m concerned. Psychiatry claims to be medicine, hence it’s fraud.
Removed for moderation.
Removed for moderation.
There are truly anti-psychiatry survivors out here folks, I might ask one of them to post here about where the anti-psychiatry “underground” stands at the moment and maybe how to get in touch. Do any of the anti-psych people here have email adds the ydon’t mind posting here just to simplify things?
And this is what is meant by “sleeping with the enemy.” And psychosurgery is slightly less harmful than bashing someone’s head in with a rock. At least in some cases.
You make me feel superfluous Birdsong but YES!
Yes, your enemy is someone who works to undermine or destroy you — “deliberately” or not. Such as causing you to self-identify as “other” (or “patient”).
I would like to know from any student of Gandhi, if Gandhi ever referred to the opposition as âenemyâ and if Dr. Martin Luther King ever referred to proponents of Jim Crow as the enemy?
So would you use India as an example of human progress?
And it actually took Black rebellions in cities throughout the country before even modest gains were achieved on an economic level — though the marches were inspirational MLK had lost a lot of support at the end of his life.
Anyway if he saw people as his political enemy he would probably not have used that term to avoid stirring up hatred and confusion.
I second that emotion. Thanks Bradford.
Looks like I peeked into this little tiff a little late.
Tell it Birdsong!
For the purpose of analysis the term “enemy” is appropriate politically whether or not one likes or dislikes the personality in question.
So if the purpose is to abolish psychiatry, the goal of “reforming mental health” is antithetical and the term “enemy” is appropriate to describe politically those who want to save psychiatry, and not abolish it based on its inherent fraudulence, which cannot be “reformed.”
So-called social media should never be used to discuss personal issues of any sort, unless those involved want the entire world as their audience, and I never use it period.
However, for those who nonetheless choose to proceed with anti-psychiatry education and organizing in this manner I can go along with the basic premise of this article.
Richard Stallman of the Internet Hall of Fame suggests organizations use ONLY THE HOME PAGE of Facebook etc., and only to direct people to an actual website they control, which I think is an EXCELLENT idea.
Do we have any evidence he is an expert(beyond any other doctor) on ECT or other electrical treatments?
If he’s not an “expert” why is he promoting it?
Why should such clear contradictions and hypocrisy not be exposed?
Quoting Michael Cornwall further down in this discussion:
David Healy is a world renowned advocate for and practitioner of brain damaging shock treatment. He claims that- âECT is the most effective treatment for severe depressive disorder.â
Like I said above “dissent” legitimizes psychiatry as the established reality towards which one may hold critical opinions — but not to the extent of abolishing it as an unmistakable evil.
By treating psychiatry as needing “reform” but not abolition MIA perpetuates the psychiatric mindset.
Of course there’s a lot more $ in the “critical psychiatry” field than in the struggle for abolition.
Unfortunately simply criticizing psychiatry is a strategy of weakness. That psychiatry needs to be abolished should be seen as a given, and the focus should be on HOW to accomplish this, not on whether or why,
They will throw their own under the bus if suits their interests.
I do not expect Healy to be an electrical engineer on top of an expert on drug harms.
This reminds me of a certain Supreme Court justice who won’t venture a definition of the word “woman” because she is not a biologist.
Glad people are picking up on the elephant in the room. Here’s another: Franz Fanon practiced electroshock on his oppressed “patients.”
Presenting the “pros & cons” of fascist surveillance as a debatable topic only serves to legitimize totalitarianism in the eyes of those who are unable to think.
But it’s a great excuse for those who know better to cling to their “mental health” careers.
This is the same David Healy who raves about the value of electroshock???
You hit it on the head Charlotte. “Mental health” is just as much an illusion as is “mental illness.”
The toxic reaction to COVID — lockdowns, masks, “vaccines,” etc. — was promulgated by neoliberalism, as well as by former leftists.
Is reordering one’s bodily chemistry to disguise or suppress feelings of unhappiness an improvement or a self-imposed disability?
What are “improvements”?
Aftab admonished, âAnyone not attuned to the emerging intersection of psychiatric critique & far-right politics is not paying attention. Weâve already seen previews of this relationship when it comes to gender critical ideology & anti-vaccine sentiment;
As long time leftist Russeell Brand mockingly said last year after joining the anti-forced VAXX forces: “Hey look I’m ‘right wing’ now.”
Any leftist who has stood still politically over the past few years is now called “right wing” for attacking Big Pharm and forced drugging, or for defending feminism from misogynist attacks by “transgender” activists. And we will be called “right wing” for attacking psychiatric slavery.
Orwell would have a lot to say about this.
I find the idea that all âmental illnessâ is simply voluntary disliked behavior doesnât hold water.
If that’s what you got from this blog it reaffirms my statement that people should learn about Szasz directly, not via “interpreters.”
“Mental illness” does NOT EXIST period. The mind is an abstraction and is not subject to physical qualities such as “disease” (or color, or texture). This is a semantic con job.
If you are truly done with psychiatry you should have no need to argue with it, any more than an abused woman needs to argue with an abuser. Move on.
Something cannot be “rehumanized” that was never human to begin with. So the theme of this blog is a non-starter.
We know essentially what to replace it with. But true revolution is dangerous so people make rationalizations for “gradual change,” which of course never happens, and often things get worse since that “gradual” change is essentially more of the same but better disguised.
Sure, no prob.
I imagine you also realize that to perpetuate the idea of “community mental health” validates the system which creates the collective trauma we all share at some level. Not that you created that contradiction, you’re just trying to deal with it. Still we should never try to “adjust” to a criminal system or encourage others to.
The Las Vegas mass shooter was strung out on Valium/diazepam.
Known as Truman Show Syndrome, my first psychotic episode consisted of me believing wholeheartedly that I was being watched by cameras everywhere and that I was the star of a reality show about my life. Everyone â friends, family, and strangers alike â was âin on itâ and only interacting with me to get their 15 minutes of fame.
I had a phase like that when I was doing lots of acid. This was decades before the Truman Show though.
Don’t call it “psychosis,” it’s a meaningless term. If you can’t handle the synchronicity don’t smoke the stronger stuff, it can be disorienting.
The mind, like the soul, is an abstract, non-physical entity and cannot be “ill,” any more than someone with “spring fever” is ill. Check out Dr. Thomas Szasz at http://www.szasz.com
We forget to tell people they are welcome and sacred. Instead, we tell people not to be ashamed of struggle while the entirety of the system shames them by perpetuating analogies that compare broken bones to a âbrokenâ brain or labeling us as âabnormalâ and âill.â
Yes, then they act like it’s YOUR responsibility to “overcome” the “stigma” associated with the demeaning labels they put on you.
There is no excuse for the toxic social and political realities we are expected to endure, and no solution to the pain thereby generated, other than overcoming (overthrowing?) the system itself.
Thanks.
Many so-called “anti-psychiatry” articles written by liberal professionals and academics miss the point and serve to promote a “professional anti-psychiatry” mentality.
Enough New Age jargon please. Fuck psychiatry!
The so-called “Alternatives Conference” has always been a tool of the psychiatric establishment.
Why get your Szaszian education from a middleman? Check out Szasz himself.
The nature of a totalitarian system is that it is impervious to transformational change, and allows only cosmetic changes, which are trumpeted as major breakthroughs. The “mental health” apparatus is such a totalitarian system. In the above article we’re basically talking about rearranging the deck chairs on the psychiatric Titanic, which needs to find its iceberg asap.
And WTF?:
Donât let other issues distract the process, like mandates for masks, requirements for Covid vaccinations, etc. ?
Someone who purports to oppose the mh system would even isuggest that anti-MH activists should support such forced totalitarian nonsense???
To-tal-i-tar-i-an. Get to know the word folks, you’ll be needing it more and more.
I didn’t know that was Szasz’s own term, all the more telling that it was!
I suggest people simply go to Szasz.com if they want to understand Szasz. Dr. Szasz can explain his theories better than any of those who purport to do so for him.
We don’t need “critics” of psychiatry. We don’t need more “models.” We need anti-psychiatry activists.
Speak of the devil — I believe Frank B was the poster who originally used the term “weasel word” to describe the term “mental disorder” as an attempt to blur the lines around the term “mental illness.”
However mental disorder (not illness) is entirely possible and entirely rational when the processes involved are defined correctly.
Nope. Both terms are equally impossible, because, again, the mind is not a thing, it is a concept. Show me where Szasz said anything of the sort. (Quotes would help.)
“Mental disorder” has been previously described here as a “weasel word” used to skew the discussion.
Absolutely the mind is not a physical thing. But then what are you referring to when you use the term âitâ? This is the question which Szasz could not answer…
Non-physical abstractions also are described by the pronoun “it.” This is a question Szasz never needed to ask as the answer is obvious.
Your concern seems to be less with the specifics of Szaszian theory than with pushing your own. However, Szasz didn’t need a “theory of mind,” or to emulate psychiatry in any way; His mission was to thoroughly deconstruct the notion of “mental illness,” which is the basis for the existence of psychiatry as a field of pseudo-medicine. And it was accomplished, even though some “supporters” of Szasz don’t get what he was saying.
Advancement of psychiatry is necessary because it would simply be reinvented if it did not exist.
Doesn’t say much for your respect for the ability of humans to evolve and learn from our mistakes.
PS The brain is the switchboard for the mind, designed to channel information from a non-physical framework to a physical one. Of course to grasp this first requires one to shed his/her assumptions about many things.
The fact hat you put “mind” in quotes indicates that you understand somewhere that it is an abstraction, and cannot have physical characteristics.
The brain helps process the contents of the mind in a material framework; it does not equate to the mind or create the messages the mind conveys. If the brain is damaged this function can be altered or inhibited, but this is physical, not “mental” damage, which is a contradiction in terms.
Avoid all psychiatry completely. Let it wither and die choking on its inherent contradictions, and do something productive with your life.
However MIA has backed off repeatedly from exposing and confronting this sort of thing head on, and MIA’s refusal to embrace anti-psychiatry is partially based in fear of being accused of supporting Scientology. But if a Scientologist calls water wet does that mean we should deny it?
Say what? Some sellout group comes to its foregone conclusion and that’s a “wake up call”? Why weren’t these “advocates” taking action against PSYCHIATRY?
You don’t get Szasz at all apparently.
There is no such thing as a “mental disorder” because the mind is not a thing, period. It is not subject to physical laws and does not take on physical characteristics such as “order” or “disease.”
To claim that Szasz — a practicing psychoanalyst — did not acknowledge the existence of stress is equally specious.
“Mental illness” is an exercise in semantic obfuscation. Further, to assume that there are medical “cures” for the stress created by a toxic capitalist culture is an exercise in totalitarian thought. (How about the Oppression Model?)
The only proper place for psychiatry to “advance” is into the dustbin of history.
Good comments in general Joshua.
Totalitarianism is the essence of “mental health.” Unwanted behavior is attacked as “unhealthy,” which helps mask the political nature of the process.
States of being and behaviors are still not diseases in any objective sense. Any “impairment” is sociological (however “real”) and thus abstract. Physical damage resulting from destructive behavior or psychiatric neurotoxins can properly be called disease or illness, however.
In his recent article, journalist Robert Whitaker has argued that psychiatry, as an institution, committed fraud with its promotion of the chemical imbalance theory of mental disorders.
What the author neglects to point out, and is at the crux of Szasz’s teaching, is that psychiatry does not simply “commit” fraud, it is fraudulent in its very essence, i.e. the notion of “mental illness” itself.
As for the three posited questions:
(1) “Biological psychiatry” is simply a pharma-serving extension of the original fraud of psychiatry, i.e. the notion that the metaphor “mntal illness” is identical to an objective disease. (Szasz mentions “spring fever” in the same sense.) Logically speaking, if “mental illness” is impossible and absurd, any purported “treatments” for a non-existent disease are just as absurd, no matter how “scientific.”
(2) What psychiatry’s “ideology” might be depends on the beholder I suppose. However if it were to take to heart the lessons of Szasz it would dissolve itself as a branch of medicine, if not entirely, since the term very term “psychiatry” implies the existence of “mental disease.” I don’t pay much attention to the “practice” of psychiatry other than to note its essential fraudulence in principle, and I doubt changing psychiatric practice or ideology was a main goal of Szasz, as opposed to critiquing the entire context.
(3) The only way to end psychiatric fraud is to discredit the entire foundation upon which the institution rests. Human interaction must no longer be considered a “specialty.”
Such a shame that toxic concepts such as “Mad Pride” are leaking from U.S. and other Western “progressive mental health” circles into Latin America and the 3rd World, as these present themselves as revolutionary but in fact promote imperialist mentalities.
There can be no “Galileo of modern psychiatry.” Galileo was a scientist.
A more appropriate analogy might be to a prominent alchemist.
Since “mental illness” is clearly a fraudulent concept, ANY “testing” of drugs in the name of fighting such should be seen as equally fraudulent, and criminal.
The “new paradigm” should be that ALL such “testing” should be outlawed, period. Many laws prohibit fraudulent medical practice, so this should not be seen as new or radical.
On the other hand, if the current paradigm is to hold there should be no opposition to also promoting drugs and rituals meant to free one from demonic possession, etc.
I think you’re picking up on my basic criticism of this series as expressed in the previous chapter, that labeling atypical thought, behavior and emotion in terms of “psychiatric disorder” — in and of itself — medicalizes and invalidates human experience. Even when there may be genuine insights lurking amid the semantic obfuscation.
Excellent summation.
There is nothing about âmadâ that implies âmentally illâ in the modern sense.
“Mental illness” was initially considered (or promoted) as a scientific, humane term for what was previously called “madness.” They are interchangeable in terms of their offensiveness in that sense.
On your other point, if someone takes an offensive term like “bitch” and morphs it into the positive term “bitchin,” the original implications of the term remain; the same with “mad skills,” etc.
But all this ambiguity reinforces my main point about broad brushing survivors’ self-identification with the term “mad.” I never said no one should ever use it for any reason.
When has anything ever been “resolved” at MIA? That’s the point of discussion, to air different perspectives, right?
What does that notion of “reclaiming” even mean anyway? In this case, as you say, “mad” is not used by the psychiatric system, so whom is it being “reclaimed” from? As Kindred Spirit and myself have both pointed out, “mad” is a substitute for “mentally ill” — but both are oppressive for the same reasons essentially.
I would surely prefer to be called crazy or mad than “mentally ill,” it’s more honest, without pretensions to science or objectivity. But both are about othering — whether self-othering or by others.
Again, the ambiguity is exactly why the term should NOT be claimed by its adherents as a blanket term to represent victims of psychiatry, many of whom chafe at the use of the term in their names.
Sort of…you validate my earlier point that since the term has so many meanings to so many people it should not be adopted as an “identity” since this would clearly create confusion. (Actually “gay” is a much more cut & dried term.)
We have seen how terms like “peer” have been appropriated by the system to replicate the same basic setup as before, but with people who have been exploited by psychiatry performing the role of “mental health worker.” It is the same sort of situation with the word “mad.”
I am surprised that David Oaks would print the above statement — composed years after the true survivor movement had been totally co-opted to the point of re-incorporating “mental health” language — without citing the 1982 Toronto statement.
The 1982 Toronto statement, which articulated the original principles of the survivor movement AGAINST PSYCHIATRY — and which ALSO can be found on the Mindfreedom website — has not been mentioned at all. The essence of this staetement is expressed in point 26: We believe that the psychiatric system cannot be reformed but must be abolished.
Read the statement put together at the apex of the actual survivor movement:
https://mindfreedom.org/kb/act/movement-history/1982-principles/
There is a difference though between calling something “psychiatric” rather than saying “emotional” or “psychological,” as the latter two are not medical terms implying disease.
The notion of “disorders” is a related but not identical issue; I think Szasz called “disorder” a “weasel word” designed to obscure the deception implied by “mental illness.”
To revert to the general theme of PG’s “Psychiatric Disorders” series —
The problem with thoroughly deconstructing psychiatry’s claim to legitimacy, then framing these discussions as being about “psychiatric disorders,” is that simply by labeling something a “psychiatric disorder” one is supporting the so called “medical model” — i.e. to call something “psychiatric” is to accept the premise that it is a medical issue. To practice psychiatry requires a medical degree, as opposed to a zillion forms of psychotherapy which do not consider themselves fields of medicine.
I am aware of and admire your work first of all, so I want to put that out there up front.
But this is not about personalities, and I do not speak of anyone personally here or suggest that the author or anyone involved is not well motivated.
The issue is people identifying as “mad,” which I see as not only self-effacing, but also as validating the idea of “mental illness” as a real thing, albeit mislabeled. But changing the label does not change the fact of people being “othered” based on their reaction to a system designed to sacrifice our humanity to the demands of profit and exploitation.
As for division, comments on this thread clearly demonstrate that the divisions are already there, and need to be examined rather than denied. I did not create them. But I notice that people with a more feelgood approach to things tend to see those with a more analytical political approach as creating the divide simply by articulating it.
I’ll pass, as I am not currently active, for one, and also because this is not a personal issue to be worked out between two people — the inherent contradictions of survivors using the term “mad” (as can be seen in the way the issue resonates with many here) need to be explored and discussed as widely and publicly as possible, and I think this thread is a good example.
I would never oppose people getting together to have a good time and support one another. However there are objective conditions inherent to the capitalist system which will continue to traumatize people and make them crazy until they are eliminated. To romanticize people’s response to this as “madness” ignores the context. And this is the problem as I see it.
I wish you luck in terms of the intended purpose. I just don’t want this being misunderstood as a solution on a mass level, and I don’t want to see people identifying as “mad” and feeling good about it, because they are in essence demeaning themselves.
hit
As you accurately point out, the term has different meanings for different people, which is why it should never be used in a literal sense or as an “identity.”
As I mentioned, “Madness Network News” “mad” was used ironically, and was used by survivors; “Mad In America” is not as survivor or AP publications, and as such never really got the joke.
I agree Laura O bit the nail on the head very articulately.
Maybe it will help take people’s minds off the annoying reality that nothing will change without struggling against and defeating the power behind psychiatry, i.e. raging capitalism. So far hugs have had little effect.
You gave up — that’s the gist. The result the system wants. There is no “end run” — psychiatry will be our enemy till after the revolution has been won.
Aside from the absurd notion that the issue is “psychiatry vs. love,” and the solution is to ship ourselves somewhere to be with our own kind, consider the obvious elitism in the notion that those most negatively affected by psychiatry — prisoners, working class women, school children, and in general the most disenfranchised in society — would have the wherewithal to travel such a distance. And for what? A bunch of feelgood platitudes and a misplaced notion of “special”-ness?
I shudder to see what statements come out of this proposed event.
Yes I changed it — how do I submit my new email?
I am aware of what you changed and why. Just “speaking my truth.” đ
Additionally the original movement (also known as the movement) used terms like “madness” as a form of ironic humor — NOT as a literal identity.
I would say check out the Madness Network News archives online, but unfortunately they have been appropriated by a group of opportunists who had and have NOTHING to do with the anti-psych movement, past or present.
Removed for moderation.
What about conscious survivors who don’t identify as “mad” but are pissed off as hell with this system, and with “survivors” who call themselves “mad”?
I am not “proud” that my soul has been turned inside out by this system. I am outraged and motivated to overthrow that system.
Mad is a “woke” euphemism for “mentally ill.” We need to dispense with both concepts.
Judi Chamberlin used to wear a shirt that said “Women aren’t mad they’re ANGRY.” It’s something we should take to heart all these years later.
Frisbee anyone?
Psychotherapy is not a consistent entity, i.e. it refers to many different things. ALL psychiatry is based on the fraud of “mental illness,” however, so it’s appropriate to broad brush it as destructive and fraudulent.
Yes Steve M., psychiatry is working just as it is meant to.
You mean Torrey is still alive? That’s depressing.
Actually psychiatry works hand-in-glove with the ruling class and political/military establishment, the aren’t just “doing as the Romans do.”
Removed for moderation.
There are some good reasons to contribute to MIA if one has bucks to spare.
One of them would not be a belief that MIA will promote the demise and ultimate abolition of psychiatry.
MIA is opposed to abolitionism and in fact perpetuates the idea that emotional turmoil is a primarily a problem with the individual rather than the toxic system we live under.
Do you have a public email or other possible ways of contacting you Birdsong? You might want to be in touch with others who share your anti-psychiatry perspectives.
Thanks for the info.
It always helps to convey an understanding to these creeps that the eyes of many are upon them.
What was the alleged basis for this? Did anyone attend the hearing?
There are already abolitionist groupings and activities. MIA is not an anti-psychiatry organization so you won’t find them here is all.
Psychiatry cannot be opposed in a “mainstream” manner; the two are opposites.
Removed for moderation.
All this focus on âpsychiatryâ is a bit old fashioned. Today, the vast majority of psychiatric drugs are prescribed by general practitioners.
They are still prescribed based on psychiatric ideology and a belief in “mental illness.” And it is exactly this mentality that needs to be exposed and defeated.
It should be noted however that Mr. Oaks has made it very clear since the (temporary) defeat of the original movement that his ensuing efforts have NOT been anti-psychiatry, but an attempt to forge “unity” among disparate and opposing sectors of opinion loosely related to some sort of dissatisfaction with psychiatry as it currently exists.
I should add that the Szaszes and Breggins have always been an infinitesimal speck in the shrink population.
Damn. This is supposed to be an anti-psychiatry movement and yet focusing on psychiatry is “old fashioned”?
The mental patients liberation movement was and remains ANTI-PSYCHIATRY. Except we don’t say “mental patient” any more, we say survivor.
And we never spoke of shrinks as “allies.” Though some, like Peter Breggin and Thomas Szasz, clearly were in many ways.
Those who believe in “mental illness” and practice psychiatry are NOT anti-psychiatry; this includes all shrinks unless they are among the few involved in exposing the psychiatric system. These people can NEVER speak for us.
Psychiatry must be exposed as a tool of social control rather than medicine.
A safer more humane world must be brought into existence via revolution. Psychiatry works to preserve the unjust corporate-dominated system under which we live.
Well…l guess as long as you dissent to the “right” things in the “right” way.
The term “consumer” is bullshit anyway, unless you’re referring to the consumption of misinformation and neurotoxins.
I canât imagine why anyone would ever want to unite psychiatric survivors with psych. consumers.
Good to see people making these connections.
Though psych survivors might help the “consumers” see through the hype and ultimately become survivors.
Why not one of you too, Someone?
Arguments based on emotion are not really arguments.
Plus an oppressor by definition has a power advantage in the “discussion.”
Yes, absolutely.
I saw no personal attacks on David Oaks, simply rebuttals of what could easily be construed as attacks by David on those who see psychiatry as their enemy.
David is one of many survivors of psychiatry who have been leading the struggle against psychiatric oppression on many levels for many years, not all of whom do so in a high-profile, personality based manner. His views are respected as worthy of consideration, just as are those of others. Here he seems to consider those his disagrees with as “haters,” and this is what people are responding to.
Removed for moderation.
Smooshing together counseling and psychiatry is pretty clearly confusing the issues as far as I’m concerned. Psychiatry claims to be medicine, hence it’s fraud.
Removed for moderation.
Removed for moderation.
There are truly anti-psychiatry survivors out here folks, I might ask one of them to post here about where the anti-psychiatry “underground” stands at the moment and maybe how to get in touch. Do any of the anti-psych people here have email adds the ydon’t mind posting here just to simplify things?
And this is what is meant by “sleeping with the enemy.” And psychosurgery is slightly less harmful than bashing someone’s head in with a rock. At least in some cases.
You make me feel superfluous Birdsong but YES!
Yes, your enemy is someone who works to undermine or destroy you — “deliberately” or not. Such as causing you to self-identify as “other” (or “patient”).
I would like to know from any student of Gandhi, if Gandhi ever referred to the opposition as âenemyâ and if Dr. Martin Luther King ever referred to proponents of Jim Crow as the enemy?
So would you use India as an example of human progress?
And it actually took Black rebellions in cities throughout the country before even modest gains were achieved on an economic level — though the marches were inspirational MLK had lost a lot of support at the end of his life.
Anyway if he saw people as his political enemy he would probably not have used that term to avoid stirring up hatred and confusion.
I second that emotion. Thanks Bradford.
Looks like I peeked into this little tiff a little late.
Tell it Birdsong!
For the purpose of analysis the term “enemy” is appropriate politically whether or not one likes or dislikes the personality in question.
So if the purpose is to abolish psychiatry, the goal of “reforming mental health” is antithetical and the term “enemy” is appropriate to describe politically those who want to save psychiatry, and not abolish it based on its inherent fraudulence, which cannot be “reformed.”
So-called social media should never be used to discuss personal issues of any sort, unless those involved want the entire world as their audience, and I never use it period.
However, for those who nonetheless choose to proceed with anti-psychiatry education and organizing in this manner I can go along with the basic premise of this article.
Richard Stallman of the Internet Hall of Fame suggests organizations use ONLY THE HOME PAGE of Facebook etc., and only to direct people to an actual website they control, which I think is an EXCELLENT idea.
Do we have any evidence he is an expert(beyond any other doctor) on ECT or other electrical treatments?
If he’s not an “expert” why is he promoting it?
Why should such clear contradictions and hypocrisy not be exposed?
Quoting Michael Cornwall further down in this discussion:
David Healy is a world renowned advocate for and practitioner of brain damaging shock treatment. He claims that- âECT is the most effective treatment for severe depressive disorder.â
Like I said above “dissent” legitimizes psychiatry as the established reality towards which one may hold critical opinions — but not to the extent of abolishing it as an unmistakable evil.
By treating psychiatry as needing “reform” but not abolition MIA perpetuates the psychiatric mindset.
Of course there’s a lot more $ in the “critical psychiatry” field than in the struggle for abolition.
Unfortunately simply criticizing psychiatry is a strategy of weakness. That psychiatry needs to be abolished should be seen as a given, and the focus should be on HOW to accomplish this, not on whether or why,
They will throw their own under the bus if suits their interests.
I do not expect Healy to be an electrical engineer on top of an expert on drug harms.
This reminds me of a certain Supreme Court justice who won’t venture a definition of the word “woman” because she is not a biologist.
Glad people are picking up on the elephant in the room. Here’s another: Franz Fanon practiced electroshock on his oppressed “patients.”
Presenting the “pros & cons” of fascist surveillance as a debatable topic only serves to legitimize totalitarianism in the eyes of those who are unable to think.
But it’s a great excuse for those who know better to cling to their “mental health” careers.
This is the same David Healy who raves about the value of electroshock???
You hit it on the head Charlotte. “Mental health” is just as much an illusion as is “mental illness.”
The toxic reaction to COVID — lockdowns, masks, “vaccines,” etc. — was promulgated by neoliberalism, as well as by former leftists.
Is reordering one’s bodily chemistry to disguise or suppress feelings of unhappiness an improvement or a self-imposed disability?
What are “improvements”?
Aftab admonished, âAnyone not attuned to the emerging intersection of psychiatric critique & far-right politics is not paying attention. Weâve already seen previews of this relationship when it comes to gender critical ideology & anti-vaccine sentiment;
As long time leftist Russeell Brand mockingly said last year after joining the anti-forced VAXX forces: “Hey look I’m ‘right wing’ now.”
Any leftist who has stood still politically over the past few years is now called “right wing” for attacking Big Pharm and forced drugging, or for defending feminism from misogynist attacks by “transgender” activists. And we will be called “right wing” for attacking psychiatric slavery.
Orwell would have a lot to say about this.
I find the idea that all âmental illnessâ is simply voluntary disliked behavior doesnât hold water.
If that’s what you got from this blog it reaffirms my statement that people should learn about Szasz directly, not via “interpreters.”
“Mental illness” does NOT EXIST period. The mind is an abstraction and is not subject to physical qualities such as “disease” (or color, or texture). This is a semantic con job.
http://www.szasz.com
If you are truly done with psychiatry you should have no need to argue with it, any more than an abused woman needs to argue with an abuser. Move on.
Something cannot be “rehumanized” that was never human to begin with. So the theme of this blog is a non-starter.
We know essentially what to replace it with. But true revolution is dangerous so people make rationalizations for “gradual change,” which of course never happens, and often things get worse since that “gradual” change is essentially more of the same but better disguised.
Sure, no prob.
I imagine you also realize that to perpetuate the idea of “community mental health” validates the system which creates the collective trauma we all share at some level. Not that you created that contradiction, you’re just trying to deal with it. Still we should never try to “adjust” to a criminal system or encourage others to.
The Las Vegas mass shooter was strung out on Valium/diazepam.
Known as Truman Show Syndrome, my first psychotic episode consisted of me believing wholeheartedly that I was being watched by cameras everywhere and that I was the star of a reality show about my life. Everyone â friends, family, and strangers alike â was âin on itâ and only interacting with me to get their 15 minutes of fame.
I had a phase like that when I was doing lots of acid. This was decades before the Truman Show though.
Don’t call it “psychosis,” it’s a meaningless term. If you can’t handle the synchronicity don’t smoke the stronger stuff, it can be disorienting.
The mind, like the soul, is an abstract, non-physical entity and cannot be “ill,” any more than someone with “spring fever” is ill. Check out Dr. Thomas Szasz at http://www.szasz.com
We forget to tell people they are welcome and sacred. Instead, we tell people not to be ashamed of struggle while the entirety of the system shames them by perpetuating analogies that compare broken bones to a âbrokenâ brain or labeling us as âabnormalâ and âill.â
Yes, then they act like it’s YOUR responsibility to “overcome” the “stigma” associated with the demeaning labels they put on you.
There is no excuse for the toxic social and political realities we are expected to endure, and no solution to the pain thereby generated, other than overcoming (overthrowing?) the system itself.
Thanks.
Many so-called “anti-psychiatry” articles written by liberal professionals and academics miss the point and serve to promote a “professional anti-psychiatry” mentality.
Enough New Age jargon please. Fuck psychiatry!
The so-called “Alternatives Conference” has always been a tool of the psychiatric establishment.
Why get your Szaszian education from a middleman? Check out Szasz himself.
Here’s the full link: http://www.szasz.com
Hear, hear! đ
The nature of a totalitarian system is that it is impervious to transformational change, and allows only cosmetic changes, which are trumpeted as major breakthroughs. The “mental health” apparatus is such a totalitarian system. In the above article we’re basically talking about rearranging the deck chairs on the psychiatric Titanic, which needs to find its iceberg asap.
And WTF?:
Donât let other issues distract the process, like mandates for masks, requirements for Covid vaccinations, etc. ?
Someone who purports to oppose the mh system would even isuggest that anti-MH activists should support such forced totalitarian nonsense???
To-tal-i-tar-i-an. Get to know the word folks, you’ll be needing it more and more.
I didn’t know that was Szasz’s own term, all the more telling that it was!
I suggest people simply go to Szasz.com if they want to understand Szasz. Dr. Szasz can explain his theories better than any of those who purport to do so for him.
We don’t need “critics” of psychiatry. We don’t need more “models.” We need anti-psychiatry activists.
Speak of the devil — I believe Frank B was the poster who originally used the term “weasel word” to describe the term “mental disorder” as an attempt to blur the lines around the term “mental illness.”
However mental disorder (not illness) is entirely possible and entirely rational when the processes involved are defined correctly.
Nope. Both terms are equally impossible, because, again, the mind is not a thing, it is a concept. Show me where Szasz said anything of the sort. (Quotes would help.)
“Mental disorder” has been previously described here as a “weasel word” used to skew the discussion.
Absolutely the mind is not a physical thing. But then what are you referring to when you use the term âitâ? This is the question which Szasz could not answer…
Non-physical abstractions also are described by the pronoun “it.” This is a question Szasz never needed to ask as the answer is obvious.
Your concern seems to be less with the specifics of Szaszian theory than with pushing your own. However, Szasz didn’t need a “theory of mind,” or to emulate psychiatry in any way; His mission was to thoroughly deconstruct the notion of “mental illness,” which is the basis for the existence of psychiatry as a field of pseudo-medicine. And it was accomplished, even though some “supporters” of Szasz don’t get what he was saying.
Advancement of psychiatry is necessary because it would simply be reinvented if it did not exist.
Doesn’t say much for your respect for the ability of humans to evolve and learn from our mistakes.
PS The brain is the switchboard for the mind, designed to channel information from a non-physical framework to a physical one. Of course to grasp this first requires one to shed his/her assumptions about many things.
The fact hat you put “mind” in quotes indicates that you understand somewhere that it is an abstraction, and cannot have physical characteristics.
The brain helps process the contents of the mind in a material framework; it does not equate to the mind or create the messages the mind conveys. If the brain is damaged this function can be altered or inhibited, but this is physical, not “mental” damage, which is a contradiction in terms.
Avoid all psychiatry completely. Let it wither and die choking on its inherent contradictions, and do something productive with your life.
However MIA has backed off repeatedly from exposing and confronting this sort of thing head on, and MIA’s refusal to embrace anti-psychiatry is partially based in fear of being accused of supporting Scientology. But if a Scientologist calls water wet does that mean we should deny it?
Say what? Some sellout group comes to its foregone conclusion and that’s a “wake up call”? Why weren’t these “advocates” taking action against PSYCHIATRY?
You don’t get Szasz at all apparently.
There is no such thing as a “mental disorder” because the mind is not a thing, period. It is not subject to physical laws and does not take on physical characteristics such as “order” or “disease.”
To claim that Szasz — a practicing psychoanalyst — did not acknowledge the existence of stress is equally specious.
“Mental illness” is an exercise in semantic obfuscation. Further, to assume that there are medical “cures” for the stress created by a toxic capitalist culture is an exercise in totalitarian thought. (How about the Oppression Model?)
The only proper place for psychiatry to “advance” is into the dustbin of history.
Good comments in general Joshua.
Totalitarianism is the essence of “mental health.” Unwanted behavior is attacked as “unhealthy,” which helps mask the political nature of the process.
States of being and behaviors are still not diseases in any objective sense. Any “impairment” is sociological (however “real”) and thus abstract. Physical damage resulting from destructive behavior or psychiatric neurotoxins can properly be called disease or illness, however.
In his recent article, journalist Robert Whitaker has argued that psychiatry, as an institution, committed fraud with its promotion of the chemical imbalance theory of mental disorders.
What the author neglects to point out, and is at the crux of Szasz’s teaching, is that psychiatry does not simply “commit” fraud, it is fraudulent in its very essence, i.e. the notion of “mental illness” itself.
As for the three posited questions:
(1) “Biological psychiatry” is simply a pharma-serving extension of the original fraud of psychiatry, i.e. the notion that the metaphor “mntal illness” is identical to an objective disease. (Szasz mentions “spring fever” in the same sense.) Logically speaking, if “mental illness” is impossible and absurd, any purported “treatments” for a non-existent disease are just as absurd, no matter how “scientific.”
(2) What psychiatry’s “ideology” might be depends on the beholder I suppose. However if it were to take to heart the lessons of Szasz it would dissolve itself as a branch of medicine, if not entirely, since the term very term “psychiatry” implies the existence of “mental disease.” I don’t pay much attention to the “practice” of psychiatry other than to note its essential fraudulence in principle, and I doubt changing psychiatric practice or ideology was a main goal of Szasz, as opposed to critiquing the entire context.
(3) The only way to end psychiatric fraud is to discredit the entire foundation upon which the institution rests. Human interaction must no longer be considered a “specialty.”
Mental health is a fascist concept.