Thanks so much, Lauren. I really appreciate your response here, and your e-mail about how to more support! Thanks also for all your work supporting peer respite and Soteria nationally 🙂
That’s certainly my fear, boans… But not a foregone conclusion. If you look at some of the other stories in the exhibit, people experienced some pretty horrific things in the psych system and still came out the other end.
Hmmm. Interesting. I just did some googling, and I found some more articles that have quotes from Ben in them about the “riot,” but no other personal info like a birthdate or such so far.
I’d love to find out what happened to Ben, and have thought about what that might take. I fear it might be quite difficult if not possible, but if you or anyone have any ideas I’d love to try and pursue it.
While you’re correct that I wasn’t watching this for quite a while, I am catching your comment now. I will add in response:
I know it is very important to you to be seen as having a legitimate role in support of your wife, in your contributions to this movement, and so on. I don’t want to argue with you about that, and would never suggest that anything that you’ve offered in that regard is invalid, even if we do disagree in some other ways.
That said, I think your comment here is nonetheless misplaced because the main point here was to not use ‘peer’ as an identity label that inextricably ties someone to a mental health system and boils them down to an object of sorts. We can debate about how much ‘peer’ means ‘commonality of experience’ or what have you in a different place.
Thanks so much, Irit. Absolutely to “We *are* the balance!” I actually mention Phoenix Rising in this piece. (See 5th paragraph down from the image.)
I’m not sure I agree that 0% should be the answer we seek. I do think folks have used drugs since the beginning of time in so many different ways, and what even gets classed as a ‘drug’ (vs. a medication, vs. as neither) is hazy and often capitalistically and morally driven. I do think the actual number – if we factor in adequate supports of all other kinds – would be lower than 20%, but I don’t know about 0!
That’s fair, Gina! I’m really glad the NYT published the article in question, but so much else there serves to reinforce the psychiatrized world, that is true.
Thanks, dogworld! Yes, the comments that became the highest rated (by a relative landslide) were pretty disappointing. And while I think you’re right that the NYT could have done more to link the main ‘characters’ of the story to their work and bios, it doesn’t really seem like a lot of people would have looked. I’m not too sure a lot of people who commented actually read the article so much as responded to the title… Thank you for reading and commenting here and trying to push back in the comments section over at NYT yourself 🙂
Exactly, Steve. What I always find most interesting are the people who vehemently insist they believe in “recovery,” but then just as vehemently insist that someone must have been misdiagnosed or similar. Sometimes it’s a little hard to tell just how much they might be lying to themselves about what they actually believe.
Thanks for your comment! I can’t imagine the NYT would ever consider this piece or some version of it, but it sure would be interesting if they did. I did connect with the author of the article that resulted in this comments section as I was writing this, but not folks at NYT proper. I should indeed at least send it along to them.
And yes, they do just move the ‘goal posts’ or change the game when folks seem to ‘recover’ too much… The whole ‘oh you were just misdiagnosed’ or didn’t have ‘real mental illness’ (such as Inman and Lieberman in fact did in response to this article) response is basically a big admission even for those who pay lip service to the idea that people can ‘recover’ that they in fact don’t believe it and see any such example as nothing more than proof that those people weren’t one of the actually truly “sick” in the first place.
And yes, the Hearing Voices movement chose intentionally to focus on one of the most scary-to-the-general-public “alien” seeming experiences and named itself for it with the intent to push on what people were most afraid of and bring it to light. It’s important to do that. But also important to find the more relatable experiences that less automatically put people in the us/them place to help hook them in to seeing some of this as *about them, too* whenever possible to build bridges and all. Of course, then we bump up against media and capitalism and what is sensational enough to sell…
Thanks for your comment. I think there’s also a whole nother category of families that is more prevalent than those who have actual ill-intentions… Where they are so desperate to ‘help,’ but so unwilling or unable to see themselves as a part of the problem that they do far more harm than good… I know Open Dialogue is imperfect as an approach, but I love that they see the ‘problem’ as existing in the spaces in between people even if it is most visibly represented by one person in that network. That idea just isn’t even a vague thought in most families or networks within the US.
Hey, cynical.nihilist. Thanks for your comment. It certainly seems to me that many family members are necessarily invested in silencing or heavily minimizing the fact that family often play such a role in someone’s distress. It’s certainly not the truth within all families, but we all know its a prominent issue for a number of people… And it would seem that acknowledging that too readily (as something more than a rare exception) feels like a direct threat and accusation for a lot of folks.
I don’t disagree with any of that, Ted. I think we’ve lost a lot of our critical fight energy for the employment/peer support side of things (among other reasons, I’m sure). I’m not saying there’s not value in the ‘peer support’ side of things (where it’s not super co-opted). I do think there is value in Jim Gottstein’s Transformation Triangle lay out of how real change happens (a mix of impacting public opinion, legal action, and creating real alternatives), for example. And I’ve seen first hand how peer support can lead to people building new lives, and sometimes getting invested in pushing back on these systems. But I also think SO much has been lost by folks getting too dependent on these systems for their material survival, and their voices getting quieter as a result. I have some of the old publications of Madness Network News, etc. on my wall, and it’s always a reminder of how much more fight (of the sort you speak of) there used to be, and it’s a real problem that end of things just isn’t really audible anymore.
I – for the most part – do not think rational argument can win this. (I think I say something to that effect in at least one spot in this piece.) That said, I do think us working to fine tune our own understanding of what’s going on with the other side, name it, find ways to pull it apart and make sense of it… is important to figuring out how we want to push back.
I’d love to believe this piece might get through to all those people who couldn’t see the NYT article for what it was… Maybe it will be successful with a few who were already closer to the fence. I don’t think it will otherwise solve the problem on their end. It’s really more to give voice and make meaning on our end, I think.
Thanks, Marie! I appreciate that perspective. In some of our trainings we’ve increasingly been talking about what if ‘By any means necessary’ meant not locking someone up against their will, etc, but getting them housing, and other basic needs met. People getting so stuck in ‘more of the same’ being the answer rather than addressing basic needs or some of the other things you mention is so damaging.
I can’t help but think you may be doing essentially what I’m talking about throughout this article which is to apply your own lens and not read what’s actually there.
I *do* acknowledge in the family section that an outside perspective (be it family or otherwise) can be useful, if they’re trusted and not too caught up in their own stuff. The problem is that far too many family members aren’t that either because they were a part of causing the trauma and/or too caught up in their own stuff in trying to respond to the other person’s distress… And yet, most of society typically does see the family member as having NOT *some* input worth hearing, NOT equal insight into what’s happening, but MORE, BETTER, etc.
That’s my point there after reading so many people who wanted to know what Caroline’s family had to say, suggested in ways that honestly came across as suggesting the family would be able to overrule Caroline’s take and correct for the distortions they believe she’s offering…
If you aren’t that family member whose insisting that your voice is MORE important and more accurate that your wife’s, etc. then that section really isn’t about you.
I’ve never argued that family members are useless and have nothing to offer, and I’m fully aware they need their own support and can play a critical role in things.. Hence why I do fairly frequently talk about Open Dialogue, an why we do offer two Hearing Voices groups specifically for family/friends at my work…
I don’t know you or your wife beyond this community so I can’t say anything definitive one way or another, but from most of what you’ve said, I just don’t think that section is really about you.
Thanks, Steven! I wish I could have linked it there, too, although I don’t know that there would have been any real hope of the people who most needed to actually reading it!
I appreciate the sentiment! Unfortunately, of course, we live in a world where folks with psych histories will be viewed terribly far too much of the time if they respond with aggression even if they were in the right or doing so in self-defense.
At least at first glance, the only thing I would clearly disagree with here is that all people with schizophrenia diagnoses know the potential problems with psych drugs. Unfortunately, that information is so intentionally withheld so much of the time that many people actually do NOT have accurate information either on the dangers or the lack of consistent efficacy.
But in any case, just to reiterate… I’m still confused about your comments here… It’s not that they are bad comments. I just don’t see anyone saying that the drugs are uniformly bad and everyone should get off of them.. I’m certainly not saying that.
Yes, it’s great the article happened… I just wish the comments reflection wasn’t such an accurate reflection of how hard it is for some folks to hear and just how far we have yet to go!
I’m a little confused by your comment. My piece has nothing to do with who should and shouldn’t attempt to withdraw from psychiatric drugs, or how easy it will be if they try… The reality is that many people with privilege fail, and many people with little privilege succeed… But privilege (especially when one doesn’t need to work, raise kids, etc.) certainly does open up a world of possibilities that increase one’s chances. Neither I nor the NY Times piece would or do disagree with those points…
I truly do not want to be disrespectful, but I find myself confused by this piece.
If people hired as peer supporters are being plunked down into case manager or receptionist roles (etc) then… They aren’t actually in peer roles at all. And I worry about any writing that suggests that that is even vaguely acceptable..
And as much as I appreciate Intentional Peer Support, its not seen as the “general model” for peer support, although wed probably be way better off if it was rather than some of the persistenty medicalized and co-opted nonsense that is…
I guess I’m just not quite following where you are heading here, or what you are arguing for and I worry that some of it will confuse or appear to be validating discriminatory or otherwise problematic practices…
Well, here’s the thing… You can’t decide what it is for me, and I can’t decide what it is for you. What it is for me is decidedly not about me giving power to anyone else… and that’s fact, not opinion.
One of the greatest harms perpetuated by the system is putting one person’s beliefs onto another as if the former holds all the rights to the truth even for another person. Hopefully we can not perpetuate that here! 🙂
Rebel, You can for sure hold this view *for you.* However, it is not a global truth, and we need only look at the words of so many others who self-injure or have in the past to know that.
As I said in my longer comment here, so much of what drives so many people’s pain in this world is loss of power and control in all its forms. And having other people step in and make meaning of one’s own experiences and actions is a profound example of that loss. For some of us, maybe we *want* someone else to take that power – at least temporarily – because we are too tired or scared or overwhelmed to feel like we can hold it all or make sense of it ourselves. But many if not most of us will want or benefit from taking that meaning making power back at some point even if we don’t hang onto it right from the start.
For you it sounds like self-injury did mean a giving up of power. If I understand you correctly – allowing other people’s words or actions to drive you to harm yourself felt like giving them control. I can understand that perspective. It is your truth. It simply isn’t truth for so many others, though. For me, self-injury has absolutely felt like taking power back.
Not dissimilarly, for you, making a contract to not self-injure worked. I’m sure thats true for some others, too. However, for me and so many people, the contracts felt like a weird, infantalizing way to perpetuate shame and guilt. It’s an okay strategy to propose as an option, but should always be explored with the person rather than dictated.
I am not sure I entirely follow the moralizing piece you write about at the end…. I can only say that for many folks, moralizing about our wants, needs, and choices has also been a pathway to additional shame and guilt… And that is rarely helpful.
So, again, your truth is yours. Your experience is valid. For you. But certainly not for everyone. Surely, you are right that it can take courage to recognize something isn’t working and make real change. But it *also* can take courage to stand up against moralizing and theorizing and social norms and counter, “No matter what you say, no matter what you assume, no matter how many people may try to forcefully dissuade me, this is still my truth.”
I am having a difficult time formulating a comprehensive response to this article. On the one hand, it includes bits and pieces of a deeply personal story, and I hate to try and counter that because… Well, it’s the author’s story, and their truth. It’s not my business to counter or tell them that they are wrong about them.
However, the reality is that this piece lost me at the title: Why Do People Self-Harm, and HOW CAN WE STOP IT?
Operating from a place of ‘we must stop this’ is a fundamentally harmful and flawed place to begin. When self-injury was most prominent in my life, the people who approached me with a ‘How can we stop this’ attitude were threats in my eyes. They were people who generally didn’t care WHY I was hurting myself in the way that I was. They simply sought to define my problem as ‘self-injury’ and the solution as ‘stopping’ it, while ignoring everything else along the way.
In a world where I’d already lost so much power and control over my own life, they were there to take even more away. And, overall, loss of power and control (in the form of sexual and physical abuse and so many other things) was precisely what my problem was. Efforts to take more of it away only caused additional harm, even if it might have made others around me more comfortable or feel like they were somehow doing their job.
I’m particularly puzzled – in this article so focused on the problems with medicalization of distress (a point with which I certainly align) – why there’s so little insight on the author’s part into how identifying self-injury as a “problem to be stopped” is just another form of that very same phenomenon. Along similar lines, I’m also curious as to why there continues to be so little understanding of just how many people actually self-injure in ‘socially acceptable’ sorts of ways with drugs, alcohol, food, exercise, work, and so on. As I’ve said in my own writing on this topic, I certainly posed more risk to myself with some of the ‘socially acceptable’ ways that I was hurting myself, then by a (non-socially acceptable) burn or cut on my arm.
To that end, I’m also puzzled – and very worried – about the alarmist thread throughout this piece that suggests that so many people are spiraling toward their own inevitable demise if they continue to self-injure. While self-harm certainly can cross a line into dangerousness, the vast majority of folks who self-injure don’t do so in life threatening ways. And, in fact, one of the risk factors for self-injury moving in a more dangerous direction is precisely when someone else swoops in to take more power and control away and force them to stop (which this article may – in some ways – encourage them to try to do).
For so very many people, self-injury is a way in which they stave off death or even urges in that direction. It can be an adaptation born of trauma and other challenges that serves so many purposes. And so this ‘how do we stop it’ focus can become even more dangerous for all that.
In stead of asking ‘how do we stop it,’ and feeding into the idea that self-injury is among the worst or most dangerous things anyone could do, why not instead ask:
* How is this working for you?
* Is it something you want to change or stop?
* How has it helped you in the past, and is it still serving that purpose?
* Have you experienced negative consequences as a result?
* What does self-injury mean to you/in your life?
* If it’s something you want to continue, do you want support to explore ways to do it in the safest manner possible?
Approaching the topic as if it’s something already understood and simply to be controlled is a mistake, and a dangerous one at that. We’ll get much further by being willing to sit in the muck with people who are struggling, and being willing to support them to explore and making meaning for themselves. Having other people tell you what is ‘wrong’ with you and what you need to do about it is a profound loss of power and control. The sitting in the muck and partnering to explore is the place where some ground can be regained in that regard, and where we can find points of collaboration in supporting people to live their lives to the fullest.
I find this article troubling, and this line gets at why:
“Peer specialists are defined as those who self-identify as having a mental illness or receiving mental health services and combine their personal experience with training to support others.”
Defined by *who*? That’s just wildly inaccurate, and yet seems to be getting offered here not by the research, but by you, Gavin, as a factual definition.
People in peer roles neither need self-identify as having a ‘mental illness,’ nor be receiving mental health services. To suggest otherwise is to contribute to the worst, most oppressive aspects of this work… those that involve buying into a one-size-fits-all medicalized perspective, and the idea that we all need to be put in these awful little boxes.
There are certain elements of ‘peer support’ that are really problematic as currently (and likely ever to be) employed by the ‘system.’ But there are certain aspects of it that are also quite powerful, particularly when offered outside of a conventional clinical environment. In those spaces where there is power, people get to come with whatever experiences have interrupted their lives or led society to ‘other’ and ostracize them… They often do come with experiences with system responses (many of them – though not all – harmful), and some identify as ‘survivors’ of that system… But there is neither a requirement to be *in* services, nor to regard any current or past history with those services as a necessary thing.
Please don’t contribute to boxing us in. Some of us are doing our very best to come at all this from an anti-oppression, rooted-in-community sort of way and this frame doesn’t help.
Oof. I am having a really hard time with this article being posted in this space. It does not align with the ‘Science, psychiatry, social justice’ tagline at all. Well, maybe the middle (psychiatry) part… Nor does it align with my understanding of the mission of Mad in America overall.
That aside… Max… You literally refer to people in this article as ‘V-SPMI’… And you write it out so that the acronym is OUTside of the parenthesis and the actual explanation of what it stands for IN the parenthesis. In other words, you use V-SPMI as if it is a legitimate word and thing to be boiling human beings down into.
It is NOT a legitimate thing to boil people down into. It’s just not. It’s frightening, and unnecessary to speak about human beings as these objectified, dangerous things. Now, this isn’t to say that this is the biggest problem with what you’ve written here. But that that is your starting point is very telling, and it makes me want to talk to you about internalized oppression, and the dangers of painting a whole group of people who can be so subjectively diagnosed as ‘dangerous,’ and so much else.
This piece is SO problematic. I hope there are people in your life who can help you unpack all of this at some point, and hopefully come to a different place. I’m not talking about trying to take away what you feel is helpful for you. That’s for you to decide… But this message you are putting out to the world is dangerous.
Eh, my point wasn’t so much how great Open Dialogue is, as it was that there are some fundamental differences in power imbalances there between Dr. and non-Dr that I think are interesting and worth exploring. I do talk about Open Dialogue a fair amount because it has good examples of a lot of principles and values… Such as seeing the problem as existing in the space *between* people even if its most visible in *one* person. I love that simply because it is about not automatically medicalizing every bit of distress and knowing that it is often a product of relationships and environments. There’s also the reality that people are available right away rather than after a wait, and that the structure of their system (which is the whole system and not just a hard-to-access alternative to the system in that particular part of Finland) engenders enough trust that many people reach out at the start of their struggles rather than trying everything to avoid it until things get worse and worse. There’s also the approach to psych drugs which leads to no automatic assumption that everyone needs to be on them at all, or that – if they do use them – that it can be just short-term (and short-term can be defined as as short as a few weeks rather than a year or two)… as well as the fact that sleep meds are among those most commonly prescribed because there is a fundamental understanding there about how much meeting basic needs (like sleep, etc.) can lead to distress in a way that is pretty absent here. There’s also the principle about having discussions *in front of someone* rather than in a back room behind their back, and that two clinicians take part in the support rather than just one to facilitate that process… And that – because its recognized that problems lie in the spaces ‘between people’ – the presence a family network (with ‘family’ defined by the person and including whoever they think makes sense including employers, neighbors, whoever) to work through things.
In essence, it’s less a magical thing you ‘do’ to anyone, and more a process of building trust and recognizing that someone’s distress is often the product of what is going on outside of them rather than within. But I am not intensively trained… I’m mainly relaying what I’ve come to understand from other sources, and what I usually highlight when facilitating trainings myself because it represents so many fundamental shifts from how most places respond to people.
AND I’m absolutely not someone who says ‘Open Dialogue’ is the answer to all… It has its downsides, too, and is nearly impossible to replicate in many other areas no matter how hard people try because the trust that has been built by constructing a system that holds these principles is a totally different experience than an alternative offering that represents a little pin drop within a system that runs counter to them (among other challenges around differences in liability issues and perceptions related to psych drug prescriptions and so on).
But again, I really mainly brought it up because the massive power imbalance that exists between those called Dr. and those not isn’t true in every area, even where medical systems still exist (most of Open Dialogue is facilitated by nurses after all). And I think we’d do well to look at how to begin reducing those massive power differentials with the tools available to us as a sort of harm reduction approach. Looking at the honorific system is but one way, but I think it’s an important one because its free, and because training people every single day to call a certain set of people ‘Dr.’ absolutely and totally influences how automatically reverent they may be to them. I see this playing out all the time even where a Dr. is considered an employee of an organization that technically has more power (hire/fire, etc.) but still bends to the Dr. on a daily basis and without question even when what the Dr. is doing is blatantly abusive and/or misguided.
Thanks for your post. And yes, there is a power imbalance. However, in many regards, it is a misplaced one. As I noted in the piece above, the medical doctors (and frankly, doctors of other types as well) often spend the least time with someone, and yet have the most power over them.
I am curious if you’ve seen Daniel Mackler’s Open Dialogue film? In it, one of the things they emphasize is how the medical doctors do NOT function with such a power imbalance over others on the team. I’m actually uncertain whether or not they are referred to as Dr. Last-name while everyone else is referred to by their first name… But I’m going to find out.
My point in bringing it up, though, is that the power imbalance needn’t be so great, and we needn’t be complicit in it. I do hear you on the added confusion of so many people getting to call themselves Dr. Last-name above and beyond medical doctors… But I think it’s an issue across the board.
I’m not sure if you’ve read any of my other writing on here. I certainly don’t expect you to necessarily have! I just wonder because I have certainly focused at length on the misplaced medicalization and oppressive nature of the psychiatric system in many different ways. That said, the honorific system and the power imbalances that it makes visible play a role in that, and so I don’t think this is irrelevant. Rather, I would say that this is one of the quickest, easiest ways we could begin to dismantle those power imbalances and show our commitment to undoing the larger problems. I would also echo what Steve has said above.
I’m honestly perplexed by how stuck on wanting to ‘honor’ the efforts of a particular sub-set of people you and others seem to be. No one – myself included – has suggested that there isn’t a lot of work involved in getting through a particular degree program. However, do you really believe that that effort is consistently greater than, say, the effort put in by so many people doing so many things? Ableist ideals about basing our worth in what we can ‘do’ aside, are there not many people working very hard in this world? Perhaps even more importantly, does the salary afforded to many people with the honorific of Dr. not suffice in terms of recognition and honor? I realize that salaries will vary among the doctorate crowd, but really… So many of them (according to research) come from money and go no to careers that earn them much higher salaries than most of us… Is that not enough?
Let me put it this way: Let’s say I’m wrong, or at least exaggerating the impact of a system that elevates the title (not just in work but across all areas of life) of someone who has earned the honorific of Dr. in terms of power imbalances and the systemic oppression of others… What on earth harm would be doing by getting rid of that system? At worst, the action would be neutral. (No one has been able to provide an even vaguely convincing argument that the actual earning of the degree, the salary that tends to follow, and one’s ability to hold an actual doctor-related role is not enough to ‘honor’ and ‘recognize’ their efforts, with the exception of those who’ve argued its important *within the current context* for people from marginalized groups to claim their titles as an anti-racist, anti-sexist, etc. act… But again, that’s within the context of the existence of the honorific system, and not its having been dismantled…) At best, it would be a concretely attainable step toward undoing oppressive power imbalances that elevate the voices of those who’ve completed academic learning so far over and above those who actually work more directly/frequently with the humans over whom that power is most regularly wielded, etc.
Plus all the other things I’ve said in my other comment responses…
This isn’t a “zero sum game” as some like to say. We can care about things like hunger and housing, and *also* care about how deep the power imbalances run in some of these systems. Of course doing away with honorifics isn’t nearly so important as doing away with lack of food and housing resources. But why would that preclude us from talking about honorifics? It kind of feels like a strawman argument to me… this suggestion that that is any kind of counter argument to what I’ve offered, rather than a different argument altogether.
Some questions for you:
1. Is there really no other way to communicate who has completed a type of education or holds a license for a particular role beyond honorifics? This also seems like a strawman to me… I never said people should deny or hide their roles… just not be referred to in all aspects of life by that role (even when they’re not doing anything even a bit related to it!).
2. Do you truly believe that any honorific is actually needed, and if so why? What do you think the honorifics really accomplish?
3. Do you know of any other completely free and widely accessible way to begin to chip away at the power imbalance between ‘Dr’ and the rest of us?
4. Maybe you think that the power imbalance the honorifics represent (both in access to education and in credibility/power in the moment)… but then, what harm would it cause to do away with them nonetheless? If they do no harm, still no harm done by not having them…
Your stories are valid, but I’m unclear how they support an argument to continue the use of honorifics. Much of what you talk about references the inequity to access to education, and as I said in the piece above and in the comments section, within the context that currently exists it may indeed be extra important for people who overcame marginalization to get their degrees and thus represent that by use of honorifics. But would it be important to have a different title if the honorific system was not what it currently was? Because *that* is my argument. That the honorific system is a part of an oppressive system and should be done away with, which would change a lot of the other pieces. People could still get their ‘pieces of paper,’ and have and speak about their jobs… no honorifics would not change that. But it would immediately change how elevated they are above so many others who have also worked very hard in their lives.
I said this in the comments section over on Mad in America’s Facebook page, and I’ll repeat it here:
Oh what a world we would have if we could manage to find ways to recognize and celebrate each other’s accomplishments without needing to step on others to do so…
I tend to focus most of my critiques on the system that drives, pushes, and pulls all the roles within it rather than the individuals within it, but I hear you. A ton of harm is for sure being caused.
“Evidence, data and logic should be the basis of an opinion not the perceived “authority of the speaker””
I certainly agree with this… though I’d also argue that ‘evidence’ itself is so often manipulated and/or rooted in a system that privileges those with a lot of money (to pay to gather and interpret the evidence) that I feel cautious about that piece as well!
At least in part, I would respond by saying much of what I already wrote out to Marie… Just because it has not impacted you, does not negate the issue at a systemic level. I guess I also find myself reacting to the idea of ‘politeness’ in this context. As someone who has watched quite up close and personal hospital staff (for example) bowing to the ones with Dr. titles at the expense of some of the most vulnerable held on those units I feel really clear that the power imbalance tipping so strongly in their direction is incredibly harmful. I do not owe them any extra reverence or politeness over and above what I would offer anyone else. I would also point to the paragraph where I wrote about people with Dr. Last-name titles often being the ones who don’t show up for new learning and whose power over people is most inversely related to their knowledge of them as an example of how off kilter it all can get. And while – as I’ve said in other comments – the use of the honorific is not responsible for all that, it is a really visible symbol of it and the easiest starting point for things to change. Honestly, I find it bizarre that so many people are resistant to the idea that doctors deserve no more reverence than so many others in our world, and that it is essential that we begin to chip away at the imbalances.
I was mostly trying to refer to the price of higher education with my ‘bought’ reference, but I hear you on the stolen part. That makes sense, as well.
I would certainly agree with you that the whole educational system creates a great deal of inequity. As far as I’ve understood, countries that have free ‘higher’ education have significantly less class differences throughout their culture and that seems like a good thing… but it’s certainly not where we’re at in the US.
Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment. 🙂
It’s interesting that you bring religion into this. Honestly, what that brought up for me is this: I don’t know much about religion. I’ve pretty much always steered clear. But when ever I’ve heard from people who believe in a brand of religion that talks about ‘fearing’ their god or their god punishing them for not believing and being faithful, I find myself wondering what kind of god would be so angry toward people simply because they weren’t referent toward that god as much as that god would like? It certainly didn’t make me any more interested in being connected to at least that religion, and I surely hope – if there is a god of any kind – that that god has far more compassion and kindness than that. I guess I feel similarly about doctors. If they are so attached to their honorifics that they feel the need to be called by them or not let go of them for a greater good… Well, then, that’s not a doctor I’d want to follow, either.
In turn, I’m also reminded by someone with whom I’ve worked a fair amount over the years. He was speaking on a stage to a room full of people who have the experience of hearing voices, as well a to clinicians and various other providers, family members, and even a commissioner of a particular state’s department of mental health when he decided to tell a joke… The joke went something like: What’s the difference between God and a psychiatrist? Answer: God knows he’s not a psychiatrist… I was a little nervous as to how some of the doctors and DMH officials in the audience might react, but people seemed to receive it well. :p
Semantical arguments over words like ‘trainer’ vs. ‘educator’ may capture my or other people’s interests, but have little bearing on this particular conversation. We all have an array of roles and/or jobs in our lives, and while we could get into conversation as well about the inequities in that arena it’s not quite the same as talking about roles that are only accessible to a relative few (due to classism, ableism, racism, sexism, etc.) and that give people elevated titles like ‘Dr.’ as well as elevated reverence and credibility that is all too often unearned. Moreover, Dr. – at least in the psychiatric realm – also comes with a whole other layer of power over others beyond simple credibility. In fact – it is Dr. (both medical and non-medical) who typically also has the power to order us incarcerated in a psychiatric facility against our will. And while it is not the honorific alone that allows them that level of control, its all tied in.
I’m not sure what to say about your question in regards to ‘aunt,’ ‘uncle,’ and so on. It honestly seems a strange direction to go in here. Regardless, thank you for reading and taking the time to comment!
“The last time I used the prefix https://wikidiff.com/prefix/title “Doctor” it was to exemplify how someone goes and gets a badge because they really can’t support their “teachings” without it”…
I think you’re referring here to how credibility is sometimes much more about power and social capital than it is about being in possession of real quality information, and with that I couldn’t agree more.
I gotta be honest that your response here seems really strange to me. One of the links I included in the article above is to research specifically about how much more frequently women are *not* called by their Dr. honorific than men. In other words, there’s a pretty solid and documented history about how this is rooted in sexism. You can deny that – even in the face of this man calling Jill ‘kiddo’ (her husband calling her ‘kiddo’ is a little odd sounding to me, but nonetheless exists within the context of an intimate relationship and is totally different than a stranger taking such a liberty) – but it doesn’t make it less a real thing.
As to the rest… it reminds me of this: There are many people who say ‘just because the system was oppressive to you,’ doesn’t mean it was ‘oppressive to me.’ And what I say back to them pretty routinely is, ‘Just because you didn’t feel directly impacted by systemic oppression, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.’ In other words, systems either are or are not oppressive… How people are individually impacted by that doesn’t really change things.
I also don’t really get the leftist vs. rightist argument you’re making, but that’s okay. I’ll leave my response at this for now! Regardless, thanks for taking the time to read even if it did not resonate.
It is certainly your choice to write off this and the other NAMI articles I have written. Someone else pointed out to me that the League of Legends reference was incorrect some time ago. It is true that my Google search linked that image and LOL, and that I did not double check it because it was just a sidenote and not a central point to the article. However, I assure you, I have cross checked most everything that is a serious part of this and other articles I publish.
I have to be honest that your inclination to write it all off for that reason strikes me as if you are looking for an excuse to remain in denial of certain very well known realities. That’s your call. But rather than write off what I’ve written *or* trust it entirely, I’d suggest you simply check out some of what I’ve said here yourself. If you were to do so, I believe you’d find it’s quite an accurate portrayal. And, really, I’m not sure how you – or anyone (except NAMI) – are served by choosing not to do that.
Thanks so much, o.o. I think for me, it’s just that I was clearly taking the ‘Can’t Breathe’ frame that became so well known after Eric Garner’s death that has been in my head as a point of unease for a long time. But, I hear you, too. So many of us are being crushed by different types of power and oppression, and they all mean something and are all worth hearing. 🙂
I wrote this piece about five years ago, and I have been meaning to come back and comment on it as a sort of update/clarification.
My primary message to be added on at this time is as follows:
I wish I hadn’t written this, at least not in the way I did… It is not something I would write today. Why? There are actually lots of this piece that I *do* like. I wish I could pull all those pieces out and reform them without the problematic parts. However, as a white woman, I really have no business appropriating ‘Can’t breathe’ for my won use or coming as close as I did to comparing what I have been through to what Eric Garner and so many others (George Floyd, and so many more) have experienced as black people in this country.
In some ways it is true… Oppressive systems are crushing the air out of all of us. But how I approached this went too far in pulling from what is happening in the world to black and brown people and pulling it into my own frame.
I am sorry for doing that, and will do better moving forward.
Haha. Well, to be clear, I wasn’t say *I* find him attractive… just by conventional standards he seems to reasonably fit the mold 😉 But yes, okay. I’ll accept being wrong here. 😉
Eh, many of my pieces really land with some, and really don’t with others. I’ve seen people saying I really “knocked it out of the park” with this one, and then there’s feedback like yours, as well. I can’t say which is ‘right’ because I’m not sure it’s a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ matter. This isn’t my favorite piece I’ve ever written, and yet I feel good about it nonetheless. And, perhaps most of all, I feel confident that Harvard guy doesn’t need any defenders. 😉 In any case, thanks for your comment! 🙂
I do not know that it will be helpful for me to go back and forth with you here, but I do want to offer one clarification:
I am *for sure* not saying that I do not walk with any privilege. I experience plenty of skin color privilege, as well as socioeconomic privilege particularly in regards to where I grew up, the educational systems to which I had access as a kid, and so on. I make a point to name my privilege in these ways pretty much every time I speak publicly and share some of my story. I also have benefited from my privilege in the form of it paving the way for me to access and speak from platforms such as Mad in America. Perhaps that is some of what you mean. And, I experience other privilege, as well… linked to my being cisgender, in primarily heterosexual relationships at least at this time, and son on.
That said, I feel like none of that is quite what you’re speaking about here, and I’m getting lost in that. I do not subscribe to concepts like ‘female privilege.’ And, as someone who can’t even claim a GED as far as degrees go, and who is out as and works basically from the framework of being someone whose job is linked closely to their own psychiatric history and needing to be very public about it, I am not quite sure where the privilege lies there? I mean, yes, I have privilege within certain contexts (for example, the community where I work and for which I serve as Director and hold the power associated with Director), but I just don’t get the suggestion that this is a position of privilege in the systemic scheme of the world.
I hear that this all landed as very rude to you. I am not going to dispute that that is a valid interpretation, and one that you have every right to hold. And yet, I still find myself in a place of feeling that I do not owe much of any reverence to someone who uses their quite extensive power and privilege to first acknowledge the ways in which systems fail and harm us, and then encourage them to keep on going just like that.
Yes, we can come up with ‘better’ approaches to support people through thoughts of killing themselves, but you’re certainly right that until we address income disparities and housing (and the impacts of capitalism overall), various forms of systemic oppression, child abuse, and so much else… We’re just going to keep facing the same problems over and over. Thank you for stating that.
That’s a great strategy to get yourself out. I wonder how often it would work!
I’m sorry you find the ‘Harvard guy’ references problematic. I’m not sure I understand how I am using my privilege in the same way he is. He published statements saying that assessments are completely ineffective, and yet continued to promote them as standard practice without acknowledging not only their inefficacy but there actual harm as well. While certainly my response to that has a tone, I’m largely just consistently pointing out the status he holds that allows him to do that with relative impunity.
I can appreciate that that tone doesn’t land well with you and (I’m sure) others, but I think that may be a stylistic difference rather than an issue of privilege. I am, after all, female, carry no degrees, and am writing on platforms that have significantly less reach. I’m not sure how that gives me any power over a white, conventionally attractive, man with advanced degrees and a position at an ivy league school. But maybe I’m missing something?
Yeah, I worry most about people who don’t know what they’re getting into (true informed consent), or have any resources to be supported to navigate it to get whatever they might be looking for rather than just being swallowed up.
Yes, it makes total sense that someone offering support would want to explore with someone seeking support what’s going on for them. Though so much of psychiatry ends up being more in the camp of ‘what to do with’ someone than how to support them. It’s all very sad.
I totally agree. Those hotlines get promoted on so many websites, TV shows, provider phones, etc. Not a one of them provides informed consent about the risks of calling, or anything else. It’s basically a way of just checking a box and saying, “See, we offered a resource! We’re good!” Very frustrating. Thanks for mentioning the Reddit thread!
Absolutely. A lot of the decision to continue to use them is a protection from legal liability. However, I’ve also had clinicians say that ‘legal liability’ is the cover for wanting to avoid ’emotional liability’ (simply *feeling* responsible and afraid of scrutiny of co-workers who may look at them as responsible). This makes sense to me, as well. It can be very painful to know you were seen as “responsible” for helping someone else who ended up killing themself. I get that pain. And it is nonetheless our own to work through and not put on others.
Yes, so many people ask just to check off the box that they asked, so they can’t be blamed for not asking, and no one really ever bothers to then look at *how* they asked or anything like that. Asked that question? Did your job. The end. Sigh.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to comment and share your experience!
Thank you for your comment!! I agree, that so many in the general public have a much different imagined idea of what is happening behind all those psychiatric walls than what is actually going on. Not only do they have a much different idea, but I think many of them really want to *retain* that different idea, because it is of comfort to them to think the “wise” people behind the wall have it covered and will make things be okay.
I wish it weren’t all such a game that required knowing the key words, etc. to get ‘in’ or ‘out,’ based on your wishes and what’s at stake in that moment.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, bcharris. I’m not familiar – at least not in my early morning mind – with the HOD test. I’m curious to learn more!
Thanks, snowyowl. 🙂 And, of course, this article doesn’t even begin to touch on how people are now saying that “since suicide risk assessment is a failure, we need to turn to artificial intelligence.” Talk about the dangerous of software. Ugh!
Thanks for sharing this piece, which is my first piece published via Truthout! 🙂
I especially hope people here will check out Anita D’s poem if they haven’t already seen it. (It’s just a couple minutes long). It’s a really great, really powerful representation of what it is like to be held on a psych unit. 🙂
Not sure what else to say about this, so I’ll bow out for now. As to ego, I do often wonder the same thing… What leads to people who receive such minimal benefit from speaking in certain ways to want to invest in writing whole articles about why they should get to even if it hurts others very often makes me wonder what is going on for them underneath that… Like, why are so many people who couldn’t care less about the confederate flag and “All Lives Matter” *really* so invested in making the arguments about why they should get to say/show both? What’s really behind that? I think you and I might come to different conclusions, but I do agree that ego is in there for some of them. Anyway, like I said, I’m going to bow out. 🙂
Ah, okay. That makes more sense, as I otherwise found your comment a little confusing given the overall nature of the site. When I get these notifications on my phone, it just looks like a sea of links, so I hadn’t actually realized there was a link to something specific at all. I started to watch that video on my own, but decided after the first few seconds that it probably wasn’t of interest so didn’t pursue it. Just went in and watched the whole thing at your urging… And yeah, it is that very typical “progressive” perspective that the problem isn’t the medical model, it’s the “stigma” preventing people from feeling okay about accessing it… Totally agree that it is super problematic.
Yes, certainly, Richard. I do not think they need to be mutually exclusive. The hope would be to become better versed in both directions. For example, we held an action against psychiatric oppression during COVID times in Western Mass today.
And as part of the action, my co-worker Sean and others worked to include an organizer for a recent Black Lives Matter rally in the action today, and two of our crew also stood on the streets of Northampton handing out flyers about psychiatric oppression and our action while we drove through in a protest caravan. 🙂
I am not a fan of changing topics when talking about racism, because it just happens all too often… But I am absolutely a fan of trying to cross and eliminate barriers between our respective causes. 🙂
Richard, I’m too tired to say much more than “thank you” for your last post, so… thank you. Our enemies have been exposed, indeed. Onward in the fight. 🙂
I guess I’m not quite sure what you mean about me seeing your situation through my experience. Honestly, I defintiely dealt with abuse and toxicity in my family, but they weren’t especially involved in my psychiatry experiences because I’d already left home, so what I described isn’t really want I have experienced much at all. Rather, what I am saying is that there are some basic principles that are driven by systemic experiences and dynamics and those rare exceptions that may exist can’t really change the overall history, and so we ask that even those people who are rare exceptions honor that? Something like that. But again, it doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a real, strong place for family.
But no matter what I think about all this for the most part… It sounds like you and your wife have something going that really works for you, and there is value in that.
I had started a reply earlier, but I do not think it went through, so I’m starting again. If this is a duplicate, apologies!
I do remember hearing much of this from you in the past. I think I was thinking your comment here meant going deeper in making spaces for family and friends. I’m sorry that – as much effort as you’ve put in to really, genuinely being there for your wife and her alters – that you’ve nonetheless felt othered here and in other spaces.
I think I’ve said most of this to you before, but i think the challenge is that there are *so* many power dynamics embedded in so many familial relationships, and so many family members who’ve been a part of someone’s trauma… And then there’s also the legacy of pharmaceutical companies using the desperation of family members to get help for their loved ones as a way to market their products a la places like NAMI and similar… And leading to communities that speak for us, over us, about us as the norm.
For those reasons, I can’t personally support the idea that family members should be centered equally as people who’ve been diagnosed, and psychiatrized. I think it’s so much less about you than it is about that broader history, and the need to hold some lines so as to have the best shot at ensuring people really get to speak for themselves, and so on.
That said, I’m in full support of supports *for* families, especially to create an alternative to NAMI and its ilk, and because family members do certainly have valid experiences to share, and need support themselves. I know that Hearing Voices USA and the Western Mass RLC have both worked at trying to expand efforts to recognize that importance. Hearing Voices USA, for example, is currently working on amending the existing charter to include a section on family groups.
You have a ton of valuable experience as a family member, and I’m glad you’re here. I do not want you to feel invisible, and yet I think grappling with some of the tensions I described above are pretty important. I hope you’ll stick around and grapple along with us.
I am sorry you found it hurtful, but I just can’t take it back. I believe in naming things what they are, and I have heard many speak to how hurtful it is when that doesn’t happen. Racism is a systemic issue. It’s not as simple as just treating people badly, and even when black and brown people rise to places of power and abuse that power, it is sometimes still related to systemic racism. I also hear very, very often from black and brown people (not all, but many with whom I’ve crossed paths) how hurtful it is that people so often want to change the topic, or turn anti-racism conversations into “let’s talk about all oppressions’ conversations. That is another reason why I find it important to sometimes talk about racism, and really just talk about that.
And no, it would not be my place to go to an anti-racism website out of the blue and post about psychiatric oppression. However, I’ve had many, many conversations about how to educate in *both directions* across those lines because I do believe our voices will be stronger together. Typically, where I find the most room to have those sorts of conversations is among, for example, the prison abolition community, and so on. I do indeed think it is important for many more people – including those focused on anti-racism efforts – to understand our central issues, too. Hell, one of the Black Lives Matters founders (Patrisse Cullors) has a brother diagnosed with schizoaffective and absolutely seems to have bought into the Treatment Advocacy Center-type arguments. I’d *LOVE* to see those conversations happen. But this is where I have an established publishing relationship, and this is where I see myself as having a responsibility to push things a bit, so here I am.
I get what is being said. And I absolutely do not agree with it. The whole concept of “political correctness” is pretty offensive, honestly. It is just one of many tactics used in efforts to silence people who’ve been marginalized and are asking for change. Sure, there are some “saviors” that swoop in and get over zealoused at times, but what a way to shut down a conversation … this calling someone the “PC” police… and what a way to invalidate the ways in which they’re saying they’re being disrespected to call their request to not be called a particular label (or similar) by ascribing motives to being “politically correct.” I don’t buy it when I get told it when I am asking people not to call me “client,” or “mentally ill,” and I do not buy it as it shows up in this article, either.
White media has a long history of co-opting, appropriating, misrepresenting, and even finding members of marginalized groups who will say what white media wants to hear and/or whose words can be taken out of context enough to support white-driven agendas. There are lines that get crossed, especially with the aforementioned savior complexes afoot… but those lines are often far less harmful than the lines being crossed by those who show disregard.
Headlines like “Buildings Matter” and all the other appropriative stuff that flies around are worthy of negative attention in my eyes. So, I guess you can continue to see me as just not “getting it.” That’s okay. I did read the article you attached, but it just didn’t move me or resonate with me the way it does you.
Thanks nonetheless for taking the time to comment 🙂
Thanks for speaking up here, Morgan. You are definitely not the first black person I have heard say that psychiatric oppression has impacted you far more deeply than racism ever did. I know you do not need my validation or confirmation of your message, but I am sorry that not only psychiatry has hurt you so much, but that the people who at least theoretically should have had your back have instead acted like your pain and oppression simply does not exist.
This is such a strange time… when so many people who couldn’t be bothered with these conversations of Black Lives Matter are now suddenly all about it. It feels like it is absurd that they weren’t there for the conversation before, but would be even more absurd to continue to ignore it now. And how to measure the level of disingenuous and posturing and just wanting to be seen that is involved i do not know, but I can imagine why it would all feel overwhelming, especially in the face of continuing to have the source of your pain and oppression being ignored.
Black people working and using force in these systems is such an important topic, too. It is one that I do not personally feel like it is my business to be the one to speak on for the most part, but I have been working on this film project with some co-workers that is a bit complicated to explain, but has led to a black man who has experienced force in the system challenging a black man working in a psych facility very directly on how he reconciles being a part of that environment given oppressive histories.
I think maybe with some of your comment, you are responding to my question re: why are there not more black and brown people’s voices being centered here? I can definitely understand it must be too much energy or too painful to even think about wanting to invest the time (not to mention expose one’s self to criticism and backlash). That makes sense.
I responded to a lot of pieces that I heard in what you said. But underneath it all, I am sorry you have felt so unseen in all this. It is *so* hard to get most people to see and understand psychiatric oppression. It is as if it doesn’t exist in most people’s eyes. And where does that leave all of us whove been so consumed by that which is invisible, if not invisible ourselves? It is very painful.
Oh, oldhead. I want you to know that I keep being asked if your and a few other people’s comments should be moderated out. I have said no, but my energy is really waning for this.
Several things:
1. Your comment led me to go back and read ‘A Racist Movement’ again. There is a lot of good stuff in there. I do not regret it. There *was* a piece I did regret. A reference to Tourettes Syndrome that was less than respectful. A moderator helped me remove it once I realized our error, so it is no longer there. There is also another racism article that I *do* regret for its appropriative nature. It is this one: https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/01/cant-breathe/ I am embarrassed that I used “Can’t Breathe’ for anything, and centered so much of my own story. If I could take *anything* down, it would be that one. However, Mad in America has a policy against removing past articles, and so I’ve never asked. Additionally, living with the embarrassment of my own mistakes is okay. Necessary in some ways. I recently decided that I would go through some of my old pieces on racism and offer some corrections and apology for the things I see as wrong in them now. I do not see doing that on ‘A Racist Movement Cannot Move,’ for several reasons including that I co-wrote it with two black people.
2. I am wondering about your definition of ‘reasonably well off.’ Certainly, I was born into some wealth as a kid. And I’ve benefited from that somewhat as an adult to when I had parents to fall back on to help me – say when I got very unexpectedly pregnant in my 20s. I was lucky and have privilege in that regard, and I mention that every single time I share my story publicly. However, I haven’t had access to any “family” money in a very long time. I am severely in debt, and go further in debt every single month because my single-income household does not have enough to cover basic expenses. I’m hardly living in poverty, but we will struggle to figure out how to pay for the least inexpensive Community College for my son when he leaves highschool next year. I guess I do not define that as “reasonably well off,” but it is better than many people who don’t have enough to cover their basic expenses and also don’t have access to the credit that I have to survive for a while longer, so interpret it how you will, I guess. This is irrelevant to most things here, but it’s hard – when I am struggling so much with money – to read such assumptions.
3. I cycled through the comments on the other article (Racist Movement). I keep thinking it is funny that people say the comments section hadn’t gotten out of control, when they have no idea how many comments were being moderated out (i.e., that are no longer visible now), or how much labor it was requiring on my part and moderators’ parts to try and keep up.
4. In flipping through old comments, I looked for where you are getting this idea that I called Richard a “racist old white man.” It doesn’t sound like something I say, and I didn’t remember saying it. And, as best as I can tell, I didn’t say it. I did, however, find a comment where I referred to the “mostly older white men” group that was responding to my comments. What I guess I was trying to get at is that I find that you, Richard, and some others do have what I receive as a very – at times – condescending way of speaking to me, replete with periodic references to how much longer you all have been at this and how much more you all know than me. It may not be intentional, and you/others may find me equally condescending. Fine, but it does get tiresome. The comments are so long, and I’ve actually been chastised at times for not writing a long enough comment representative of enough of what was said back. As if this is my job, and I’m being paid to do it. As if I owe endless amounts of my emotional labor. All this even in spite of the fact that I’m one of the few authors who actually takes the time to consistently respond at all. So, when I said that, that is what I had in mind. But I could have phrased it better, and without using the word “older,” so I am sorry for that. Regardless of my intent or what I was trying to say, I can understand why it landed as ageist, and I could have done better.
5. a) I’m pretty sure I’ve said at various points that when it comes to systemic racism I am talking about *all* the systems.
6. b) I *have* said that capitalism and economic justice are inextricably intertwined with racism. Multiple times in multiple places. Just because I don’t want to don the labels that you deem most appropriate for me to don in order to pledge my allegiance to your philosophy (aka “anti-capitalism,” and “anti-psychiatry”) doesn’t mean I have not acknowledged this point. I have.
oldhead, I do not see a point in continuing to go back and forth here. Maybe you still have an axe to grind with me, but for my part, I am doing my best to create change. Sometimes that looks like words on a page. Other times it looks like direct action. And still other times it looks like a zillion other things. And, I am really, really tired. I do not feel any differently about what I wrote here than when I started, so if that was your goal, you haven’t been successful. I just feel more tired. It’d be nice if you’d direct your energies elsewhere for a while. I hope you can find something else to do with your time here. I don’t know that I’m giong to keep responding.
Thanks, Fiachra! This was an interesting article (that you linked to)… I appreciated that the author was honest about his own complicity in some of it.
I want to reiterate that I have never said that Mad in America has never mentioned racism. I have to be honest that this effort to dig back in Mad in America’s history feels odd and misguided to me. What I said was that there had been no *recent* mention of racism. If I was not clear enough, what I meant was that this site was almost entirely devoid of any mention of what is happening *now*, and what is happening *now* is historic and potentially revolutionary.
Just for the sake of doing, I did go and search racism and 2020 and I got around 10 articles. Four of them were from this week. Earlier ones were prior to this current period we are in.
I feel a bit like we’ve tread into territory where we’re just preparing for a research article or something. But all of it misses the point I was actually making in this piece… This is an important time. It wasn’t represented on Mad in America by writers, staff, or commenters at least not in any noticeable way. It is important that we be present and paying attention in these times because our liberations are bound up in one another, and for all the other reasons I said above. That’s really it.
Bob, You do good work. But like so many of us, I think you may be taking this too personally, and that is getting you off on the wrong track. It felt important to me to name the silence here. It is even more important that everyone work together to change that silence. Going back and forth about what percentage of articles prior to this moment in history represented racism or not just wasn’t ever the point. Let’s move forward together.
I find it really odd that you are accusing me of not talking *with* you. I have done my very best here to stay present and respond, and even hear (some) criticisms when offered. Blaming me for a “difficult atmosphere” feels pretty frustrating, honestly. Your seeing me as “lecturing” when so many people have also been “lecturing” me here seems uneven.
I also would offer that your post *is* impacted by gender, whether you meant it to be or not.
I think it is fair that we both disengage from this as I would agree it is not especially productive. Thank you for taking the time here, nonetheless.
Thanks, Rosalee. I know many share your experience, and while I came to Robert Whitaker’s work after my own ‘escape’ from psychiatry of sorts, I’ve still valued it a great deal nonetheless.
Thanks, johnchristine. I hope there will be many more conversations about healing, reconciliation and reparations and so on to come. I am sorry that you have experienced being a scapegoat. It can be so painful.
(Just for transparency’s sake, I did text Will to let him know he’s come up in this conversation. I write this for a few reasons including that I didn’t want to leave people feeling like we were talking about Will without his knowledge…)
I am going to admit upfront that your post here pushes my buttons in a BIG way, so take that for what it is worth.
I know nothing about your gender, but I can say that the level of sexism I have experienced in this movement has been staggering. I have had white men steal my work in blatant ways. I have had white men who are getting paid wayyyyyyy more than me ask me to help them with their work behind the scenes, and then have had to fight to see that help credited. I have had white men say things in MUCH more controversial ways than I do in in person meetings (where I tend to be far more diplomatic than when I am writing an article), and yet I have been perceived as the stand out “bitch.” I have literally had people write on training evaluations for trainings I’ve done with another female co-worker, “You two were both wonderful trainers, but you must have a man who is a good trainer and that you could have sent.” And on and on and on.
So, I am *not* going to respond well to being told that I need to defer to two white men to learn how I should speak, even if they also have valuable things to say. It’s just not the way this is going to go.
Meanwhile, a few things about Will… I have known Will in person for about 15 years now. I am not going to criticize him in any way. I think he has brought valuable things to the conversation both here and via Madness Radio, etc. However, please note that Will neither has children nor a permanent full-time job with many moving pieces that requires his constant basically 24/7 attention. Yet, in spite of that, and while I haven’t looked at all his articles, I have noticed that he often responds to reader comments either minimally or not all.
I’m not going to critique him for that. It’s a personal choice. I choose to respond to comments because a) I think it’s disrespectful and a power move not to in a forum such as this (not a specific dig at Will, just how I feel across the board in this forum), and b) When the author responds, it tends to lead to more comments and deeper dialogue within them. But I also wonder what element our gender socialization has played into whether or not we each choose to respond. And I want to emphasize that responding in the way that I do requires a TON of emotional labor.
So, when you tell me to look at the comments section of Will Hall’s latest article and how much better it is going over there, I want to point out to you how that that article was posted over 24 hours ago, and its comments section has a grand total of 9 comments. None of them are from Will. He hasn’t shown up ther eat all.
The article itself is also not directly about racism, although I’m glad it unites the issues. I am not going to say anything bad about it. I am glad it exists and was posted here. I never suggested my article should be both the first *and* the last, but I reject completely and entirely that his article is the only “right” way to bring the conversation here. And I ask you to question why you would even suggest that I should defer to how to white men have chosen to do things.
They have their way. I have mine. That is okay. It requires many people speaking up to move things. And it will always be messy and imperfect along the way.
Okay, Richard. I hear you on my misunderstanding. I gotta be honest, it is *really* hard to have lengthy dialogues in this manner. I work *a lot* of hours, and even more hours right now during this ‘COVID’ mess. I feel a responsibility and obligation to respond to each commenter at least once whether they right something supportive or in disagreement, but you and oldhead in particular write very lengthy posts with a lot of complex ideas in them, and usually not just one of them per article. I am trying to keep up here, but the reality is that I am reading very quickly a lot of the time in an effort to keep up with my obligation to things I write and not just be so arrogant as to write and run… but it is really, really hard to pull the full meaning from every long post I receive when so pressed from time and pulled in multiple directions. If I listed out all the things that have been going on in the last 24 hours in my work world (never mind my kid world) while also trying to answer comments here… well, it would be a long list.
I’m not sure it’s helpful – or at least I’m not sure I’m *capable* logistically speaking of continuing to go back and forth here, but if you want to e-mail me to talk about things further, I am willing to do that.
I am certainly not going to argue with you that I’m making assumptions about race at times, but after spending a lot of time here over the last 8 years.. which has included getting to know several of the commenters both based on what they’ve shared in comments, and what they’ve e-mailed me, etc, and looking at who is *writing* for Mad in America, and how that has developed over the years, and after talking to various Mad in America employees over the years… Well, that’s what’s informed my take not that there are *no* black and brown people showing up here, but that there are comparatively very few. But yes, like I said, I am not going to argue that I’m not making assumptions, and that those assumptions are sometimes wrong.
The older piece was a moderation nightmare. Many of the worst were moderated out. Ditto the ‘Dear Man’ post on sexism and misogyny.
I will take your words here into consideration. I do think that these pieces are designed to be ‘opinion’ pieces, not dialogues, and so many of them contain strong opinions, strongly phrased… not just mine, though I can certainly appreciate if you feel that my pieces in particular have that tone and will bear it in mind.
For now, I will offer that when writing an article, etc. I do not think it is generally the time for a ton of uncertainty. I regard it as a time to state one one believes/has experienced – often with certainty and a clear perspective. That – in those moments, it can be time to “teach” or at least clearly impart wisdom one feels that they have to offer… And that the mutuality comes from us each taking turns in that, not in necessarily avoiding ever speaking strongly and clearly from a particular perspective.
I really don’t know that I can promise to change my writing style or the importance I see in wording things strongly at times. But, I will consider your words.
Well, a couple of things… I try my best to respond to most comments, but the reality is that I’m often reading quickly in the middle of work tasks, and sometimes my efforts to pick up something I can respond to in someone’s comment may miss the mark. That is certainly true. The first half felt mostly like the correction that I responded to above.
As to your second and more central point, maybe I am not quite getting what you most want me to take away from what your saying… But I’m not looking for there to be articles on here devoid of *any* connections being made, and I agree that connecting psychiatry and policing both as a way of controlling people is an important point… though I do not agree that it has to be made strictly within an anti-psychiatry framework… For better or worse, I think that can be talked about even within a reformist perspective.
In the end, I think there are lots of connections to be made… some of which I at leats attempted to make in this piece… and moving forward, I just hope there continues to be less and less silence when something so potentially revolutionary is going on in one realm, especially as it is the case that all these threads are so impactful of one another. But I know I’m just repeating myself at this point!
I’m glad this is leading to another important conversation, though also embarrassed that I wrote “right” instead of “write” so I just need to name that before my self-critical self explodes. :p
Okay, thanks for being willing to answer! it feels hard for me to separate out using a last name as respect vs deference that i see so often in our systems, and so it always jumps out at me when i see last names or titles being used. but i can totally hear that it is gratitude when you do it here. i am sorry if this was too weird or invasive of a question. it is just a topic that has really been on my mind lately!
i am curious what would help this site feel like that place for you? i am not disagreeing with you that it isnt, i am sincerely curious. we are trying to develop more and more family support and opportunities to share where i work, and via hearing voices usa, and i know miranda and likely others have been working hard here to do the same. alternatives are so needed. i would love to see them drown nami out!
it is true that -based on how few black and brown people appear here- i tend to make that assumption, sometimes erroneously. i am sorry if i have done that to you. Also, if i have rewritten your same points, then i do not think i understood your points, as i was thinking they were not exactly in disagreement with your points, but in disagreement with them as the full picture. the points i did offer are ones i have been offered directly from non-white people during conversations of this nature. i will go back tomorrow and relook at your points so i can perhaps better understand them and how i may have restated them in my own.
“Sera, I would never expect you or anyone else to defer to someone merely because of their age or political experience in political movements. But there are some people writing in this comment section with literally decades of radical activism, and some have been in the forefront with other Black radicals in some of the most significant struggles in this country’s history against systemic racial oppression. I’m in my fifth decade, and I know of others who equal that experience ,or come close.”
You basically just did. You’re just not going to convince me here. And while I think there are things to be learned from the elders in any movement, they do not hold all the truths.
“While your intent here is to combat various forms of racism, and some of your particular examples you used (in the past blog) to highlight your intent were exactly that – crude forms of appropriation that do come off as racist, and just plain stupid.”
Richard, Can we be done with this? You are still at me over an article from no less than *four* years ago. Although, in fairness to you, I would absolutely still stand by the idea that white people have no business using terms like “psychiatric slavery,” but I have *zero* interest or willingness in continue to volley that discussion back and forth.
Rather, in fairness to me, I will offer to you a hope that you might consider why you have spent so much time holding on to that four-year-old conversation. There are many aspects of what I know of you and your work that I have respect for, but I’m not obligated to respond to every comment at length nor work out these differences in perspective. At some point, you may just need to accept we see some of these pieces differently.
Thanks for taking the time to comment here, Bob. As I mentioned in this piece itself, I am thankful for what Mad in America *is,* in many ways, but think – as with so many other things – we can do better, too. I appreciate that you do not shy away from anything that ventures in to the land of the critical. I certainly know what that can feel like as someone who has been in a leadership role for the Western Mass RLC for the duration of its existence (now 13 years not including its unfunded phase).
I hear you on the reform pieces, and appreciate your acknowledgement of the lack of non-white representation, too. And, I imagine you already understand this, but I certainly never said that Mad in America *never* touches the the topic of racism. But – in this moment in time – I found the silence problematic, not on any single person’s part, but as a collective. I’m glad that silence is now broken, messy as it may be.
I do worry about the name piece you mentioned (re: oldhead). I worry – on a site that intentionally includes so many people who’ve been harmed by systems – that there isn’t more room for pseudonyms. It necessitates a certain level of privilege to right under one’s own full name. Privilege to not be under threat from the system itself (or even have to worry about being)… Privilege to not be running from an abuser in the community… Privilege to not be vulnerable to power holders at work or in educational environments. Privilege to not have to fear losses among our family, friends, and neighbors should we speak too openly of our psychiatric histories. As you know, my parental status was threatened just a year ago when I shared a historical experience of seeing visions at a training. I know there are reasons of journalistic integrity that drive you, and that I also respect, but I hope that this can be something in the ‘food for thought’ category, as I worry that it may marginalize the voices of some of those folks who are most at risk. Anyway, food for thought.
I just want to take a moment right now to highlight power dynamics. I’m so curious – anomie – why you chose to call Bob Mr. Whitaker? I am actually not trying to chastise you, I’m just really genuinely curious. I just recently wrote to the Commissioner of Mental Health in our state pushing on the idea that they call everyone by their first name except for doctors and the most senior officials in their systems… A small point in some ways, yet so illustrative of power differentials. I’m curious if it is coming from that place, or from a different place for you? I wasn’t going to ask, but I just kept coming back to this place and wondering about it.
I am confused about your response re: black psychiatrists. My main point in the article was that the virtual silence on what’s happening in the world at this moment in time is troubling, and brings me back to times when I was told that my other articles centering systemic racism were not relevant to this space, and I fear we haven’t moved beyond that. Then I explained why it is important that we move beyond that. I’m unclear how that connects to black psychiatrists being more or less oppressive than white psychiatrists, honestly. And as I mentioned in a prior comment, I’ve never suggested that they *never* do. In fact, at the very start of the piece, I cited two other times when they posted pieces by me and centering racism, and I’m surely not the only examples. But this is about now. And how important it is that we not be silent.
So, again, my points are that we can’t be silent on this topic right now, and that our liberations are intertwined, and well… all the other points I made in the article. If the article doesn’t land well for you, that is also okay, but I think I feel just as confused by your comment as you feel about the article itself.
Fair enough, You found a reference. My original point still stands. I never said that Mad in America has *never* addressed racism. I know it has. I’ve written *at least* four other pieces that were posted here and that centered that topic. Some of them I’d never write or would write very differently in current day, but they are there. That wasn’t the point. The point was that there has been almost complete silence on *this* moment in time, and no recent posts centering racism. And that we can’t remain silent because our “liberations are intertwined.”
If you look at the link you provided, only one appears to even be as recent as 2019. I do not think I ever suggested that there are *no* posts on racism ever. One of my points is simply that if psychiatry has been used so historically as a tool to oppress black and brown people, and if black and brown people are subjected to more force, harsher diagnoses, etc. within psychiatry… Then why aren’t the topic and black and brown voices better represented here? And even if George Floyd’s name weren’t mentioned here, why weren’t there even any mentions of the US currently basically being on fire? Part of my point here is that it *is* related. It is *all* interrelated, and it makes no sense to have the country be on fire and have there be such silence on a website that is addressing systemic oppression, particularly of a type that has swallowed so many black and brown people whole.
One additional point: We can’t possibly keep opining about the lack of representation from non-white voices at this table, without considering whether or not that means a different table needs to be built… In other words, if we aren’t even willing to mention the issues most deeply impacting so many black and brown people today, why would they ever see us as relevant? And if you think that the endless systemic racism and white supremacy that people experience in this nation isn’t part of what ends up driving them to the distress that lands them in this system… Well, suffice to say, it is all interconnected. But I already said most of this in my piece above!
So, the meme that I posted is not my words. It is a meme circling the Internet, and that I have most explicitly seen posted by black people. They are not my words. I am supporting them.
While I think I get your point about – as a white person – not being beholden to ideas that may be coming from internalized oppression or are simply harmful… And while I *have* fallen into debates at times with – for example – black people who argue in favor of the existence of “reverse racism”… I nonetheless do not think we are going to come to a point of agreement on this. It is just too important right now that white people follow the lead of black people… That they make space for black leaders to fight out the best approaches… That space is made for people to move in a particular direction through their own process, and not be forced and pushed, even if someone is simply pushing them in what they think is the ‘right’ direction (and even if I would personally agree it is the ‘right’ direction).
I think white people *need* to have a place in the discussion, particularly when pushing back on other white people and using their privilege to push back on power in general. I think there is also space for us to ask questions that *could* support people to unpack and consider different ideas, or to share our own experiences at times. But systemic change has got to mean more black and brown leaders, not just more benevolent white people leading black and brown people in a different direction.
I know that’s not carrying all the nuance of what you are saying, but it’s how it boils down for me. I’m afraid we just won’t likely reach a point of agreement here.
As to the article you are referring to, I do not regret shutting that comments section down. Among the hundreds of comments remaining there, sure there’s some worthwhile stuff, and as we discussed earlier in this comments section, I have taken some commenter feedback to heart (e.g., not buying into the language of ‘loot’ and ‘riot’). However, that post was being flooded by horrible things, just like the Dear Man post was. Much of it has been moderated out, but it would not be fair to require me to have kept going with it and trying to keep up with the flood of awful, nor would it have been fair to others reading it.
Richard, I have now written over 70 pieces on Mad in America. Those are the *only* two pieces for which the comments section was shut down. I am generally fine with feedback or disagreement in comments sections of my articles. Even when I feel irritated by some of it, I do not request that it be erased, and as a moderator, Steve could tell you that – since Mad in America switched its approach to ‘moderate first’ – pretty much whenever he comes to me asking if I’m okay with a particular comment going through (if it’s on the line) I am typically in favor of letting it through and just responding to it. I am also one of the few authors on here who generally takes the time to response to each commenter on each piece at least once. That said, I also want to be clear that I – like all non-employee authors here – receive no compensation for my time spent writing pieces or responding to comments, and I have a limit to how much time I have given I also have a full-time job that consumes often 80 hours of my week, and two children. It would not be fair of people to expect me to be obligated to respond indefinitely to all comments on every article. The comments section for those two pieces went well beyond ‘okay,’ and I am glad they were closed. I’m not sure what to say beyond that.
It is true, John. There is so much work to be done in so many communities, groups, and organizations. Hopefully, many were already doing the work to support more black and brown people to take on key leadership roles. It’s multi-layered work that requires not just inviting people in to the existing table, but re-evaluating the table altogether and building new ones. (My comment for some reason posted way above your comment, so just re-posting it here.)
(Also, in my experience, sometimes if a space hasn’t been perceived as welcoming, or if someone hasn’t lived a life where they are quick to feel like they belong and have something worthwhile to say, actually intentionally reaching out to people can be a really important strategy.)
I don’t disagree (particularly in the way you framed seeking ‘black support for the Mad in America agenda”), but I also think that sometimes in transition a lot of stumbling steps are needed, and recruiting black and brown people (who have a legit interest and something to say) seems valid to me as one of many efforts. It’s pretty hard to go from 0 to 60 in one step.
That’s actually not consistent with my experience, or research I’m familiar with… It has actually appeared to me that black and brown people often end up even more deeply embedded in the system all too often, including heavier psych drug regimens, more force, harsher diagnoses, etc. And unfortunately, in many public sector hospitals and mental health service providers, they seem pretty heavily populated by non-white folks. Of course, not all black and brown people are the same, hold the same experiences, or respond in the same ways so that may very well be true for a number of non-white people… but certainly doesn’t seem true for all.
There’s also the matter that so many black and brown people get routed into the foster care and prison systems rather than the mental health system, so I’m sure that has an impact. And I’ve heard many other perspectives too including:
1. Black people (for example) already have a label that leads to systemic oppression (Black!) that has heavily impacted their lives, and they don’t really want to take on any psychiatric labels in a public sort of way.
2. Many non-white people are deeply involved in spiritual communities that have very specific views on emotional distress and that do not necessarily align that may serve as barriers to identify as someone who’s been psychiatricaly labeled.
I could keep going here, but I guess I’m just saying I think there’s a lot of complicated, layered issues here that include some of what you named, but a lot of others, too.
It is true, John. There is so much work to be done in so many communities, groups, and organizations. Hopefully, many were already doing the work to support more black and brown people to take on key leadership roles. It’s multi-layered work that requires not just inviting people in to the existing table, but re-evaluating the table altogether and building new ones.
Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment. I’m struggling a little bit to follow what you are offering, and how it connects back to what this piece is about. Can you clarify a bit further?
I think it’s on everyone. Mad In America staff, Mad In America authors, Mad In America commenters… If you want an example of problematic contributions from commenters, check out the Facebook post for this article. And yes, I noted to Pat that I am asking the comments to stay on track because it’s extremely common – when racism is the topic – for people to move and shift the topic to something else. I have a responsibility to keep an eye on that.
I think it’s a fair criticism of this piece that it wasn’t clear enough in its criticism of Mad in America oversight and their responsibility here. In truth, I didn’t name any specific group, and my point about the comments was more to say “I couldn’t even find a reference in the comments,” then to try and say it is the commenter’s responsibility to bring it up. I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer on that.
In the end, I think we *ALL* hold a piece of the responsibility… but yes, as always, the greatest burden should be held by those with the most power and privilege in each space.
I am not sure it changes too much, though I’ve also heard they worked for the same business over the course of several years. I do not know that means it is any less an issue of racism and white supremacy… not only what Derek did, but the complicity of the other cops, and so on.
I worry about your recommendation for a psychology test for a number of reasons including:
1. We have all been socialized in a white supremacist culture. All of us. That means that pretty much all white people will sometimes do or say things rooted in systemic racism. That doesn’t necessarily mean we are doomed. But it does mean that we need to *all* stop with the defensiveness, and intentionally pay attention to that so that we can recognize it when it happens in ourselves and others around us and attempt to mitigate it, correct it, and apologize to those we’ve harmed along the way. (Etc.)
2. Even “good cops” are embedded in a criminal (in)justice system that is fundamentally rooted in that white supremacist culture. Weeding out those cops (or prospective cops) who are invested in actively *maintaining* that seems valuable, but ignoring that the system will generally force even the “good cops” to become complicit in awful things is necessary to make real change.
3. I am not interested in giving any more power or trust to the mental health system. Do we really believe that they’d be any more capable of psychologically evaluating for beliefs rooted in racism than much of anything else? Do we want to give them that power?
Although I’m in disagreement with your proposal, I nonetheless appreciate your posting your thoughts here.
I am not 100% sure I followed all the ins and outs of your comment, but to be clear, I am for sure not saying that racism is our only problem, or the only form of systemic oppression. Nor do I support those who are calling for social workers to replace police, as social workers/the mental health system are – as others have pointed out – is just another form of policing in so many instances and is quick to call in the actual police, too. I regard many of the people saying such things as well-intended, and harmfully ignorant. It is far too common that those who get topics like systemic racism simply have no clue about psychiatric oppression, and think the best answer is to incarcerate people in psychiatric facilities (aka “give them access to treatment”).
I have heard non-white people say “All lives matter.” It’s not my job or place to figure out why, though I will say that the majority of times I’ve heard that it’s been to largely white groups, and it’s hard not to wonder how some non-white people have been trained, and pushed, and punished into finding ways to signal that they are not a threat, and support white people. But, while I *have* heard *some* black and brown people utter that phrase, I have heard *far more* black and brown people be hurt by it. For so many reasons. Including that it represents an absolutely fundamental misunderstanding of what it means.
Here is a brief segment of what I wrote in a comment on Mad in America’s Facebook page post for this article. (Side note: One commenter noted that the comments section was like a “dumpster fire,” and I would not disagree.)
In reality, Black Lives Matter is not the same as saying ONLY Black Lives Matter. Rather, it is a way of saying:
* We must focus on those lives being treated as invisible or disposable *in order for* all lives to actually matter.
* We must focus on those being routinely harmed in order to lift them up…. no, not above us, but no longer below.
* We must recognize that – until we are able to find a place of equality, equity, and inclusion – it is essential that we keep naming that Black Lives Matter because that is not the message being sent or received at this time.
In any case, there’s much more I could be responding to or better understanding here I suspect, but I’ll leave it at this for now.
Well. I think many would say that psychiatry is also addressing a need to physically protect people from aggression, some of it criminal. And I would at least argue that *both* have roots in the effort “to mold and “adjust” the citizenry to the needs of the system, or the prevailing culture.”
Thanks for your comment, Richard. There are a number of things I would change about ‘Baltimore is Burning’ and other things I’ve written related to systemic racism and police brutality. That includes not using ‘rioting’ and ‘looting,’ and I believe you were one of the people that brought that to my attention five years ago, so thank you for that.
And yes, I did not mention the role of capitalism and economic justice. My main point here was to draw attention to the silence on the topic at all, and while I certainly could have worked that in… well, I didn’t. But I do not disagree that economic justice and the systems that perpetuate it are central to the problem, and need to be central to the conversation about what to do about it.
As far as the second half of your comment goes… I do not disagree with all of it exactly. However, there is a ton of nuance and tension wrapped up in what you are saying. It strikes me as absolutely essential that we make space to elevate, listen to, and follow the lead of those who’ve been most marginalized. That simply can’t happen when well-meaning allies are constantly telling those most directly impacted by systemic oppression what to do, even if they really, really feel they know better. It can’t happen when those who’ve had the privilege to study concepts and language in school (and similar) attempt to overrun and speak over those who’ve had to actually live and learn to survive that which the others have primarily only studied. It also can’t mean just following along without any critical thought, or deferring to any and everyone whether or not they’ve internalized oppression, learned to act in the image of oppressors for survival’s sake, or simply not been supported to unpack all the crap they’ve been fed along the way. Somewhere in there, there’s a way to at least try and hold both of those points, however messily and imperfectly.
And yes, there’s also the matter of compounded oppressions, or even – as you noted – the central role of money and capitalism in all forms of oppression. I watched a film recently (The Uncomfortable Truth) in which one of the central people (a black man) speaks to how black people and poor white people should have been great allies. There is indeed much as play here that serves to keep so many of us “under.”
So, yes… being born with privilege (white, male, etc.) shouldn’t totally silence people… And, no… sometimes knowing how much privilege we hold *should* lead us to take a step back, even if not permanently… Because otherwise we continue to monopolize the space that is there. When I facilitate trainings – actually when I and/or any of my co-workers facilitate trainings – we include in our meeting agreements the need to sometimes take a step back or count to ten before speaking if you are someone who knows that you often speak first. This is because so many others need a moment to gather their thoughts in order to step forward, and will sometimes remain silent if all that space keeps being filled. This may be because of how society has trained/socialized them to defer to others, how they’ve been slapped back when they have tried to speak up in the past, for lack of trust in the room, because they haven’t had access to the education that supports others to use all the ‘right’ words and speak in ways identified by society as ‘articulate,’ or even just because their way of thinking and pulling ideas together takes a bit more time. Regardless, it’s not about those of us with privilege silencing ourselves forever, or following along without any critical thought at all… But it is about us recognizing how much damn space we’ve taken up at times, about how many others have never even been afforded the space to stumble around a bit as they grow into leaders, and about how sometimes shutting up is actually an important act of revolution at times.
What you’ve said is complex and important, and I don’t know that I’ve responded to it all, but this is what I’ve got for the moment.
My time is really limited at the moment, but what I will say is this: Yes, absolutely systemic racism and capitalism/the need for economic justice are deeply intertwined, and have been since the beginning. And I would fully support the ‘defund psychiatry’ initiative, and it is not the first time I have heard that phrase over the last few months. Psychiatry has been used as a tool of oppression with many forms of systemic oppression, and certainly racism.
I do want to keep racism centered in the comments section here, but I am sorry that you have been hurt and also experienced discrimination, especially within your spiritual community. Feeling ostracized and marginalized can be so painful.
Oh, goodness, that’s quite a twist!! I’m glad you survived… both the cancer, and the risk assessment… It’s amazing how people keep thinking these sorts of stories are the “exceptions” when there is so many truckloads full of them!
Ooof, I’m just seeing this now, but yeah, that’s scary.
It makes me think – unfortunately – of the guidance our own state is providing to hospitals on whether or not to *release* them from psych facilities to save them from danger of catching COVID through presence in a congregate living facility. They’re basically asking these facilities to consider whether or not someone is good about wearing a mask and doing 6-feet distancing… standards that NO ONE out in the world is actually being measured by as a reason to have their freedom taken away (well, unless they start following TAC apparently).
Hah, so many boxes to check in so many systems… And yes, there’s a whole nother zillion articles to be written on liability myths and realities, and how it all drives us. Oy!
There are so many terrible stories out there of these sorts of things happening. I wish we could all do a better job of understanding and sharing with one another the laws around how to successfully evade this sort of force. For sure, it seems ridiculous that basically a nationwide search could be issued and sustained over years for someone who clearly didn’t want to be caught. The story is so vague that I’m not sure what on earth to make of it, but it’s frightening nonetheless.
I’m not sure that I’m entirely following your post, Jen. This article wasn’t about “solutions,” but about that particular question, its harms, and the reality that providers exhibit dangerousness to us on many occasions. I also disagree that resources need to mean solutions. It is this idea that supporting someone through suicidal thoughts necessarily means that our actions must be designed strictly to get rid of the suicidal thoughts. Sometimes, the best “solution” is just being willing to be with someone in the darkness because “solutions” aren’t really possible at that time. We don’t have housing or steady income to give. We can’t raise the dead when someone’s grieving. We can’t zap away emotional distress, and when we temporarily numb it sometimes it actually gets in the way of someone’s ability to move through. The approach we use encourages validation, curiosity, vulnerability (including sharing on the part of the supporter), and community (looking at ways of expanding connections that might tether someone to this world), etc. But we also do all this without the agenda of making someone not kill themselves. Rather, we are looking to support them in the moment, and suicide “prevention” is a common side effect of that. There’s no way to write out easy answers, because the context of people’s lives are unique to them. As to resources, if you’re asking what the infographic is referencing then what I’m proposing is that people who can’t discuss suicide with someone without resorting to force etc have lists of on-line Alternatives to Suicide (or similar) groups, peer support lines that do NOT call 911 (Trans Lifeline, RLC’s Peer Support Line, etc.) on hand so that the person at least has the space to talk about where they’re at without being under threat.
I’m sorry, it’s so awful when these facilities hide information and prevent people from the outside from even reaching the person locked up. I echo ThereAreFourLights’ question about your/your friends general geographic location.
Thanks so much for sharing your story. I feel like it would make a powerful published story about the absolute absurdism of the psych system, if you ever decide to write it!
Hah, A co-worker (Sean) and I were just talking about what ‘safety’ means within the context of a film we’re working on (related to psychiatric oppression). It is indeed one of the trickiest questions they’ve got, especially as it relates to being a “risk to self or others.” So many words and all their special meanings in the system.. Oy.
I’m not sure what happened, but I can imagine several possible outcomes to that that could be really harmful. I’m sorry that they violated your trust however they did. Someone mentioned Open Dialogue above, and from what I at least understand of how it exists in Finland, one of the key differences is that many people actually *trust* their system and reach out for help early on in their distress. Can you imagine living somewhere where the system designed to “help” actually helps more frequently than it hurts, and can be trusted in that regard? I wish I could.
Thanks for your comment, Truth in Psychiatry. Open Dialogue is so interesting. I share about it often in trainings for a number of reasons, but – while I’m aware it’s happening – I’m not terribly familiar with the “Peer Supported” version, and I’ve heard real debates about how ethical it is to have peer supporters be involved. I’m not sure what to make of all that, but you’re absolutely right that the average “professional” is in a bind even if they want to do a good job of supporting someone through a really dark time based on what’s expected of them by their employer/the system overall.
That’s a really interesting idea, dfk, and absolutely..this all or nothing way of thinking about people and their distress is really bizarre and harmful. As is the idea that most “normal” people don’t ever think about suicide. The reality is that most of us do, but even the “suicide prevention trainings” like “ASIST” make that seem shameful.
I’m sorry that happened to that person (and so very many others). As I noted above, there are many times when answering the questions “right” can help someone stay out of the system… But, of course, one of the great foundational problems of why we’re even here on this site having these conversations is that – when the system has an agenda for you – they have the power to make it happen in far too many instances without their ethics or ‘rightness’ ever being questioned (at least in a way that requires them to respond).
You’re right that some providers are willing to twist and look for signs of whatever they want if they’ve got a particular agenda… On the other hand, I’ve seen people who’ve been dragged through the system quite successfully give each other advice on things like how to answer the questions so as to not end up in a psych facility, etc. It’s one of the more valuable forms of “peer support” that I’ve seen take place. 🙂
Contemplating one’s own life or death (such as Camps spoke of) is indeed an important question that far more people consider than those who will admit to it. It is a far cry from that contemplation coming from another person, often in the spirit of assessing how much control they should wrest from you. :p
Yep, that’s the issue… When I facilitate trainings on this topic I and my co-workers spend a fair amount of time zeroing in on the fact that loss of power and control is a major contributor to suicidal thoughts and feelings, and examining how the system that’s trying to stop someone from killing themselves nonetheless immediately resorts to things that take power and control away… It makes zero sense, and yet it happens all the time.
Ha, interesting question. Fortunately for you, were you to say that within the context of a risk assessment process, they’d probably rule you out for immediate use of force primarily because that’s a pretty long range plan, as opposed to an immediate risk. That said, I’ve seen providers who have an agenda to get someone in to a hospital use statements like “I have a plan” and simply write those down in their notes and leave out the broader details that make the risk seem minimal or at least not current.
And yes, the whole point of this piece really is that these questions aren’t a bad idea because suicide is scary and shouldn’t be talked about, but rather they’re a bad idea because they’re canned questions that usually signal “I’m going to try and take control now.”
Haha. That’s my fav part of this, too, Steve. I’m wanting to develop a whole risk assessment for providers (to be used on them, not by them to be clear :p) soon!!
Well, for what it’s worth, I want to offer that I think it’s best to be really cautious about asking those sorts of questions, especially without asking for consent first. Even people who share pieces of their story publicly aren’t obligated to entertain questions that are intrusive or feel entitled to information that person isn’t up for sharing.
That said, I have put myself in this public forum, and am pretty comfortable talking about suicide, so I feel okay going ahead and answering.
I have wanted to kill myself for a number of different reasons that have ranged from:
* Wanting my emotional pain to stop (moreso, if you will, wanting my pain to ‘die’ rather than my body… which is a way of thinking about things that I’ve learned through my co-worker, Caroline, and really resonates for me)
* Wanting the endless drudgery that requires so much of my energy and feels so pointless to be over… The waking up, the brushing my hair, the showering, the dressing, etc. … Over and over and over, often for no discernible purpose.
* Knowing that whatever pain I’m experiencing is temporary or will shift, and that all my fears of what people are saying about me/thinking about me are probably inaccurate should I only bother to ‘reality check’ them.. But also just being tired of that emotional roller coaster, and having to live in that place of worry/anxiety so much of the time.
* Money. Feeling like my debt will never be resolved, and will only get worse and worse, and feeling like I have no way out.
There are other reasons, but those come the easiest at the moment. And while I can apply ‘wanting to escape’ to each of those in their way… I also want to offer that when you ask, ‘What are you trying to escape from” it feels like you’re making an assumption or applying your own lens/meaning to my experience, and of all the things you said, that made me least want to respond. For whatever that’s worth.
As to how it makes me better equipped… Well, as Oldhead said somewhere above, I really don’t paint myself as an ‘expert’ in general (Well, he was talking about my not painting myself as an expert on non-existent things which is certainly true, but also I generally try to avoid the language of ‘expert’ in general.) But I absolutely do think having ‘been there’ is a really useful tool. It helps me think of questions to ask that might support someone to come up with their own meaning. It makes me a less threatening person to someone else who’s struggling similarly, because I also know what it’s like to have someone step in and take all my power away because I said words like “suicide.” It makes it easier for me to validate other people’s feelings of this nature because I have internal experience to draw from, as well. And while I don’t know what will work for someone else, I’ve had enough experience trying different paths that I know something about at least some of them which can also be useful.
It’s funny (loosely)… Until I read what Leah wrote, I hadn’t even absorbed that it was considered a “teaching hospital.” It’s a bizarre place in every possible way, including that it’s this awful gigantic building surrounded by a golf course, playground, and all sorts of other stuff and most people walking by and around it don’t even seem to know what it is. Actually, even a guard in a booth that led up to the hospital seemed unclear what the building contained when asked by one of our group.
Sorry, I missed your comment earlier! Yes, I do so wish more people who have his time and reach would invest their energies as you suggest… But alas, he seems much more invested in misunderstanding and misrepresenting… Sometimes intentionally it appears to me… Thanks for sharing the petition!
I totally agree. Jaffe is basically – in my experience – someone who discredits anything and everything that hasn’t been studied. Worse, he is someone who tends to discredit anything that hasn’t been studied in the ‘double blind’ blah blah blah supposed “gold standard” of research. The problems with that are many, including that even the supposedly ‘double blind’ research gets manipulated and misrepresented with frequency, and of course… some of those types of research are inaccessible to implement (way too much money, etc.) and simply not a match for treating everyone like actual human beings. It’s super frustrating in many regards, when the answer to his question would be answered pretty unequivocally by – as you suggest – simply asking people. But then, that would not fit his agenda either. :p
I’m not sure how to answer your question, primarily because I don’t know quite what the answer is. You’re right. This space is still very much in the minority, and its audience is limited. The accusations, insults, and attempts to discredit are common and it doesn’t matter that they’re baseless because the people who hurl them are backed by the majority. It can be extremely frustrating.
What I can say is that I haven’t found it helpful to try and force people out of that other paradigm… Because force is force and so much of what drives so many of us in our distress is loss of power. However, if you have the energy for it, exposure to other materials and ideas and perspectives will eventually move some folks… Almost every person I know who is here having these conversations now was once in a very different place where they too would not have balked at a diagnostic and psych drug listing in their signatures… Some of them would even have argued vehemently that it was absolutely needed… Short of blowing up what is so as to force the system’s hand (as opposed to individuals) re: change, I think that’s about all we’ve got. But it can be a very lonely spot indeed. I’m sorry I don’t have a better answer, but for what it’s worth, I have seen many people move in that way over the years.
It feels like you’re taking what I said a bit out of context and its actual meaning. I think it’s pretty clear that what I’m saying in that excerpt you’ve pulled out is that I do not think it’s okay to act as if what are often moreso inconveniences experienced by those who hold a significant amount of privilege to the deep and systemic losses of those who do not. But also, where you appear to be going with the rest of your comment isn’t a place I’m at all willing to go in this comments section. Perhaps others will be more available to that conversation, though!
Thanks so much for reading and sharing. I really appreciated it, and you totally made sense. 🙂 I absolutely agree with you … this idea that we need research to demonstrate what is so obviously true is absurd… And that – in the absence of research – some are powerful and/or privileged enough to simply deny its reality is completely infuriating. I’m sorry you’ve been harmed in the ways you have, and I wish that aspect of your story wasn’t so common. Thanks again. 🙂
Eh, neither term is how I would choose to identify myself, oldhead. Sorry. Given that they are used to describe people, they are still labels even if labels representative of ideologies. Particularly the anti-psychiatry one doesn’t even do a good job of describing exactly what i think it truly means, and is too easily misunderstood or used as a label by which to dismiss someone. The anti-capitalist one is much clearer, but still I’m not going to slap it on my forehead. I said already what I mean… The capitalist nature of our system kills people, and necessitates the maintenance of groups that are at the bottom in order to keep others at the top, and so on and so forth. I can’t support such a mess, and I can’t really see a way for it to be different while still maintaining its central elements… So, call that what you will. 🙂
Yes, that’s certainly one of the underlying points of my piece, as well… For all its harms, let’s find what we can in all this chaos and make use of it. Thanks for taking time to comment!
Are you asking me that, oldhead? I mean, I’m typically not a big fan of so many labels or anti’s including ‘anti-psychiatry’ as I think you know… So, I don’t know if I’d be inclined to start labeling myself ‘anti-capitalist,’ but sure, yes, capitalism is a hugely problematic driver of what is destroying the lives of so many people, and the people who deny that are typically those who are most benefiting it *or* those who’ve gotten tangled up in fantasies that somehow, some day, they’ll be able to “show everyone” by becoming one of those ones, too..
Well, I think this is true to a point, but I think we have to also be cautious to not – say – equate the oppressive nature of the work of people in clinical roles with, say, the existence of people who get incarcerated in the system. Many of us do end being cogs in the system, and as was said in a preceding comment, much of psychiatric oppression isn’t about the obvious stuff, but the more subtle every day that many of us do somehow play a role in… But it’s not all equal exactly.
Thanks, Sam! And yes, that would be a really interesting approach/argument that I’d love to see work, though not – of course – how our capitalist interest-driven system tends to work the vast majority of the time.
Absolutely, I totally agree… As with most if not all types of systemic oppression, society tends to identify the most obvious, outrageous things and talk about stopping those (or at least hiding them better)… But the more insidious bits of oppression – especially the ones that are most effective at getting someone to internalize the oppression – can be what makes so damn hard to find one’s way back.
Thanks for reading and commenting, o.o. I’m not sure I’m following every sentence you wrote in this comment (the last couple of questions in particular), but I certainly agree that there’s a ton of issues in our own movement, including internalized psychiatric oppression that so many continue to spit back out onto others, as well as many other times of systemic oppression… And it seems that it is really, really hard for us to find a way out of that in said activist communities for a variety of reasons.
I hear you. It’s really hard to know who on earth to trust now – or most of the time – as so many different interests cloud it all, and drive dishonesty, force, marginalization, and so on. That said, I think that’s a whole nother topic unto itself that doesn’t really negate that this may be a learning opportunity re: psychiatric oppression as well. Though, of course, psychiatric oppression is rooted back to many interests, dishonesty, force, marginalization, too.
I’m a little unsure if I’m following what you’re meaning with the 9/11 video? In terms of my “expertise” on various experiences in the “mental health” system or with emotional distress… I’m someone who has struggled frequently with suicidal thoughts, been held in a psychiatric facility against my will, seen visions, had DCF called on me for vague worries that I’d be a danger to my kids because of sharing the experience of seeing visions in the past, etc. etc. I also have worked in different support roles, including for the last 13 years, as a part of the Western Mass Recovery Learning Community where we facilitate a number of groups related to suicide, hearing voices, and beyond, and also facilitate trainings on those and other topics. Don’t know if that helps?
Oh, and one other thing, KateL… DJ is definitely not a doctor. He’s really mostly just a guy with a family member who has struggled and is diagnosed, and who has a ton of time on his hands to get Op-eds published allllll over the place. In fact, looking at his website with its list of places he’s been published or interviewed is one of the most depressing things I’ve done in a while…
Thanks so much for sharing that story, KateL. Yes, I guess one of the things I wish for most is less than people fully “get it,” because that is just impossible when someone hasn’t been in it… and moreso that they get that they can’t and don’t get it. Asking you to go out and ask the people you’re desperately wanting to avoid coming to get you is kind of absurd, even if it makes some “logical” sense from the vantage point of one who already feels sure they weren’t there for you.
That said, I *have* had some (minimal) luck using exercises that ask people to consider losses for *themselves* without first telling them that those losses would mirror incarceration in a psych facility. If there were any way to just get people to understand enough about how painful loss is for them, and how much smaller that loss is than what is experienced in a psych facility… maybe they could at least have a little more humility in that regard.
However, often any humility found is fleeting for the sake of keeping things running… as another commenter suggested above. I continue to hang on to the fight that there must be some way, though…
Thanks, kindredspirit. Yes, I do think you’re right that there is a need to keep not seeing in order to keep being in many regards. And yet, I don’t think we can stop trying.
Rachel777, I think you’re right about his response, unfortunately… But I’d be totally willing to fundraise for a ‘Make DJ Jaffe spend a week in a state psych facility’ campaign if I thought there was any hope of being able to carry it out.
Eh, Oldhead, I don’t really want to get into a conversation unpacking how much the media is or isn’t over blowing all this chaos. This piece doesn’t really attempt to take a stance on that, so much as a stance on how the response that is may have something to teach people about psychiatric oppression. I can at least agree that there is much to question in how the media and politicians have chosen to respond to all this in pretty much every direction, but what the truth is remains pretty obscured, I think. I can say, however, that I’m not aware of any other illness in recent history that has been killing people in institutions at the rate this one has. About a 50% transmission rate and at least 13 people dead in one of our MA psych facilities alone in the last month. I feel like some of the bigger picture stuff you’re referencing will be easier to assess a bit down the road, but I worry – as with so many things – it will remain hard to get at the full picture for a long time.
I spent some time in a hotel recently which also led to my seeing commercials for the first time in quite a long time… And in the matter of about a day, I became a serious risk of smashing the TV for all those ads saying “We are in this together” in so many different ways, when that’s clearly not true for huge swaths of our communities. No less infuriating is all the money that must be going into all those ridiculous advertisements that could be going to housing, food, and so much else that could actually help in real ways. Oy. Anyway, thanks for mentioning this!
Thanks, Sam. You mentioned ‘less nearness’ in units. I’m not sure that’s consistently true. COVID is spreading through psychiatric facilities just like nursing homes and jails, and some hospitals are leaving up to 5 people per bedroom. Others have mostly continued holding groups with people too close together. And so on. There are reports of doctors still on the unit and refusing to wear masks. And then we mix that with the reality that many people in the psych system are more vulnerable healthwise, often *because* of the debilitating nature the “treatment” can have… Oy.
Anyway, yes, some have regarded this all as a vacation and won’t be impacted in the same way… but there are many, many others who have felt pretty impacted, so I hope there’s something to be done with that!
Yes, Robert Whitaker, has done a lot of important work, including developing this website! However, I don’t know that he or anyone else doing similar work has been able to infiltrate the political realm in the US in the way Jaffe has which is quite unfortunate and frustrating.
Thanks so much for sharing that letter! And I know, it’s so incredibly absurd that he’d even try and suggest that nonsense. I’m sorry for all you’ve been through at the hands of all these systems.
Thanks for all you wrote. And yes, I was *just* talking with someone about the loss of Matt in particular just a week ago. But you’re right. So many losses. Deron Drumm, too, and I’m sure so many others we’re not thinking of in this moment. And you are absolutely right about people who are incarcerated in prisons, too… Honestly, everyone who was invisible is even moreso now. 🙁
Yeah, I hear you… it is a leap. So many people get caught up in everything else *but* the impact of the loss of power we inflict on people who are marginalized in this society. But I’m still going to hope we find a way. Thanks for reading and commenting!
Ugh to that quote! I wish people were better at balance… At trying to understand how their own experiences make build understanding of others experiences, without ever thinking they can truly know or have somehow experienced the same thing. I sincerely do hope people can begin to make the connection between quarantine and what it might be like to be held against your will in a psych facility, but *never* in a “Now I know what this is like” sort of way… Moreso “If this felt this bad, imagine how much greater of a loss that would be…” It’s a stretch to expect this to happen in any reasonable way, I know, but somehow we need to find a way for people to better understand the impact of loss of power on humanity. Doesn’t sound like the person in that quote is finding that balance at all.
In any case, thanks for your comment and for reading. 🙂
Thanks for your comment, Steve. I agree that many are not seeking pain relief but connection, understanding, and support to make meaning of their own experiences.
Thanks, Ken. I sure wish I could believe that, but while more alternatives are developing I’m not sure how many of them are developing *with* integrity or in great enough/accessible enough numbers… and at the same time, as watch nonsense like the White House Mental Health Summit and the number of places Dj Jaffe is showing up, I think we’re simultaneously losing ground. I sure hope some real change happens, but I’ve seen *so* much injustice in both the psychiatric and legal systems in the last year alone… It is indeed exhausting. But I appreciate your hopefulness and some of the work you’ve done to impact both the public opinion and alternatives pieces!
Ah, yes, it’s funny how the very best cures to psychiatric diagnosis seem to include a mix of insurance running out and no longer being willing to pay and liability risk. I’m reminded of Jim Gottstein’s ‘transformation triangle’ through which he argues that it is creation of alternatives + shifting public opinion + legal pressure (I forget what language he uses precisely) that will lead us to real change overall. I so wish more of us could have gone on to be lawyers! I feel like serious money ought to be invested in sending folks who’ve been in the depths of the system and experienced psychiatric oppression directly through law school.
Thanks, Rosalee! Yeah, you know, I should be completely used to all the hypocrisy and injustice at this point… Like totally used to and numb to all of it at this point. And yet somehow the stuff like what happened with the Suicide Prevention Coalition absolutely pushes me over the edge at times. It’s far from the worst that happens in this system given the numbers of people incarcerated in psychiatric hospitals and how they’re being treated there on the regular… But it’s such a symbol to me of just how absurd it all is. Thanks for reading and commenting!
True enough, and still really awfully gross. On the other hand, the person who had his “meds” changed did indeed stop wanting to push a complaint, so I guess it was super “effective” in its way. Ugh.
Thanks, Someone Else! Ultimately, of course, I don’t know what an ‘I’m sorry’ campaign would actually do, especially in the absence of change… But I do think it is relevant to change, personally. On a number of levels. I’d be so curious to see it play out… I hadn’t really made the connections to religious texts that you have here, though, so thanks for that.
Fair enough, Steve. And yet, many people find it quite relevant, myself included… And perhaps most importantly, I believe it’s shifts toward saying “I’m sorry” and so no that may help some folks realize what they’re a part of. The vast majority of people working in these systems are not people wanting to do harm or people who consciously seek out to just control and silence… They’re simply playing a role that they were taught to play, and perhaps if we could get back to some of these basic human ways of saying ‘i see you, and i see my impact on you, and i’m sorry for that,’ the rest would follow? Honestly, while I get that ‘sorry’ matters far less than actually stopping the harm, I’m pretty perplexed that people don’t think those two things are pretty intertwined.
Oh, goodness, Oldhead. Sometimes I think you quite intentionally step sideways of the point of things. Not that what you say here doesn’t have lots of validity… It does, and you don’t need me to tell you that… but it’s also not really the point of this piece, which I think you know.
Thanks, John! You remind me of the time when someone we were supporting who was incarcerated in a psych hospital got very hurt during a restraint, and when I asked the psychiatrist what he was going to do about the way this person was treated, he said he’d already done it… “changed his meds.” Ugh.
Thanks for your comment, Lametamor. I agree (if I’m understanding you correctly!) that there’s a certain play with dehumanization and objectification that happens in this system!
I was reminded by a reader that in Love Story itself there is a deeper meaning to ‘Love Means Never Having to Say Sorry’ that is more about having no regrets than what I write about here. I acknowledge that the story itself had a deeper way of looking at this phrase and that there is truth to that meaning that resonates with many. However, this is a phrase that has lived louder and longer than the meaning from the story, and is nonetheless problematic at least for its superficial appearance and how it’s been used since that time… And perhaps most importantly, what it meant in ‘Love Story,’ just isn’t what this article is about, so hopefully you can look past that even if you are someone for whom the actual book or film was beloved.
Thanks, Anonymous17! You raise many important points here… there’s a couple that jump out most to me including how some people who are in traumatic, abusive, etc. situations are taught that they need to feel guilty/apologize for everything themselves… It’s a complete mind fuck! And some learn it from such a young age or such an abusive situation that they can’t see what’s happening… Others can see it but feel no choice but to go along with it (no matter how much it tears them apart)… and still others see it for what it is, refuse, and pay a price…and so on.
The second is how much people in activist roles or who are inspired by ‘the fight’ can lose sight of how hard and dangerous the fight can be for people in certain situations, and how one of the most insidious aspects of the system is how it rewards people for silence and punishes them for speaking up… And that can truly be dangerous for someone in so many different ways (psych drug changes, force orders, physical abuse, isolation, threats of loss of basic needs being met, and so on!)… And that just can’t be seen as the fault of the person who is just trying to survive in awful, unfair, and unjust conditions.
It sounds like you’ve been treated unfairly from many directions. Thank you for still showing up here, and taking time to share. 🙂
Hey Manyshev, Thanks for your comment! I’m not sure I totally follow, though… Do you mean neuroleptics help people contend with/stay calm when facing people in power? I suppose neuroleptics have different impacts on different people, but of course, I worry that for a lot of people (not all, but a lot!) the ‘help’ to not lose control actually comes in numbness and sedation rather than improved ability to navigate the world.
On the other hand, I definitely see (and maybe you mean?) the system use neuroleptics to aid in *their* not losing control/maintaining power. I definitely, for example, have seen a change made to someone’s neuroleptic drugs to quiet them down when they want to make a complaint against a hospital. (It was very effective.)
Thanks, Sam Plover! Yes, there’s so much else that could have been said here… So many off shoots, including how power also equals credibility (and how power calls upon others in power to protect one another), and how even (especially) a genuine ‘sorry’ knows that forgiveness isn’t required, and so on. Thanks for raising some of that here!
Just seeing this now, Oldhead! Interestingly, I went to school with Meatloaf’s daughter (Pearl) briefly (but long enough to attend her birthday party one year… So, I’ve got a strange extra interest/nostalgia for anything he does! I will definitely have to check it out!
I am frankly horrified that Mad in America would choose to circulate *anything* positive about this film.
The article above says: “But what the movie does quite brilliantly is make it clear that contrary to popular belief, anger and violence are not symptoms of any mental illness. Rather, they are normal reactions to a lifetime spent being treated like an outcast, ignored, taken advantage of, disbelieved, bullied and abused.”
Are you kidding me?!?! Wouldn’t it be lovely were this were true. It’s not.
Sure, people who are already familiar with trauma narratives will be able to pull this idea out of the muck. And yes, the film is well acted, and all that, bit let’s be serious here.
You have a film where a guy talks about needing his psych drugs increased, only to be his psych services are being cut… Then he laments he won’t be able to get more psych drugs with his services cut. Then he exclaims how he’s off his ” meds” right before *murdering* someone for the first time on screen (goodness only knows why he was previously locked up), and then to top it all off, he explicitly refers to himself as “mentally ill” immediately before shooting another person to death.
And you think the film doesn’t make connections between “mental illness” (particularly “untreated” by definition of the current mental health system) and violence?
Forget the (somewhat) “woke” folks who will be able to recognize the trauma narrative… what do you think the average person will take away from it? And how can a site like Mad in America willingly participate in that?
I do see your name as attached, but yeah, it doesn’t seem to work if I were to search on your name, and I too only saw two of them. I don’t blame you for not feeling good about it. It seems like that section could use some work both for the sake of people who want to view the art, and those whose work is being viewed.
Oh, okay, I hadn’t realized! There is an art section here (if you weren’t already aware), and I did find some of your images in that section once I knew to look for them, but they are right down at the bottom, that is true!
Thanks for your comment, Phoebe. I’d personally love to see some of your art on Mad in America along with whatever experiences you would be willing to share!
Thanks, Julie. Yeah, even people who focus on ‘alternatives’ often still have layers of internalized oppression (etc) to peel away… I’ve seen the ‘no graphic detail’ thing perpetuated in all sorts of communities, and few people ever seem to stop and ask ‘why?’ … And yeah, there’s still room to consider consent and environment when choosing what one will share and where, but that’s far from the overarching silencing we’ve got now in so many places.
Thanks for chiming in, Catnight. Who knows what’s going on in the Trump family, but it doesn’t seem to be anything good… There is indeed so much corruption with power.
thanks, kindredspirit. I am sorry that you’ve been silenced. And I totally agree with you that sometimes – although the ‘no graphic detail’ stuff is explained away to protect other trauma survivors, it is all too often about people in provider roles protecting themselves..
Thanks, PacificDawn. I appreciate your taking the time to read and comment, even if I might not agree with everything you’ve said above. And, I do think some of what you offered above is tricky. For example, I’m not sure precisely what you mean by the Autism hoax… Many people have been forcibly diagnosed as autistic which is a huge problem.. But there are many neurodivergent people who also claim that label for themselves in quite well informed ways. They take that label with power, rather than in concession, and I do not feel it is my place to try and convince them they’re wrong. But again, I’m not sure what you were specifically reference.
And, of course, you and I have talked about drugs before, if I’m recalling correctly. I can’t stand with the idea of ‘no drugs’ across the board. As I’ve said before, drugs have been around in one form or another since the beginning of time. They’ve never been the root of the issue. How they’ve been used by *others* to control certain groups, coerce and force different groups… That’s one of the biggest issues as I see it. I personally don’t use psych drugs, and wouldn’t argue that they’ve caused great harm to many people. That seems factual rather than debatable! But I have other drugs that I do enjoy, however, and I know many others in my life use or have used various drugs to good effect for them. What I want is to be free to choose. While I in no way see your request for ‘no drugs’ as equivalent to those who’ve previously tried to push drugs on me, I’m still not interested in replacing one dictate with another.
Choice and power are where I believe the answers are to be found… Not abstinence.
I also feel confused by your comment about ‘no recovery programs.’ I don’t consider where I work to be a “recovery program”… We don’t even like to use that word ‘recovery’… But I do think people sometimes really do need connection points and support, and that’s also okay.
Anyway, I guess all this leaves me curious… What *do* you think should be available to help people who want support of some kind? And what would it look like to push back and seize reparations?
Thanks, Rosalee. It’s so frustratingly true that the systems bury the truth… All. The. Time. Yet, I guess what I’m really saying at the end of this piece is that the truth can set us free, *when its really aloud to be told, seen, and heard*… One of the most destructive things that power allows is the silencing and dismissal of that truth.
Thank you, Tinni. There’s so much that is just not talked about in both life and death and our bodies. Too many “taboo” topics. It’s important to keep pushing back.
Thanks for sharing so much and going piece by piece in your response… I don’t know that – until quite recently – I’d thought of the mental health system as being complicit in covering up childhood sexual abuse, but I don’t disagree at this point. I don’t know that it’s intentional on most people’s parts, but any system that helps center blame in the individual rather than on the people and/or conditions that hurt them does indeed become complicit in allowing such things to continue. Thank you for helping me get clearer on that point!
Thanks so much for your comment, and for noting the synchronicity of the comment and where your own mind was already at. Psychic violence is a great way to refer to it all. Thank you for that, as well!
Wow, that sounds intense… I don’t know if I could manage that level of … well… just the noise of all the pain feels like it’d be overwhelming to me. But, I feel like there are lots of people for whom that’d be powerful, and agree with you we need more space for it all. For me, the words are the key, but I know for many it is something different. Maybe I’d be better off if I could get to that level of rawness, but for now I at least don’t want anyone taking my words from me!
I like that.. Psychiatry as “trauma denial”… So simple, yet I don’t know that I’ve heard it quite that way before. I appreciate and see great truth in your comment.
I was at the National Council conference in Orlando when he offered his Ebola spiel. I missed out on his hazmat suit laden performance piece on the topic at AAS. :p Thanks for using those articles. It’s always good to hear when that’s happening somewhere.
And fair point re: AAS vs. other movement spaces… I agree that there are *tons* of issues within this world… I guess it’s just harder for me to personally take when we’re talking about a group that is always in the power position and perpetuating so many problematic things, including all that ‘safe messaging’ crap. :p
Wait, you mean we shouldn’t all listen to David Covington when he compares Ebola contagion to suicide contagion? (And yes, I know his narrative around this is slightly more complex than I’m making it out to be, but really…)
I appreciate your overall point here, and will add this article to our resource list of articles worth reading on the topic… I have an article in the queue that has a similar message (although I don’t zero in on suicide specifically) called ‘No Graphic Detail.’ It does make me wonder how you have been tolerating the AAS scene, though!
It will only continue to downgrade any quality and integrity of the peer role. We already know that CPS trainings are *HUGELY* problematic from states like New York. People *NEED* to gather in person and really grapple with the point of this work together. On-line simply doesn’t work.
Failed local CPS systems is not an excuse to further the failure with a terrible on-line system.
Also, you seem to misunderstand this national certification business. It’s only a test (that you have to pay a fair mount of money for). And if you don’t have any in-person training, you may not even qualify for it.
This is a money making scheme that will continue to do harm to any value peer roles actually have.
I was a little surprised by how much you said you liked the article on Facebook, and seem critical of it here, but fair enough! 🙂 I absolutely agree that the quote you pulled out is at the heart of what we are saying. Haven’t read what you linked to from Akiko (yet), but she does indeed offer many good contributions to these dialogues, and many contributions are needed as different ones will resonate with different people 🙂 !
Thanks, Rosalee. Yes, I love Caroline’s quote, and agree that ‘power’ is at the root of this and *so many* other struggles that end up getting labeled and wrapped up in our various systems.
I think we are on the same page even about getting rid of the phrase altogether, as per this part of the article above!:
“1. Check your own ‘pill shaming’ narrative contributions: Stop writing “pill shaming” pushback posts. Stop ‘liking’ them. Stop sharing them on social media. Stop creating, buying, or wearing anti-pill shaming swag. Stop using the phrase entirely. Even if there’s some piece of the message you like, you’re contributing to a larger problem, so find a different way to address that piece and leave the rest behind. At best, the underpinnings of the ‘pill shaming’ accusation are misguided. At worst, they represent a concerted effort on the part of the current power structure to use us against ourselves, and they don’t need any more help. Seriously.”
Well, I’m pretty sure the point of the article is that the two sides are *NOT* equal, and that the ‘shame’ should be reserved for those who have the power and are doing the harm, etc. so there’s that…
And I guess you can say that ‘all drugs are bad for everyone’, but I personally don’t think it’s a useful or accurate statement… but yes, you get to make it. And no, I don’t think when you make it that makes you equal to those doing systemic harm or forcing people on drugs… But, I guess I’d ask that you consider what else is caught up in making such a blanket statement… Do you believe that we are the true experts on ourselves? Do you believe that we should get to choose whatever we feel helps us get by and make the most of our lives, provided its done freely and in fully informed ways? There’s several other questions I could add in here about disability, freedom to make choices, and all that, but for the sake of brevity, I’ll just say: If yes to those things – any of them – again, I just don’t know how you can then say ‘all drugs are bad for everyone all the time’… I think that is a harmful statement…
But in the end, the real point of this article was that the ‘pill shaming’ concept is a harmful one that is used by those in power to try and get us to undercut ourselves and each other.
I guess we were talking about the people who go after *individuals* who have chosen to take psych drugs and not try to come off of them either because the coming off is too hard (at least for now), or because they feel the drugs help them. I *do* think there is an intent of sorts to push shame on people in those situations for making the choices that they’ve made.
That said, while we wanted to recognize that that does happen and that it is harmful, I don’t think it’s any way equivalent to what is pushed on us by the system because it lacks power. And, frankly, I’d never actually use the term ‘pill shaming’ at all, because I do – as Oldhead said somewhere in this thread – see it as a term of the ‘enemy’ overall. That is a point we likely could have been clearer about, while still recognizing that it isn’t helpful and can be harmful to push ideas on people at the individual level or insisted that they are making the wrong choice for themselves.
Thanks so much for sharing some of your story here. It can be *so* hard to get off these drugs, even after all the risks and truth are known. It’s not a pain I’ve personally known. (Effexor was the hardest for me to get off of, but not by any stretch as hard as what I’ve heard so many people go through.) However, even having not been through withdrawal as intense as that myself, I’ve seen so many others try to make their way through it – some successfully, and some not.. And I am so horrified by how many doctors just want to deny that it is a thing at all. (I recently had a conversation with a psych doctor who works at a hospital that was offended that I even used the word ‘withdrawal’ in connection to psych drugs, because in her mind, they simply aren’t addictive.) Of course, ‘denial’ is yet another word that the system uses on us freely, but that we’re prohibited from using back against them (at least in any widely accepted sort of way). Thanks again for sharing some of your experience.
Thank you, LavendarSage. I suppose it is indeed something like that, although without all the power to hurt me in the way the system has. 🙂 But it’s okay. We all misunderstand or read into each other’s words at times, and for any number of reasons. 🙂 Provided we don’t have the power to force our perspectives on each other in any substantive way (as the system does), that’s okay. 🙂
I’ve personally done away with referring to psychiatric drugs as ‘medication’ in standard practice, but the phrase that is used against is us is nonetheless “anti-medication” which is why we used it here. I agree it’s a distortion of reality and a marketing tactic, as well as one that attempts to enforce the system’s absurd differentiation between what they want to call us bad for taking (marijuana, heroin, etc.) and what they want to force on us (neuroleptics, and so on). It is – as you noted – in quotes here to suggest that it is not a term we buy into overall, but maybe you’re right that we need to be even more careful with it. I’m not sure, and will have to think about that.
Also, I *think* we were pretty clear here that actual oppression requires power, and those stating the harms of these drugs don’t have it… So, I’d not personally use the word ‘oppressive’ in any serious manner against people who take that stance. However, as also stated above, I don’t think it is especially useful for people to claim they know all that is ‘right’ for other people. Doctors certainly don’t understand these drugs and their full scope or impact, and neither do we… I’d rather be honest about that. Which isn’t to say we can’t know for our own bodies (at least, certainly better than anyone else), or can’t and shouldn’t speak of the very real harms and lies we *are* aware of… But there is a line that gets crossed that involves individuals telling other individuals what is best for them that I simply don’t think is helpful in any regard. More over, at least some of the ‘I know what is best for you stuff’ is intertwined with privilege, ableism, and so on.
However, none of that was the main point of this piece which is, simply(ish) put: There is no such thing as ‘pill shaming’ in the way it is described in the articles that circulate accusing people of it, because all the power lies on the other side (those who push people to *take* the drugs sometimes under threat of force or loss of liberty), and we have every right to be out there talking, yelling, and screaming about how we’ve been harmed and how the pill pushing – backed by capitalism and corporate interests and the desire to control – is full of lies.
That we think – in offering up that message – that there needs to be nuance and effort to avoid erasure or denigration of those who (being the experts on themselves) knowingly and in well-informed ways decide that psych drugs should be a part of their lives seems to be what has tripped things up here for some, but I guess I’m okay with that.
Good to see you pop up here. 🙂 Thanks for reading, and taking the time to comment! The actions that harm us in the psychiatric system are the ones that ultimately harm us most in the moment, but the system’s ability to control the words that are used to define and explain us and all that happens around and to us are what – I believe – really stick with us over time. It’s so painful.
I think that’s for sure true that people with a lot of privilege are sometimes the ones that are making this argument… I think others, though, have been at the depths of having no privilege at all and it’s just to painful to think that they got where they are because they were lied to… I’ve literally had people say (in trainings where I’m offering some of this info), “Are you saying that maybe my life didn’t need to be like this?” That’s really painful. It’s a sort of grieving. Sometimes people make their way out the other side, and sometimes it is just too much pain… or too much perceived risk (especially if their whole life – housing, income, etc. – revolves around that identity)… It’s comlicated, but I appreciate you bringing up the privilege end of that, because that’s definitely a part of the story!
Hmmm… An interesting point you’re bringing up. I wonder if that’s truly ‘power’ or more ‘learned helplessness’ that you’re talking about, though? Or learning how to play a system and meet needs based on how the system has played us? I’ll think about it more.
Fortunately, it’s not the majority, kindredspirit!! Just a handful here, it would seem, and given so many others have found it to be clear, it’s hard not to imagine that at least some people are just skimming and making assumptions. Fierce debate is fine. It would just be good to be debating over what was actually said. In any case, I’m not going to keep arguing on this point. People are welcome to respond how they are… It’s just frustrating.
Thanks, Richard! I appreciate your taking the time – as always – to write such a detailed response. I’m in agreement fully that the shame should be on those who are using power to silence and withhold truth.. Particularly appreciating your last paragraph. 🙂
I’m writing this comment separate from response to everyone’s individual comments just to try and make a point here that I find myself repeating through a number of the comment threads:
No one is obligated to like or support this article. However, I do feel frustrated by the apparent misunderstanding of it through a handful of the comments being made, and I want to clarify.
This article was written with a lot of intentional nuance and balance, but the fundamental underlying point here is that we find the ‘pill shaming’ concept to be highly problematic, which I hope is clear from the bolded quotes even if you don’t read anything else. In fact, we have buttons made up with some of those quotes that we take to conferences in an effort to push back on people who would claim ‘pill shaming’ when another person simply speaks to the harms they’ve suffered at the hands of the psychiatric system, or when they speak truth about what science *actually* tells us about psych drugs and their efficacy and potential harms.
Where people seem to be getting lost – as best I can tell – is in our recognition that there *are* sometimes people who claim that no one should ever be on any kind of drug or that they know that anyone who says drugs help them is somehow misguided or “deluded”. People who push in this way are *NOT* equal to the system that pushes drugs because (as we say several times in the article) those people have no systemic power.
However, my personal wish is that this movement will eventually get to the point where the focus *is* on power. Not on ‘recovery’… Not on what people should or shouldn’t be doing… but simply on their right to have real information, make real choices, be treated equally where their rights are concerned, and be the holder of power where their own lives are concerned. And along with that hope is one where once people’s power is restored, that we are clear to not tell them what they should do with that power, even if that means they make different choices than we would like. Because if we can’t let go of that agenda – even if we are for more right and more justified than others in what we believe – we just contribute to chipping away at that power once again… or at least don’t contribute to people really owning power for themselves.
I’m sorry if some of my responses above have been snippy, but it is hard to put something out there and then have it not be heard for what it actually says… again, hearing does not need to mean agreeing… but it’s the lack of hearing that feels most bad. Thank you to all of you who have taken the time to truly take it in – whether you agree or not! 🙂
You are welcome to oppose the article. That’s fine. People can speak their truth about anything, including this article, provided they are speaking to what it says. (And I guess even if they’re not, although that’s substantially more upsetting because it feels like we’re being used to make a point that’s not representative of what we worked hard to say and being misrepresented in the process.) I personally would and do feel quite denigrated by the idea that I don’t know myself well enough to know that the drugs I *do* use to numb out some time (not psych drugs, but alcohol for one), and that I’m somehow a ‘victim’ as a result of seeing the value in that for myself… It also feels hard to hear that I’m somehow also not able to do the work that I apparently need to do to process my feelings, etc, if I’m using such substances and am somehow – if I’m reading you right – lesser than for that.
Drugs have been used since the beginning of time to bring about experiences or numb out from them. I do not think that is the issue. It’s the power that comes behind them, in a system that feels it should get to say ‘We force (or punish) you not to take this one that we’ve labeled as bad, and we force you to take this one that we’ve labeled as good and punish you if you try to resist’ while using that same power to lie about why… that’s the problem. The people who then come along and tell me that they also thing I’m bad or wrong for choosing what I do take even in the most well informed way don’t have the same power or cause the same harm in any way, but they surely don’t help.
I didn’t accuse you of not reading. I said it was hard to tell where you were coming from, and hard to tell with most comments… But some of them – those that accuse *us* of shaming people for speaking truth – certainly indicate they didn’t read it at all. Which is – I would hope you understand – quite frustrating.
The article doesn’t ask anyone to silence their own truth or the overall truth about psychiatric drugs or the system. Quite the opposite.
Yeah, I think that’s very true: That one can’t argue with someone on psych drugs. I’ve been incredibly frustrated many times by seeing people who are shaking, falling down, etc. and are just at least appearing to be regurgitating what they’ve been fed for so long that this is what ‘recovery’ looks like for them and they’re doing so well (because they’re not getting in trouble)… I regularly share in trainings that there is usually a small group of people that seem to do better on psych drugs longer term in most studies on psych drug efficacy, but that a) We don’t know why and if it is really all about the psych drugs or some other factor given the limited options available for alternatives and b) that small group is tiny compared to the number of people that are *told* in the US that they need to be on psych drugs… and so, if 20% do actually seem to do better, but 100% are being told that they are that 20% (if its even true about the 20%) … what do we do about that?
Honestly, I believe wholeheartedly what we said in there about the most important thing being about people having their power back, and us not worrying so much what they then do with it. Even if we are far more “right” about what would be useful to them, taking people’s power away isn’t useful and often just results in a power struggle. I feel like when people find themselves arguing with someone about what would be right for that person for themselves we’ve lost our way. We have a job to put information out there based on our own experiences and based on science and truth and all that. We have a job to illuminate paths. But the moment we start pushing someone down a path, we are failing to do that most important thing… focus on them holding their own power. We can’t claim people know themselves best and then tack on ‘unless you’re on drugs… then we know better’ without invalidating so much of what we say (those of us who say/believe that anyway). I don’t think it’s comparable in any way to what the system does when we do choose to argue and push an individual person because we don’t have any systemic power… but I still think it means we’ve lost their way.
I’ve seen *so* many people get mad at first when just presented with information… I’ve personally been attacked during trainings for unraveling the ‘chemical imbalance’ theory for people because – even though I’m speaking truth – it shakes their belief system about themselves too much. And while I do *NOT* owe it to them to stop sharing that… not ever… I *do* owe them the right to go through their own process with it…
So yes, ultimately, “It’s their life”, as you said, and we’ve got to focus on illuminating life’s potential and psychiatry’s lies without getting too stuck on the idea that everyone therefore needs to come to the exact same conclusion for what that means they need or want to do.
I don’t disagree with most of what people are saying in the comments section about ‘pill shaming’ (which includes pretty much anything that’s been said right up until it gets to the point where people start claiming that *every and anyone* who chooses to take them is wrong, deluded, and should be regarded as lesser than or what have you), and that was kind of why we wrote the article and have made buttons that we bring to conferences with the two of the three bolded quotes in the article (which were written by me, but inspired by conversations with Caroline). It’s just frustrating to see the finger pointed at us in these comments when there are so few articles pushing back on the ‘pill shaming’ concept and we worked pretty hard to write an article that pushed back on the silliness and harmfulness of ‘pill shaming’ in alignment with most of those comments and people aren’t taking the time to see that.
I’ll be honest that I’m having a hell of a time figuring out whether a lot of these comments (not just yours) are misunderstanding our article and criticizing/attempting to educate us, or if they’re just riffing on their own take on things. In any case, as someone who has spent literal years, writing, training, and making films about the lack of real evidence of ‘chemical imbalance’ any any number of other elements to do with the psychiatric system, you’ll get no argument from me for most of what you say. And yet, I’m not going to argue with people who say that they want to be on psych drugs and that they’re somehow helpful to them. Pretending I know someone else’s truth – everyone else’s truth – is not something I’m willing to do. It’s a replication of the system that we fight against… I’d rather live in the ‘I don’t know’, so long as we also get to be really clear that the psychiatric system also clearly don’t know either and shouldn’t get to pretend that they do.
I quite enjoy my altering drugs when I have them… They just aren’t psych drugs which I refuse to touch for a number of reasons. It’s hard to tell from your comment – as it is unfortunately hard to tell from many of the comments here – if you read through the entire article and saw that we very clearly took a position *against* ‘pill shaming’ being a legitimate thing. HOWEVER, at the same time, I’m not comfortable with speaking against people who take drugs (whatever drugs they choose) to numb feelings at times, as long as they do so knowingly (knowing that that’s the goal, knowing the risks of doing that, etc.). The problem isn’t that people sometimes want to numb out (frankly, I’d like to numb out after reading some of these comments that so blatantly speak to people not having read what we put quite a lot of effort into writing and fully intend to do so a bit later), it’s that those in power want to force, coerce, and trick them into doing so and in ways that come with dire consequences for those that would be numbed.
Did you *actually* read the article? Your response suggests not. It’s primarily a push back *against* people who claim ‘pill shaming’ is a legitimate phenomenon. While we acknolwedge that it is largely unhelpful for people to say ‘all psych drugs are bad for all people’ and try to push people into getting off of them, I wonder how you could read lines like:
“At best, the underpinnings of the ‘pill shaming’ accusation are misguided. At worst, they represent a concerted effort on the part of the current power structure to use us against ourselves, and they don’t need any more help. Seriously.”
Or
““We’re not pill shaming you. We’re just sick of watching people fucking die.”
Or
“Speaking truth about bad science and psychiatric oppression does not equal ‘pill shaming.’”
And see this article as one that is supporting the ‘pill shaming’ concept overall.
Balance is important. So is actually reading what you seek to critique. :p
I do hope that you hear (and I can’t quite be sure from what you’ve written) that we ultimately really don’t want to create an environment where ‘pill shaming’ is lingo that is put upon people, or that the people who’ve been harmed, forced, etc., carry the burden of needing to worry too much about making people who do take psych drugs uncomfortable. Ultimately, we want an environment where all the truths are able to be spoken without any back pedaling… One where we stop short of blanket statements about all drugs being bad and all people who take them being bad, wrong, misguided, ignorant, etc (we need not diagnose each other any more!)… but where we speak truth and get to express our anger at all the bad science and pushing of drugs that come at us without anyone trying to undercut us by calling us ‘pill shamers’ because in the end pretty much all the force and power in this society is on the side of those who push the drugs on us. So, yeah, agendas and blanket statements and intentionally trying to tell other people they’re bad for not choosing the way you have chosen isn’t generally helpful (and, as you say, doesn’t typically move people toward where you’re actually trying to move them even if it *would* be useful to them to move in that way), but I hope you get to continue to speak your truth with all the passion and anger you hold and without needing to back pedal. 🙂
I can appreciate what you’re saying, but I think it’s a bit more complex than that. I rarely here from people who feel they also haven’t been harmed in some ways, for example. That is actually a really interesting topic, I think, because sometimes (most of the time) when someone says ‘the hospital saved my life’ the system just says, “look what we did! hospitals are great!” But few really stop and say, “What exactly was it about your hospital experience that you feel helped, and were there other things that also hurt during that same experience that you wish hadn’t happened?” It’s weirdly all or nothing on a number of levels, and then when we offer any critique of that *we* are the ones painted in that way in an attempt to dismiss us.
In any case, I think a lot of people *do* talk about shaming people who use drugs, cigarettes, etc… talk about AA/NA as very shaming at times, etc. etc… But yes, I think overall I get your point and your right that there’s a boat load of hypocrisy wrapped up in all this and how socially acceptable drugs are regarded and responded to vs those that are not socially acceptable (and socially acceptable has little to do with what is *actually* most harmful). And yes, if each person didn’t have to fight for the power (within or outside of themselves) to simply be who they are and be confident in that, so much would be better… but so much of that is wrapped up in the environmental conditions we all live within that it seems quite the challenge to get there!
I am afraid I can’t agree with a lot of what you are saying here. I know people in my own life who are quite well informed, and hold quite a bit of power, who still choose to take some of the antidopmanergic drugs you are taking at least on an intermittent basis. I also know many many people who experience them and the reasons they ever took them in a way that aligns with what I understand to be your experience.
Some of the point of this article is that it’s generally *not* helpful to put on other people blanket attitudes that assume everything is exactly the same for us all… including things like that psych drugs are uniformly bad and useless for everyone, or that everyone who agrees to them suffers from Stockholm syndrome. However, the larger point of the article is that even though being told something like “you take these drugs because you suffer from Stockholm syndrome” can be hurtful and lead someone to feel pressured, since *all* the real power is in the hands of those who *push* these (yes often harmful and ineffective) drugs, that it’s silly to suggest that making someone feel bad in that way is in anyway equal to actually hold all the power to force them to do anything or influence enough of society to even make the more subtle pressure consistent.
Again, written from a treadmill so a bit more clumsy but hopefully still clarifying…
Thank you so much for your comment and for putting to words so well what it can feel like to feel so powerless that you need to hide your humanity and light in order to stay some approximation of free that isn’t really very free at all. That can be so painful, and so soul crushing. I’m sorry that that is your experience, but thank you for sharing a piece of it.
Eh, as we said, we have “intermittent respect” for the output of those outlets… not constant. But each of those has certainly sometimes put out useful things and I’d look there before I’d look many other places. But regardless, a critique of which media sources we each like is relatively irrelevant to this topic. Our point was simply that we are starting to see these “pill shaming”-type stories popping up from an array of sources.
Do you mean the really small group of people who do seem to actually go after the people taking the pills in pretty relentless ways or do you mean something else?
The main point of the article was that “pill shaming” isn’t really a thing, for the most part… that it’s often about something else in the little ways it does happen, and that mostly the term is a misunderstanding of or misuse of power because the very few people who actually criticize people for taking psych drugs still don’t actually hold any power over them, and the argument that “pill shaming” is this real and frightening thing that is somehow equal to the force and coercion out there that makes people think they have to *take* drugs is just off base.
Sorry, I’m writing clumsily from the treadmill so that’s also a clumsy synopsis, but I guess I’m just trying to understand why you are asking Caroline and I for real examples when our emphasis is on pill shaming being an over blown often manufactured sort of thing?
That said, I think if you look around Mad in America in some of the comments sections you will occasionally see the people that absolutely do think we should be telling every single person to get off their drugs and that any person who wants to take them … not just the people who – from a big picture perspective – think they do more harm than good or that we as a society are unable to ethically handle prescribing them without resorting to force and coercion – but those who think that anyone who says they truly benefit from them is just misguided or brainwashed and tells them so. It’s not common, but it happens every now and again.
Thanks, Rachel. And, yes, indeed… shame on the people who attempt to center all the problems in so many different ways within the people they are charged with “helping” ..
Thanks, Miranda! Would love to contribute to the parents section. I haven’t spent too much time in the parent’s section just yet, but will take another look 🙂
I’m a *huge* fan of ‘I don’t know.’ There’s something so radically not radical about admitting you just don’t know… It’s like blasphemy in this mental health system, and yet so important. Doesn’t fix many of the underlying problems, but at least it leaves more room to talk about them.
PacificDawn, Thanks! I’m not familiar with Alice Miller’s work. Thanks for outlining so much of your perspective, and that of so many others with whom I’ve not previously been familiar!
Thank you for this, Mitzy. Deron has always been one of my favorite people. We drifted a bit, because – I think – he found his inner peace and actively pursued that path, and I’ve stayed more angry. But I’ve still always so appreciated his existence, and his work, and knowing he was just a (relatively) short drive away pushing for similar things, even if in different ways!
I’m going to do my best to remember lots of moments with him… at protests and rallies, driving along the California coast and sharing the terror of being so close to the cliffs, and staying up late (for Deron!) talking about silliness and seriousness in equal measures.
I could have sworn I replied previously, yet my reply seems not to be here, so trying again…
I particularly appreciate your last paragraph about just how hard it is to get people to believe any of the truths, once they’ve bought into the myths… Because giving up the myth means so much more than just believing the one truth that with which they might be presented in that moment.
But, for example, the Informed Consent laws I’m aware of require:
* Doc to inform someone of the potential risks and benefits of the proposed treatment
* Doc to inform someone of the potential risks and benefits of any *alternative* treatments of which they are reasonably aware
* Doc to inform someone of the potential risks and benefits of doing nothing
So, even if they stop short of calling “bullshit” or saying “I really have no idea what I’m doing, but this is what the latest pharma rep suggested when they stopped by my office”… the above sure would be a nice change. But most doctors don’t come even close.
Yeah, I get what you’re saying and how my comment could be read. In my mind, I was thinking of a particular group of people including Kevin Hines who are basically just going around and telling their stories to make everyone feel good, but kind of supporting the systems way of being at the same time.
And yeah, I think you could rightly accuse me of being invalidating of that specific group of people, I suppose. But I frankly had a *huge* reaction to hearing Kevin for the first time in person… His story no longer sounded like his story. It sounded dramatized, like a one-person show… and a one-person show that supported many of the things that so many of us are trying to rail against. And I don’t know if I’ve *EVER* received so many e-mails as I received in promotion of his film (which, in fairness, I have not yet seen).
So, I suppose you could say I’m being unfair to him, and maybe I am. I’ll just have to accept that as one of my many flaws. But it just feels so very far away from genuine sharing to me, and he has such a big platform.
Thanks for sharing what you’ve seen. Ah, truth in advertising laws… Unfortunately, of course, there *are* some laws (e.g., Informed Consent laws) that *do* suggest there should be ‘truth in advertising’ (at least a lot more truth than there is now), and yet those laws are wholeheartedly ignored without any negative consequence (for the folks responsible for upholding them, yet who are not). So many broken systems complicit with one another in making things what they are these days.
Thanks, Sam. I think what you say is true, but especially challenging when people have been marginalized *before* they open their mouth, I think! Lots of screaming into the void, indeed!
As Steve already pointed out, what I’ve written is about the way stories are handled, restricted, and used and often *not* about the stories themselves. In the case of AAS, I’m not referring to the specific stories at all. I haven’t read most of them. And I don’t think of the authors as “victims”, even if I wish they wouldn’t have participated. For example, I know Leah Harris reasonably well, and I certainly don’t think of her as a hapless victim fallen into a system’s trap. And I’m sure some – maybe even all – of the “winning” stories have value. I do personally take issue with some of the folks who’ve kind of made their careers off this struggle, and go around endlessly telling their stories *without* being clear about what needs to change, or having much experiencing in supporting others to move toward that change because I do feel like I see them getting used. And, I did get pretty uncomfortable with Des’rae’s partner commenting that they’re riding her “suicide star” to fame (I don’t remember quite exactly how it was phrased, but it was something like that) in the ‘S’ word, but all of those things are at least somewhat different topics, even if overlapping.
So, yeah, I am speaking about the contest itself. What it calls upon people to do. How it uses competition between people for these limited amount of funds, yet fails ENTIRELY to actually value their voice beyond the perceived value (often *entertainment* value, in my experience) of their story by not making the conference ITSELF accessible, and so on. As I already said in the article.
As to the Legislative Breakfast, that’s a whole ‘nother example of this phenomenon where they tend to take people who have very little experience sharing their stories and (as I’ve heard with my own ears) sometimes give *very specific* instructions about not saying anything too negative about any mental health service, and then stick them up there to succeed or flounder (often the latter) and ultimately ask for no real change. It’s PAINFUL to watch. And different than the AAS contest. But under the same umbrella.
In any case, I stand by everything I’ve said in the article above.
Thanks for reading and for your comment. And yes, you’re right. It is so hard to figure out how to navigate challenging the way this works, when we are ultimately talking about people’s personal stories and sharing. Yet, it is indeed often fairly apparent when people are being used or shoved in one direction or the other as to how they tell it… And when that story becomes something else other than entirely theirs.
Well, I don’t know if I’d go quite as far as saying it only exists outside of the “medical” system, because I think there are few absolutes and I don’t want to rule out anyone’s valid stories… But, I will say that both research and my own experience resonate with what you have to say in that the medical system sure does seem to do a LOT of *getting in the way* of people actually moving forward and beyond such struggle.
Thank you, Rosalee! I’m going to be headed to a “Legislative Breakfast” at the end of this week that is inevitably going to include stories that fit the format you, I, and so many others are pushing back against. I wonder if I might ever reach a point where the screaming in my head while I’m attending will start to come out of my mouth. :p
Thanks, plebtocracy. When I start to think about all the aspects of our society that function in similarly exploitative and corrupt ways I feel a little overwhelmed. And yet, we do need to keep our eyes open lest we get sucked into thinking its okay when it all so clearly is not.
Thanks for popping up and commenting. 🙂 I’m not sure I totally followed your comment, but I get the undercurrent of “non-compliance” and refusal to conform and all the power (as well as pain) that there is in that, I believe. 🙂 And, I can always appreciate that!
Thanks so much for what you shared. How the legal system functions and intersects with the psychiatric system is so infuriating. I see horrific examples of it all the time, and most people don’t bat an eye because they – once again – think it’s all “for our own good”. It’s really terrible. I’m sorry for what you’ve had to go through.
Can you just clarify… I’m not sure what you mean here:
But here’s the thing. How do you you learn anything from it if it’s not the truth and the bare and brutal truth. The fact is, we will never learn by sugar coating anything. It’s just not done that way and we’ll never change anything. The truth is uncomfortable and so is making change, one cannot be done without the other.
You write that as if I had said things should be watered down… I can’t tell if I’m misunderstanding you, or you misunderstood me? But, regardless, I’ll just say nothing I wrote above was meant to suggest we should have to water ourselves down, although I did talk about how people often ask us to do that either “for our own good” or to prevent them from feeling uncomfortable… Neither of which I agree with…
Anyway, thanks again for reading and taking the time to comment 🙂
Wishing I’d read the WHOLE “participant guide” for the AAS story contest before finishing this story…
Some highlights include:
* There’s a $10 fee to submit your story to the competition
* There’s a “guide” on “safe” writing about suicide
* There’s a warning that writers’ submissions will be evaluated by judges who are mental health professionals, and that they may be “contacted” if they are believed to be at imminent risk
Thanks, Alex. 🙂 I’ve gotten a lot from sharing my story, too… Sometimes it’s left me feeling pretty erased (when people have thanked me, followed by immediately speaking in ways that dismiss everything I had to say), but lots of times, it’s been powerful, too. Thanks for being out there doing the work, too. 🙂
Thanks, Bricew. I really appreciate your sharing all this along with your conviction to prioritize morals and ethics over the superficial “goals” our society sets (often to distract us from some of the more covert ones).
Thanks, Bricew. It’s always interesting to me how important language is, and how we hear words differently. I do often challenge people re: “Committed suicide” when I’m in training environments. I do *not* ever tell people they “can’t” or “shouldn’t” use it, but just offer food for thought which is this: “Committed suicide” comes from a time when suicide was being painted overtly as illegal (as in “committed a crime”). Based on that, I personally try not to use that frame… but nor am I fond of “completed suicide” or ever telling people *what* precisely they need to say.
In my experience, telling others (and especially others who have first-hand experience with something) precisely what words they’re supposed to use comes from a special brand of ignorance and insensitivity.
Thanks for sharing some of your mother’s story as it intersects with your own. I too struggle with this idea that we should get to put our own priorities of people living as long as possible on other people who may genuinely just not want to be here. I’ve heard there are other countries where there are supports set up for people who want to die… Even heard at one point of a place of that nature where people could go to get support in killing themselves that supposedly ended up not having people actually go through with it, because it provided such a valuable space for people to talk openly about their struggles and death and everything else. I actually don’t know if that place actually fully exists as it was described to be… But it sounds really interesting if it does.
Thanks, Catnight! The taboo you speak of … the reality that a lot of this comes from a fear of talking about death at all… is definitely one of the things we try to address and bring to the surface with our Alternatives to Suicide work. And it was so weird to watch the ASIST folks twist themselves around the idea that we should be able to talk about suicide, while still sending such a strong message that it should also be really hard and upsetting whenever we talk about death. And yes, it definitely doesn’t have to be like this. There are certainly cultures where talking about death in all its forms is so much more normalized. The issues – being able to talk about death at all and being able to talk about suicide – are absolutely intertwined.
Thanks so much, Richard. And you’re absolutely right.. I shouldn’t have gone alone (from any other than a financial standpoint). Even before some of the worst things happened, it was still painful to be the lone voice in a sea of providers who were all on the same page with the terrible things they were saying. And it made my credibility much lower in a lot of ways.
And good question… Massachusetts doesn’t seem to do much with ASIST right now, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it moved in that direction. We’ll certainly be watching for it 🙂
Thanks, Alex. Yes, mandated reporter is a serious issue, *especially* since so many people claim that it has anything to do with the topic of suicide which it most assuredly does not. But in general as well… It is a real issue. And what I think many people don’t realize is that once DCF is called in, it’s kind of like getting a diagnosis… I was thinking about my house after DCF was called on me. My kids aren’t getting abused. They’ve got pretty well supported, good lives… but how would DCF interpret my house not being so clean a lot of the time, and all sorts of other things that are just fine when you don’t have DCF looking at you through a particular lens…. Oy.
I think the drugs – and their largely unacknowledged contributions to *increasing* emotional ups and downs, disconnections, etc. – definitely have a role. However, I hesitate to say they’re all to blame. The hopelessness that comes with being given some of these diagnoses, the “prognosis” people are given, the hospital environments and how powerless people can feel… All of it also has a role.
Iatrogenic effects are bit… and with more than just the psych drugs.
Yes, I know you’re largely right, and I can’t help but try. And no, not a word… although I e-mailed them *ALL* (Office of Mental Health and Northern Rivers leadership and Board members) again yesterday with a link to this article, and telling them that I am *formally* asking for information on how to file a complaint which I believe they should be legally compelled to provide to me… But nope, nothing.
Yeah, I’ve been in similar situations, too and had to make some really difficult situations. Ultimately, I so appreciate where you landed. It’s where I’ve landed, too. People *need* to be able to say some of those things to other humans and not get locked up for it. That said, there have been occasions when I’ve also said to people, “Hey, it was super unfair when you said that and then disappeared, and I’m feeling angry about that right now.” That (treating them as not so fragile that they can’t handle hearing how what they did impacted me) also turned out to be good for our relationship, though.
Yes, during and following hospitalization is when suicide “risk” is actually the highest according to research, and hospitalization seems to have long-term impact on suicide rates even for people who were hospitalized for reasons other than wanting to kill themselves. It’s pretty staggering and largely ignored data.
Thanks for sharing that, Sam. The idea that knowing that suicide is an option brings a sense of hope, control, and willingness to *keep living* is so hard for so many people to grasp, and yet so true for so many of us.
I hear you, and you’re not the person to suggest I make it about someone else. However, it loses a lot of power when I can’t say “that was me”. Being able to say “that was me” is a huge chunk of the power of sharing these sorts of stories at all. It’s where we get to challenge people’s assumptions in how they might conjure up an image of the person about whom that story is true… I know it’s a risk to me. But in spite of all this, it’s a risk I continue to be willing to take … most of the time. 🙂
I’d love to go no a talk show and talk about this. I think the challenge is getting a talk show to want me. :p If anyone has any ideas, I’m more than open to them! Thank you 🙂
Thanks, oldhead. I’m glad I eluded them, as well… Although, I did get something back from a media person suggesting that they would have been more likely to be interested in helping to get my story “out there” if the consequences had been worse. Oy.
Thanks, madmom. I like that idea of an army. 🙂 Unfortunately, if anything, I think so many people have headed in the opposite direction of any real fight, but hopefully we can turn that back around. 🙂
Thanks, kindredspirit. I’m doing everything I can to get this story out there. No surprise, of course, that the media isn’t interested. First, I’d have to convince them that I shouldn’t, in fact, be locked up forever in order to get them to care. But, I’m working on it as best I can. 🙂
I don’t disagree with you that people don’t want to deal with the politics and just want help. *HOWEVER*, part of the point here is that often they think they’re getting help and they end up getting hurt. Or, if they get legit help at the individual level, it may still contribute to hurt at the systemic level by sustaining the illusion of need for NAMI. None of that ultimately changes anything I’m saying here…
Anyway, I think we’re ultimately basically saying the same thing underneath it all…
You said: “Places like this, or your doctor, or mental heath professional, etc take things like this seriously and follow protocol because if they don’t, they might get hit was a malpractice suit.”
Yes to a certain extent, however:
1) That’s really misguided, and not at all supported by research evidence that says that both assessment of need and the most common interventions used are wildly ineffective.
2) Even the fear of lawsuit is misguided, as successful lawsuits blaming providers for suicide deaths is actually incredibly rare, and especially in situations where there wasn’t egregious neglect (such as there wouldn’t be should want simply *talk* to someone rather than immediately shipping them off for “help”).
3) I don’t even think that’s *truly* the motivation for a lot of people… Having *just* been subjected to a “wellness” check by a provider this past Friday myself, I strongly believe that some of these things are motivated by power and control, and excused under the cover of liability.
I don’t disagree with most of the rest of what you said, but I’m not – and never have – blamed people for falling into NAMI’s clutches. I blame the broader systems (including NAMI) that make that so damn hard to avoid. So, ultimately, I agree with oldhead… if NAMI were gone, we wouldn’t have keep worrying about all this… but that’s certainly not to say that people don’t really struggle or need support. Just not the NAMI trap brand of it.
Systemic oppression and privilege do not preclude the success of members of those groups, but it does speak to the default design of society. For example, our holidays and workweek and how many people are afforded time off are structured around a Christian perspective. When kids are forced to stand and say the Pledge in school or people are asked to swear to tell the truth in courts, a Christian perspective on god works its way in. Presidential candidates suspected of not being Christian have had to go out of their way to prove that they are. These are just small examples, and don’t predict the outcome or impact for each individual which will vary significantly… but it seems strange to me to suggest that folks who follow a Christian practice aren’t privileged in this society in ways that make their way of life at least a bit easier.
It doesn’t seem as if we will come to agreement on this. I believe that the insistence on seeing this as insult rather than a reality of the fabric of our society is a part of what keeps these things in place, and that seems really sad to me. But I don’t really know what else to say about it, and I don’t think it’s worthwhile to get into an extensive argument about it here.
I have to be honest, Oldhead, that sometimes I really do wish you’d give it a rest. You seem like you have so much time to spend in these comment sections actively derailing things, and it can be exhausting to even try to keep up.
Her main point was that she felt I’d insulted white people, and discounted her experience. I did my best to illustrate how that is a misunderstanding of what I said which isn’t an insult toward white people at all.
*You* are the one bent on dismissing that in the name of naming capitalism. Of course capitalism has a role in all this, including the fact that it is capitalism that drives big pharma to use groups like NAMI as they do. And that’s not the whole picture, and none of this – not even the white privilege part – was central to the actual point of this article… although overal features of systemic oppression certainly are.
I can’t be sorry that I included reference to white privilege in the article, because it’s real and it’s important to keep recognizing that fact. But, I am sorry that you received it as an attack, because it surely isn’t one at all. I know it can feel awful, however, to feel as if someone isn’t seeing your own suffering. I believe that you and your family have really struggled, and faced lots of adversity.
I don’t think that that changes that you’ve received from benefit from your whiteness, but I believe that that’s been much harder to see or feel because of all the other benefits you haven’t received.
In the end, privilege really isn’t about the person who possesses it being bad, or not having earned much of what they’ve gained. Rather, it’s about the reality that our society has been built and sustained by people who’ve had their own needs and wants and beliefs most in mind… That means that society centers and prioritizes mostly white, male, cisgender, christian, heterosexual, able-bodied folks with some wealth and education. And for each of those (and other relevant) qualities that one does not possess, there are at least a few more barriers in their way to the success… and people from the dominant groups blaming them for having a tougher time because many from those dominant groups can’t even *see* the barriers the marginalized group might be tripping over… because that’s how privilege works.
Anyway, here’s a couple of samples of what’s out there about white privilege if it’s of interest:
Whoever said that to you was also being silly. The reasons why black and other non-white people aren’t more present here runs deep, and is reflected throughout any movement closely associated with pushing back on the psychiatric system. The reasons run from the fact that people of different backgrounds and privileges are shuffled into different systems, to how the psychiatric system and racism already intersect to even further marginalize non-white people, to how shitty white people are at making space and centering voices other than their own or hearing and respecting people other than those they see as representing their own image, and beyond. Whether you call people asking folks here not to use the term “psychiatric slavery” as appropriation or simply a show of lack of respect for the multiple black voices who’ve come here and said it doesn’t sit well with them… it doesn’t really matter. If becoming less white were more important to folks around here, they’ve be willing to give on these points even if they don’t fully agree.
But regardless… I’m not going to continue arguing about this. We’ve been round this circle before.
Thanks, Squash. Healthcare facilities, and as I noted above, genetics testing places. All very disturbing. Thank you for taking the time to comment and share your experience!
Will spent a fair amount of lines on ‘peer respite, Frank. It wasn’t just one casual mention. And I think it was out of place. I actually think Will fairly frequently has include off handed lines in several of his blogs here that are targeted at particular people or groups in ways that don’t feel honest to me. This is but one example.
That aside, your reference to “adult babysitting” just tells me you don’t know much about what peer respites are actually intended to be or what the ones done with integrity have to offer, and you are missing my point entirely. I also think it’s strangely naive to suggest that creating alternative supports is a waste of time… that echoes of the criticism many of us often receive about pretending nothing is wrong when we argue against the medical model. Mostly, people who hurl that criticism aren’t actually paying attention… because often many of us *are* acknowledging fully that something may be wrong for lots of people… that their pain and struggles are legit and that they deserve support. Just not within the framework the system has to offer.
I also think you are giving Will way too much credit in what you ascribe to what he was saying there.
I would frame what I’m doing here largely as offering food for thought, and material to counter those who continue to argue in favor of these large entities like NAMI, MHA, etc without unpacking what’s really going on.
That’s neither as personal as venting, nor as productive as offering a solution… but I do see it as being on the road to the latter… or at least a necessary part of ever getting there.
I’m not too sure what to make of this article. It seems a little all over the place. I *think* I appreciate the challenge to using the “creative maladjustment” term as its always struck me as appropriative rather than unifying in any way. But, overall, I’m finding myself a little lost in your point.
I’m also a little perplexed as to why you zeroed in on “peer respite” here. I’m not super fond of that terminology because of the word “peer” and how strangely it’s come to be understood and used within the mental health system. However, your focus on it here suggests to me you have some deeper issue against peer respite (or the people connected to them) than anything else. Ultimately, “hospital alternative” strikes me as no solution, although it’s often a piece of the explanation as to what “peer respite” is. Certainly, I’d see little to no improvement in automatic understanding if I began using that terminology instead of “peer respite” , and may actually see an *increase* in people who *think* they understand what I’m talking about but don’t.
I’m all for looking deeply at the power of language, and I’m not at all against looking for an alternative to “peer respite” , but I question the reason for your focus here.
That’s pretty reductive, Oldhead. I don’t think anyone believes that “psychiatric slavery” is what has chase black and other people of color away from here. In general, non-white people weren’t here to begin with. But weirdly appropriative stuff like the insistence on clinging to that particular phrase, along with appropriation related to MLK and so on certainly doesn’t help.
Thanks, Frank. I totally agree that it is a treatment/medicalization movement which is precisely why NAMI has been such a tool for pharma… that’s precisely the point made by the pharma exec I’ve quoted in multiple nami articles (he talks about how these “advocacy” orgs are better marketing instruments than any “direct to consumer” ads ever could be).
Thanks, Catnight! That’s for sure… that NAMI isn’t subtle or nuanced! So frustrating that people continue to live in that bubble and just can’t seem to see what’s right in front of them.
Thanks for sharing your experience here, Shaun! And for taking the time to read all this and be open to things being different than what you were first told. That openness is so important. 🙂
Thanks, yeah_I_survived.. .For reading and sharing some of your own experience. I missed that Mother Jones article (ugh), but yeah, I wish the “liberal” ends of our media and society in general weren’t so hell bent on keeping their head in the sand where psychiatric oppression is concerned. I actually wrote an article about that at one point, too… :p
I don’t think it is accurate to refer to that as Will’s method. I believe you that it is an approach he uses, but certainly doesn’t sound like one he developed himself. Thank you for clarifying, tho!
I’m not sure who this comment is directed at? Did you take my article to be suggesting that only the “sunny side” of voice hearing, etc be shared? That’s certainly not what I was saying… not even close… and I don’t think anyone else was saying that either, tho maybe I missed something?
If that is what you took away from this article at first glance, I hope you’ll read through it again, as it’s just not what it actually says.
There’s one that supposedly Pat Deegan put together, but I’m skeptical of *all* the pre-recorded nonsense for all the reasons I already named. I *will* say, though, that the reason I titled the article “almost” is because there are trainings – such as the ones offered through the western mass rlc – that offer live simulations. That means that people – often including many people who have heard or do hear voices – provided a live simulation experience. We have found some value in that because a) it is offered contextually and b) it is debriefed after the simulation at length and most importantly c) it’s embedded in a broader training that talks about all the other pieces of the experience including how different it can look from person to person and moment to moment.
AND as also noted in the article above, the exercise *still* runs the risk of encouraging people to take away sensationalized ideas and/or generalize… but that is at least also discussed in the debriefing process.
Ultimately, I don’t think even the recorded simulation exercises constructed by people who hear voices could ever not be hugely problematic.
I tend to believe you aren’t replicating the NAMI stuff I speak of. However, my believing that doesn’t mean that I suddenly think it’s a good idea to confuse the language, as that opens the door for further issues with others. I believe you that you and your wife have played the meaningful healing roles for one another that you describe, but I do think It’s much more useful when you use that language as opposed to language that’s been claimed in other ways. (Although, iin general, I hate the ‘peer’ language in the way it’s used today almost entirely across the board._
Thanks for your comment, and I certainly remember you from other posts. You are welcome to come visit, btw!
I think where I remember us diverging most is around what ‘peer’ and the role of family is specifically… that said, I’m not sure we diverge all that much. I *do* think it’s essential to *not* confuse family members with ‘peer supporter’ not because family can’t be key, but because NAMI, the whole ‘family partner’ peer scene, etc have had truly dangerous and damaging implications in how they’ve confused those things… and centered family voices *over* the voices of those most directly impacted.
I also do believe that ‘peer’ is more about how two people interact and the nature of their connection, and I remember you resonating with that… but I just think that needs to work in concert with having key experiences (being in the system, etc) in common or else it drifts too quickly into nami land. Although, as I say that, I can also say that our community takes a pretty broad perspective on what ‘peer’ means, too… So, it’s gray.
But somehow, I think we need to continue to hold the tension that exists between family (especially chosen family like significant others) having really important roles *and* recognizing that very often they still come with power dynamics and other complexities and historical trends that mean differentiating is also important.
I fear I’m rambling… perhaps due to being in a vacation state of mind… but ultimately, I’d be all for more trainings, supports, and opportunities for patterns and other family to have positive impact in someone’s struggles… just not to the point of confusing that with the expectation that someone can typically be in that role *and* be in a ‘peer supporter’ role such as we are usually talking about It here.
Thanks for sharing your experience, rachel777. I think everyone’s experiences are different/unique in some way, but what you described sounds similar to many I’ve heard… especially how the voices connect to something in the environment and self-blame somehow, as well as how the psych drugs didn’t actually make the voices go away. So true for so many people. In any case, thank you for sharing a piece of your experience here.
Thanks, Mark. I think for me, the art has a lot to do with how it’s conveyed… if it’s an art display expressly by “crazy” people – like what nami periodically offers and basically just saying “hey crazy people make good pictures too” – then yeah, not a fan. However, if it’s an art installation respecting people’s experiences, or the difference and brilliance that brings that art forth… I can certainly respect that!
It’s absolutely true, Kindredspirit. And, in fact, there is research at this point I believe that suggests that people’s sense of having control and understanding over what’s happening means they’ll be less negatively impacted by it.
How something impacts us and our lives really *is* the key point… although the mental health system doesn’t necessarily see it that way, and the simulations certainly don’t convey that point at all. For example, I used to have visions telling me to hurt or kill my daughter when she was a baby. I eventually figure out why… they were a message to me about how I was blaming my body for the babies that died by miscarriage before she was born. Once I figured that out, they lost a lot of their power over me. Before that, I at least knew better than to tell anyone about them… I don’t think the system would have cared at all what the visions meant…
Thanks, the_cat! While I do think it’s useful to attempt to increase understanding across people, I don’t think these simulations even begin to actually accomplish that!
I wouldn’t suggest IPS for hearing voices at all, actually. I think the 5 day IPS core training is useful for lots of things, but not that.
However, there are alternatives already established. I struggle with not being too self-promoting, so I left out some of the work we do at my workplace but perhaps I shouldn’t have, so let me offer it here now:
We offer three day trainings intended primarily for current and future hearing voices facilitators and sometimes others join those trainings, as well… but they are long.
My co-worker, Caroline Mazel-Carlton coordinated a webinar specifically geared toward family, and I’m sure she’ll do that again in the future.
She and another co-worker of mine, Marty Hadge, fairly regularly offer three-hour trainings on trauma-informed strategies for working with voice hearing like this one: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VoicesPittsfield2019
Caroline, Marty and several others on our team also do a variety of other hearing voices trainings. Everyone who trains on this topic either currently hears voices (true of the majority of our trainers), or has had experiences that fit under the Hearing Voices umbrella.
And we certainly arent the only ones. We have brought out Peter Bullimore and company from England several times, and will have them out again in April. in fact, if you look at our January newsletter, you’ll find information about what Peter and Shaun Hunt will be offering in MA and FL in the spring. https://madmimi.com/s/3ea57d
There is no excuse for the simulations as they are offered. I understand what you are saying, but there *are* better options that simply don’t have the backing of the simulations so people don’t hear about them. That is the result of NAMI and all the other marketing behemoths (see the next article I hope to publish for more on this point). But the options *do* exist. And often they are low cost or free, offered by people who have that experience, and far more meaningful.
We aim to make things accessible. Typically, getting the fee waived is just about e-mailing us to say you want it waived. Although the fees are helpful to sustainability of our work, we don’t count on them. In general, we only say no to someone who’s asked for a fee to be waived when we also just don’t have enough space to offer them a spot.
If you don’t already get it, sign up for our e-newsletter at our website (www.westernmassrlc.org), so you’ll get notified when the next trainings are coming around. 🙂
Thanks for your input on the name! I imagine we will be putting out some thoughts on the choices we come up with in December!! 🙂
Soooo, it’s Community not Center, but yes to the rest! But most begrudgingly for the majority of us who work here. Along those lines, you may want to check this out:
Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment, and feel free to give feedback on our name via that survey! 🙂 In terms of trainings we offer, the vast majority of our trainings are free to in-state folks. There’s a $100 fee for out-of-state people, but it can be waived if it’s cost prohibitive. 🙂
A good point. I’ve certainly been in a *LOT* of settings where making those in power/in the roles with the power ‘uncomfortable’ sure was frowned upon… and the sensitivity of those folks in power was NOT seen as *their* issue but mine or the others making them uncomfortable.
Thanks so much, Irit. Yes, sometimes people who speak loudly and firmly may lose some people, but also act as an important ‘beacon’ of sorts for those who’ve had similar thoughts and haven’t known what to do with them. It can be so important. 🙂
Admittedly, I do use the term ‘provider’ a bunch because I haven’t felt moved to worry too much about the impact of that one-word label on folks working in the system… but it’s a good point that I should probably think harder about the term and what it conveys to everyone about that role.
I find that referring to things as ‘politically correct’ is a way to devalue or cut off the conversation. It communicates that someone is “just doing it to seem cool” or “in the know” or “woke” enough. I’m not saying that that is how you intended that term to come across, but it is how it is very often used (as something derisive in some way) and I can’t help be hear it that way.
The RLC dropped the term ‘peer’ from job titles some years ago, and moved to Advocate. That’s also an imperfect word, but at least moves away from the idea that our job titles need be inextricably linked to something some people will see as part of our identities. I’m sure there are other options, all flawed in some way, but what I also say in this article is that it is less about a list of good and bad words than understanding values and aims.
So, if we know that it’s one of our values to not lock people into mental health-system attached identities, then using *ANY* single word to routinely always refer to ‘them’ probably isn’t consistent with what we are working toward. Not client, not participant, not peer, not individual, not acorn. It’s the institutinalization of the language and the person right along with it that is the problem above all else.
So, I’d be leading people astray if I listed out a bunch of words that are ‘okay’. That’s not the point. The point is figuring out what we are actually trying to accomplish in all this?
Thanks for reading. 🙂 Unfortunately, in my experience, any time a word starts to become a ‘buzz word’ for SAMHSA, the mental health system, etc., it just starts to become hollow. Perhaps there’s something about words uttered by oppressors cannot simultaneously hold value for the oppressed… I think there is sometimes an impossible tension for some folks (particularly those focused on reform rather than abolition, but who still hold some pretty clear lines) who fight for providers to let them define the language, but then should the provider finally listen and use the language as requested by those who’ve until then been ignored or marginalized… it’s anticlimactic because then the language stops sounding so good. So, sure, some of that.
However, some of that is driven by something deeper… So, for example, most providers who use ‘recovery’ language haven’t actually changed a damn thing about the potential they see for people in the system. They consider an acceptable or even *normal* version of ‘recovery’ to be (as I think I mentioned somewhere above in one of the other comments) sitting on the couch, zombified, and just ‘staying out of trouble’. It would *never* be good enough for themselves, but somehow it’s ‘success’ when looking as those in the system. One of the state hospitals in Massachusetts changed its name (when it wasted millions on rebuilding) to a ‘Recovery Center and Hospital’. So, now they’re using ‘recovery’ in relation to forced incarceration. Great.
Additionally, sometimes better language simply gets used to win grants and look good. So, for example, not too long ago, we had to re-bid for our primary contract that funds the RLC and we found ourselves up against a clinical provider…. And it happened to be a clinical provider who’d invested a *LOT* of time learning our language and approach. And they essentially used our own work and words to try and take it from us.
Words are meaningful, but they can also be rendered hollow when they are wielded by people who don’t understand more than their most basic definition, or who then believe that superficial ‘goodness’ is still good when it becomes forced or made hollow by overuse in under informed hands…
Does that make sense? I think there’s probably a lot more to be said on this topic, but hopefully that helps some. 🙂
Thanks for reading, J! I do think that a lot of people do find liberty when they just completely reject what they’ve been told! Not always an easy journey, and I’m never going to personally be one who tells people which journey is right for them (because, at the very least, benevolent force is still force), but I know I personally felt an important shift when I moved from somewhat rebellious to just “fuck off”. 🙂
Thanks for that, Alex. I remember the interaction you’re referencing, but haven’t hung on to any bad feelings about it. 🙂 And, as I recall, you had some valid points, even if roughly offered in parts.
That’s not my experience… that it’s easy to repurpose or reframe words in conversation within the mental health system. Rather, my experience is that routine use of words leads to routine ways of thinking and routine ways of responding to people… And that sometimes it’s absolutely necessary to change the language to signal that people need to change the way they’re thinking and doing things.
In other words, everyone – on every side – gets institutionalized to some degree.
But I do hear what you are saying, and I think that will work some of the time.
Fair enough on the broader potential for ‘recover’, but I do believe that the reality is that when it is used within the mental health system the vast majority of people are referring to ‘recovering’ from an ‘illness’, and I think it’s important to not lose sight of that even if it means something different (just like ‘peer’, etc does) outside of the system.
Thanks for your comment, Stephen. Pushing back on this idea that we need to say things nicely feels very important to me, too. We (RLC) are making a film related to this, actually. 🙂
I’m not familiar with James Hillman, but thank you for your comment! I do appreciate the idea of going outside of so-called “mental health” in order to better understand it. 🙂
You make an excellent point. Some of the people with whom I’ve intersected and who refer to themselves as ‘in recovery’ are shaking from psych drugs, unable to work (in spite of wanting to), etc. I’ve heard stories from others now living full lives who were told they were doing ‘great’ when they were unable to get off their couch or do more than smoke and drink coffee because of how sedated they were. It’s painful to see. Although who am I to say what someone *should* look like, it’s awful to see that so many have been sold this particular ‘recovery’ bill of goods.
I don’t disagree with most of what you write as I understand it, but I guess I think there are different layers to the conversation. Even though I agree that the medical system has lied to people in ways that *should* have legal consequences, I don’t believe in forcing folks on the receiving end of that to give up words they find meaningful. I don’t find force helpful in general. If I am to regard at least some people who’ve been lied to in these ways as – say – trapped in a cave, I believe it’s my role to go in and shine a light on the pathways out that were previously in shadow and thus invisible. I don’t, however, believe it’s my role to grab them by their arm and drag them down the path I’ve chosen for them. That – more often than not – results in their pulling back and struggling with me, *or* in their coming along because they feel they have no choice, but not really feeling committed to that path themselves and so not really even knowing why they’re there (or necessarily staying). In order to be the best support, I believe I need to accept that people may choose to stay, even if they got their because of lies. It’s only by letting go of that agenda that I believe I make space for people *also* to decide differently and go down the path I was hoping they’d find.
I agree it can be a tricky balance, and that different communication styles match different intentions. For example, wanting to get media and general public’s attention may perfectly reasonably involve yelling at a building housing an org you’re protesting while carrying signs with catchy but ‘inflammatory’ slogans. On the other hand, if you actually want to have a conversation with someone, that’s probably not the best place to start.
However, not bending on honest words and realities seems critical in either place. Thank you for not being willing to bend on words like ‘discrimination’, etc.
I have mixed feelings about ‘content warnings’, but I do agree they are a vast improvement and potentially useful in some contexts… The best thing about them as compared to ‘trigger’ warnings is that they say ‘I want you to know what is included here’ vs. ‘This content may be harmful to you.’ Content warnings certainly don’t suggest in quite the same way that ‘trigger warnings’ do that we are all fragile folks that can’t handle certain topics. Yet, I still remain mixed about them, because I still see the heavy use of them resulting in some similar outcomes. Not quite sure where the ‘right’ balance is.
And I hear you on the not wanting to forget, but not wanting to be paralyzed by anger (my own words, not sure if they resonate for you) forever. I can very much relate to that.
That may have been a little intentional, LavenderSage. 🙂 I suppose we can all read different things into ‘on’ vs. ‘in’, and which is better/worse, tho. :p
Yes, but that sounds a bit of ‘victim blaming’, oldhead. We live in a society filled with systemic oppression, and it’s unfair to expect people to know not to get involved when all signs that they see are pointing in that direction.
Apologies for my delay in responding. I was mostly out of reach of a computer yesterday.
In any case, rarely do I advocate for correcting people on their individual word choices for themselves. While I would, for example, correct a fellow team member in my work place (because I think it’s *ESSENTIAL* that they not be reinforcing negative stuff in their language choices, and that they be using words that leave space for other people to self-define), I wouldn’t typically correct someone speaking about themselves (nor advocate that anyone else do so). One of the most important things in many people’s own healing process is to be able to have the space to choose their own path, including the language they use to describe it. If someone came in using a word for themselves that felt really problematic to me or that I at least wanted to explore with them further, I’d simply ask what that word means to them (or similar). For example: “I’m bipolar.” “I’ve known a lot of people who’ve been given that diagnosis, and they and their experiences are so different. What does that look like for or mean to you?” Sometimes people really need to think through that answer because they’ve been given so much systems language that they just haven’t really thought about what it truly means to them. In other words, as you referenced, some people are just ‘parroting’ ideas, and that phenomenon can become dangerous and inhibit growth and progress and healing and freedom on many levels.
That said, in order for people to be able to truly see possibilities beyond the crap the system feeds us, they need to be exposed to it and have opportunity to unpack what it all means to them personally… So, that still brings me back to how important it is that we not be unnecessarily perpetuating all this stuff.
Also, you said?: “When I was trying to educate the Vermont legislature about the problems with forced drugging in institutional situations, I used the term “forced drugging” rather than “involuntary medication” because I thought it was more accurate. But some people who I really wanted to get to understand my ideas, were alienated and stopped listening because they found my language inflammatory and they saw me as not sympathetic to their point of view and not respectful of… yada yada.”
In my experience, people who are in that place at that time will find something to disagree with no matter what you say. Because you are threatening a paradigm with which they are intertwined either through years of work/education, or through years of institutionalization. I also use psychiatric drugs instead of medication. Rarely do people respond to that in any way in either direction. However, I get called inflammatory, and difficult, and all sorts of things all the time. That includes before I was ever writing on Mad in America. Before I’d put out publicly some of the more controversial things I’ve said. Before we made any films. Etc. Simply because I was challenging a paradigm. I used to believe that if I just tried hard enough, I’d be able to find the right words to reach people who are in that place, and that that was my job. But after years of trying and still getting the same ‘you’re too radical’ or inflammatory or whatever, I’ve stopped trying so hard. Because it’s not about me. It’s about them. They are *INVESTED* in hearing me that way, and there’s not a damn thing I can do about that, unless I water down what I say so much that I’m basically just supporting them and have lost all of what I truly believe.
That is a feature of co-optation and systemic oppression. It is not our job to make people comfortable all the time, and they are attempting to trick us into stopping altogether when they put in effort to convince that if ‘only we were nicer about it’ we’d get further. While I’m not suggesting screaming at people is effective in many instances, I’ve not found that watering down is either.
Thanks so much, KindRegards. 🙂 ‘Triggers’ is a challenging word that is so pervasively used within my and so many communities right now. I hope these words alongside other people’s words and lead to more conversation about it. 🙂
Thanks, Stephen. Yeah, I’ve had my share of experiences with the standard medical world, too. Both for myself, and with my kids. I’ve picked up the attitude (that I apply to most parts of my life at this point :p), that if you can’t tell me why (or if your ‘why’ is some stupid bureaucratic reason that has little to do with me), I’m probably not going to do it…
Hmmm, I flipped through a few reviews of the film before I wrote my own, but I’m not sure I looked at that one. Not surprisingly, some of them were pretty insulting in the way they talked about people who’ve been diagnosed, honestly, and I got tired of that. Ugh.
It’s a good question. We focus here primarily on the psych industry, but there are issues all around with the medical field… starting with how much power we hand over to them simply by calling them ‘Dr. Whatevertheirlastnameis’ when we are all our first names…
Ugh. Even if a doctor can’t predict and warn of *all* the potential risks, saying not to worry and that a drug you are going to put into your body is “safe” is just awful and stupid.
It’s a good point. There was an awful situation (but much less unusual than they’re making it out to be) at this place in Connecticut where they finally saw on video footage someone hospitalized there being tortured and it became a big news story… but somewhere in there, I believe they also had to admit that most of the time they don’t look at the footage.
Thanks for reading, J. I wish it had gone further with demonstrating some of the fake science, but that just wasn’t entirely the story. But it’s an important step in that direction for sure!
Your criticisms and cyncism is totally fair. We have a similar ruling of sorts called the Rogers Decision out here in Massachusetts. I wrote an article for the RLC’s newsletter about the decision last winter. In it, I describe the original ruling, and then how it’s been twisted and abused. You can find that article here: http://www.westernmassrlc.org/images/stories/Rogers_Article.pdf
It’s not about status. Even if involuntarily incarcerated, I believe the ruling prohibited forced drugging unless it was defined as an ’emergency’ in some way (and yes, I know that how ’emergencies’ are defined gets pretty sketchy, too). The film doesn’t really get too deeply into what happens between hospitalizations and forced drugging, or the Involuntary Outpatient Commitment laws and all that.
However, like I said in the piece above, I think the film’s true significance is less about that ruling in California, and more about having a film circulating with mainstream actors that says some of these things, and puts it right out there that these drugs have killed people. (As well as some of the statements and fairly accurate representations of things like restraints that are offered along the way.)
I think getting the courts to believe that harm was being caused was a long road. They didn’t win at first. In fact, they were barely given a chance to be heard. Eventually, they found some doctors willing to sign on and support their argument which helped. Collette’s having been a nurse and being willing to devote a ton of time to explaining the details of the harms caused was big, too. And then, even in spite of all that, I think people are still so often ignored. So, I’m just not sure beyond that, and I think there’s for sure a risk of any progress they made there being undone.
God. This is *so* incredibly frustrating. Perhaps most frustrating of all is I can’t get the website to stop sending me notifications so it’s easy to check out of this incredibly frustrating conversation.
Somehow I can’t manage to not respond to this, so as briefly as I can…
You said: “as long as we continue to use race as the sole or major theme to describe who is oppressed and who isn’t, or who is appropriating what, we lose sight of those pulling the strings at the top.” But I didnt say race is the sole theme.
You said: “People of color do not own the term slavery and slavery as a general term refers to much more than the enslavement of African and Caribbean people of color by early Americans.” I didn’t say people of color own it or that that type of slavery is the only type of slavery. But it *sure* would be nice if white Americans would be willing to attend to the fact that it *sure* is that kind of slavery that is most relevant to our recent history and that it might be nice if we could respect that fact when some people of color express that it’s offensive… especially when there are *plenty* of other words to choose from.
You said, “But when we get into the weeds over who is oppressed and who isn’t” but that has literally nothing to do with what I said. However, when we are talking about race it is okay to just talk about race. And when we are talking about sexism it is okay to make space to just talk about sexism. That doesn’t mean the others don’t count. I wonder why you hear it that way?
You said “fashion.
But when we get into the weeds over who is oppressed and who isn’t, I’m supposed to be greatful it isn’t worse” … again, nope. Didn’t say any of that.
No one is nullifying anyone’s suffering. But it is super important that we ask ourselves why these conversations about one type of systemic oppression so often get lost in people wanting to say ‘not all white people’ or ‘not all men’ or ‘not all psychiatrist’ etc etc etc… or why a conversation about one type of systemic oppression suddenly becomes about taking care of someone else’s needs because talking about that systemic oppression somehow made them feel bad.
Good goodness sake.
Yes, sure, capitalism is a tool in strengthening or driving all these forms of oppression, and they all intersect, and psychiatry has also been used as a tool (as driven by capitalism and control from the ruling class) with all types of oppression. Yes, yes, and yes,
And we still need to take a serious look at each piece on its own. Cause we continue to be super white, and we continue to ignore feedback from some of the very few people of color who have tried to speak up, and we continue to be *incredibly* defensive about the issue of racism pops up, and we continue to have enormous holes in what we know/think we know.
Steve, As new moderator, could you make one of your first acts helping me find out why the “manage your subscriptions’ feature isn’t working so I can stop getting notifications about this thread!!
There is literally nothing… and I mean nothing… no past history, no commitment to anti-racist ideology or actions… that exempts one from being party to/unable to see their own contributions to racist and white supremacist structures, Oldhead.
Elitism in my assumptions? First of all, I didn’t make the assumption that Richard ‘has no understanding or privilege’… I believe that suggesting that I said such a thing is what ‘they’ call a ‘straw man’ argument… Second, I wonder if you’re able to see the difference between what I said and your own commentary which is rather accusatory and skewing toward name calling.
But really, what is your point here? As far as I can tell, the vast majority of the time, your point is simply to argue. Enjoy that.
I can’t give you the apology you seek. What I can say is that I’m sorry it felt so personal to you. However, I am of the opinion that *all* white (and generally speaking, white passing) people have ways of being and moving through society that are based on benefiting from racism and white supremacy. And, I think that we *all* have blind spots as a result. And, my own experience and learning suggests that the more we have in common with the individual for whom this society was designed (the white, educated, male, cisgender, heterosexual, middle-class, able bodied, etc. individual), the harder it is to see all that and to not have those blind spots.
So, I may be forgetting something (though I did skim back through the comment section of the blog to which you refer), but I don’t think I intended to ever say that *you* as an individual are especially racist. Simply put: Although I can see very clearly that you have invested a great deal of time in being good and moral and aware of oppression and the impact of capitalism, etc., that you – like most of us – have your blind spots made of the privilege you’ve experienced in moving through this world and/or the fact that you haven’t had to experience so many of these issues first hand. And that I do believe that at least some of the ways in which you seem to be using the terminology of ‘identity politics’ and denying the importance of hearing people of color when they ask people to not use terms like ‘psychiatric slavery’ and so on is born of some of that. But certainly not you alone. You alongside so many others, and in spite of that fact that I don’t think that’s how you mean any of it at all.
You can call that divisive. But I look around here… Around this movement… This white, white movement… And I wonder why we can’t just do everything in a power to try and make space for that to change. Even if none of us have all the answers or are quite sure what will make the most difference.
Anyway. I’m not going to be able to rehash most of this here. I’m about to start week two of being away from home facilitating Alternatives to Suicide trainings in Maine. I just really couldn’t avoid at least saying what I said about the ‘identity politics’ piece feeling dismissive. And I can appreciate why you wanted to reply back.
I’d be silly, naive and whatever else if I claimed you were wrong when you said ‘Second, there are people who will do better after being sent to the hospital.’ We know it’s true because people’s responses vary, and all that.
BUT:
1. Why is it true? What about hospital *actually* helped the person? And what did they need to ignore/avoid/not be impacted by that was negative in order to achieve that positive?
2. How are we defining ‘doing better’? Inevitably, we’d define that in different ways. (Not just you and I… but so many of us…) Some people have been trained to say ‘doing better’ when all they mean is ‘under control’? Some people have been trained to say ‘doing better’ when all that means is ‘numbed out’… Some people have been trained to say ‘doing better’ when what they mean is ‘right in this moment things look better, and to hell with how what we did to get this short-term result may impact things long-term…’
3. Let’s assume we can find people we’d *ALL* agree are ‘doing better’ *after* hospitalization… There inevitably are such people. BUT, there are also people who appear to be ‘doing better’ after being tortured. (See the Judge Rotenberg Center as an example of a place that tortures people with painful electric shocks because some of them seem to ‘do better’ and stop serious and life threatening self injury after being so tortured.) How far are we willing to go with justifying torture because it seems to ‘help’ some people? What if something is just morally wrong even if it sometimes has some desirable outcome with a set of people? And what if it still hurts FAR more people than it helps? At what point does that intervention become unacceptable for *all* because it is morally wrong and/or hurts far more people than it helps?
If we can agree that forced hospitalization is morally wrong and if we can agree (i.e., accept the growing body of research and wide array of individual reports) that it is causing FAR more harm than good… then whether or not it may occasionally ‘help’ some people simply becomes irrelevant.
Yes, as I noted in my comment, where people aren’t in the same org and there are tensions or a lack of sense of comraderie between the two orgs it can function quite differently. But, in my experience (not just personal, but decades of experience supporting people in different environments who are going through their own experience with the system), the assumption on the part of those with that power that they can and should just do what whichever clinician contacting them says that they should is absolutely pervasive.
(There’s a typo in my above comment btw… It should say that it’s not at all UNcommon that psych nurses get to just tell doctors what to do, etc.).
Although I realize this will take us right back to where we most went to head-to-head, Richard, I can’t help but state how troubling I find your comment here. There has been – and continues to be – lots that you bring to this site and to the world in general, but i find this ‘identity politics’ business to be incredibly dismissive.
This continues to be a largely white-dominated site, and I for one would be *thrilled* if Mad in America could find a way to take a clearer stand on some of the language that re-enforces some of the white supremacist pieces that creep in here just as much as anywhere else… Including appropriation of terminology like ‘psychiatric slavery’. I’m not interested in re-hashing that particular debate again, so I’m not going to engage even if others comment to say how wrong I am…
But I needed to say *something*. This isn’t just ‘identity politics’… I find that term just as dismissive as people who get irritated when someone else offers a correction that they feel is “politically correct”… Both suggest that the suggestions – usually based in actually being respectful and not replicating/changing the oppressive ways of the broader world – are trivial, and that honoring or truly hearing them are nothing more than appeasing some silly person. It’s a real problem.
So, I know it’s already been head as I saw it come up in my skim of other comments, but I just wanted to echo that I also find the ‘sheriff’ reference to be problematic. Though, admittedly, it simultaneously made me less and more inclined to want to read the piece.
I also wanted to push back against the don’t generalize piece… I don’t think it’s okay to equate generalizing experienced by groups of people as a feature of systemic oppression (such as people of color, etc.) with generalizing about groups of people who’ve been a part of the oppressive structure itself (e.g., psychiatrists). Sure, generalizations will never be entirely accurate, BUT one is coming out of ignorance and/or a desire to keep systemic oppression in place… The other is coming out of justified anger at the experience of systemic oppression, and even if each INDIVIDUAL doesn’t fit the stereotype or what have you, the point is that the generalization is much more accurate because it speaks to the realities of the *system* and what it charges those with keeping the system rolling to do, etc.
I generally (to generalize) have appreciate your comments on Mad in America, so I suspect you’ll do a good job here, but I really hope you’ll give particularly this latter piece some thought as you move forward.
Thanks for this, Jess. I crossed paths with Kevin Hines at the Alternatives Conference in 2017 in Boston. I was pretty horrified. I don’t mean to draw into question the basics of his story, but he presents it in such a theatrical manner that it comes across more as one-many show than genuine sharing. And some of the ideas he promotes and/or re-enforces are just awful and damaging. Watching him ride that story to the level he has without question and with such … rockstarish admiration from others in the movement (and beyond) … has been so frustrating. But I appreciate your drawing out the reasons behind that. What he offers is not only incredibly theatrical and appealing in that story porn sort of way, but also doesn’t challenge the conventional paradigm. In the end, it is a part of what silences so many of the stories out there that are much more rooted in the things people need to hear to make the changes that are needed to stop hurting people.
Hopefully you picked up from what I wrote in the original piece that I *also* don’t think someone’s right to kill themselves is equal to their right to do so in front of me. And, I’d be hard pressed to stand by and do nothing if that’s the choice they made. But whatever I did… I’d do as a *human* and certainly not as any sort of ‘treatment’.
Also, this piece isn’t about not calling the cops at all. If someone was in my home and refused to leave, I’d call the cops, for example. that said, I also think it’s true that all the white folk calling cops on black people for doing things like barbecuing in the park (etc.) *IS* atrocious and a threat of violence.
We always bring a ton of intersectional buttons to give away whenever we go to a conference. At the last conference we attended, we premiered several new buttons. The most popular one asid, ‘Fuck your help. My cat saved my life’ But not far behind that were buttons that said ‘Calling the cops on a person of color = a threat of violence’ and ‘Calling the cops on a person in emotional distress – a threat of violence’. This wasn’t intended to mean that calling the cops on people who are literally threatening to/are taking steps to harm someone else is wrong… But I think people got the point, and those also flew of the table.
I don’t think of that as ‘police shaming.’ I think of it as reality. Speaking of shaming, another couple of our buttons said ‘I’m not trying to pill shame you. I’m just sick of of watching people fucking die’ and ‘Speaking truth about bad science & psychiatric oppression does not equal pill shaming.’
Thanks, Richard. I agree with everything you say here.
And for the record, I’m technically taking not entirely dissimilar risks in my work, which is still largely funded by the state mental health system. In fact, in some ways, the risks to us are even greater because if *one* bad thing happens in the ‘peer support’ world people are more likely to discredit *everything* we do than is likely to happen in the conventional system But we also know that if we don’t take those risks we defeat our own purpose. In fact, there is risk even in posting this piece and this particular story. Who knows how folks from our funder will interpret (and I do know that they read my posts here).
I only wish more people were willing to choose integrity over risk management, and understand that the risk taking not only is absolutely necessary to do their job well, but also often comes with far less actual risk than they fear should something go wrong (as you also point out).
My one misgiving about your post is the use of the term ‘mandated reporter’… I realize you put it in quotes… But I feel compelled to nonetheless say that that term is wildly used in the system. ‘Mandated reporter’ of course has nothing to do with suicide. Mandated Reporters are required to report when they suspect or become aware of abuse or neglect of a child, someone labeled with a disability, or someone considered elderly by a caretaker. That so many organizations refer to that as ‘mandated reporting’ is a way of silencing the conversation and making people feel forced to behave in certain ways. Because, of course, if it’s a mandate that exists beyond the organization that suggests much less potential to change things than if it’s simply an organization policy.
I appreciate the truth of what you’re saying… that only doctors often have the right to sign off on papers, etc. to force someone into a psychiatric hold/forced hospitalization.
HOWEVER, it nonetheless feels disingenuous to me to focus on this in most instances. Because doctors often just take clinicians at their word, and do whatever they suggest is the right thing. Because I’ve heard of situations where doctors have left blank forms with their signature on them for clinicians to use whenever needed. Because it’s not at all common for nurses to be able to go to doctors even in psych hospitals and tell them what is needed with someone incarcerated there and have the doctor just do it (force them into a ‘room plan’ that leaves them in isolation, make a change to their psych drug regiment, etc. etc.).
The truth is that clinicians often have a TREMENDOUS amount of power when they say what is needed, even if they’re technically not able to sign off on the related paperwork. I realize there are exceptions or places where individuals aren’t int he same organization and if there’s tensions between the organizations that they may be less likely to listen to one another… but it’s true more often than not.
I can appreciate the realities that clinicians working in the system face, even when they truly want to practice differently. I guess I have several thoughts on this…
1. Read Bruce Levine’s comment. At the most basic, if you could at least be real about *why* you are doing what you are doing, that’s a step in the right direction. Don’t get me wrong. It *still* can be devastatingly harmful to send someone to the hospital against their will, BUT… If you’re real about the reasons then at least you a) Can avoid contributing to the dehumanizing and disabling affects of telling someone that *they* are the problem in such a screwed up system and b) You can perhaps still partner with them to figure out how to minimize the damage. This might even include things like connecting them with folks who can coach them on what to say to get themselves the heck out of there as soon as possible, etc.
2. Read ‘Rational Suicide, Irrational Laws: Examining Current Approaches to Suicide in Policy and Law’ by Susan Stefan. Susan is an Attorney in Massachusetts who has reviewed case law, etc. on suicide across the country. One of the realities that she has been able to identify along the way is that a clinician being successfully held liable for someone’s suicide is about as likely as being struck by lightning. Reading this book may give you some useful information as to your options and realities of your and others’ fears.
3. Be upfront *before* someone comes to you and says they’re suicidal. *Tell* them what that would look like, and what you’d be obligated to do. Perhaps give every person you work with an informational sheet that explains all of your limits on privacy and what you’d be required to do if they said certain things. Be as specific as possible. But, don’t stop there. After you’re done being specific about all that, also give them resources for places where that’s NOT true… even if just a phone support line they can call. (But, be careful which one because many phone lines are also set up to call the cops if they perceive someone to be in imminent danger. But, there are SOME out there where that’s not true. The Western Mass RLC’s peer support line is an example of a place that simply won’t call the cops on someone talking about killing themselves, though it’s hours and funding are limited to 7pm to 9pm from Monday through Thursday and 7pm to 10pm from Friday through Sunday. (The number is 888.407.4515.) There are other options out there, too, but you really need to do your research to be able to be confident that they won’t call the cops, because most lines (including those most frequently promoted) will.
4. Connect with others in your field who are trying to do things differently. Folks in England (for example) have done a much better job of forming ‘critical’ networks where they can get together and talk about how to do their jobs differently, and support one another to know they’re not alone in trying to do so.
5. Also be honest about your fear and regret, and be willing to say you’re sorry. These things don’t make up for the worst of it, BUT being willing to talk about your own fears, regrets, worries, etc. *is* a big deal. Being willing to say you’re sorry when you cause harm is also huge. It almost never happens in the system.
Thanks for chiming in and adding to dfk’s comments here, Steve! 🙂 Certainly, childhood trauma can have such deeply integrated impacts on how we walk through the world that it can be hard to realize it’s even happening. Thank goodness for neuroplasiticity!
Okay, thanks for clarifying a bit. I feel like I understand a little bit more. Although, I’m not sure that I agree with your thoughts about people chosen. Either way, thanks for taking the time to read and share your thoughts!
Thanks, dfk. You’ve offered an interesting perspective on this that I need to digest a bit more, but this certainly seems to be true for many people!: “Maybe the helping professions are not giving the right kind of feedback to those in distress.”
Thanks, Bruce. Your point is an important one… If folks in professional roles could at least be more honest (with themselves and those around them) about why they’re doing what they’re doing, that’d be a huge step forward. At the very least, if someone was honest about doing something to cover themselves, at least the person they’re doing it to might be a little less likely to internalize the idea that they’re bad/the problem/hopeless/etc. It is so much of that latter issue that drives people getting stuck in these systems.
Hi Danzig, I’m not totally sure I followed all of your comment, but I hope you didn’t think that this piece was suggesting a connection between biology and people’s emotional distress. While I think there are some situations where we might not know exactly what’s at the root for some people and I would never want to presume to know what causes people’s distress other than my own, I do think that so much of it is environmentally based.
Thanks, Someone Else! I totally agree with you that so much of what I described above is really just about treating one another with basic human dignity and respect. Which is often why – when we do trainings on this topic – we find ourselves talking far more about *unlearning* (of all the layers of systemic crap that gets piled on) than learning.
Thanks, John. I can appreciate feeling so desperate about someone potentially being in medical distress that you call for help. I also really appreciate that it’s not what you jump to.
Unfortunately, overall, I don’t think policies that put it as ‘only in extreme situations’ go far enough because… Well, it still leaves it as an option and we’ve seen through history time and time again that what happens is providers tend to define more and more situations as extreme.
If we could *at least* get to the point within the provider system that it’s not see as ‘okay’ and is seen as a failure of the system to provide useful options and mandates a review of practices (including an interview with the person themselves)… Well, that would sure be a step in the right direction!
To come back around what I appreciated about what you offered… That you’ve been able to hold that line and had so few instances where you did resort to calling the police… is really useful toward demonstrating that that level of reduction is possible to folks who believe that ‘extreme situations requiring extreme measures’ are commonplace.
Yes, problems in families are often a part of what drives people to feel so alienated in the world. Along with poverty, racism, bullying, and so much other violence and hatefulness.
One of the concepts we talk a lot about in Alternatives to Suicide is that suicide isnt the problem… it’s a solution to so many other problems, albeit a desperate one.
I’d encourage you to watch it, Oldhead. I think you’re right, we don’t need to keep asking… And in fairness to the film, it doesn’t overtly ask. It’s pretty smartly constructed. But it does put the viewer – many of whom will not have come to the same conclusions as you already – to give thought to those points.
Yes, well, you’ll get no argument for me on it being a rights/political issue, rather than an intellectual one… Although, I think we all fall into our own intellectual traps much of the time for lack of seeming to have any truly effective way to make satisfying change.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Fiachra! Are you familiar with Suman Fernando? (Named in the article above) He speaks a great deal to what you’re referencing in the UK.
The thing is that acknowledging racism does *not* mean we can’t also acknowledge collective fights. It also doesn’t need to mean that it’s ‘race against race’. In fact, the Hamiltons said many times while they were here that we’re all in this. We’re all being affected.
It’s also possible to acknowledge racism in a way that isn’t all about blame. I benefit from white privilege. I benefit from white supremacy. That doesn’t mean it’s me vs. black people, or that I’m operating with intent with any of that. Often there’s power to be found in acknowledging these issues honestly.
(I should add that – as aforementioned – I know zero about Roseanne’s politics, and have never seen the new version of her show so I have literally no opinion on any of it. I’m simply responding to her comment, and the subsequent effort to excuse it as ‘mental illness’.)
Fair enough, meremortal. I would have balked less had Oldhead not begun his entire commentary by stating flatly that he hadn’t read anything I’d actually written… 🙂 As an author here, it can be very frustrating to have people come in and immediately go off topic. It can, unfortunately, change the whole energy of the piece.
Just one last quick note:
When you say this “There’s also something deeply bizarre with the idea that “the Blood is at” Roseanne’s “doorstep.” You may, as a white woman, feel that this extreme stance is really putting your weight behing the noble cause of supporting POC. As a POC, I can tell you that I find it profoundly weird that you would compare one comedian’s offhand, ambien-fuelled comment on Twatter to things like redlining, slavery, Jim Crow laws, lynchings, police brutality, etc. ”
It really makes me wonder if you’re misunderstanding how the phrase is getting used? As I understood it when Dameion stood at one of the screenings and told the audience the blood is now at all of our doorsteps, it was more about not being able to ignore what’s happening in the world… Not an accusation that we are each responsible or any sort of direct cause so much as a call to action, to not look away, to face the challenge of making change… Again, I’m not sure you’ve taken the time to understand what I offered here, but I at least wanted to be clear about that point.
Certainly there are issues with the police, their training, their focus, power, and so on. It’s a multilayered issue for sure. But, it would be a mistake to say that color doesn’t matter. It certainly plays a role.
As I understand it, Dontre was *not* homeless. He was simply resting in a park in the middle of the day. I believe there was a report that went out stating he was homeless, but I believe that that was an erroneous assumption (and likely an assumption worth examining the roots of).
I don’t actually know if Christopher Manney knew of Dontre’s diagnosis when he interacted with him. But I do know that how they painted Dontre afterward was skewed by that fact… (Check out the film if you have a chance.)
Make of it what you will, meremortal. Oldhead came in here, openly acknowledged not reading this article, and then proceeded to make the whole thing about Trump verses liberals which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote. I know what happens around here when people do that. It has the potential to throw the entire comments section off track, and, yes, I find that disrespectful.
It also seems to me that you’ve misunderstood much of what I’ve said here. I certainly didn’t compare her commentary to those things. What I actually said was:
A) It is ridiculous that people are trying to excuse her behavior under the defense of ‘mental illness’.
B) That, yes, there is a history of ties between psychiatry and racism, but that it is of a very different nature.
C) That while, yes, Roseanne’s behavior shines a light on a much deeper and more serious issue of racism in this country, our focus would be much better served on the people and stories worth hearing about… That focus on a famous person’s offensive comments aren’t where to put our attention.
So, while you seem to have read what I wrote, I’m not sure you’ve taken time to understand. That’s fine. At least you read it. Thank you for that.
I called everyone in the article by their first name, as best I recall. Yes, I referred to Trump as Trump… That’s just habit, I guess. But typically, I go for first names.
And no, I will not be changing my lead in. It is what it is. I don’t know if you’ve actually taken the time to *read* the article at this point, but one of my points is that racism is *systemic* and Roseanne’s comment is merely illuminating that fact. She’s not so different than many people in the country, and as you know very well, I’m someone who believes that all white or white-presenting people have benefited from racism and white supremacy in this country, so it’s far more complicated than Roseanne being any sort of villain. However, I do absolutely believe that consequences for such overt racism are merited and necessary to initiate any sort of real change…
MOST importantly, though, the point of the article is that it’s *absurd* to try and excuse her behavior as a symptom of ‘mental illness…’ That that’s wrong on many levels. And that the rush to focus on her while we’re still ignoring the voices and stories that deserve to be heard is a problem.
This is the last time I’m replying to you on this. I find it disrespectful to come onto articles – especially articles that expressly make the point about how important it is that we shine the line on the people who deserve to be lifted up – and attempt to derail things in this way.
I do hope you’ll take this elsewhere, Oldhead. I didn’t know that Roseanne was a Trump supporter at the time I first heard about her Tweet, and I certainly didn’t have to have that in my head to hear her comment as pretty blatant bigtory. I don’t care if she is or isn’t a Trump supporter. It’s irrelevant. And.. If she didn’t realize that Valerie was black… Well, I don’t even know what to say about that. I find it hard to believe, even if she’s now claiming it.
More than anything, I really don’t appreciate this article being turned into a ground for strange political arguments and insults. This isn’t what all this is about. It’s more important than that.
Thanks, Frank. 🙂 As with so many things, I don’t see this country suddenly ceasing to focus on the ‘celebrats’ as you so aptly put it, but we can definitely try and do our part. 🙂
It means they were given a diagnosis. I quite intentionally use that language when stating a diagnosis that is relevant to a story or circumstance because being given a diagnosis is a fact (if someone in fact was given one by a doctor, psychologist, etc.), but what that means or why is left open.
For example, I was personally given a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder. Can’t deny that. I sat before a therapist. They wrote it in my chart. But that still leaves space for me to say ‘and it was bullshit, and means nothing to me beyond the pain it caused me in the system.’ It’s fundamentally different than saying someone ‘has’ or ‘is’ a diagnosis in that way. It was relevant to mention here because the fact that Dontre was so diagnosed influenced how people, including the police, saw, interacted with, and spoke about him. It makes no claim about who he was or why.
I certainly hope that is not all that you got out of this. I quite intentionally didn’t make this yet another article that goes on about the injustice of the labels themselves because I believe it’s clear in what I did write (for example, in the paragraph where I name some of the relationships that have existed between racism and diagnosis) that there is a problem. The main focus deserves to not be lost.
So, we did do a facilitator training in Melbourne, and the e-mail address for folks in that area who are getting things up and running is this: [email protected]
We just did some broader events in Sydney and hope to go back to do a facilitator training at some point, but the contact e-mail publicly listed for that area in relation to the events we did do or bringing a facilitator training to that area is listed as [email protected]
In Perth, there’s a committee managing getting things up and running (we’ve done the largest number of events/trainings in Perth) and their e-mail is: [email protected]
It’s all still quite in the early stages, but hoping things develop soon. 🙂 🙂
Yes, Caroline and I arrived on March 1 and begin our flight home late on the 24th. We started in Melbourne where we offered an Alternatives to Suicide facilitator training. We then went to Sydney and did a couple of related events with hopes to return in the future for more. We’ve been in Perth for a week now, and between last week and this one up we will have done several events and both a When the Conversation Turns to Suicide and an Alternatives to Suicide Facilitator training. 🙂
We didn’t get to Brisbane, unfortunately, but would love to in the future! 🙂
Challenging feedback is hard, and I’ve certainly been subject to it myself when I’ve written here. However, I feel confused by your feedback which seems to be largely referring to my comment (though maybe I’m wrong about that?). I wasn’t simply looking for the fine points with which to argue for the sake of argument… I found pretty substantial issues with what was offered here that I think either confuse or take away from what was good, and I guess I don’t see the value in ignoring that. Endless fighting over irrelevancies won’t take us forward – you’re right about that… But neither will silence.
Well, you named Alternatives to Suicide so inevitably, I’m sure you knew, I’d pop up at some point. 🙂
There is plenty I agree with in what you wrote, but I guess I have a lot to say about the things I question or disagree with… I want to start with the opening paragraph:
“The radicalness of the anti-psychiatry movement has unfortunately become one of its greatest hurdles to overcome. Even in otherwise radical spaces like prison abolition, neurodiversity, or intersectional feminism, the most common reaction to anti-psychiatry ideas is to dismiss them as so intuitively ridiculous they need not be engaged with. Sanism, behaviorism, drugs and force have permeated our culture to the point many people literally can’t imagine life without them.”
I see others already disagreeing with your first sentence. I guess I do want to say a few things about the paragraph as a whole, though. I still think that ‘anti-psychiatry’ falls way short as a term. It implies focus on psychiatry rather than a whole system, and distracts from the actual arguments for being a term so often used as an attack or diagnosis against someone others wish to dismiss.
Meanwhile, I’m concerned about terms like ‘sanism,’ as well. I don’t get it. These terms seem to be raining down on us from leftist intellectual land, but I guess I don’t really appreciate what this one seems to suggest. If racism is a systemic oppression that centers whiteness and assumes it as society’s ‘default,’ and heterosexism does the same where heterosexuality is concerned… Are we saying that society society is centering those who are sane and setting that as society’s ‘default’ as opposed to those who are insane? I don’t get it. And I really, really do not accept the idea that I am ‘insane’ (or mad, etc. etc. etc.).
This language seems to fly in the face of the idea that we all have (or have the potential to have) deep distress, extreme states, etc. at various points, and that those experiences often make a ton of sense in relationship to our environments. It also flies in the face of the idea that experiences like hearing voices or seeing visions are the norm within some cultures, and can be a variation from the norm that does not mean anything is actually ‘wrong’ in our own. So, not only do I not really get that terminology… it actually seems actively harmful to me.
So, on to your second paragraph:
“On a good day, our leaders pontificate about “reforms” that would somehow fix a system whose deepest foundation is a bed of violence, oppression, and at best pseudoscience. They ask for cultural awareness training, yoga classes, art therapy, and healthier food options in psychiatric facilities, without ever questioning the confinement that made those things unavailable in the first place (let alone the coercion involved when participation in such activities becomes a condition of obtaining release).”
Wait, who are you thinking of as our ‘leaders’? And who on earth among our ‘leaders’ isn’t questioning the confinement and coercion? Myself and most (if not all) of my co-workers fall in the middle of the ‘reform’ vs. ‘abolition’ debate… Many of us believe abolition would be best and is a noble goal, but also that it is naive and harmful and unfair to desert those individuals still stuck in the system… And so we spend time working on making the conditions more tolerable, too. But we *NEVER* lose sight while engaged in our efforts in the latter of the force and coercion that occurs. We write articles about it, we talk to providers about it, we offer trainings that incorporate awareness of it, and – most importantly – we take action to push back against it wherever we can both in individual situations and overall.
I think there are some people who fit the description you offer, but it’s completely inaccurate to suggest that any and everyone who hasn’t invested all their time in abolition talk fits the definition you’ve provided here.
Another section I want to quote directly: “Mad and neurodivergent people would be managers, not “peer specialists…The essential function of a “peer specialist” is to appear non-threatening, earn people’s trust, and convince them to stay on their meds. Hiring managers know that these positions only exist because others don’t, that there are far more job-seekers than jobs to fill, and thus that anyone they hire is easily replaceable.”
Again, this seems misinformed to me. I certainly agree that a *huge* number of ‘peer’ roles are co-opted, poorly designed, and harmful. But the definition you offer defines the co-opted lot, and not what these roles are truly meant to be. And what they’re truly meant to be *does* exist in at least some peer-to-peer *and* provider settings. It also suggests to me that you’re unfamiliar with the true landscape of things when you say that there are far more job-seekers than jobs to fill. In many areas, people are struggling deeply to find qualified individuals to fill peer roles.
Also, there are a number of places where people who you might define as part of the ‘mad’ movement do hold managerial roles. I know many in my state alone. Although, what precisely are you suggesting they should be managers of, if the system will no longer exist?
I understand where you’re coming from with the following: “If the “peer specialist” has more power than the patient, then they’re not a peer, and if they have the same or less power, then they’re not needed.” Yet, it also seems a little misinformed to me. There’s still a tremendous need to have someone – even who has no more power than the individual stuck in the system – to be by their side, bear witness, help them strategize about how to get heard, help them learn about ways out, etc. There’s tremendous power in these things. Though, I’ll also add that of course people in peer roles don’t have exactly equal power as the person they’re trying to support.. They’re getting paid. They get to leave locked environments. They’ll be seen as more credible because they’re an employee. Etc. Etc. Etc. But if they’re well trained and supported, their role will be designed to reduce and avoid power imbalances as much as possible.
This is also inaccurate: “Currently, all hotlines train their staff as mandated reporters, to listen for key phrases and if the caller utters one of them, secretly send people with guns and a history of recklessly using them, directly to the caller’s location. The sole exception is Trans Lifeline, which is of course exclusively for trans people, only a fraction of everyone who might want to call a crisis hotline.”
Unless you’re not counting ‘peer support lines?’ The Western Mass RLC operates a Peer Support Line and we absolutely do not track calls or notify 911 no matter what someone says. I agree with you that what you describe is a huge issue among such lines, but please be careful about misrepresenting these points. I’m pretty sure there are at least a few others who do not track calls, too.
Meanwhile, I’m also concerned about your use of the language of ‘mandated reporter.’ While some employees within the system are misinformed that mandated reporter is generally connected to reporting people who are suicidal, this is not what it means in most places. Rather, ‘mandated reporter’ most commonly means that people are required to report known or suspected abuse or neglect of children, elders, or individuals labeled disabled by care givers. It’s important that we not further contribute to that common misunderstanding.
And there’s this: “In a post-psychiatry world, both would be regularly, sternly reminded of their humility. Moreover, they would be taught when not to intervene, and they would not need to have basic respect packaged as just another proprietary methodology, with a sexy name like “Open Dialogue,” “Intentional Peer Support,” “Emotional CPR,” or even “Alternatives to Suicide.” You follow this up with the following in the comments section: “Essentially they boil down to “don’t do Mental Health First Aid” or “don’t call the police” and the rest is just fluff to make them sound more like something social workers might accept into their existing paradigm. IPS, eCPR and Alternatives to Suicide are good tools for mitigating a big problem, but I long for the day they become unnecessary.”
So, first of all, I wasn’t aware that “Alternatives to Suicide” was a ‘sexy’ name, but… thanks? I will say that the rest of what you say about it here, though, is both confusing and offensive, if I’m honest. I’m not aware that you’ve been through the Alternatives to Suicide training… Have you? Am I mistaken about that? Caroline and I are currently traveling around Australia offering a variety of presentations and trainings on just that approach right now, and while I’ll agree with you that some of each training and presentation focuses on the research about how current approaches are harmful… There’s a heck of a lock more to the approach than ‘don’t funnel people into the system’ or ‘don’t call 911.’
We talk an awful lot in these trainings about what *to* do… How to respond… questions that can be really useful to ask… fears that can arise for the listener and how to work through or learn to sit with them… This is only the briefest of summaries. But the point is, it’s not ‘fluff.’ I also don’t experience Intentional Peer Support in the way that you describe.
And I wonder about the society where you feel these sorts of supports would have no use? Do you really mean to suggest that its only the mental health system that’s seen death and suicide as taboo? Cause I’m pretty sure religions that long preceded the mess we’re in now have had issue with it… And that families and communities have struggled in various ways since basically the beginning of time.
Are you really meaning to suggest that the absence of the mental health system trap would mean a lack of need for healthy supports for people who are struggling? Cause I can’t quite help but hear some of that in what you’re saying right now.
I’m going to stop going through your article point by point because it’s just so long and I don’t want to basically write a blog of my own in your comments section… I do agree (as I said at the start) with many of your points including the problems with the idea of rebranding (although I think there’s value in referencing psych diagnoses as opposed to most of the other terms as it’s simply a fact that one’s been diagnosed and said nothing about what’s *actually* going on), with the need to dispose of the diagnostic system, and with some of the overarching points about the problems with in and need to do away with the mental health system.
But I keep getting lost in what feels like a lack of full understanding, contradictions, and what feels like a disregard of how the mental health system and its functions and perspectives are rather inextricably linked to school systems, prison systems, capitalism, and so much else…
Thanks, Mik. High sensitivity is in fact how I think about a lot of my experience in the world. It’s good to know how many people have similar experiences. 🙂
Yep, A lot of people have already responded, and we’re hoping to use people’s input to publish something focused on this idea of ‘what we’ve learned about the spoken and unspoken rules of the system’ that we can make available to everyone. 🙂
Bradford, Sounds like you may have spent even more time in at Suicide.org than I did! I missed the angel bit. :p Thanks for sharing some of your experience. It is strange (but true) how both the absolute fear to talk about death and the hyperfocus on preventing on death at all costs can co-exist. In a way I guess it make sense… because if you talk and act only to prevent it, then you don’t need to actually talk about it in any depth? It’s definitely a symptom of how messed up society is.
I’m sorry about your friend. I’ve lost a few people to suicide. It’s hard, and only gets harder when no one will actually talk about what happened.
Thanks so much for your comment and support. 🙂 And thank you for your efforts in Canada, as well! (We just offered our first training – on Alternatives to Suicide – in Canada in late October which was great. 🙂 )
I’ve come back to your comment a few times, and I’m not really sure how to respond. I guess I agree with a lot – maybe almost all – of what you’re saying. And yet, I do find the message paralyzing, as much as you say you don’t mean it to be. I’m also not totally sure I agree that the *only* way to shift some of this is to undo capitalism. Even with capitalism in place, I think I’m going to have to at least hope that there are other ways to adjust its focus or what feeds it… Somehow it feels more attainable to me to *use* capitalism’s tools to undo its capitalist appeal than to undo capitalism. Perhaps that’s foolish, but I’d be interested in a conversation about what *that* could look like.
Eh, I see some of what you’re talking about, Julie… I personally support people to use *any* drugs they want in whatever way works for them, and without needing to post about it. People always have used drugs. It’s not inherently bad. What’s bad is the system that pushes a particular set of drugs as the ‘cure,’ while demonizing people who use the other set.
I personally do talk about not using psych drugs at this point in my life… because it’s important to have some people (and not just some, but a critical mass of people) out there challenging the perception that psych drugs and psych diagnosis are a meaningful and consistent link in any sort of way…
Thanks for your comment… Although, I don’t think this is accurate:
“Some people, I accept, such as Sera, work hard at bringing people together. Other people, such as myself, encourage people to break free and go it alone.”
I think part of the challenge of the community in which I work, myself, etc, is that we do both things… We offer talks and trainings to providers, attempt to develop better ways for people who might be more succeptible/willing to ‘get it’ to begin to think about things in a different way… While *also* making films like the ‘Virtues of Non-Compliance’ that is basically all about how being so-called ‘non-compliant,’ ignoring what we were told in the system and getting on with life, in fact, saved our lives… Or a project we’re working on right now that is all about gathering information from people who’ve survived the system to share their wisdom about how they navigated the system’s unwritten rules and were able to ‘play the game’ well enough to get out, etc.
We do both, and we don’t apologize for it. That makes us pretty hard to tolerate for a lot of people… And that’s fine.
“I came to the conclusion that many people who say they to want to hear ‘the other side’ actually don’t. They want to feel smug in their ‘open-mindedness,’ but they are threatened by any hint of real change.
It’s called cooptation – they pretend that you have a place with them, but that place is only to make them look better than they are.”
I think it is exactly true… Please stick around only so long as you make us look/feel good about ourselves.
I genuinely am not sure why you are posting this here. This blog isn’t about ‘recovery.’ I’ve been pretty clear for many years that I don’t support the concept. And I am a part of a community that rejects most conventional ideas about psychiatric diagnosis and ‘help,’ and takes many pretty concrete actions toward change.
Feel free to not like what I do or say, but arguing with me about something that has nothing to do with me because you – for some reason – need to believe that that’s part of my message is… not too much better than how the system treats me at the moment.
Yes, I believe you are being presumptuous… You responded to a blog that has nothing to do with recovery with what feels like an attack on what I do based on the concept of recovery. And when I say you are being presumptuous it is because there is nothing that I write about that indicates support of the concept ‘recovery,’ and in fact, what I write about specifically speaks to my rejection of the term. Because there’s nothing on our website that speaks to ‘recovery’ beyond our name. And so on. We didn’t come up with our name, and while we’ve talked about changing it, frankly, we’ve been too busy with the ‘doing.’
If you’re curious to see what happens with our work, just take a look… at our films, at our materials, etc… We’ve been around for over ten years. There’s already plenty to see in terms of where we come from.
Honestly, I didn’t have time to fully read your post to respond more in depth so I just tried to put something out there recognizing you posted. I’ll try to read and respond more in depth over the weekend.
Nope. What you’re saying is presumptuous and sort of empty. Our name has the word ‘recovered’ in it because it was chosen 15 years ago and we didn’t have control over it. We’ve talked about changing it more recently and are working on that. But I don’t think there is a single person on our leadership team that would say they are invested in the concept of ‘recovery.’ We talk about our lack of belief in that, ‘mental illness’ ‘suicide prevention’ and many other such concepts all the time. So, please stop making assumptions and look at our actual work. 🙂
Thanks for taking time to write out so many thoughts and lessons learned, Richard. We may not always agree, but I appreciate that you’ve got much experience and wisdom to lend to these conversations.
Thanks, Deena. Unfortunately, I just haven’t experienced most folks in the system *truly* hearing too much, even when watered down. Sure, they are less angry, more entertained, more thankful. But not necessarily more changed. not saying it never happens, but the overall trend…. I dunno.
Thanks, Brett. I appreciate your reading and kind words. I know it can also be difficult to be in a more clinical role and oppose the current paradigm. In fact, in one of our current film projects, there are three groups – individuals who’ve been ‘in’ the system, clinicians/direct support works, and administrators… And truth be told, Group 3 (administrators) was FAR angrier with Group 2 (clinical providers) when they said critical things about the system than they were with Group 1 (people who’d been ‘in’ the system). I imagine the reasons for that could be interpreted in at least a few different ways, but nonetheless, there it was.
You may have noticed that I use the word ‘recovery’ nowhere except in the name of where I work, which was a name developed something like 15 years ago.
I have to admit this comment makes me angry, so I’m going to do my best to respond as best I can without falling into that.
I am not ‘in bed’ with anyone in the sense that you speak. The community with which I work has done more to support people to get out of the system, to push back against the system, to challenge psychiatry, etc. In the last ten years than most other communities and groups and activists I know. We work hard beyond our limits and take risks all the time to have that be true. I would suggest you check out our work first hand before assigning it to any category.
I do not ‘want to be.’ I am. And at least half the folks I know who disparage what we do as being somehow ‘in the system’ are spending most of their time saying those things, not actually doing themselves.
By the way, my blog says nothing about change ‘needing to come from the inside.’ And frankly, it’s more than a little insulting that you suggest I have such a childish view that lacks any real nuance.
This blog was about how hard it is to hold the lines I’ve held and do the work I do and the cost that comes with that… the cost to me as a human being who can only take so much poor treatment, even if it is expected.
Perhaps my next blog should be the predictable way in which people in this movement tear each other down, too.
I continue to be perplexed by your portrayal of things. I’m sorry that you didn’t feel welcomed with Hearing Voices USA. And yet, I repeatedly hear you misrepresent what people have said, what Hearing Voices USA or the charter stands for, what I’m saying here, etc. You’re also conflating Hearing Voices USA and the RLC. The RLC is the group that brought Rufus May and Elisabeth Svanholmer to the US to offer some training on Voice Dialoguing. We don’t expect others to do what we are doing. We choose our own priorities, and I think many people have benefited from many of the choices we have made. I’m sure they also disagree with some of them, or wish we’d prioritize other things. We do the best we can.
My experiences with you in person have always been pleasant, but I’m pretty baffled by the parts of yourself that you bring to this forum. Ultimately, I guess it’s your choice how you show up here, but I do want to ask that you do your best not to misrepresent other people/groups wherever possible.
Oh for goodness sake. You’re over hear arguing semantics, and Pat is down below ignoring the problems that paid peer roles have created. Perhaps the two of you could argue together?
I’m done and holding out hope that people may show up here who want to actually talk about the blog, and not these arguments that are getting us nowhere.
I guess part of my point is that it’s (largely) impossible to not eventually feel beaten down by the constant abuse, disregard, dismissal, etc… It doesn’t have to be about approaching them as lesser than or needing their approval. That I don’t is, I imagine, part of the problem. And yet, I am human. And it gets exhausting.
I very much disagree with your ‘black power’ analogy, although I get your point. As I’ve already stated, I don’t care for the term ‘anti-psychiatry’ and it’s not really about try to soothe anyone’s fears. I simply don’t relate to it, and the fact that that’s actually my *truth* and people *still* want to use it to dismiss makes the whole thing all the more maddening.
Yes, I realize that a large part of the downfall of the strength of this movement came with paid ‘peer’ roles and such. I talk about that with a great deal of frequency. And yet, expecting people to network, gain strength, and have a voice long-term with*out* any funding to support that is part of what made what was also not sustainable, I believe. Kind of a lose:lose…
It’s funny. My post feels so clear to me, and seems to be connecting with several others to whom it also feels very clear. But, I guess we all see things through our own lenses and experiences, and so I can’t fault you for feeling otherwise.
Perhaps it comes down to my simply not liking the word. I do not think that the term ‘anti-psychiatry’ conveys the things that you say above very well at all. I also feel that many people who talk about ‘anti-psychiatry’ as their primary perspective tend to over simplify things, but as you’ll see above some people feel that over-simplification is a bonus.
It doesn’t work for me. That’s kind of all there is to it. It’s like arguing about what the word ‘bipolar’ means. Even for those who accept that label, it actually *looks* a thousand different ways, let alone if you factor in those who do not. It is not a way I choose to identify myself, and I think the term misses the mark, at the very least, in being a way to accurately convey what (some) people mean by it. I don’t really see the point in arguing about it, honestly.
Criticism is fair, and there’s already a good amount of it in this comments section if you missed it! But I’m often troubled by your comments, as they seem to misrepresent what I say and what I do more often than not. I’m also confused by your capitalization in the above, but that’s also fine. And, you’re welcome to continue to e-mail me or the RLC for resources… My point was that you seem to tend toward attack here, and yet you clearly must see *some* value in what we do.
Yes, I like to call like to call it activism with integrity, and you’re right, it’s hard to do that sort of activism without burning out. 🙂 It’s hard to imagine that you’re actually trying to argue with our push back against the Boston Globe for their deeply offensive ‘mental health spotlight’ series, or the way our school systems are failing our kids… Is that really what you’re doing? Also, my ‘getting along/synthesizing’ comment wasn’t about my blogs. I say what I want here. I was talking about my ability to navigate my daily work. 🙂 And speaking of my daily work, didn’t I – at your request – just send you a book I wrote on developing peer respite? It escapes me a bit why you keep coming on these blogs and intentionally misrepresenting or disparaging what I have to say. 🙂 But that’s okay. I hope all is well in your neck of the woods. 🙂
I absolutely refuse to have the slavery compared to psychiatry argument again. This blog was deeply personal for me and took me a long time to write, and I simply won’t participate in having it hijacked in that way.
As to the rest… The whole argument misses the mark for me. Almost any perspective that is completely one-sided is usually missing something in my eyes. That is how ‘anti-psychiatry’ feels to me. It a) misses that humans have used drugs for an eternity to manage their feelings, experiences, etc, and I’m not entirely sure that’s wrong in the most fundamental sense b) misses the fact that iatrogenic harm and dehumanization happen in the system for many reasons that include but extend beyond psychiatric drugs… At a minimum it misses those things.
In any case, I’m done arguing about this, too, but thank you for reading the blog.
Meh. As I said in my blog, I don’t think ‘anti-psychiatry’ is helpful. I’m all for anti-oppression, anti-force, etc… but for me, anti-psychiatry kind of misses the mark. Sorry!
Thanks so much for reading and commenting, as much as you’re not so generally inclined. 🙂 There seems to be a real push/pull for so many of us when it comes to staying in this work and fighting vs. walking away to do something else, or at least not get paid within the system. Touch choices all around, but you sound like someone I’m happy is still connected. 🙂
I suspect we will continue to disagree on elements of this, Frank. I’m mostly going to look past your first paragraph (which feels a little insulting) and say this:
As I said in one of my comments above, I agree that wiping the slate clean and starting over in terms of what we regard as ‘helping’ people and why and how to go about all that in our society is the ideal.
Where we most strenuously disagree, I believe, is where I feel you have over simplified things. It’s not *just* about people being ‘different,’ as much as that’s a huge part of it. It may, in fact, be the most motivating part of it for the roots of this system… And yet, there are also people who are really struggling and want help, etc. Additionally, whenever I hear people get so fixed on abolition rather than change, it feels like it comes from a place of privilege to me. (Not privilege as in wealth or lack of hardship or whatever, but privilege nonetheless…. The privilege of not so much being at risk anymore of ending up in one of these places. The people I work with go in to institutions every day to try and help people get on their feet and get out… Abolitionist talk misses that. I realize that if we were truly successful in abolition, those people would also get out… Except, it wouldn’t be those people… They would have been lost and died off long ago. And I’m just not comfortable with sacrificing people in the now for what we might achieve somewhere far down the road.
I hear you, feelindiscouraged. Most of this blog was directed as those who hold power and aren’t at any particular risk, not people who are trying to avoid incarceration. I’ve definitely experienced marginalization, but fortunately haven’t faced any real threat of incarceration in a long time for which I am very thankful. -Sera
Eh, there are lots of ‘smart’ reasons why people leave those of us who are speaking up on our own, yes. It’d probably be smarter for me to shut up, too… Maybe follow my brother’s path, and work in the field of computers. And yet, here we are.
Thanks, J. In the best of worlds, I think abolition is indeed where it’s at. I’m not sure how we fix something that is being driven by so many interests that just aren’t helpful or healthy. What keeps me chasing reform is knowing how many people are stuck in there if we stop tending to that, and the numerous successes many of us have seen of helping people move beyond stuckness to a full life. I don’t feel great about getting too black and white about abolition goals primarily for that reason… But, yes, we need something totally different than what we have now.
Not totally sure how to interpret some of your comment, but thanks for reading, either way.
I disagree with your link between ‘critical psychiatry’ and ‘moderate,’ but perhaps that does – as you say – depend on who you’re asking. I only know that the only place I ever get called a ‘moderate’ is around here, and only by a pretty small group of folks. :p
Personally, I’m not backing away from ‘antipsychiatry’ to justify anything. I’ve never cared for the term. It’s too black and white. I prefer to be critical of anything and everything. 🙂
I’ve been traveling and am super sleepy at the moment, but wanted to write a quick comment since you took the time to name us (Western Mass RLC) in your blog!
I hear you on the fact that our movement hasn’t been nearly as successful as we want to be or should be or need to be in making real change… And I can totally support the idea of trying to re-evaluate strategies, and decide if we need to change direction a bit (or a lot) and how. This is actually not the first conversation I’ve had of this nature in the last sevenish days.
However, I feel confused about your proposed strategy here… Not because I think capitalism hasn’t been harmful, but… because I’m not sure lack of capitalism has particularly led to success for individuals with psychiatric histories, and I certainly don’t feel more hopeful about our changing the tide of our political and economic systems than I do about changing the the mental health elements around us…
I also feel confused about why you called out RLC specifically? I’ll just assume it’s because we’re such a good representation of what peer-to-peer support can actually look like 😉 … But bear in mind we aren’t just doing peer support and sitting around for others to change the world. We’re trying to work on all of it… but we’re definitely open to new ideas about how to move forward. 🙂
I did receive a head’s up both that an article was coming, and a notification when it actually went up. I didn’t get to see it in advance or anything, but I knew it was on its way.
I hope you will see my full response to Patrick below. I did not question anyone’s ‘peerness’…. not in the way he suggests anyone. I do however question the way that word gets thrown around, and the hiring practices and intent of many orgs hiring up people into peer roles.
I believe Darby would agree that the organization to which I am connected (correct me if I’m wrong, Darby!) is one: the Western Mass Recovery Learning Community. http://Www.westernmassrlc.org
I’m finally back. I hope you’ll bear with me in my more detailed response to your piece. It’s going to be long, although it’s late and so I’m afraid it won’t be quite as thorough or well thought out as I would have liked.
First of all, let me begin by saying (once again) thank you. In order to respond to your blog, I needed to go back and read my own. I forgot how much I liked that particularly blog, so thanks for making me take another look! 🙂
Okay, but, let’s get down to business. For starters, no, I am totally not kidding you. Do I mean to suggest that this certification has taken a completely healthy ‘peer support’ industry and knocked it off its perch onto the ground? No. ‘Peer support’ was suffering for being an ‘industry’ at all, and it was already deeply in trouble. But, Mental Health America certainly ain’t helping the situation.
My complaints about Mental Health America (MHA) date back well before this last blog. In fact, the very first blog I ever wrote for Mad in America (back in December of 2012) was about MHA’s disappointing connection to mental health screening tools. See here, for more: https://www.madinamerica.com/2012/12/i-am-the-number-60/
So, the bell. I think you missed quoting what the bell *actually* said, or accurately representing my concerns with it at all. It’s not the ‘mental illness’ language. As harsh as that is on my ears, I understand the language of the era and all that. It’s the actual message. A refresher: Here’s what the bell’s inscription says in full:
“Cast from shackles which bound them, this bell shall ring out hope for the mentally ill and victory over mental illness.”
It doesn’t say that the bell shall ring out hope for the ‘mentally ill’ and victory over the system, the abuses they have suffered, the discrimination, the maltreatment, or whatever words might have been most commonly used to describe these phenomenon in that year. No, it suggests the bell ‘ring out hope’ for ‘victory over mental illness.’ That’s a *completely* different message, isn’t it? In fact, it sounds exactly like NAMI’s message, and every other organization that seeks to increase treatment to ward off and conquer these destructive ‘diseases’ without any real critical eye on the system itself (except perhaps to say it doesn’t offer enough beds or access for the “seriously mentally ill”). So, either you have re-interpreted what was written to what you wish it said (or what serves you in this moment), or the author(s) was a really poor writer. Either way, I’m sticking with my assertion that it is tone deaf and gross.
You continue with several other points (I particularly appreciate the details on who makes what per each certification, so thank you for that), but also misrepresent another point I made here:
“On a side note, I have no qualms about saying that all of the peers, including me, involved directly in the creation of this credential have just as much right to claim membership in the peer community as anyone else. When other people, particularly those with large audiences, try to disparage our “peerness” I have visions of a so-called recovery center I once visited which required proof of diagnosis before people were allowed access to the facility. It makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.”
Not a single time did I question anybody’s ‘peerness.’ Anyone who knows me or has read much of what I written will know that anything that links me to any place that would ask people for their diagnosis (or any other such thing) isn’t taking the time to understand what I’m saying at all.
This is what is called a straw man argument, Patrick. You are responding to an argument I never made in order to (intentionally or not) distract from the points I actually made. I have *never* questioned the experiences of anyone who claims to have a psychiatric history or to have faced enough life-interrupting challenges to work in a peer role. What I *actually* said was that many organizations eat up the people who have internalized oppression, or who are prone to be silenced and changed when their paycheck comes from those they’ve previously sought to change.
This is an important argument. It does not seek to diminish one’s experience or identity (and certainly doesn’t seek to ‘prove’ whether or not they qualify for membership to the ‘club’), but rather it questions whether or not they have had or currently have the support to not be swallowed up whole, co-opted and used by the system. And, it further questions the nature of a system that would prefer to hire people in this position than those who have gone through a fuller process of self and system realization.
Based on what you say here, I’d also go several steps further and question your use of the word ‘peer’ in at least two other ways. First, you seem to be using it to mean an identity. Thus, right from the start, you are using the word in a co-opted manner. ‘Peer’ is not an identity you get to claim because you have some particular life experience. ‘Peer’ is a way of relating to other people. It’s an approach. A way of being. You serve to do the work of co-optation of the role simply by changing it to mean something else. (See my blog, ‘Cheers for Peers’ for more on this: https://www.madinamerica.com/2013/07/cheers-for-peers/)
Meanwhile, by claiming doctors and licensors and all that can be ‘peers’ you also go a step or two deeper into dangerous territory by not only claiming ‘peer’ as a singular identity, but by also ignoring that peer supports and peer-to-peer relationships are fundamentally built on minimizing power imbalances. So, while doctors, licensors, and all sorts of other people may have psychiatric histories and legitimate wisdom to share from those experiences, they are full of power.
Is this what you mean when I say I’m questioning people’s ‘peerness,’ Patrick? Because, if so, then I guess you’re right on. I do not question anyone’s right to claim a psychiatric history, or to choose to work in peer support. I do not think someone needs to share a diagnosis, take a qualifying test, prove they’ve been hospitalized, or anything else in order to play this game. But, yes, I sure as hell reject that I am a ‘peer’ (I am a human) or that doctors who have psychiatric histories are able to participate in offering peer support for all the power they hold.
On to the clinical dance: You say, ” What is not said, through no fault of Ms. Davidow, is that in the initial interview I accentuated that individuals choosing to participate in DBT do so voluntarily and arrive at treatment goals and methods in concert with their therapist.”
Now it’s my turn to say, ‘Are you kidding me!?’ Hundreds of thousands of people have been forced into DBT-inspired programs. If they’re given a choice at all, sometimes it goes something like this, “So, you could live in this here DBT-based residential program, or… you could be homeless. What do you choose?”
Additionally, some people who ‘choose’ DBT do so under coercion or misinformation. And, once they’ve ‘chosen,’ and they realize it’s not working for them, they can’t easily or immediately undo their ‘choice.’ So, yeah, what you offer here changes nothing, and simply re-enforces my impression that you’re not paying attention to what’s actually happening to so many people in the mental health system.
By insisting that peer supporters deviate from listening to the person they’re supporting over all other influences, you are diminishing the most very basic point of this all. At the very least, if a person participating in DBT chose it voluntarily, then surely THEY know that. If, knowing that, they still choose to reach out to a peer supporter and ask them to advocate or help with something that clinicians may seen as ‘interfering,’ they do so also knowing that. Are you suggesting that the peer supporter nonetheless treat that person as a child who can’t knowingly decide to act outside of the DBT framework, and that the peer supporter needs to take on that responsibility?
In my world of peer support, we practice responsibility *to* one another, not for. The system has already done far too much harm being responsible ‘for.’ If a peer supporter has a question (so much of our work is about questions and curiosity), then they can *ask* the person with whom they’re connecting. After all, this is all so much more about understanding THAT person’s worldview and NOT someone else’s (and certainly not Marsha Linehan’s). I reject this idea entirely, and continue to assert that such beliefs will contribute to further destruction of whatever good and potential may be left. So, yes, ‘clinical, I do think so.’
You go on to offer that, “Ms. Davidow’s comments on the Code of Ethics are her opinion… They are the same as the majority of codes of ethical behavior that any certified professionals agree to.”
Well, okay, but this isn’t the “majority” of work. It’s an employment structure for people who have faced silencing and discrimination. It’s already been severely co-opted and misunderstood. While I don’t agree with everyone here who says its pointless altogether, I do seriously question whether there’s any way to have it exist and hold it on track as anything else than what people here accuse it of being. Peer support is also already something that people like Tim Murphy, Susan Inman, Elinore McCance-Katz, E Fuller Torrey, and DJ Jaffe have sought to control or destroy. The language of not practicing beyond one’s expertise is precisely what was put into the Murphy Bill in an effort to control peer roles in really limiting ways.
Saying this is all ‘just the same’ as any other license is just silliness as far as I can tell. Don’t you at least think the level of potential for discrimination is worth considering before people start signing off on this thing? Has it not occurred to you that various Anosognosia disciples might lodge complaints simply to push these issues? Are you ignoring national news of the Murphy Bill passing under the 21st Century Cures Act or McCance-Katz making her way into SAMHSA with destroying peer support on her mind? Might you not be handing them just the tools they need?
I just recently received an e-mail from someone wishing we’d get ‘shut down’ simply for hosting a Coming Off Psych Drugs event. You seem to be very naïve about the potential dangers here, and that is terrifying given you are constructing a framework in which so many other people may get caught.
You close with this: “Ms. Davidow is writing this in a blog about Mental Health America, so the clear implication is that MHA is shrouding itself in “so-called peers” and “party liners.” The comments about not being able to see through their own medicated haze and tokenism are even more revolting.”
Are you denying that organizations across the country are hiring up “party liners” and people who haven’t made their way out from under the weight of over prescriptions and other varieties of disabling treatments enough to think about their role? If you’re truly suggesting that’s not a thing, then you’re not paying any attention at all. None of that is meant to disparage the people working in peer support who get caught up in that trend, as it’s usually not really their fault. But, to ignore the phenomenon is just as dangerous as everything else you suggest.
But you seem really wed to ignoring all this. For example, when you say “The individual who “confessed” to feeling beholden to their employer was not referring to us since they are not an employee of our office,” you’re missing the point entirely. Is it intentional?
It doesn’t matter if they were talking about Mental Health America when they told me how silenced they felt at times. They were saying it in regard to a presentation they were offering, and in general. They were explaining how they felt that – whenever they acted in a professional capacity relating to their role in any way – they felt they needed to watch what they say, and tow at least some part of the party line. Your unwillingness to understand how that connects to MHA’s work is baffling to me.
Patrick, this national certification is not a good thing. (And neither, I suspect, is Canada’s, though I know much less about it.) None of this is news to you. People have spoken up at your presentation at iNaps, at Alternatives, and more. Your blog really doesn’t present a convincing argument otherwise. I hope you’ll consider this further, but it seems clear you won’t.
I don’t have time to respond to this right now (but, boy is there a lot to respond to)! However, I just wanted to say thank you! I’ve been cited in blogs and articles before, and even been the focus of an article outside of the Mad in America world.. But this is totally my first Sera-focused Mad in America blog written by another party. 🙂 It’s kind of like when I got my first ever hate mail following a letter to the editor that got published in the New York Times. Pretty exciting stuff.
Yes, as far as I understand it’s allowed and happens with relative frequency, as long as you do – as you suggest – link back and attribute credit. 🙂 So, yes, you’re welcome to do that! 🙂
Eh, I see you are poking at another argument underneath your main points here, oldhead. I don’t disagree with much of what you say – that he is recklessly exposing what others don’t want to have seen.. .But much of this is also about him, specifically.
Thanks, J. That is indeed part of the premise… That what happens to Trump – and what it is seen as acceptable to do and say about him – will come back to haunt *us*… Because we certainly don’t have the amount of buffer he has in play!
Thanks, Fiachra. Neither one is my gig, but I hear ya… The discrimination they put out there and the assumptions inherent in it are obnoxious! Not only is there that statement, but they ask you in your application form about your psychiatric history.
Thanks, Stephen! I’m definitely trying! Unlearning is a really complicated task, for sure. Especially when there’s a vested interest in things being a certain way…
Thanks, uprising! I agree, but I fear my experiment in trying to better reach people is failing. The Mad in America Facebook thread for the blog is a terrible mess! Sigh.
Hi CatNight, Very true indeed. I almost included some of that history in the blog, but decided not to go off on another thread… However, it’s nonetheless a valid point. This is not the first time we’ve had a president who is potentially ‘diagnosable’, but that means little for each president and certainly nothing for them as a group compared to one another.
Thanks, Eric. 🙂 You bring up an important point that I’ve also argued at times… Not only is there a low prevalence of violence among people with psych diagnoses, but the fact that someone who commits violence has a psych diagnosis does not necessarily mean there’s a causal relationship. Far fewer people recognize the latter, than the former. And, of course, when we *do* start to look at what qualities and characteristics are most common in people who commit violence, it points us in another direction entirely…
Thank you, Sa. Totally agree about the message it sends… The question I’m most grappling with by writing this blog is how on earth to get people beyond our bubble to get that. So challenging!
Thanks, littleturtle. I agree, looking at the bigger picture and how we got here/where on earth we’re headed is much more important… and much more productive than the same old routine of putting the weight of the blame on those who are already marginalized.
Thanks, Stephen. I’ve heard the comparison to Hitler before, certainly, and the first part of it seems apt (in terms of people thinking the idea that he’d end up in office is absurd and thus nothing to worry about, etc.). Hoping that’s as far as it goes!!
This is an interesting and good point: In some respects, I hope they do succeed with getting the president with a diagnosis. I would love to see a congressional hearing on it for all the world to see. How annoyed do you think he might become then? Can you see his lawyers pick apart the basis for psychiatry and diagnosis?
However, the likelihood of that success is super low, and the likelihood of harm done (or at least perpetuated) is high (and already happening).
In some ways, this article is a bit of an experiment. I’ve intentionally NOT challenged the basic psychiatric paradigm (though I’ve equally as intentionally not supported it), because I’m not sure it’s necessary (and in fact may be detrimental) to use that as a starting point with people in the liberal/progressive camp. It’s such a leap from where they sit now, but trying to win understanding by focusing more on the basic human rights violations and injustices is less of a leap…
Perhaps, if the conversation starts there, rather than with something that is SUCH a leap for people to take, they might listen a bit more… And then, if they do, they might be more open to the next push..
Thanks for your lengthy and eloquent response. 🙂 I certainly want to believe by ‘doing’, we are leading the way to something different, and in many ways, we see the evidence that we are… And yet, it is all so easily co-opted and then the ‘doing’ can also lead us astray.
The Hearing Voices movement definitely isn’t about telling people that it’s safe to come out about hearing voices! It’s definitely understood that that’s a risk for a lot of people. And, at the same time, when people are willing to come out, hopefully they make it a little safer for others to be able to do the same eventually. Totally respect your position, though. 🙂
Thanks for your comment! Yeah, I’ve noticed more and more the weird little recommendation buttons popping up in my chatboxes on Facebook… or ads that correspond to some element of what I’m saying! :p It is disconcerting to say the least… Though in fairness to Joy, what I’ve seen in her responses suggests a total lack of attention, rather than too much. But, I hear you and your fears on this count seem totally valid to me!
John, I do see you last comment got removed for moderation! I can’t quite remember what it said. :p Joy does seem fair game, though, all things considered… Someone recently e-mailed me to let me know there’s a new bot on the Facebook scene called ‘Woebot’, too…
That one is… I don’t know. Different. It gets around Joy’s biggest issues by simply providing pre-determined bubbles one can choose for response. :p
Hey, The-cat, I haven’t forgotten about your request for me to take a look at that site… 🙂 But, Joy has been waiting oh such a long time. 🙂 Things are pretty hectic on my end, but I do plan to look soon. 🙂
Hi John. Thanks for reading through. 🙂 I have honestly had some fun with Joy over these months… But not for any reason related to her intended mission… :p
Em. I hear both the truth and the sarcasm in what you write. Ultimately, it does strike me as a big step in the wrong direction, if for no other reason than it is a blatant acceptance of what you describe.
Actually, just for your reference (and anyone else’s), if you go to ‘About’ in the Mad in America drop down menus, and then go to ‘Contact Us’, there’s a drop down menu from which you can choose any Mad in America employee or author and send an e-mail.
People have definitely contacted me that way! I also don’t mind giving people my e-mail, but I’m reluctant to post it here for spam purposes.
I’ll also be upfront that while I do my best to respond to all e-mails I do sometimes read something and then lose track of it, if I can’t respond right away, and so sometimes it may require people to ‘nudge’ me to bring me back around…
I heard someone else talking about that film, but I at least *thought* they responded more positively to it.. I don’t know much about it myself at all.
In any case, I’m realllly overwhelmed in work life right now, and am headed out of town for three weeks mid-summer, but I’m willing to give it a go, if you think I can somehow be useful up there!
Yes, it does seem invisible to many who are on the inside of it! I think even of commenters here who are simultaneously challenging the validity of this article’s claims, while unknowingly pointing out some of the fundamental pieces of exactly what the article says makes the whole system tick along. It does all end up feeling a bit like asking the organization to change is like asking a human being to learn to not only live but prosper without food…
Thanks, messenger48! I tried submitting one article to Counterpunch, and didn’t get through. (I think the first time is always the hardest!) I’ll have to try more. I’m certainly interested in reaching a broader audience. 🙂 Thank you for the reminder to give it a go.
Thanks so much for sharing some of your experience. The involuntary outpatient commitment stuff is *so* short-sighted… So limited. So harmful. I’m glad you had the support you needed to find a way out… I wish more people have access to what you did to help push for more options!
Thanks, CCHR. Unfortunately, I worry your posting here under that name and promoting that website will suggest to people that this article is somehow related to Scientology, given that CCHR does seem to be linked. I do, at least, want to be clear that what I’ve shared here in this article is actually independent of any CCHR research, and includes sources like Mother Jones, New York Times, and even some very conservative sources like Pete Earley and DJ Jaffe. I don’t mean to suggest, either, that CCHR doesn’t include some valid and independently findable research, as well… But I do worry about the motives that are at the roots.
Unfortunately, part of NAMI’s gig is to suck up all the air so no other ‘gas station’ is able to grow. It’s not as if they just benignly offer supports that people can take or leave… They are a part of a machine that conveys *one* way of thinking about such distress (intertwined with capitalistic interests), that lobbies for force and money to be taken *away* from alternatives and put into more ‘clinical treatments’ (that’s, after all, part of what the Murphy Bill aims to do…), etc. etc. etc.
You mentioned a church you thought was progressive… I think one of the things we’re up against, is that people who are generally ‘progressive’ see ‘reducing stigma’ and increasing ‘treatment accessibility’ *as* the progressive things to do, without ever really stopping to understand that all the ideas that underlie those things are decidedly *not* progressive at all. It’s a huge part of the struggle.
Sometimes theater pieces help, and there’s been the occasional good media piece (this for example! http://thesunmagazine.org/issues/496/an-open-mind), but *so much* that is geared toward making people think is just going out to the same audience as always.. So, part of the challenge is not just how to construct those pieces, but to find a way to expose people beyond our own bubble to them and *then* have those dialogues. Such a complex web to sort out…
Carrieb, I am definitely no expert when it comes to search optimization, but I’d like to become one… I think it’d be good for our community to learn far more about that. As far as Mad in America goes, in the background they are paying attention to ‘SEO’ ratings which help articles rank higher… I always make sure my SEO rating is ‘green’ (good to go!) before I submit it for consideration, and I know there are Mad in America staff that will help with that if the author isn’t familiar with the process. And yet, that’s certainly not nearly enough to compete with NAMI just yet!
I spent some time trying to figure out what you mean about ‘Split’, since I never actually refer to anyone as a “good boy”…I think you must mean this passage:
First you have the goodhearted soul loved by all (or at least most), but who inevitably slips up every now and again, falls off their drug regimen and gets at least a tad out of control… Perhaps all in effort to provide a sort of ‘Public Service Announcement’ about just how bad it can get when one is so ‘non-compliant.’
Maybe not? I’m not sure. I guess, if you mean that passage, I think you may be misinterpreting the point. The point wasn’t to put down people who actually have that experience, which is valid, but to put down the use of that experience as a boiled down stereotype used to scare everyone else into never trying to withdraw from their psychiatric drugs.
I feel like there are a lot of times when you are misunderstanding what is being said, or reading a lot more into it… Not just here – where admittedly my sarcasm and ‘snark’ are turned on high a lot of the time – but in other settings and with documents and conversations that aren’t mine. I think you have a lot to offer from both your own experiences and your work, but I’m left wondering why there’s such a barrier to simply understanding what’s being said…
Thanks for adding the formal diagnosis, Carrieb! It’s so frustrating to me that NAMI not only mentions such misuse as valid, but gives it its own section on their website.
Thanks, Ron! I wish there were some clear way for us all to get what we’ve written to show up on the Google searches!!! For all my poking around in writing this article, I didn’t come across your or so many other articles that are out there.
Fair enough. This whole science conversation is an interesting one… How easy it is to discredit actual science as anti-science when it simply doesn’t fit with the power structures and dominant beliefs…And how hard it is to get people to listen to the *actual* holes in the ‘science’ that supports them.
Thanks, Truth. I don’t blame you for wanting to make change from within, and if it were merely a matter of opening people’s eyes to different information (rather than getting powerful entities to give up a lot of power), I might be more hopeful about it. I hope your alternative efforts are successful!
I agree with your comment.. .AND, I would add a point which I also tried to make in this blog (as well as – perhaps more strongly – in my Autism Speaks blog): While local chapters may sometimes be miles better than the national NAMI, at least part of what that accomplishes is to give national NAMI an opportunity to say ‘see, we’re not so bad!’ and distract people from a very serious problem. In other words, it’s great when local NAMIs are better… great for those local people… but still, in some ways, potentially harmful to the bigger picture.
Thanks for reading and for your comment. Yes, there’s lots of articles and fear circulating with Elinore, with the potential new appointments to the NAMI national board, and with so much else. Not too sure where it means we’re headed, or what conversations we might be having in a year, or two, or five as a result…
I really appreciate your sharing your experience! What you say makes a lot of sense… about individuals verses groups. It’s frightening in its way, but if we look at history (of all sorts of things, not just NAMI), it makes all the sense in the world.
NAMI has never pushed drugs? Hmmm… Aren’t they essentially doing that by pushing the Murphy Bill and Involuntary Outpatient Commitment?
They have also pushed ideas like that psych diagnoses are unquestionably brain diseases, chemical imbalances, and/or ‘just like diabetes’…
And, if you disagree, well, they’ve got that great little ‘anosognosia’ section on their website..
These are all pushing drugs in one way or another… In fact, they’re much more effective ways of pushing drugs, then if they literally pushed drugs in the ways you seem to be imagining we mean…
Thanks so much for sharing your experience with NAMI. It’s disturbing, as so much is when it comes to them. I share your hope that some energy can be gathered to take action.
So, I can appreciate you have felt helped by NAMI, and won’t attempt to take that away from you. However, when you say this:
“aside from helping me come to terms with an illness and encouraging that I listen to recommendations by a psychiatrist, NAMI has done nothing to sell me or feed me drug information.”
I say THAT is exactly what I – and the pharmaceutical rep I quoted above – am talking about. NAMI *does* engage in overall advocate and lobbying that help drug companies directly, but more notably they push people into the paradigm that *leads* them to take the drugs…
The pharma rep’s point above was exactly that. That direct pushes toward specific drugs are NOT the most helpful approach. But that the more indirect approach of just convincing people they *need* drugs via advocacy to regard one’s self in a particular way… that’s proven quite effective.
So, I’m not surprised what you say… in fact, it fits well within what I’d expect.
Thanks for your post and thoughts. 🙂 I fear that we have a longgggg way to go before we can really say that it’s mainly just the politicians/1% that are pushing in the psych drug direction…. BUT I do think there’s nonetheless validity in what you say, and we should definitely be paying attention. It makes sense that it would be that way when we think of the ways in which systemic oppression works.
Wow. That’s awful.. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised she was asked to leave, and yet, people are often at least a bit more subtle. Ugh. Well, I’m glad you both have found your way here. 🙂
Hey, Frank. Thank you for your (measured) support. 😉 I agree, and honestly wonder if groups like NAMI might actually deserve even more focus than the APA…
Thanks, samruck. Frustrating, indeed. I’m sorry that the potential of that collaboration is looking less bright to you, but I hope there are alternatives and that being here has been somehow helpful even if not in person.
Yes, I think you’re on track and are understanding what I’m getting at very well. I *would* ditch the world ‘client’ (as you seemed to realize during your post) as I’ve seen too many people internalize that they are ‘client’ into their identity and that *alone* can keep them stuck in a system that often isn’t truly helping them. But the rest of what you say is great.
Kurt, I don’t think anyone here (myself included) are trying to say that you are ‘bad’, but I am saying that you haven’t hit the mark yet… You and co-workers may be miles better than the average clinician who hasn’t considered some of the things you have… But you *and* your co-workers and students still seem to be missing a huge piece of the puzzle.
If, as you indicate below and Steve says above, you’re only here because you care about Bob’s work and the problems with the pharma industry, you’re missing how deep some of the system’s problems run. I don’t mean the occasional time when it got so big that you were able to see it again (as you’ve named a few exceptional examples above), but when it just stayed at that sort of day-to-day level of bad and power-ridden and oppressive so that it was mostly invisible to those who weren’t looking for it.
This is the nature of most systemic oppression. The big and obvious examples are able to seen by *most*. But the system actually runs on the more insidious, harder to see stuff… Harder to see because you’re on the power end of it, and so it just looks like business as usual to you. And by you, I don’t mean *you*, but really anyone who is living on the privilege end of the stick (so, also you).
It’s the *same* phenomenon that means the average white person *can* easily see the really egregious examples of racism, but has a much harder time pulling out the conditions or microagressions that are truly what sets up the environment for those bigger things to happen… Same with sexism… and homophobia… and all of it.
Yes, I misapplied *one* statement (about people being ultimately happy to be in hospital). Everything else has been a response to you. Nothing I said in my last comment – and only one bit of my first comment – had anything to do with what I misapplied.
Kurt, You’ve come here to this site for the first time… a site full of people who’ve lived these things (though that’s certainly not representative of all bloggers here or the site’s full point), but you don’t seem to have a lot of respect for that. Or, at least, that’s how you come across to me.
No, I don’t know who you are. But, I do know that what you’re conveying – as I believe someone else said – comes across as feeling tone deaf to me. You’re talking about what you believe to work in the world of ‘suicide prevention’ (a problematic concept at its very roots), but you are speaking in some of the least human-sounding language about what is the most human of matters: life and death.
I don’t think you can fully see it, which is why I brought up privilege. I hope something makes it all more visible to you at some point.
Okay. I was trying to be reasonably polite. This might be somewhat less so.
Your response – and much of your blog – comes across as pretty pretentious and … well, I’ll leave it at that.
In fairness to you, I did mix up some of my notes and was attributing some of what Dickson said above to you…So, apologies for that much.
However, the rest is for you. Your overly academic way of speaking, assumptions about what people (including myself) do and don’t know, and globalized way of speaking about *all* of your students and virtually *all* of your co-workers as somehow different and more special than almost every other clinical worker in the country is extremely off putting.
And sure, you can’t vouch for an entire website of tools… The problem is, if you’re going to blindly direct people to such a thing, you might want to offer *some* information about just how much drek they might have to sort through. It’s not just that some will work better culturally for some groups than others, and vice versa. Some of it is actually dangerous. Some of it is primarily a marketing tool to get kids into ‘treatment’.
It’s interesting that you defaulted to your whiteness and maleness when referencing my comment about privilege. It is true, you are privileged in that way, and I share the privilege of whiteness with you. However, what I was specifically referring to is your privilege of power in your role. You’ve never been – at least as far as I can tell – on the opposite end of the ‘suicide prevention’ stick. I have. Almost everyone I work with has. The privilege of not having ever been there – and not living on that cusp now – is big, and I do not think that you recognize it.
You’re all theory and acronyms. I’m familiar with CAMS (and if I wasn’t, I luckily say through the aforementioned extraordinarily painful and offensive suicide training on Tuesday where it was reviewed). I’m also familiar with the BS that is ‘Zero Suicide’, I’m intensively trained in DBT by Charlie Swenson and Cindy Sanderson. Blah blah blah. I *know* what you’re talking about.
I have admittedly only read through your blog and then skimmed the comments, so I may be missing something already said in the subsequent dialogue, but I would like to point out that you have linked to a ‘suicide prevention’ resource that promotes products that are – in some cases – pharmaceutically funded. For example, it includes the SOS program about which I wrote a blog (https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/01/middle-school-invasion-when-the-pharmaceutical-companies-come-to-town/) when they tried to peddle it to my son at his middle school.
While I understand what you’re getting at with some of what you write, I found myself reacting with concern to a number of points. For example, this emphasis on restriction of means… It reminds me of a suicide and self-injury training I attended earlier this week.. One (of many of) the most disturbing moments was when the trainer said that – after a particular suicide – he restricted anyone receiving services at the org where he worked from living in an apartment that was any higher than the second floor. Great. (Not really.)
I’m also having trouble getting past your statements about people basically being happy to be locked up and become powerless… I mean, sure, some people experience an *element* of that, but if that’s your main takeaway on most occasions, I fear for what you’re missing.
On the whole, I hope you realize that when you live the privilege of as much power as you hold, it’s almost *inevitable* that you’ll be missing several elements of what it is like to live on the other side of that power split. I hope you’ll hold that in mind and consider it deeply as you move forward.
Steve, I appreciate your comments here. I really don’t see autistic people telling other autistic people that they *must* be happy to be autistic, or that points of struggle that may somehow be connected to being autistic aren’t actually struggles… Same for people with various psychiatric diagnoses.
What I *DO* see is people with those experiences saying ‘let me decide for myself what is ‘struggle’ and why, and stop trying to speak for me, or force your ideas on me based on your perspectives’…
If you haven’t heard people say ‘I want it back’ or, more commonly, ‘I wouldn’t want to lose it’ in regards to some of the experiences that have led to their psychiatric diagnoses, than you surely haven’t been listening. I have heard *lots* of people say they wouldn’t want to lose their voices, especially once they’ve learned to navigate them. I’ve heard many people say they appreciate the benefits their various sensitivities bring, especially once they’ve learned to balance them and navigate the world. And so on and so forth
As to polio and who was or wasn’t ‘born this way’… Many people certainly do have the experiencing of having been born autistic, or neruodivergent and coming to appreciate many of the benefits that have come with that for them.
Your excuse that many people who are autistic have difficulty with communicate is immediately belied by hundreds of thousands of autistic voices, several of which are found in the links I have included in this blog. Sure, there are people who would choose otherwise… Many of us would choose something different than what we have, the intensity and variances of our why or why nots are based on many different variables. I’d not take away from someone their desire to be different… but you’re ignoring and discounting MANY people with your extremely simplistic response.
Perhaps even more importantly, whether or not you think of autism as an example of born neurodiversity, there are many points in this blog that hold either way. And there are many voices that I include that you might benefit from hearing.
Sami is great. I’ve met and interviewed him for a film I’m working on.
However, I don’t feel like it’s my place to argue against such a diagnosis, when people who are quite empowered and educated about their experiences say otherwise.
What’s clear to me is that the approach of Autism Speaks and NAMI are abusive and damaging, and that can certainly drive a diagnostic process that is dehumanizing (such as the one that led to my own pscyh diagnoses, which I’ve since discarded). And, I’ve certainly heard from people who’ve been given autistic diagnoses that oppose or feel harmed by them.
But, I don’t think it’s necessary to buy into a ‘autism diagnoses’ are inherently bad or wrong framework in order to see that was Autism Speaks has to offer is terrible!
The_cat. That is true… Just saying it is out there. Note the 990 stats I just posted, though.. I hadn’t realized just how much larger Autism Speaks is than NAMI. Lots of work to do on both fronts!
So, they each have a bump year where things were substantially higher and that seems not particularly reflective of the overall trend… NAMI seems less clearly going up, but not exactly consistently headed down either…
And *holy crap*, I didn’t realize that Autism Speaks was that much bigger than NAMI overall.
Yeah, I think the concept of ‘normal’ is a mess to start with… But Feelingdiscouraged was – at least as I understood it – using it within the context of what NAMI considers to be the ‘normal’ (aka undiagnosed) group and their ability to have voice verses those who’ve been deemed other!
I don’t know if there’s an easy way to truly measure that… When I personally just googled ‘NAMI criticisms’ two of the articles that popped up on the very first page were:
(Though I’m certainly not making the front page of any google searches)…
And while I wouldn’t choose to promote anything from CCHR (being the Scientology front group that they are), all four of the above links note the NAMI/Pharma link.
And, as I said at the top, I’m just not sure how to measure the success in fighting back. It doesn’t seem we’re too successful as of yet on either front. Hoping we can change that somehow!
I should clarify that the woman’s org analogy was from an autistic blogger who goes by codeman38.
I intentionally quoted and referenced a number of autistic people here, because I did not want to be just another non-autistic person speaking about autistic experiences, without actually including those voices. Though I recognize the risk in doing so under my name is still that their words could be attributed to me, so I want to be careful about clarifying that when I can, too.
I really appreciate this point: “Normal people are allowed to be assertive, independent and have good self esteem. For the “mentally ill” these are no no’s.”
I’m glad it feels like your voice and awareness are coming back.
It’s a funny thing, this hate that comes under the umbrella of *wanting* to love. The ‘Don’t Mourn for Us’ piece that I quoted above gets at that idea well, I think.
I’m not sure I’m totally following what you mean? I love to write and stir things up, but as you know, I also work in a world where many of us are out there doing the work in person, too.
I really don’t think there’s agreement on this national certification business, including that it needed to exist at all. Thus, I don’t know that the answer is to simply offer MHA some competition.
Stephen, Exactly. My favorite line to offer people in this vein is “When did what you call life, with all its ups and downs, become what I’m supposed to call ‘recovery’ forever and ever?” 🙂
Julie, I hear you. I think the only challenge with *no* training if we’re going to do this whole ‘peer’ thing is that *so* many people go through some of those life experiences and come out the other end all full of internalized oppression. I have to admit that I do find *some* training helpful on top of all that personal life experience to help work through some of that, think through what it really means to ‘be’ with people, be curious, support, etc. But overall, I appreciate your post a lot. 🙂
If I had more time on my hands, I’d be fascinated to do some research that involves not only comparing licensure requirements between these various professions and the peer role, but *also* the logistics involved in meeting those requirements as they differ for each, *AND* how they’re applied… For example, I imagine a requirement that one put their licensure on ‘hold’ as a dentist is *likely* to bear many fewer actual risks and lower likelihood of abuse than for a peer role. Oy. What a mess.
Their own agenda indeed. I appreciate your pointing out the question of what qualifies as ‘recovery’… I talk about that silliness a lot when I tell my story… It’s foolishness, and in its foolishness it gives all those who have more credibility than us in a system of this nature it puts us in a really vulnerable position.
Steve, I get the impression from what I read that the Florida Board may have similar requirements for many different ‘professional’ fields. However, even so, it’s absurd and *much* more dangerous for a ‘peer’ role than the others… Oy.
Overall, I agree with you the idea that everyone who goes into the system should come out as its employee. However, there are many people for him that has been a really important path. Many of my co-workers have seen the depths of the system, and now get much satisfaction out of fighting against it in the way that they do. Of course, most of them also work with the RLC which is much less direct than working for a traditional provider. Working in a traditional provider in a peer role is a terribly hard position to sustain and not lose sight of one’s self again.
Hi The_cat. Comparing some of what happens in this world with Munchausen Syndrome is interesting… There does seem to be a bit of a common element in terms of somehow getting emotional gratification via public attention associated with one’s child’s struggles… Although, I’d stop short of the idea that most of these parents don’t also really care about their kids and wouldn’t find it much more important for their kids to be in a happier, better place.
Thank you for the story! I look forward to checking it out.
It is a really good question, and not one to which I have the answer. Of course, my fantasy is that articles like this one and word of mouth will prevent so any people from taking the damn thing – or organizations from being willing to pay for it – that it will fall apart for lack of funding. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely, but it won’t keep me from trying!!
Anonymous, It’s unfortunately highly prevalent for people working in ‘peer’ roles to be lured in and used to try and silence others. It’s very sad. Thanks for reading and commenting.
oldhead, Actually, I believe BOTH of the Murphy Bills contained similar language (as I pointed to in the article I linked to above). I agree that so much of this has been a tactic to silence – not support – our voices.
You are very welcome, and thank you for reading and commenting! I agree it’s absolutely dangerous. Even more dangerous is the fact that so many people seem blind to that fact. 🙁
It’s all needed. As you know, I spend most of my day focused on creating. This recent Sun Magazine article speaks to much of what I’m doing with my day job 🙂 http://thesunmagazine.org/issues/496/an-open-mind
But speaking out against the Globe… and hoping others are listening (both those who might join in the speaking out, and those who might be swayed by the speaking), whether or not the Globe folks themselves are… It’s all important.
You may be right that it’s masochistic, but I’d be interested to see what they would make of it if they did show up. I can’t quite get myself to stop trying. And, if nothing else… it was an opportunity to publicize that the Congress is happening :p
Agreed, Frank. It is pretty appalling that they’re allowed to keep writing such stuff without being checked at all.
I also agree that the frame (that I’ve also heard frequently on DJ Jaffee’s Facebook group) that the police are somehow victims of lack of ‘treatment’ of those they hurt is maddening…
Thanks for taking the time to comment, as always. 🙂 I know it’s true that the Globe is not alone… though it’s beyond my capacity to poke at them at all. :p But almost everything I write could be lifted and applied to these other outlets as well. Though I worry that the Globe’s Spotlight Team has more capital and credibility than most. I mean, they’re saying the same stuff everyone else is, but already seem to have been lauded more than most for doing so… as if they’re saying something new.
Anyway, I’m sorry about your CBFS experience. 🙁 I wish it were more surprising…
I’m not expecting them to change, but I think its essential that we keep asking them to… And that – if nothing else – we keep speaking up about how they should!
Dan, I’ve been wondering for some time what it will take, as well. As with so many things pertaining to this movement, I’m afraid that financial interests and staying in line with those who hold the most power are a major force.
I fail to see how you’re interpreting me as having said much of anything about Hilary Clinton, let alone that she would have been some sort of savoir? This blog is quite clearly primarily about the problem of diagnosing Trump. While I do express some negative feelings toward him on occasion, that doesn’t change the primary focus and has next to nothing to do with what I do or don’t think about Hilary or how she would have treated people who’ve been psychiatrically labeled… That seems like quite a leap…
Thanks, Zippy. I appreciate you’re mansplaining… Though, I’m not 100% sure you’re a man? Are you? An, thanks for your mansplaining explanation… It’s always good – as someone who has experienced a particular type of oppression – to be told by someone who hasn’t when and when not to be offended!
You’re treading in territory where many of experienced systemic oppression that has crushed their lives and spirits. You’re speaking from a place of privilege when you tell those who’ve experience oppression that you have not that they’re trying to curtail your speech and thinking. What I’m telling you is that that terminology has been used to harm people. It has done harm. It continues to do harm.
I suspect you could find another way to express your meaning. Kind of like you could express your concern for Trump’s behavior without using the non-science of psychiatric labels that have also harmed people.
“We shouldn’t be squeamish about applying DSM criteria upon the powerful. Otherwise it remains only a way of manipulating the less powerful in this society.”
That’s an interesting point, lizadeeza. You seem to both be acknowledging that it’s a manipulation, *and* wanting to see groups across classes more equally ‘manipulated’? I’m not sure I get that.
Certainly, many of us see that he’s a danger to this country. I maintain that I don’t need the DSM to see that.
It is not my fear. It is a reality. One I see *every* day for hundreds of thousands of people.
No one is suggesting we ignore people are struggling. What we are suggesting is that these experiences of struggle are very human, and often environmentally related in some way… And that we need not segregate out those who are struggling with diagnosis. This medicalized manner of regarding people’s human suffering came about for many reasons… To make psychiatrists feel more legitimate… For the purpose of billing. As an effort to to reduce what you keep calling ‘stigma’ (and I would call prejudice and discrimination).
It has succeeded only at those first two causes, ant not to anyone’s betterment.
I am suggesting that people struggle. Sometimes deeply. And that it leads us far down the wrong path to understand those *human* struggles by lumping them all into *medicalized* groupings that are largely artificial.
Sure, *sometimes* people will speak to benefits… Helped them better connect with others with similar struggles and hear what’s worked for them, etc. But the benefits are far outweighed by the negative impacts, many of which I’ve already mentioned.
We’d be far better off seeing struggle as struggle, and then being able to pick and choose from the array of supports that people have used to make their way through such struggles… Lumping the struggle into a man made category that does not objectively exist, narrows our view and our options and does harm to many of us.
I do not ‘have’ a ‘personality disorder’. I have a diagnosis that was the subjective opinion of other human beings, based on the subjective process of man made creation of that diagnosis for which there is no test and cannot be a test because it is literally only a way of trying to boil down what is going on with someone.
And, if that way of boiling down an explanation didn’t lead to poor assumptions about what to ‘do’ with them, and/or lead to discrimination against them in all matters of life (including child rearing, employment, housing and basic freedom), that wouldn’t be the end of the world. But that’s not how it works.
I was diagnosed with a ‘Personality Disorder’ at one point in my life. What it did most effectively was give those who hurt and traumatized me a pass, because the diagnosis suggested it was a ‘mental illness’. The best thing I did to ‘cure’ my ‘mental illness’ was get *away* from the system and all the ‘help’ they were trying to provide me. Whether or not the various things I was doing then or since then had any relation to any sort of diagnosis is completely subjective opinion. But, somehow, I’ve managed to be a successful mother and leader of a fairly complex organization.
Your ‘perspective’ is *exactly* the sort of thing that leads people to lose their kids because of a psychiatric diagnosis, or not be hired into complex and stressful jobs… Your ‘perspective’ would serve to ruin my life, and it has ruined the lives of many others.
Look at what someone is doing, not some subjective, man made diagnosis.
Yes, it sure is discrimination… It is making assumptions and limitings someone potential based strictly on some sort of label… and, in this instance, it’s a label that has no objective proof as to its existence. What about having been diagnosed makes someone unqualified to act as president? Having been formally diagnosed does not necessarily make someone unreliable or dangerous, nor does NOT qualifying for a diagnosis render someone reliable or ‘safe’. Additionally, having a diagnosis and doing something strange or dangerous doesn’t necessarily mean that one did the later *because* of the former.
The primary benefit you are offering to diagnosing this man is based on playing on the country’s fears and prejudice about ‘mental illness’ itself to your own advantage. I get that, but it is harmful to do so, because it feeds into erroneous and damaging beliefs that already act as the basis for this system of oppression where psychiatric diagnosis is concerned.
This is not ‘political correctness’. That’s just an insulting way to shut down the conversation. This is people’s lives. We don’t need diagnosis to see that what he is doing is wrong and dangerous.
Let me give a quick summary of the point of the article:
1. Why is whether or not he qualifies for a psychiatric diagnosis relevant to whether or not he is president? It actually doesn’t matter. What matters is what he’s *doing* as president, and whether or not he is demonstrating that he is fit to serve.
2. He could have or not have a formal diagnosis, and that wouldn’t tell us anything, and to suggest it would is discriminatory and misguided.
3. Pointing the finger at some ‘disorder’ in his brain does little to help us examine how we got to the point where we were willing to elect someone who demonstrates the characteristics you describe above.
4. Arguing about this legitimizes that which is not legitimate… Psychiatric diagnosis is a system heavily influenced by privilege, racism, sexism, and various other biases. Diagnoses can’t be objectively ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ because they’re not objective. This is a distraction, and harmful to those of us who have experienced societal oppression due to the legitimization of such things.
Eh, systemic racism refers to all of the systems that we live entangled within. Every last bit of it, as it is an overall system that was designed by white, christian, (etc. etc.) men. In general, systems are racist and people’s actions and words are bigoted. Since racism and sexism etc. are systemic issues, referring to one person *as* that thing doesn’t make a ton of sense. It makes much more sense to say they are a part of it, or have somehow perpetuated or supported it, etc. In some ways this is just semantics, but overall, I think it’s critical that these issues be recognized as systemic and so I think it’s important at that level to try and use the words properly.
In any case, I don’t really think that argument is particularly helpful here. I get to share some of my political perspective in my blogs. You get to disagree. My overall point about Trump and psychiatric diagnosis remains the same. I’m going to stop responding to this thread now. 🙂
Thanks so much, Lauren. I really appreciate your response here, and your e-mail about how to more support! Thanks also for all your work supporting peer respite and Soteria nationally 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
That’s certainly my fear, boans… But not a foregone conclusion. If you look at some of the other stories in the exhibit, people experienced some pretty horrific things in the psych system and still came out the other end.
Report comment
If you look at the exhibit, you’ll see some of his story. This is also a link to the story told in papers at the time: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/32843184/ben-riley-rusk-state-hospital-riot/
Report comment
Hmmm. Interesting. I just did some googling, and I found some more articles that have quotes from Ben in them about the “riot,” but no other personal info like a birthdate or such so far.
Report comment
Yes, it is… I do think this one was long overdue… !
-Sera
Report comment
Thank you for sharing that, and yes, quite a weird coincidence!
Report comment
Thanks, ThereAreFourLights!
I’d love to find out what happened to Ben, and have thought about what that might take. I fear it might be quite difficult if not possible, but if you or anyone have any ideas I’d love to try and pursue it.
Report comment
Sam,
While you’re correct that I wasn’t watching this for quite a while, I am catching your comment now. I will add in response:
I know it is very important to you to be seen as having a legitimate role in support of your wife, in your contributions to this movement, and so on. I don’t want to argue with you about that, and would never suggest that anything that you’ve offered in that regard is invalid, even if we do disagree in some other ways.
That said, I think your comment here is nonetheless misplaced because the main point here was to not use ‘peer’ as an identity label that inextricably ties someone to a mental health system and boils them down to an object of sorts. We can debate about how much ‘peer’ means ‘commonality of experience’ or what have you in a different place.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Thanks so much, Irit. Absolutely to “We *are* the balance!” I actually mention Phoenix Rising in this piece. (See 5th paragraph down from the image.)
I’m not sure I agree that 0% should be the answer we seek. I do think folks have used drugs since the beginning of time in so many different ways, and what even gets classed as a ‘drug’ (vs. a medication, vs. as neither) is hazy and often capitalistically and morally driven. I do think the actual number – if we factor in adequate supports of all other kinds – would be lower than 20%, but I don’t know about 0!
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
That’s fair, Gina! I’m really glad the NYT published the article in question, but so much else there serves to reinforce the psychiatrized world, that is true.
Report comment
Thanks, dogworld! Yes, the comments that became the highest rated (by a relative landslide) were pretty disappointing. And while I think you’re right that the NYT could have done more to link the main ‘characters’ of the story to their work and bios, it doesn’t really seem like a lot of people would have looked. I’m not too sure a lot of people who commented actually read the article so much as responded to the title… Thank you for reading and commenting here and trying to push back in the comments section over at NYT yourself 🙂
Report comment
Joshua,
I’m not a fan of the term of ‘recovery’ either for a myriad of reasons. I talk about some of them https://www.madinamerica.com/2013/04/the-recovery-trap/. Thanks for the link, I will check it out!
-Sera
Report comment
Exactly, Steve. What I always find most interesting are the people who vehemently insist they believe in “recovery,” but then just as vehemently insist that someone must have been misdiagnosed or similar. Sometimes it’s a little hard to tell just how much they might be lying to themselves about what they actually believe.
Report comment
Hey George cLoony,
Thanks for your comment! I can’t imagine the NYT would ever consider this piece or some version of it, but it sure would be interesting if they did. I did connect with the author of the article that resulted in this comments section as I was writing this, but not folks at NYT proper. I should indeed at least send it along to them.
And yes, they do just move the ‘goal posts’ or change the game when folks seem to ‘recover’ too much… The whole ‘oh you were just misdiagnosed’ or didn’t have ‘real mental illness’ (such as Inman and Lieberman in fact did in response to this article) response is basically a big admission even for those who pay lip service to the idea that people can ‘recover’ that they in fact don’t believe it and see any such example as nothing more than proof that those people weren’t one of the actually truly “sick” in the first place.
And yes, the Hearing Voices movement chose intentionally to focus on one of the most scary-to-the-general-public “alien” seeming experiences and named itself for it with the intent to push on what people were most afraid of and bring it to light. It’s important to do that. But also important to find the more relatable experiences that less automatically put people in the us/them place to help hook them in to seeing some of this as *about them, too* whenever possible to build bridges and all. Of course, then we bump up against media and capitalism and what is sensational enough to sell…
Report comment
registeredforthissite,
Thanks for your comment. I think there’s also a whole nother category of families that is more prevalent than those who have actual ill-intentions… Where they are so desperate to ‘help,’ but so unwilling or unable to see themselves as a part of the problem that they do far more harm than good… I know Open Dialogue is imperfect as an approach, but I love that they see the ‘problem’ as existing in the spaces in between people even if it is most visibly represented by one person in that network. That idea just isn’t even a vague thought in most families or networks within the US.
Report comment
Hey, cynical.nihilist. Thanks for your comment. It certainly seems to me that many family members are necessarily invested in silencing or heavily minimizing the fact that family often play such a role in someone’s distress. It’s certainly not the truth within all families, but we all know its a prominent issue for a number of people… And it would seem that acknowledging that too readily (as something more than a rare exception) feels like a direct threat and accusation for a lot of folks.
Report comment
I don’t disagree with any of that, Ted. I think we’ve lost a lot of our critical fight energy for the employment/peer support side of things (among other reasons, I’m sure). I’m not saying there’s not value in the ‘peer support’ side of things (where it’s not super co-opted). I do think there is value in Jim Gottstein’s Transformation Triangle lay out of how real change happens (a mix of impacting public opinion, legal action, and creating real alternatives), for example. And I’ve seen first hand how peer support can lead to people building new lives, and sometimes getting invested in pushing back on these systems. But I also think SO much has been lost by folks getting too dependent on these systems for their material survival, and their voices getting quieter as a result. I have some of the old publications of Madness Network News, etc. on my wall, and it’s always a reminder of how much more fight (of the sort you speak of) there used to be, and it’s a real problem that end of things just isn’t really audible anymore.
Report comment
Ted,
I – for the most part – do not think rational argument can win this. (I think I say something to that effect in at least one spot in this piece.) That said, I do think us working to fine tune our own understanding of what’s going on with the other side, name it, find ways to pull it apart and make sense of it… is important to figuring out how we want to push back.
I’d love to believe this piece might get through to all those people who couldn’t see the NYT article for what it was… Maybe it will be successful with a few who were already closer to the fence. I don’t think it will otherwise solve the problem on their end. It’s really more to give voice and make meaning on our end, I think.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Marie! I appreciate that perspective. In some of our trainings we’ve increasingly been talking about what if ‘By any means necessary’ meant not locking someone up against their will, etc, but getting them housing, and other basic needs met. People getting so stuck in ‘more of the same’ being the answer rather than addressing basic needs or some of the other things you mention is so damaging.
-Sera
Report comment
Sam,
I can’t help but think you may be doing essentially what I’m talking about throughout this article which is to apply your own lens and not read what’s actually there.
I *do* acknowledge in the family section that an outside perspective (be it family or otherwise) can be useful, if they’re trusted and not too caught up in their own stuff. The problem is that far too many family members aren’t that either because they were a part of causing the trauma and/or too caught up in their own stuff in trying to respond to the other person’s distress… And yet, most of society typically does see the family member as having NOT *some* input worth hearing, NOT equal insight into what’s happening, but MORE, BETTER, etc.
That’s my point there after reading so many people who wanted to know what Caroline’s family had to say, suggested in ways that honestly came across as suggesting the family would be able to overrule Caroline’s take and correct for the distortions they believe she’s offering…
If you aren’t that family member whose insisting that your voice is MORE important and more accurate that your wife’s, etc. then that section really isn’t about you.
I’ve never argued that family members are useless and have nothing to offer, and I’m fully aware they need their own support and can play a critical role in things.. Hence why I do fairly frequently talk about Open Dialogue, an why we do offer two Hearing Voices groups specifically for family/friends at my work…
I don’t know you or your wife beyond this community so I can’t say anything definitive one way or another, but from most of what you’ve said, I just don’t think that section is really about you.
Either way, thanks for reading.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Steven! I wish I could have linked it there, too, although I don’t know that there would have been any real hope of the people who most needed to actually reading it!
Report comment
Registeredforthissite,
I appreciate the sentiment! Unfortunately, of course, we live in a world where folks with psych histories will be viewed terribly far too much of the time if they respond with aggression even if they were in the right or doing so in self-defense.
Sera
Report comment
Daiphanous,
At least at first glance, the only thing I would clearly disagree with here is that all people with schizophrenia diagnoses know the potential problems with psych drugs. Unfortunately, that information is so intentionally withheld so much of the time that many people actually do NOT have accurate information either on the dangers or the lack of consistent efficacy.
But in any case, just to reiterate… I’m still confused about your comments here… It’s not that they are bad comments. I just don’t see anyone saying that the drugs are uniformly bad and everyone should get off of them.. I’m certainly not saying that.
Sera
Report comment
Ann,
Yes, it’s great the article happened… I just wish the comments reflection wasn’t such an accurate reflection of how hard it is for some folks to hear and just how far we have yet to go!
Thanks for reading,
Sera
Report comment
Hi Daiphanous Weeping,
I’m a little confused by your comment. My piece has nothing to do with who should and shouldn’t attempt to withdraw from psychiatric drugs, or how easy it will be if they try… The reality is that many people with privilege fail, and many people with little privilege succeed… But privilege (especially when one doesn’t need to work, raise kids, etc.) certainly does open up a world of possibilities that increase one’s chances. Neither I nor the NY Times piece would or do disagree with those points…
-Sera
Report comment
I truly do not want to be disrespectful, but I find myself confused by this piece.
If people hired as peer supporters are being plunked down into case manager or receptionist roles (etc) then… They aren’t actually in peer roles at all. And I worry about any writing that suggests that that is even vaguely acceptable..
And as much as I appreciate Intentional Peer Support, its not seen as the “general model” for peer support, although wed probably be way better off if it was rather than some of the persistenty medicalized and co-opted nonsense that is…
I guess I’m just not quite following where you are heading here, or what you are arguing for and I worry that some of it will confuse or appear to be validating discriminatory or otherwise problematic practices…
Report comment
Well, here’s the thing… You can’t decide what it is for me, and I can’t decide what it is for you. What it is for me is decidedly not about me giving power to anyone else… and that’s fact, not opinion.
One of the greatest harms perpetuated by the system is putting one person’s beliefs onto another as if the former holds all the rights to the truth even for another person. Hopefully we can not perpetuate that here! 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Rebel, You can for sure hold this view *for you.* However, it is not a global truth, and we need only look at the words of so many others who self-injure or have in the past to know that.
As I said in my longer comment here, so much of what drives so many people’s pain in this world is loss of power and control in all its forms. And having other people step in and make meaning of one’s own experiences and actions is a profound example of that loss. For some of us, maybe we *want* someone else to take that power – at least temporarily – because we are too tired or scared or overwhelmed to feel like we can hold it all or make sense of it ourselves. But many if not most of us will want or benefit from taking that meaning making power back at some point even if we don’t hang onto it right from the start.
For you it sounds like self-injury did mean a giving up of power. If I understand you correctly – allowing other people’s words or actions to drive you to harm yourself felt like giving them control. I can understand that perspective. It is your truth. It simply isn’t truth for so many others, though. For me, self-injury has absolutely felt like taking power back.
Not dissimilarly, for you, making a contract to not self-injure worked. I’m sure thats true for some others, too. However, for me and so many people, the contracts felt like a weird, infantalizing way to perpetuate shame and guilt. It’s an okay strategy to propose as an option, but should always be explored with the person rather than dictated.
I am not sure I entirely follow the moralizing piece you write about at the end…. I can only say that for many folks, moralizing about our wants, needs, and choices has also been a pathway to additional shame and guilt… And that is rarely helpful.
So, again, your truth is yours. Your experience is valid. For you. But certainly not for everyone. Surely, you are right that it can take courage to recognize something isn’t working and make real change. But it *also* can take courage to stand up against moralizing and theorizing and social norms and counter, “No matter what you say, no matter what you assume, no matter how many people may try to forcefully dissuade me, this is still my truth.”
Report comment
Removed at request of poster.
Report comment
I am having a difficult time formulating a comprehensive response to this article. On the one hand, it includes bits and pieces of a deeply personal story, and I hate to try and counter that because… Well, it’s the author’s story, and their truth. It’s not my business to counter or tell them that they are wrong about them.
However, the reality is that this piece lost me at the title: Why Do People Self-Harm, and HOW CAN WE STOP IT?
Operating from a place of ‘we must stop this’ is a fundamentally harmful and flawed place to begin. When self-injury was most prominent in my life, the people who approached me with a ‘How can we stop this’ attitude were threats in my eyes. They were people who generally didn’t care WHY I was hurting myself in the way that I was. They simply sought to define my problem as ‘self-injury’ and the solution as ‘stopping’ it, while ignoring everything else along the way.
In a world where I’d already lost so much power and control over my own life, they were there to take even more away. And, overall, loss of power and control (in the form of sexual and physical abuse and so many other things) was precisely what my problem was. Efforts to take more of it away only caused additional harm, even if it might have made others around me more comfortable or feel like they were somehow doing their job.
I’m particularly puzzled – in this article so focused on the problems with medicalization of distress (a point with which I certainly align) – why there’s so little insight on the author’s part into how identifying self-injury as a “problem to be stopped” is just another form of that very same phenomenon. Along similar lines, I’m also curious as to why there continues to be so little understanding of just how many people actually self-injure in ‘socially acceptable’ sorts of ways with drugs, alcohol, food, exercise, work, and so on. As I’ve said in my own writing on this topic, I certainly posed more risk to myself with some of the ‘socially acceptable’ ways that I was hurting myself, then by a (non-socially acceptable) burn or cut on my arm.
To that end, I’m also puzzled – and very worried – about the alarmist thread throughout this piece that suggests that so many people are spiraling toward their own inevitable demise if they continue to self-injure. While self-harm certainly can cross a line into dangerousness, the vast majority of folks who self-injure don’t do so in life threatening ways. And, in fact, one of the risk factors for self-injury moving in a more dangerous direction is precisely when someone else swoops in to take more power and control away and force them to stop (which this article may – in some ways – encourage them to try to do).
For so very many people, self-injury is a way in which they stave off death or even urges in that direction. It can be an adaptation born of trauma and other challenges that serves so many purposes. And so this ‘how do we stop it’ focus can become even more dangerous for all that.
In stead of asking ‘how do we stop it,’ and feeding into the idea that self-injury is among the worst or most dangerous things anyone could do, why not instead ask:
* How is this working for you?
* Is it something you want to change or stop?
* How has it helped you in the past, and is it still serving that purpose?
* Have you experienced negative consequences as a result?
* What does self-injury mean to you/in your life?
* If it’s something you want to continue, do you want support to explore ways to do it in the safest manner possible?
Approaching the topic as if it’s something already understood and simply to be controlled is a mistake, and a dangerous one at that. We’ll get much further by being willing to sit in the muck with people who are struggling, and being willing to support them to explore and making meaning for themselves. Having other people tell you what is ‘wrong’ with you and what you need to do about it is a profound loss of power and control. The sitting in the muck and partnering to explore is the place where some ground can be regained in that regard, and where we can find points of collaboration in supporting people to live their lives to the fullest.
Report comment
I find this article troubling, and this line gets at why:
“Peer specialists are defined as those who self-identify as having a mental illness or receiving mental health services and combine their personal experience with training to support others.”
Defined by *who*? That’s just wildly inaccurate, and yet seems to be getting offered here not by the research, but by you, Gavin, as a factual definition.
People in peer roles neither need self-identify as having a ‘mental illness,’ nor be receiving mental health services. To suggest otherwise is to contribute to the worst, most oppressive aspects of this work… those that involve buying into a one-size-fits-all medicalized perspective, and the idea that we all need to be put in these awful little boxes.
There are certain elements of ‘peer support’ that are really problematic as currently (and likely ever to be) employed by the ‘system.’ But there are certain aspects of it that are also quite powerful, particularly when offered outside of a conventional clinical environment. In those spaces where there is power, people get to come with whatever experiences have interrupted their lives or led society to ‘other’ and ostracize them… They often do come with experiences with system responses (many of them – though not all – harmful), and some identify as ‘survivors’ of that system… But there is neither a requirement to be *in* services, nor to regard any current or past history with those services as a necessary thing.
Please don’t contribute to boxing us in. Some of us are doing our very best to come at all this from an anti-oppression, rooted-in-community sort of way and this frame doesn’t help.
-Sera
Report comment
Oof. I am having a really hard time with this article being posted in this space. It does not align with the ‘Science, psychiatry, social justice’ tagline at all. Well, maybe the middle (psychiatry) part… Nor does it align with my understanding of the mission of Mad in America overall.
That aside… Max… You literally refer to people in this article as ‘V-SPMI’… And you write it out so that the acronym is OUTside of the parenthesis and the actual explanation of what it stands for IN the parenthesis. In other words, you use V-SPMI as if it is a legitimate word and thing to be boiling human beings down into.
It is NOT a legitimate thing to boil people down into. It’s just not. It’s frightening, and unnecessary to speak about human beings as these objectified, dangerous things. Now, this isn’t to say that this is the biggest problem with what you’ve written here. But that that is your starting point is very telling, and it makes me want to talk to you about internalized oppression, and the dangers of painting a whole group of people who can be so subjectively diagnosed as ‘dangerous,’ and so much else.
This piece is SO problematic. I hope there are people in your life who can help you unpack all of this at some point, and hopefully come to a different place. I’m not talking about trying to take away what you feel is helpful for you. That’s for you to decide… But this message you are putting out to the world is dangerous.
-Sera
Report comment
rasselas,
Eh, my point wasn’t so much how great Open Dialogue is, as it was that there are some fundamental differences in power imbalances there between Dr. and non-Dr that I think are interesting and worth exploring. I do talk about Open Dialogue a fair amount because it has good examples of a lot of principles and values… Such as seeing the problem as existing in the space *between* people even if its most visible in *one* person. I love that simply because it is about not automatically medicalizing every bit of distress and knowing that it is often a product of relationships and environments. There’s also the reality that people are available right away rather than after a wait, and that the structure of their system (which is the whole system and not just a hard-to-access alternative to the system in that particular part of Finland) engenders enough trust that many people reach out at the start of their struggles rather than trying everything to avoid it until things get worse and worse. There’s also the approach to psych drugs which leads to no automatic assumption that everyone needs to be on them at all, or that – if they do use them – that it can be just short-term (and short-term can be defined as as short as a few weeks rather than a year or two)… as well as the fact that sleep meds are among those most commonly prescribed because there is a fundamental understanding there about how much meeting basic needs (like sleep, etc.) can lead to distress in a way that is pretty absent here. There’s also the principle about having discussions *in front of someone* rather than in a back room behind their back, and that two clinicians take part in the support rather than just one to facilitate that process… And that – because its recognized that problems lie in the spaces ‘between people’ – the presence a family network (with ‘family’ defined by the person and including whoever they think makes sense including employers, neighbors, whoever) to work through things.
In essence, it’s less a magical thing you ‘do’ to anyone, and more a process of building trust and recognizing that someone’s distress is often the product of what is going on outside of them rather than within. But I am not intensively trained… I’m mainly relaying what I’ve come to understand from other sources, and what I usually highlight when facilitating trainings myself because it represents so many fundamental shifts from how most places respond to people.
AND I’m absolutely not someone who says ‘Open Dialogue’ is the answer to all… It has its downsides, too, and is nearly impossible to replicate in many other areas no matter how hard people try because the trust that has been built by constructing a system that holds these principles is a totally different experience than an alternative offering that represents a little pin drop within a system that runs counter to them (among other challenges around differences in liability issues and perceptions related to psych drug prescriptions and so on).
But again, I really mainly brought it up because the massive power imbalance that exists between those called Dr. and those not isn’t true in every area, even where medical systems still exist (most of Open Dialogue is facilitated by nurses after all). And I think we’d do well to look at how to begin reducing those massive power differentials with the tools available to us as a sort of harm reduction approach. Looking at the honorific system is but one way, but I think it’s an important one because its free, and because training people every single day to call a certain set of people ‘Dr.’ absolutely and totally influences how automatically reverent they may be to them. I see this playing out all the time even where a Dr. is considered an employee of an organization that technically has more power (hire/fire, etc.) but still bends to the Dr. on a daily basis and without question even when what the Dr. is doing is blatantly abusive and/or misguided.
-Sera
Report comment
rasselas.redux,
Thanks for your post. And yes, there is a power imbalance. However, in many regards, it is a misplaced one. As I noted in the piece above, the medical doctors (and frankly, doctors of other types as well) often spend the least time with someone, and yet have the most power over them.
I am curious if you’ve seen Daniel Mackler’s Open Dialogue film? In it, one of the things they emphasize is how the medical doctors do NOT function with such a power imbalance over others on the team. I’m actually uncertain whether or not they are referred to as Dr. Last-name while everyone else is referred to by their first name… But I’m going to find out.
My point in bringing it up, though, is that the power imbalance needn’t be so great, and we needn’t be complicit in it. I do hear you on the added confusion of so many people getting to call themselves Dr. Last-name above and beyond medical doctors… But I think it’s an issue across the board.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
I guess I was mostly responding to your assertion that you don’t think this conversation belongs on Mad in America in my response, JanCarol!
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Whatuser,
I’m not sure if you’ve read any of my other writing on here. I certainly don’t expect you to necessarily have! I just wonder because I have certainly focused at length on the misplaced medicalization and oppressive nature of the psychiatric system in many different ways. That said, the honorific system and the power imbalances that it makes visible play a role in that, and so I don’t think this is irrelevant. Rather, I would say that this is one of the quickest, easiest ways we could begin to dismantle those power imbalances and show our commitment to undoing the larger problems. I would also echo what Steve has said above.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Whatuser,
I’m honestly perplexed by how stuck on wanting to ‘honor’ the efforts of a particular sub-set of people you and others seem to be. No one – myself included – has suggested that there isn’t a lot of work involved in getting through a particular degree program. However, do you really believe that that effort is consistently greater than, say, the effort put in by so many people doing so many things? Ableist ideals about basing our worth in what we can ‘do’ aside, are there not many people working very hard in this world? Perhaps even more importantly, does the salary afforded to many people with the honorific of Dr. not suffice in terms of recognition and honor? I realize that salaries will vary among the doctorate crowd, but really… So many of them (according to research) come from money and go no to careers that earn them much higher salaries than most of us… Is that not enough?
Let me put it this way: Let’s say I’m wrong, or at least exaggerating the impact of a system that elevates the title (not just in work but across all areas of life) of someone who has earned the honorific of Dr. in terms of power imbalances and the systemic oppression of others… What on earth harm would be doing by getting rid of that system? At worst, the action would be neutral. (No one has been able to provide an even vaguely convincing argument that the actual earning of the degree, the salary that tends to follow, and one’s ability to hold an actual doctor-related role is not enough to ‘honor’ and ‘recognize’ their efforts, with the exception of those who’ve argued its important *within the current context* for people from marginalized groups to claim their titles as an anti-racist, anti-sexist, etc. act… But again, that’s within the context of the existence of the honorific system, and not its having been dismantled…) At best, it would be a concretely attainable step toward undoing oppressive power imbalances that elevate the voices of those who’ve completed academic learning so far over and above those who actually work more directly/frequently with the humans over whom that power is most regularly wielded, etc.
Plus all the other things I’ve said in my other comment responses…
-Sera
Report comment
Jancarol,
This isn’t a “zero sum game” as some like to say. We can care about things like hunger and housing, and *also* care about how deep the power imbalances run in some of these systems. Of course doing away with honorifics isn’t nearly so important as doing away with lack of food and housing resources. But why would that preclude us from talking about honorifics? It kind of feels like a strawman argument to me… this suggestion that that is any kind of counter argument to what I’ve offered, rather than a different argument altogether.
Some questions for you:
1. Is there really no other way to communicate who has completed a type of education or holds a license for a particular role beyond honorifics? This also seems like a strawman to me… I never said people should deny or hide their roles… just not be referred to in all aspects of life by that role (even when they’re not doing anything even a bit related to it!).
2. Do you truly believe that any honorific is actually needed, and if so why? What do you think the honorifics really accomplish?
3. Do you know of any other completely free and widely accessible way to begin to chip away at the power imbalance between ‘Dr’ and the rest of us?
4. Maybe you think that the power imbalance the honorifics represent (both in access to education and in credibility/power in the moment)… but then, what harm would it cause to do away with them nonetheless? If they do no harm, still no harm done by not having them…
Your stories are valid, but I’m unclear how they support an argument to continue the use of honorifics. Much of what you talk about references the inequity to access to education, and as I said in the piece above and in the comments section, within the context that currently exists it may indeed be extra important for people who overcame marginalization to get their degrees and thus represent that by use of honorifics. But would it be important to have a different title if the honorific system was not what it currently was? Because *that* is my argument. That the honorific system is a part of an oppressive system and should be done away with, which would change a lot of the other pieces. People could still get their ‘pieces of paper,’ and have and speak about their jobs… no honorifics would not change that. But it would immediately change how elevated they are above so many others who have also worked very hard in their lives.
I said this in the comments section over on Mad in America’s Facebook page, and I’ll repeat it here:
Oh what a world we would have if we could manage to find ways to recognize and celebrate each other’s accomplishments without needing to step on others to do so…
-Sera
Report comment
John,
May your fantasy bear fruit some day :p 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Fiachra,
I tend to focus most of my critiques on the system that drives, pushes, and pulls all the roles within it rather than the individuals within it, but I hear you. A ton of harm is for sure being caused.
Thank you for reading and commenting!
-Sera
Report comment
Willowweed,
“Evidence, data and logic should be the basis of an opinion not the perceived “authority of the speaker””
I certainly agree with this… though I’d also argue that ‘evidence’ itself is so often manipulated and/or rooted in a system that privileges those with a lot of money (to pay to gather and interpret the evidence) that I feel cautious about that piece as well!
Thanks for reading and commenting 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Bippyone,
At least in part, I would respond by saying much of what I already wrote out to Marie… Just because it has not impacted you, does not negate the issue at a systemic level. I guess I also find myself reacting to the idea of ‘politeness’ in this context. As someone who has watched quite up close and personal hospital staff (for example) bowing to the ones with Dr. titles at the expense of some of the most vulnerable held on those units I feel really clear that the power imbalance tipping so strongly in their direction is incredibly harmful. I do not owe them any extra reverence or politeness over and above what I would offer anyone else. I would also point to the paragraph where I wrote about people with Dr. Last-name titles often being the ones who don’t show up for new learning and whose power over people is most inversely related to their knowledge of them as an example of how off kilter it all can get. And while – as I’ve said in other comments – the use of the honorific is not responsible for all that, it is a really visible symbol of it and the easiest starting point for things to change. Honestly, I find it bizarre that so many people are resistant to the idea that doctors deserve no more reverence than so many others in our world, and that it is essential that we begin to chip away at the imbalances.
Thanks for reading and commenting!
-Sera
Report comment
Someone Else,
I was mostly trying to refer to the price of higher education with my ‘bought’ reference, but I hear you on the stolen part. That makes sense, as well.
Thanks for reading and commenting 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Rebel,
I would certainly agree with you that the whole educational system creates a great deal of inequity. As far as I’ve understood, countries that have free ‘higher’ education have significantly less class differences throughout their culture and that seems like a good thing… but it’s certainly not where we’re at in the US.
Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Caroline,
It’s interesting that you bring religion into this. Honestly, what that brought up for me is this: I don’t know much about religion. I’ve pretty much always steered clear. But when ever I’ve heard from people who believe in a brand of religion that talks about ‘fearing’ their god or their god punishing them for not believing and being faithful, I find myself wondering what kind of god would be so angry toward people simply because they weren’t referent toward that god as much as that god would like? It certainly didn’t make me any more interested in being connected to at least that religion, and I surely hope – if there is a god of any kind – that that god has far more compassion and kindness than that. I guess I feel similarly about doctors. If they are so attached to their honorifics that they feel the need to be called by them or not let go of them for a greater good… Well, then, that’s not a doctor I’d want to follow, either.
In turn, I’m also reminded by someone with whom I’ve worked a fair amount over the years. He was speaking on a stage to a room full of people who have the experience of hearing voices, as well a to clinicians and various other providers, family members, and even a commissioner of a particular state’s department of mental health when he decided to tell a joke… The joke went something like: What’s the difference between God and a psychiatrist? Answer: God knows he’s not a psychiatrist… I was a little nervous as to how some of the doctors and DMH officials in the audience might react, but people seemed to receive it well. :p
-Sera
Report comment
Bill,
Semantical arguments over words like ‘trainer’ vs. ‘educator’ may capture my or other people’s interests, but have little bearing on this particular conversation. We all have an array of roles and/or jobs in our lives, and while we could get into conversation as well about the inequities in that arena it’s not quite the same as talking about roles that are only accessible to a relative few (due to classism, ableism, racism, sexism, etc.) and that give people elevated titles like ‘Dr.’ as well as elevated reverence and credibility that is all too often unearned. Moreover, Dr. – at least in the psychiatric realm – also comes with a whole other layer of power over others beyond simple credibility. In fact – it is Dr. (both medical and non-medical) who typically also has the power to order us incarcerated in a psychiatric facility against our will. And while it is not the honorific alone that allows them that level of control, its all tied in.
I’m not sure what to say about your question in regards to ‘aunt,’ ‘uncle,’ and so on. It honestly seems a strange direction to go in here. Regardless, thank you for reading and taking the time to comment!
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
“The last time I used the prefix https://wikidiff.com/prefix/title “Doctor” it was to exemplify how someone goes and gets a badge because they really can’t support their “teachings” without it”…
I think you’re referring here to how credibility is sometimes much more about power and social capital than it is about being in possession of real quality information, and with that I couldn’t agree more.
Thanks for reading! 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Marie,
I gotta be honest that your response here seems really strange to me. One of the links I included in the article above is to research specifically about how much more frequently women are *not* called by their Dr. honorific than men. In other words, there’s a pretty solid and documented history about how this is rooted in sexism. You can deny that – even in the face of this man calling Jill ‘kiddo’ (her husband calling her ‘kiddo’ is a little odd sounding to me, but nonetheless exists within the context of an intimate relationship and is totally different than a stranger taking such a liberty) – but it doesn’t make it less a real thing.
As to the rest… it reminds me of this: There are many people who say ‘just because the system was oppressive to you,’ doesn’t mean it was ‘oppressive to me.’ And what I say back to them pretty routinely is, ‘Just because you didn’t feel directly impacted by systemic oppression, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.’ In other words, systems either are or are not oppressive… How people are individually impacted by that doesn’t really change things.
I also don’t really get the leftist vs. rightist argument you’re making, but that’s okay. I’ll leave my response at this for now! Regardless, thanks for taking the time to read even if it did not resonate.
-Sera
Report comment
It is certainly your choice to write off this and the other NAMI articles I have written. Someone else pointed out to me that the League of Legends reference was incorrect some time ago. It is true that my Google search linked that image and LOL, and that I did not double check it because it was just a sidenote and not a central point to the article. However, I assure you, I have cross checked most everything that is a serious part of this and other articles I publish.
I have to be honest that your inclination to write it all off for that reason strikes me as if you are looking for an excuse to remain in denial of certain very well known realities. That’s your call. But rather than write off what I’ve written *or* trust it entirely, I’d suggest you simply check out some of what I’ve said here yourself. If you were to do so, I believe you’d find it’s quite an accurate portrayal. And, really, I’m not sure how you – or anyone (except NAMI) – are served by choosing not to do that.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Thanks so much, o.o. I think for me, it’s just that I was clearly taking the ‘Can’t Breathe’ frame that became so well known after Eric Garner’s death that has been in my head as a point of unease for a long time. But, I hear you, too. So many of us are being crushed by different types of power and oppression, and they all mean something and are all worth hearing. 🙂
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
I wrote this piece about five years ago, and I have been meaning to come back and comment on it as a sort of update/clarification.
My primary message to be added on at this time is as follows:
I wish I hadn’t written this, at least not in the way I did… It is not something I would write today. Why? There are actually lots of this piece that I *do* like. I wish I could pull all those pieces out and reform them without the problematic parts. However, as a white woman, I really have no business appropriating ‘Can’t breathe’ for my won use or coming as close as I did to comparing what I have been through to what Eric Garner and so many others (George Floyd, and so many more) have experienced as black people in this country.
In some ways it is true… Oppressive systems are crushing the air out of all of us. But how I approached this went too far in pulling from what is happening in the world to black and brown people and pulling it into my own frame.
I am sorry for doing that, and will do better moving forward.
Report comment
Thanks so much, Rosalee, and I’m glad you received “Harvard Guy” as intended. 😉
-Sera
Report comment
Haha. Well, to be clear, I wasn’t say *I* find him attractive… just by conventional standards he seems to reasonably fit the mold 😉 But yes, okay. I’ll accept being wrong here. 😉
-Sera
Report comment
Eh, many of my pieces really land with some, and really don’t with others. I’ve seen people saying I really “knocked it out of the park” with this one, and then there’s feedback like yours, as well. I can’t say which is ‘right’ because I’m not sure it’s a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ matter. This isn’t my favorite piece I’ve ever written, and yet I feel good about it nonetheless. And, perhaps most of all, I feel confident that Harvard guy doesn’t need any defenders. 😉 In any case, thanks for your comment! 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Bradford,
I do not know that it will be helpful for me to go back and forth with you here, but I do want to offer one clarification:
I am *for sure* not saying that I do not walk with any privilege. I experience plenty of skin color privilege, as well as socioeconomic privilege particularly in regards to where I grew up, the educational systems to which I had access as a kid, and so on. I make a point to name my privilege in these ways pretty much every time I speak publicly and share some of my story. I also have benefited from my privilege in the form of it paving the way for me to access and speak from platforms such as Mad in America. Perhaps that is some of what you mean. And, I experience other privilege, as well… linked to my being cisgender, in primarily heterosexual relationships at least at this time, and son on.
That said, I feel like none of that is quite what you’re speaking about here, and I’m getting lost in that. I do not subscribe to concepts like ‘female privilege.’ And, as someone who can’t even claim a GED as far as degrees go, and who is out as and works basically from the framework of being someone whose job is linked closely to their own psychiatric history and needing to be very public about it, I am not quite sure where the privilege lies there? I mean, yes, I have privilege within certain contexts (for example, the community where I work and for which I serve as Director and hold the power associated with Director), but I just don’t get the suggestion that this is a position of privilege in the systemic scheme of the world.
I hear that this all landed as very rude to you. I am not going to dispute that that is a valid interpretation, and one that you have every right to hold. And yet, I still find myself in a place of feeling that I do not owe much of any reverence to someone who uses their quite extensive power and privilege to first acknowledge the ways in which systems fail and harm us, and then encourage them to keep on going just like that.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
dfk,
Yes, we can come up with ‘better’ approaches to support people through thoughts of killing themselves, but you’re certainly right that until we address income disparities and housing (and the impacts of capitalism overall), various forms of systemic oppression, child abuse, and so much else… We’re just going to keep facing the same problems over and over. Thank you for stating that.
-Sera
Report comment
Bradford,
That’s a great strategy to get yourself out. I wonder how often it would work!
I’m sorry you find the ‘Harvard guy’ references problematic. I’m not sure I understand how I am using my privilege in the same way he is. He published statements saying that assessments are completely ineffective, and yet continued to promote them as standard practice without acknowledging not only their inefficacy but there actual harm as well. While certainly my response to that has a tone, I’m largely just consistently pointing out the status he holds that allows him to do that with relative impunity.
I can appreciate that that tone doesn’t land well with you and (I’m sure) others, but I think that may be a stylistic difference rather than an issue of privilege. I am, after all, female, carry no degrees, and am writing on platforms that have significantly less reach. I’m not sure how that gives me any power over a white, conventionally attractive, man with advanced degrees and a position at an ivy league school. But maybe I’m missing something?
-Sera
Report comment
Rachel777,
That is a really interesting comparison! I think it’s a really important one, worthy of its own article.
-Sera
Report comment
madmother13,
Yeah, I worry most about people who don’t know what they’re getting into (true informed consent), or have any resources to be supported to navigate it to get whatever they might be looking for rather than just being swallowed up.
Thanks for taking the time to comment 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
l_e_cox,
Yes, it makes total sense that someone offering support would want to explore with someone seeking support what’s going on for them. Though so much of psychiatry ends up being more in the camp of ‘what to do with’ someone than how to support them. It’s all very sad.
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Well, thanks for that :p
-Sera
Report comment
30-watt-lightbulb,
I totally agree. Those hotlines get promoted on so many websites, TV shows, provider phones, etc. Not a one of them provides informed consent about the risks of calling, or anything else. It’s basically a way of just checking a box and saying, “See, we offered a resource! We’re good!” Very frustrating. Thanks for mentioning the Reddit thread!
Sera
Report comment
A really good question, Sam!! Just think of all the questions we are not asked, and who decides which questions are most important :p
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Pat! Glad it resonated for you. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
John,
Absolutely. A lot of the decision to continue to use them is a protection from legal liability. However, I’ve also had clinicians say that ‘legal liability’ is the cover for wanting to avoid ’emotional liability’ (simply *feeling* responsible and afraid of scrutiny of co-workers who may look at them as responsible). This makes sense to me, as well. It can be very painful to know you were seen as “responsible” for helping someone else who ended up killing themself. I get that pain. And it is nonetheless our own to work through and not put on others.
Yes, so many people ask just to check off the box that they asked, so they can’t be blamed for not asking, and no one really ever bothers to then look at *how* they asked or anything like that. Asked that question? Did your job. The end. Sigh.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to comment and share your experience!
-Sera
Report comment
Great thought, Steve! I like this idea a lot. :p
-Sera
Report comment
dengster,
Thank you for your comment!! I agree, that so many in the general public have a much different imagined idea of what is happening behind all those psychiatric walls than what is actually going on. Not only do they have a much different idea, but I think many of them really want to *retain* that different idea, because it is of comfort to them to think the “wise” people behind the wall have it covered and will make things be okay.
I wish it weren’t all such a game that required knowing the key words, etc. to get ‘in’ or ‘out,’ based on your wishes and what’s at stake in that moment.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment, bcharris. I’m not familiar – at least not in my early morning mind – with the HOD test. I’m curious to learn more!
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Thanks, snowyowl. 🙂 And, of course, this article doesn’t even begin to touch on how people are now saying that “since suicide risk assessment is a failure, we need to turn to artificial intelligence.” Talk about the dangerous of software. Ugh!
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks for sharing this piece, which is my first piece published via Truthout! 🙂
I especially hope people here will check out Anita D’s poem if they haven’t already seen it. (It’s just a couple minutes long). It’s a really great, really powerful representation of what it is like to be held on a psych unit. 🙂
Thanks,
-Sera
Report comment
furies,
Not sure what else to say about this, so I’ll bow out for now. As to ego, I do often wonder the same thing… What leads to people who receive such minimal benefit from speaking in certain ways to want to invest in writing whole articles about why they should get to even if it hurts others very often makes me wonder what is going on for them underneath that… Like, why are so many people who couldn’t care less about the confederate flag and “All Lives Matter” *really* so invested in making the arguments about why they should get to say/show both? What’s really behind that? I think you and I might come to different conclusions, but I do agree that ego is in there for some of them. Anyway, like I said, I’m going to bow out. 🙂
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Ah, okay. That makes more sense, as I otherwise found your comment a little confusing given the overall nature of the site. When I get these notifications on my phone, it just looks like a sea of links, so I hadn’t actually realized there was a link to something specific at all. I started to watch that video on my own, but decided after the first few seconds that it probably wasn’t of interest so didn’t pursue it. Just went in and watched the whole thing at your urging… And yeah, it is that very typical “progressive” perspective that the problem isn’t the medical model, it’s the “stigma” preventing people from feeling okay about accessing it… Totally agree that it is super problematic.
Report comment
Yes, certainly, Richard. I do not think they need to be mutually exclusive. The hope would be to become better versed in both directions. For example, we held an action against psychiatric oppression during COVID times in Western Mass today.
We left presents for our Dept. of Mental Health area office 🙂 https://www.facebook.com/serad27/posts/10223134635539815
And as part of the action, my co-worker Sean and others worked to include an organizer for a recent Black Lives Matter rally in the action today, and two of our crew also stood on the streets of Northampton handing out flyers about psychiatric oppression and our action while we drove through in a protest caravan. 🙂
And you’ll find other articles from me both here and elsewhere (https://truthout.org/articles/amid-covid-people-involuntarily-confined-in-psych-hospitals-must-be-released/) on psychiatric oppression.
I am not a fan of changing topics when talking about racism, because it just happens all too often… But I am absolutely a fan of trying to cross and eliminate barriers between our respective causes. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Richard, I’m too tired to say much more than “thank you” for your last post, so… thank you. Our enemies have been exposed, indeed. Onward in the fight. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Sam,
I guess I’m not quite sure what you mean about me seeing your situation through my experience. Honestly, I defintiely dealt with abuse and toxicity in my family, but they weren’t especially involved in my psychiatry experiences because I’d already left home, so what I described isn’t really want I have experienced much at all. Rather, what I am saying is that there are some basic principles that are driven by systemic experiences and dynamics and those rare exceptions that may exist can’t really change the overall history, and so we ask that even those people who are rare exceptions honor that? Something like that. But again, it doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a real, strong place for family.
But no matter what I think about all this for the most part… It sounds like you and your wife have something going that really works for you, and there is value in that.
-Sera
Report comment
Sam,
I had started a reply earlier, but I do not think it went through, so I’m starting again. If this is a duplicate, apologies!
I do remember hearing much of this from you in the past. I think I was thinking your comment here meant going deeper in making spaces for family and friends. I’m sorry that – as much effort as you’ve put in to really, genuinely being there for your wife and her alters – that you’ve nonetheless felt othered here and in other spaces.
I think I’ve said most of this to you before, but i think the challenge is that there are *so* many power dynamics embedded in so many familial relationships, and so many family members who’ve been a part of someone’s trauma… And then there’s also the legacy of pharmaceutical companies using the desperation of family members to get help for their loved ones as a way to market their products a la places like NAMI and similar… And leading to communities that speak for us, over us, about us as the norm.
For those reasons, I can’t personally support the idea that family members should be centered equally as people who’ve been diagnosed, and psychiatrized. I think it’s so much less about you than it is about that broader history, and the need to hold some lines so as to have the best shot at ensuring people really get to speak for themselves, and so on.
That said, I’m in full support of supports *for* families, especially to create an alternative to NAMI and its ilk, and because family members do certainly have valid experiences to share, and need support themselves. I know that Hearing Voices USA and the Western Mass RLC have both worked at trying to expand efforts to recognize that importance. Hearing Voices USA, for example, is currently working on amending the existing charter to include a section on family groups.
You have a ton of valuable experience as a family member, and I’m glad you’re here. I do not want you to feel invisible, and yet I think grappling with some of the tensions I described above are pretty important. I hope you’ll stick around and grapple along with us.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Sam,
I am sorry you found it hurtful, but I just can’t take it back. I believe in naming things what they are, and I have heard many speak to how hurtful it is when that doesn’t happen. Racism is a systemic issue. It’s not as simple as just treating people badly, and even when black and brown people rise to places of power and abuse that power, it is sometimes still related to systemic racism. I also hear very, very often from black and brown people (not all, but many with whom I’ve crossed paths) how hurtful it is that people so often want to change the topic, or turn anti-racism conversations into “let’s talk about all oppressions’ conversations. That is another reason why I find it important to sometimes talk about racism, and really just talk about that.
And no, it would not be my place to go to an anti-racism website out of the blue and post about psychiatric oppression. However, I’ve had many, many conversations about how to educate in *both directions* across those lines because I do believe our voices will be stronger together. Typically, where I find the most room to have those sorts of conversations is among, for example, the prison abolition community, and so on. I do indeed think it is important for many more people – including those focused on anti-racism efforts – to understand our central issues, too. Hell, one of the Black Lives Matters founders (Patrisse Cullors) has a brother diagnosed with schizoaffective and absolutely seems to have bought into the Treatment Advocacy Center-type arguments. I’d *LOVE* to see those conversations happen. But this is where I have an established publishing relationship, and this is where I see myself as having a responsibility to push things a bit, so here I am.
-Sera
Report comment
furies,
I get what is being said. And I absolutely do not agree with it. The whole concept of “political correctness” is pretty offensive, honestly. It is just one of many tactics used in efforts to silence people who’ve been marginalized and are asking for change. Sure, there are some “saviors” that swoop in and get over zealoused at times, but what a way to shut down a conversation … this calling someone the “PC” police… and what a way to invalidate the ways in which they’re saying they’re being disrespected to call their request to not be called a particular label (or similar) by ascribing motives to being “politically correct.” I don’t buy it when I get told it when I am asking people not to call me “client,” or “mentally ill,” and I do not buy it as it shows up in this article, either.
White media has a long history of co-opting, appropriating, misrepresenting, and even finding members of marginalized groups who will say what white media wants to hear and/or whose words can be taken out of context enough to support white-driven agendas. There are lines that get crossed, especially with the aforementioned savior complexes afoot… but those lines are often far less harmful than the lines being crossed by those who show disregard.
Headlines like “Buildings Matter” and all the other appropriative stuff that flies around are worthy of negative attention in my eyes. So, I guess you can continue to see me as just not “getting it.” That’s okay. I did read the article you attached, but it just didn’t move me or resonate with me the way it does you.
Thanks nonetheless for taking the time to comment 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks for speaking up here, Morgan. You are definitely not the first black person I have heard say that psychiatric oppression has impacted you far more deeply than racism ever did. I know you do not need my validation or confirmation of your message, but I am sorry that not only psychiatry has hurt you so much, but that the people who at least theoretically should have had your back have instead acted like your pain and oppression simply does not exist.
This is such a strange time… when so many people who couldn’t be bothered with these conversations of Black Lives Matter are now suddenly all about it. It feels like it is absurd that they weren’t there for the conversation before, but would be even more absurd to continue to ignore it now. And how to measure the level of disingenuous and posturing and just wanting to be seen that is involved i do not know, but I can imagine why it would all feel overwhelming, especially in the face of continuing to have the source of your pain and oppression being ignored.
Black people working and using force in these systems is such an important topic, too. It is one that I do not personally feel like it is my business to be the one to speak on for the most part, but I have been working on this film project with some co-workers that is a bit complicated to explain, but has led to a black man who has experienced force in the system challenging a black man working in a psych facility very directly on how he reconciles being a part of that environment given oppressive histories.
I think maybe with some of your comment, you are responding to my question re: why are there not more black and brown people’s voices being centered here? I can definitely understand it must be too much energy or too painful to even think about wanting to invest the time (not to mention expose one’s self to criticism and backlash). That makes sense.
I responded to a lot of pieces that I heard in what you said. But underneath it all, I am sorry you have felt so unseen in all this. It is *so* hard to get most people to see and understand psychiatric oppression. It is as if it doesn’t exist in most people’s eyes. And where does that leave all of us whove been so consumed by that which is invisible, if not invisible ourselves? It is very painful.
sera
Report comment
Oh, oldhead. I want you to know that I keep being asked if your and a few other people’s comments should be moderated out. I have said no, but my energy is really waning for this.
Several things:
1. Your comment led me to go back and read ‘A Racist Movement’ again. There is a lot of good stuff in there. I do not regret it. There *was* a piece I did regret. A reference to Tourettes Syndrome that was less than respectful. A moderator helped me remove it once I realized our error, so it is no longer there. There is also another racism article that I *do* regret for its appropriative nature. It is this one: https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/01/cant-breathe/ I am embarrassed that I used “Can’t Breathe’ for anything, and centered so much of my own story. If I could take *anything* down, it would be that one. However, Mad in America has a policy against removing past articles, and so I’ve never asked. Additionally, living with the embarrassment of my own mistakes is okay. Necessary in some ways. I recently decided that I would go through some of my old pieces on racism and offer some corrections and apology for the things I see as wrong in them now. I do not see doing that on ‘A Racist Movement Cannot Move,’ for several reasons including that I co-wrote it with two black people.
2. I am wondering about your definition of ‘reasonably well off.’ Certainly, I was born into some wealth as a kid. And I’ve benefited from that somewhat as an adult to when I had parents to fall back on to help me – say when I got very unexpectedly pregnant in my 20s. I was lucky and have privilege in that regard, and I mention that every single time I share my story publicly. However, I haven’t had access to any “family” money in a very long time. I am severely in debt, and go further in debt every single month because my single-income household does not have enough to cover basic expenses. I’m hardly living in poverty, but we will struggle to figure out how to pay for the least inexpensive Community College for my son when he leaves highschool next year. I guess I do not define that as “reasonably well off,” but it is better than many people who don’t have enough to cover their basic expenses and also don’t have access to the credit that I have to survive for a while longer, so interpret it how you will, I guess. This is irrelevant to most things here, but it’s hard – when I am struggling so much with money – to read such assumptions.
3. I cycled through the comments on the other article (Racist Movement). I keep thinking it is funny that people say the comments section hadn’t gotten out of control, when they have no idea how many comments were being moderated out (i.e., that are no longer visible now), or how much labor it was requiring on my part and moderators’ parts to try and keep up.
4. In flipping through old comments, I looked for where you are getting this idea that I called Richard a “racist old white man.” It doesn’t sound like something I say, and I didn’t remember saying it. And, as best as I can tell, I didn’t say it. I did, however, find a comment where I referred to the “mostly older white men” group that was responding to my comments. What I guess I was trying to get at is that I find that you, Richard, and some others do have what I receive as a very – at times – condescending way of speaking to me, replete with periodic references to how much longer you all have been at this and how much more you all know than me. It may not be intentional, and you/others may find me equally condescending. Fine, but it does get tiresome. The comments are so long, and I’ve actually been chastised at times for not writing a long enough comment representative of enough of what was said back. As if this is my job, and I’m being paid to do it. As if I owe endless amounts of my emotional labor. All this even in spite of the fact that I’m one of the few authors who actually takes the time to consistently respond at all. So, when I said that, that is what I had in mind. But I could have phrased it better, and without using the word “older,” so I am sorry for that. Regardless of my intent or what I was trying to say, I can understand why it landed as ageist, and I could have done better.
5. a) I’m pretty sure I’ve said at various points that when it comes to systemic racism I am talking about *all* the systems.
6. b) I *have* said that capitalism and economic justice are inextricably intertwined with racism. Multiple times in multiple places. Just because I don’t want to don the labels that you deem most appropriate for me to don in order to pledge my allegiance to your philosophy (aka “anti-capitalism,” and “anti-psychiatry”) doesn’t mean I have not acknowledged this point. I have.
oldhead, I do not see a point in continuing to go back and forth here. Maybe you still have an axe to grind with me, but for my part, I am doing my best to create change. Sometimes that looks like words on a page. Other times it looks like direct action. And still other times it looks like a zillion other things. And, I am really, really tired. I do not feel any differently about what I wrote here than when I started, so if that was your goal, you haven’t been successful. I just feel more tired. It’d be nice if you’d direct your energies elsewhere for a while. I hope you can find something else to do with your time here. I don’t know that I’m giong to keep responding.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Fiachra! This was an interesting article (that you linked to)… I appreciated that the author was honest about his own complicity in some of it.
-Sera
Report comment
Bob,
I want to reiterate that I have never said that Mad in America has never mentioned racism. I have to be honest that this effort to dig back in Mad in America’s history feels odd and misguided to me. What I said was that there had been no *recent* mention of racism. If I was not clear enough, what I meant was that this site was almost entirely devoid of any mention of what is happening *now*, and what is happening *now* is historic and potentially revolutionary.
Just for the sake of doing, I did go and search racism and 2020 and I got around 10 articles. Four of them were from this week. Earlier ones were prior to this current period we are in.
I feel a bit like we’ve tread into territory where we’re just preparing for a research article or something. But all of it misses the point I was actually making in this piece… This is an important time. It wasn’t represented on Mad in America by writers, staff, or commenters at least not in any noticeable way. It is important that we be present and paying attention in these times because our liberations are bound up in one another, and for all the other reasons I said above. That’s really it.
Bob, You do good work. But like so many of us, I think you may be taking this too personally, and that is getting you off on the wrong track. It felt important to me to name the silence here. It is even more important that everyone work together to change that silence. Going back and forth about what percentage of articles prior to this moment in history represented racism or not just wasn’t ever the point. Let’s move forward together.
-Sera
Report comment
Hah, no worries. It is not your job to correct my spelling errors. ;p Thank you! 🙂 -Sera
Report comment
anomie,
I find it really odd that you are accusing me of not talking *with* you. I have done my very best here to stay present and respond, and even hear (some) criticisms when offered. Blaming me for a “difficult atmosphere” feels pretty frustrating, honestly. Your seeing me as “lecturing” when so many people have also been “lecturing” me here seems uneven.
I also would offer that your post *is* impacted by gender, whether you meant it to be or not.
I think it is fair that we both disengage from this as I would agree it is not especially productive. Thank you for taking the time here, nonetheless.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Rosalee. I know many share your experience, and while I came to Robert Whitaker’s work after my own ‘escape’ from psychiatry of sorts, I’ve still valued it a great deal nonetheless.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, o.o.! Doing my best 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, johnchristine. I hope there will be many more conversations about healing, reconciliation and reparations and so on to come. I am sorry that you have experienced being a scapegoat. It can be so painful.
-Sera
Report comment
Thank you, kindredspirit. That was indeed my intent above all else, even if messy and hard. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
(Just for transparency’s sake, I did text Will to let him know he’s come up in this conversation. I write this for a few reasons including that I didn’t want to leave people feeling like we were talking about Will without his knowledge…)
Report comment
anomie,
I am going to admit upfront that your post here pushes my buttons in a BIG way, so take that for what it is worth.
I know nothing about your gender, but I can say that the level of sexism I have experienced in this movement has been staggering. I have had white men steal my work in blatant ways. I have had white men who are getting paid wayyyyyyy more than me ask me to help them with their work behind the scenes, and then have had to fight to see that help credited. I have had white men say things in MUCH more controversial ways than I do in in person meetings (where I tend to be far more diplomatic than when I am writing an article), and yet I have been perceived as the stand out “bitch.” I have literally had people write on training evaluations for trainings I’ve done with another female co-worker, “You two were both wonderful trainers, but you must have a man who is a good trainer and that you could have sent.” And on and on and on.
So, I am *not* going to respond well to being told that I need to defer to two white men to learn how I should speak, even if they also have valuable things to say. It’s just not the way this is going to go.
Meanwhile, a few things about Will… I have known Will in person for about 15 years now. I am not going to criticize him in any way. I think he has brought valuable things to the conversation both here and via Madness Radio, etc. However, please note that Will neither has children nor a permanent full-time job with many moving pieces that requires his constant basically 24/7 attention. Yet, in spite of that, and while I haven’t looked at all his articles, I have noticed that he often responds to reader comments either minimally or not all.
I’m not going to critique him for that. It’s a personal choice. I choose to respond to comments because a) I think it’s disrespectful and a power move not to in a forum such as this (not a specific dig at Will, just how I feel across the board in this forum), and b) When the author responds, it tends to lead to more comments and deeper dialogue within them. But I also wonder what element our gender socialization has played into whether or not we each choose to respond. And I want to emphasize that responding in the way that I do requires a TON of emotional labor.
So, when you tell me to look at the comments section of Will Hall’s latest article and how much better it is going over there, I want to point out to you how that that article was posted over 24 hours ago, and its comments section has a grand total of 9 comments. None of them are from Will. He hasn’t shown up ther eat all.
The article itself is also not directly about racism, although I’m glad it unites the issues. I am not going to say anything bad about it. I am glad it exists and was posted here. I never suggested my article should be both the first *and* the last, but I reject completely and entirely that his article is the only “right” way to bring the conversation here. And I ask you to question why you would even suggest that I should defer to how to white men have chosen to do things.
They have their way. I have mine. That is okay. It requires many people speaking up to move things. And it will always be messy and imperfect along the way.
-Sera
Report comment
Okay, Richard. I hear you on my misunderstanding. I gotta be honest, it is *really* hard to have lengthy dialogues in this manner. I work *a lot* of hours, and even more hours right now during this ‘COVID’ mess. I feel a responsibility and obligation to respond to each commenter at least once whether they right something supportive or in disagreement, but you and oldhead in particular write very lengthy posts with a lot of complex ideas in them, and usually not just one of them per article. I am trying to keep up here, but the reality is that I am reading very quickly a lot of the time in an effort to keep up with my obligation to things I write and not just be so arrogant as to write and run… but it is really, really hard to pull the full meaning from every long post I receive when so pressed from time and pulled in multiple directions. If I listed out all the things that have been going on in the last 24 hours in my work world (never mind my kid world) while also trying to answer comments here… well, it would be a long list.
I’m not sure it’s helpful – or at least I’m not sure I’m *capable* logistically speaking of continuing to go back and forth here, but if you want to e-mail me to talk about things further, I am willing to do that.
-Sera
Report comment
meremortal,
I am certainly not going to argue with you that I’m making assumptions about race at times, but after spending a lot of time here over the last 8 years.. which has included getting to know several of the commenters both based on what they’ve shared in comments, and what they’ve e-mailed me, etc, and looking at who is *writing* for Mad in America, and how that has developed over the years, and after talking to various Mad in America employees over the years… Well, that’s what’s informed my take not that there are *no* black and brown people showing up here, but that there are comparatively very few. But yes, like I said, I am not going to argue that I’m not making assumptions, and that those assumptions are sometimes wrong.
Report comment
Meremortal,
The older piece was a moderation nightmare. Many of the worst were moderated out. Ditto the ‘Dear Man’ post on sexism and misogyny.
I will take your words here into consideration. I do think that these pieces are designed to be ‘opinion’ pieces, not dialogues, and so many of them contain strong opinions, strongly phrased… not just mine, though I can certainly appreciate if you feel that my pieces in particular have that tone and will bear it in mind.
For now, I will offer that when writing an article, etc. I do not think it is generally the time for a ton of uncertainty. I regard it as a time to state one one believes/has experienced – often with certainty and a clear perspective. That – in those moments, it can be time to “teach” or at least clearly impart wisdom one feels that they have to offer… And that the mutuality comes from us each taking turns in that, not in necessarily avoiding ever speaking strongly and clearly from a particular perspective.
I really don’t know that I can promise to change my writing style or the importance I see in wording things strongly at times. But, I will consider your words.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
anomie,
Well, a couple of things… I try my best to respond to most comments, but the reality is that I’m often reading quickly in the middle of work tasks, and sometimes my efforts to pick up something I can respond to in someone’s comment may miss the mark. That is certainly true. The first half felt mostly like the correction that I responded to above.
As to your second and more central point, maybe I am not quite getting what you most want me to take away from what your saying… But I’m not looking for there to be articles on here devoid of *any* connections being made, and I agree that connecting psychiatry and policing both as a way of controlling people is an important point… though I do not agree that it has to be made strictly within an anti-psychiatry framework… For better or worse, I think that can be talked about even within a reformist perspective.
In the end, I think there are lots of connections to be made… some of which I at leats attempted to make in this piece… and moving forward, I just hope there continues to be less and less silence when something so potentially revolutionary is going on in one realm, especially as it is the case that all these threads are so impactful of one another. But I know I’m just repeating myself at this point!
-Sera
Report comment
I think you do fine communicating much of the time, Sam. At least that is my experience overall. We are just missing each other here at the moment.
-Sera
Report comment
I’m glad this is leading to another important conversation, though also embarrassed that I wrote “right” instead of “write” so I just need to name that before my self-critical self explodes. :p
-Sera
Report comment
Okay, thanks for being willing to answer! it feels hard for me to separate out using a last name as respect vs deference that i see so often in our systems, and so it always jumps out at me when i see last names or titles being used. but i can totally hear that it is gratitude when you do it here. i am sorry if this was too weird or invasive of a question. it is just a topic that has really been on my mind lately!
sera
Report comment
Thanks for popping in, oo (sorry, my phone wont let me type your name properly!) it is helpful to hear your experience with the name issue!
sera
Report comment
Sam,
i am curious what would help this site feel like that place for you? i am not disagreeing with you that it isnt, i am sincerely curious. we are trying to develop more and more family support and opportunities to share where i work, and via hearing voices usa, and i know miranda and likely others have been working hard here to do the same. alternatives are so needed. i would love to see them drown nami out!
sera
Report comment
meremortal,
it is true that -based on how few black and brown people appear here- i tend to make that assumption, sometimes erroneously. i am sorry if i have done that to you. Also, if i have rewritten your same points, then i do not think i understood your points, as i was thinking they were not exactly in disagreement with your points, but in disagreement with them as the full picture. the points i did offer are ones i have been offered directly from non-white people during conversations of this nature. i will go back tomorrow and relook at your points so i can perhaps better understand them and how i may have restated them in my own.
Report comment
Richard,
“Sera, I would never expect you or anyone else to defer to someone merely because of their age or political experience in political movements. But there are some people writing in this comment section with literally decades of radical activism, and some have been in the forefront with other Black radicals in some of the most significant struggles in this country’s history against systemic racial oppression. I’m in my fifth decade, and I know of others who equal that experience ,or come close.”
You basically just did. You’re just not going to convince me here. And while I think there are things to be learned from the elders in any movement, they do not hold all the truths.
“While your intent here is to combat various forms of racism, and some of your particular examples you used (in the past blog) to highlight your intent were exactly that – crude forms of appropriation that do come off as racist, and just plain stupid.”
Richard, Can we be done with this? You are still at me over an article from no less than *four* years ago. Although, in fairness to you, I would absolutely still stand by the idea that white people have no business using terms like “psychiatric slavery,” but I have *zero* interest or willingness in continue to volley that discussion back and forth.
Rather, in fairness to me, I will offer to you a hope that you might consider why you have spent so much time holding on to that four-year-old conversation. There are many aspects of what I know of you and your work that I have respect for, but I’m not obligated to respond to every comment at length nor work out these differences in perspective. At some point, you may just need to accept we see some of these pieces differently.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment here, Bob. As I mentioned in this piece itself, I am thankful for what Mad in America *is,* in many ways, but think – as with so many other things – we can do better, too. I appreciate that you do not shy away from anything that ventures in to the land of the critical. I certainly know what that can feel like as someone who has been in a leadership role for the Western Mass RLC for the duration of its existence (now 13 years not including its unfunded phase).
I hear you on the reform pieces, and appreciate your acknowledgement of the lack of non-white representation, too. And, I imagine you already understand this, but I certainly never said that Mad in America *never* touches the the topic of racism. But – in this moment in time – I found the silence problematic, not on any single person’s part, but as a collective. I’m glad that silence is now broken, messy as it may be.
I do worry about the name piece you mentioned (re: oldhead). I worry – on a site that intentionally includes so many people who’ve been harmed by systems – that there isn’t more room for pseudonyms. It necessitates a certain level of privilege to right under one’s own full name. Privilege to not be under threat from the system itself (or even have to worry about being)… Privilege to not be running from an abuser in the community… Privilege to not be vulnerable to power holders at work or in educational environments. Privilege to not have to fear losses among our family, friends, and neighbors should we speak too openly of our psychiatric histories. As you know, my parental status was threatened just a year ago when I shared a historical experience of seeing visions at a training. I know there are reasons of journalistic integrity that drive you, and that I also respect, but I hope that this can be something in the ‘food for thought’ category, as I worry that it may marginalize the voices of some of those folks who are most at risk. Anyway, food for thought.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
I just want to take a moment right now to highlight power dynamics. I’m so curious – anomie – why you chose to call Bob Mr. Whitaker? I am actually not trying to chastise you, I’m just really genuinely curious. I just recently wrote to the Commissioner of Mental Health in our state pushing on the idea that they call everyone by their first name except for doctors and the most senior officials in their systems… A small point in some ways, yet so illustrative of power differentials. I’m curious if it is coming from that place, or from a different place for you? I wasn’t going to ask, but I just kept coming back to this place and wondering about it.
-S
Report comment
I am confused about your response re: black psychiatrists. My main point in the article was that the virtual silence on what’s happening in the world at this moment in time is troubling, and brings me back to times when I was told that my other articles centering systemic racism were not relevant to this space, and I fear we haven’t moved beyond that. Then I explained why it is important that we move beyond that. I’m unclear how that connects to black psychiatrists being more or less oppressive than white psychiatrists, honestly. And as I mentioned in a prior comment, I’ve never suggested that they *never* do. In fact, at the very start of the piece, I cited two other times when they posted pieces by me and centering racism, and I’m surely not the only examples. But this is about now. And how important it is that we not be silent.
So, again, my points are that we can’t be silent on this topic right now, and that our liberations are intertwined, and well… all the other points I made in the article. If the article doesn’t land well for you, that is also okay, but I think I feel just as confused by your comment as you feel about the article itself.
-S
Report comment
Fair enough, You found a reference. My original point still stands. I never said that Mad in America has *never* addressed racism. I know it has. I’ve written *at least* four other pieces that were posted here and that centered that topic. Some of them I’d never write or would write very differently in current day, but they are there. That wasn’t the point. The point was that there has been almost complete silence on *this* moment in time, and no recent posts centering racism. And that we can’t remain silent because our “liberations are intertwined.”
Report comment
Meremortal,
If you look at the link you provided, only one appears to even be as recent as 2019. I do not think I ever suggested that there are *no* posts on racism ever. One of my points is simply that if psychiatry has been used so historically as a tool to oppress black and brown people, and if black and brown people are subjected to more force, harsher diagnoses, etc. within psychiatry… Then why aren’t the topic and black and brown voices better represented here? And even if George Floyd’s name weren’t mentioned here, why weren’t there even any mentions of the US currently basically being on fire? Part of my point here is that it *is* related. It is *all* interrelated, and it makes no sense to have the country be on fire and have there be such silence on a website that is addressing systemic oppression, particularly of a type that has swallowed so many black and brown people whole.
One additional point: We can’t possibly keep opining about the lack of representation from non-white voices at this table, without considering whether or not that means a different table needs to be built… In other words, if we aren’t even willing to mention the issues most deeply impacting so many black and brown people today, why would they ever see us as relevant? And if you think that the endless systemic racism and white supremacy that people experience in this nation isn’t part of what ends up driving them to the distress that lands them in this system… Well, suffice to say, it is all interconnected. But I already said most of this in my piece above!
-Sera
Report comment
Richard,
So, the meme that I posted is not my words. It is a meme circling the Internet, and that I have most explicitly seen posted by black people. They are not my words. I am supporting them.
While I think I get your point about – as a white person – not being beholden to ideas that may be coming from internalized oppression or are simply harmful… And while I *have* fallen into debates at times with – for example – black people who argue in favor of the existence of “reverse racism”… I nonetheless do not think we are going to come to a point of agreement on this. It is just too important right now that white people follow the lead of black people… That they make space for black leaders to fight out the best approaches… That space is made for people to move in a particular direction through their own process, and not be forced and pushed, even if someone is simply pushing them in what they think is the ‘right’ direction (and even if I would personally agree it is the ‘right’ direction).
I think white people *need* to have a place in the discussion, particularly when pushing back on other white people and using their privilege to push back on power in general. I think there is also space for us to ask questions that *could* support people to unpack and consider different ideas, or to share our own experiences at times. But systemic change has got to mean more black and brown leaders, not just more benevolent white people leading black and brown people in a different direction.
I know that’s not carrying all the nuance of what you are saying, but it’s how it boils down for me. I’m afraid we just won’t likely reach a point of agreement here.
As to the article you are referring to, I do not regret shutting that comments section down. Among the hundreds of comments remaining there, sure there’s some worthwhile stuff, and as we discussed earlier in this comments section, I have taken some commenter feedback to heart (e.g., not buying into the language of ‘loot’ and ‘riot’). However, that post was being flooded by horrible things, just like the Dear Man post was. Much of it has been moderated out, but it would not be fair to require me to have kept going with it and trying to keep up with the flood of awful, nor would it have been fair to others reading it.
Richard, I have now written over 70 pieces on Mad in America. Those are the *only* two pieces for which the comments section was shut down. I am generally fine with feedback or disagreement in comments sections of my articles. Even when I feel irritated by some of it, I do not request that it be erased, and as a moderator, Steve could tell you that – since Mad in America switched its approach to ‘moderate first’ – pretty much whenever he comes to me asking if I’m okay with a particular comment going through (if it’s on the line) I am typically in favor of letting it through and just responding to it. I am also one of the few authors on here who generally takes the time to response to each commenter on each piece at least once. That said, I also want to be clear that I – like all non-employee authors here – receive no compensation for my time spent writing pieces or responding to comments, and I have a limit to how much time I have given I also have a full-time job that consumes often 80 hours of my week, and two children. It would not be fair of people to expect me to be obligated to respond indefinitely to all comments on every article. The comments section for those two pieces went well beyond ‘okay,’ and I am glad they were closed. I’m not sure what to say beyond that.
-S
Report comment
It is true, John. There is so much work to be done in so many communities, groups, and organizations. Hopefully, many were already doing the work to support more black and brown people to take on key leadership roles. It’s multi-layered work that requires not just inviting people in to the existing table, but re-evaluating the table altogether and building new ones. (My comment for some reason posted way above your comment, so just re-posting it here.)
Report comment
Thanks, Berta! Glad to see you here. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
(Also, in my experience, sometimes if a space hasn’t been perceived as welcoming, or if someone hasn’t lived a life where they are quick to feel like they belong and have something worthwhile to say, actually intentionally reaching out to people can be a really important strategy.)
Report comment
oldhead,
I don’t disagree (particularly in the way you framed seeking ‘black support for the Mad in America agenda”), but I also think that sometimes in transition a lot of stumbling steps are needed, and recruiting black and brown people (who have a legit interest and something to say) seems valid to me as one of many efforts. It’s pretty hard to go from 0 to 60 in one step.
-Sera
Report comment
Meremortal,
That’s actually not consistent with my experience, or research I’m familiar with… It has actually appeared to me that black and brown people often end up even more deeply embedded in the system all too often, including heavier psych drug regimens, more force, harsher diagnoses, etc. And unfortunately, in many public sector hospitals and mental health service providers, they seem pretty heavily populated by non-white folks. Of course, not all black and brown people are the same, hold the same experiences, or respond in the same ways so that may very well be true for a number of non-white people… but certainly doesn’t seem true for all.
There’s also the matter that so many black and brown people get routed into the foster care and prison systems rather than the mental health system, so I’m sure that has an impact. And I’ve heard many other perspectives too including:
1. Black people (for example) already have a label that leads to systemic oppression (Black!) that has heavily impacted their lives, and they don’t really want to take on any psychiatric labels in a public sort of way.
2. Many non-white people are deeply involved in spiritual communities that have very specific views on emotional distress and that do not necessarily align that may serve as barriers to identify as someone who’s been psychiatricaly labeled.
I could keep going here, but I guess I’m just saying I think there’s a lot of complicated, layered issues here that include some of what you named, but a lot of others, too.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
It is true, John. There is so much work to be done in so many communities, groups, and organizations. Hopefully, many were already doing the work to support more black and brown people to take on key leadership roles. It’s multi-layered work that requires not just inviting people in to the existing table, but re-evaluating the table altogether and building new ones.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Hi Bill,
Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment. I’m struggling a little bit to follow what you are offering, and how it connects back to what this piece is about. Can you clarify a bit further?
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
anomie,
I think it’s on everyone. Mad In America staff, Mad In America authors, Mad In America commenters… If you want an example of problematic contributions from commenters, check out the Facebook post for this article. And yes, I noted to Pat that I am asking the comments to stay on track because it’s extremely common – when racism is the topic – for people to move and shift the topic to something else. I have a responsibility to keep an eye on that.
I think it’s a fair criticism of this piece that it wasn’t clear enough in its criticism of Mad in America oversight and their responsibility here. In truth, I didn’t name any specific group, and my point about the comments was more to say “I couldn’t even find a reference in the comments,” then to try and say it is the commenter’s responsibility to bring it up. I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer on that.
In the end, I think we *ALL* hold a piece of the responsibility… but yes, as always, the greatest burden should be held by those with the most power and privilege in each space.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Richard! I’m struggling to keep up with work at the moment, but really am interested to watch this, so will flag it for later!
-Sera
Report comment
markps2,
I am not sure it changes too much, though I’ve also heard they worked for the same business over the course of several years. I do not know that means it is any less an issue of racism and white supremacy… not only what Derek did, but the complicity of the other cops, and so on.
I worry about your recommendation for a psychology test for a number of reasons including:
1. We have all been socialized in a white supremacist culture. All of us. That means that pretty much all white people will sometimes do or say things rooted in systemic racism. That doesn’t necessarily mean we are doomed. But it does mean that we need to *all* stop with the defensiveness, and intentionally pay attention to that so that we can recognize it when it happens in ourselves and others around us and attempt to mitigate it, correct it, and apologize to those we’ve harmed along the way. (Etc.)
2. Even “good cops” are embedded in a criminal (in)justice system that is fundamentally rooted in that white supremacist culture. Weeding out those cops (or prospective cops) who are invested in actively *maintaining* that seems valuable, but ignoring that the system will generally force even the “good cops” to become complicit in awful things is necessary to make real change.
3. I am not interested in giving any more power or trust to the mental health system. Do we really believe that they’d be any more capable of psychologically evaluating for beliefs rooted in racism than much of anything else? Do we want to give them that power?
Although I’m in disagreement with your proposal, I nonetheless appreciate your posting your thoughts here.
Thank you,
Sera
Report comment
It is an important point, anomie. Thank you for naming it.
-Sera
Report comment
Sam,
I am not 100% sure I followed all the ins and outs of your comment, but to be clear, I am for sure not saying that racism is our only problem, or the only form of systemic oppression. Nor do I support those who are calling for social workers to replace police, as social workers/the mental health system are – as others have pointed out – is just another form of policing in so many instances and is quick to call in the actual police, too. I regard many of the people saying such things as well-intended, and harmfully ignorant. It is far too common that those who get topics like systemic racism simply have no clue about psychiatric oppression, and think the best answer is to incarcerate people in psychiatric facilities (aka “give them access to treatment”).
I have heard non-white people say “All lives matter.” It’s not my job or place to figure out why, though I will say that the majority of times I’ve heard that it’s been to largely white groups, and it’s hard not to wonder how some non-white people have been trained, and pushed, and punished into finding ways to signal that they are not a threat, and support white people. But, while I *have* heard *some* black and brown people utter that phrase, I have heard *far more* black and brown people be hurt by it. For so many reasons. Including that it represents an absolutely fundamental misunderstanding of what it means.
Here is a brief segment of what I wrote in a comment on Mad in America’s Facebook page post for this article. (Side note: One commenter noted that the comments section was like a “dumpster fire,” and I would not disagree.)
In reality, Black Lives Matter is not the same as saying ONLY Black Lives Matter. Rather, it is a way of saying:
* We must focus on those lives being treated as invisible or disposable *in order for* all lives to actually matter.
* We must focus on those being routinely harmed in order to lift them up…. no, not above us, but no longer below.
* We must recognize that – until we are able to find a place of equality, equity, and inclusion – it is essential that we keep naming that Black Lives Matter because that is not the message being sent or received at this time.
In any case, there’s much more I could be responding to or better understanding here I suspect, but I’ll leave it at this for now.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Well. I think many would say that psychiatry is also addressing a need to physically protect people from aggression, some of it criminal. And I would at least argue that *both* have roots in the effort “to mold and “adjust” the citizenry to the needs of the system, or the prevailing culture.”
Report comment
Thanks for your comment, Richard. There are a number of things I would change about ‘Baltimore is Burning’ and other things I’ve written related to systemic racism and police brutality. That includes not using ‘rioting’ and ‘looting,’ and I believe you were one of the people that brought that to my attention five years ago, so thank you for that.
And yes, I did not mention the role of capitalism and economic justice. My main point here was to draw attention to the silence on the topic at all, and while I certainly could have worked that in… well, I didn’t. But I do not disagree that economic justice and the systems that perpetuate it are central to the problem, and need to be central to the conversation about what to do about it.
As far as the second half of your comment goes… I do not disagree with all of it exactly. However, there is a ton of nuance and tension wrapped up in what you are saying. It strikes me as absolutely essential that we make space to elevate, listen to, and follow the lead of those who’ve been most marginalized. That simply can’t happen when well-meaning allies are constantly telling those most directly impacted by systemic oppression what to do, even if they really, really feel they know better. It can’t happen when those who’ve had the privilege to study concepts and language in school (and similar) attempt to overrun and speak over those who’ve had to actually live and learn to survive that which the others have primarily only studied. It also can’t mean just following along without any critical thought, or deferring to any and everyone whether or not they’ve internalized oppression, learned to act in the image of oppressors for survival’s sake, or simply not been supported to unpack all the crap they’ve been fed along the way. Somewhere in there, there’s a way to at least try and hold both of those points, however messily and imperfectly.
And yes, there’s also the matter of compounded oppressions, or even – as you noted – the central role of money and capitalism in all forms of oppression. I watched a film recently (The Uncomfortable Truth) in which one of the central people (a black man) speaks to how black people and poor white people should have been great allies. There is indeed much as play here that serves to keep so many of us “under.”
So, yes… being born with privilege (white, male, etc.) shouldn’t totally silence people… And, no… sometimes knowing how much privilege we hold *should* lead us to take a step back, even if not permanently… Because otherwise we continue to monopolize the space that is there. When I facilitate trainings – actually when I and/or any of my co-workers facilitate trainings – we include in our meeting agreements the need to sometimes take a step back or count to ten before speaking if you are someone who knows that you often speak first. This is because so many others need a moment to gather their thoughts in order to step forward, and will sometimes remain silent if all that space keeps being filled. This may be because of how society has trained/socialized them to defer to others, how they’ve been slapped back when they have tried to speak up in the past, for lack of trust in the room, because they haven’t had access to the education that supports others to use all the ‘right’ words and speak in ways identified by society as ‘articulate,’ or even just because their way of thinking and pulling ideas together takes a bit more time. Regardless, it’s not about those of us with privilege silencing ourselves forever, or following along without any critical thought at all… But it is about us recognizing how much damn space we’ve taken up at times, about how many others have never even been afforded the space to stumble around a bit as they grow into leaders, and about how sometimes shutting up is actually an important act of revolution at times.
What you’ve said is complex and important, and I don’t know that I’ve responded to it all, but this is what I’ve got for the moment.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Oldhead,
My time is really limited at the moment, but what I will say is this: Yes, absolutely systemic racism and capitalism/the need for economic justice are deeply intertwined, and have been since the beginning. And I would fully support the ‘defund psychiatry’ initiative, and it is not the first time I have heard that phrase over the last few months. Psychiatry has been used as a tool of oppression with many forms of systemic oppression, and certainly racism.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Hi Pat,
I do want to keep racism centered in the comments section here, but I am sorry that you have been hurt and also experienced discrimination, especially within your spiritual community. Feeling ostracized and marginalized can be so painful.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Rosalee,
Oh, goodness, that’s quite a twist!! I’m glad you survived… both the cancer, and the risk assessment… It’s amazing how people keep thinking these sorts of stories are the “exceptions” when there is so many truckloads full of them!
-Sera
Report comment
Ooof, I’m just seeing this now, but yeah, that’s scary.
It makes me think – unfortunately – of the guidance our own state is providing to hospitals on whether or not to *release* them from psych facilities to save them from danger of catching COVID through presence in a congregate living facility. They’re basically asking these facilities to consider whether or not someone is good about wearing a mask and doing 6-feet distancing… standards that NO ONE out in the world is actually being measured by as a reason to have their freedom taken away (well, unless they start following TAC apparently).
-S
Report comment
Hah, so many boxes to check in so many systems… And yes, there’s a whole nother zillion articles to be written on liability myths and realities, and how it all drives us. Oy!
-Sera
Report comment
Njinsky,
You’re right, it’s not so unusual… and yet, most people in the general world have no idea that’s the case! Thanks for sharing more yourself!
-Sera
Report comment
Sam,
There are so many terrible stories out there of these sorts of things happening. I wish we could all do a better job of understanding and sharing with one another the laws around how to successfully evade this sort of force. For sure, it seems ridiculous that basically a nationwide search could be issued and sustained over years for someone who clearly didn’t want to be caught. The story is so vague that I’m not sure what on earth to make of it, but it’s frightening nonetheless.
-Sera
Report comment
I’m not sure that I’m entirely following your post, Jen. This article wasn’t about “solutions,” but about that particular question, its harms, and the reality that providers exhibit dangerousness to us on many occasions. I also disagree that resources need to mean solutions. It is this idea that supporting someone through suicidal thoughts necessarily means that our actions must be designed strictly to get rid of the suicidal thoughts. Sometimes, the best “solution” is just being willing to be with someone in the darkness because “solutions” aren’t really possible at that time. We don’t have housing or steady income to give. We can’t raise the dead when someone’s grieving. We can’t zap away emotional distress, and when we temporarily numb it sometimes it actually gets in the way of someone’s ability to move through. The approach we use encourages validation, curiosity, vulnerability (including sharing on the part of the supporter), and community (looking at ways of expanding connections that might tether someone to this world), etc. But we also do all this without the agenda of making someone not kill themselves. Rather, we are looking to support them in the moment, and suicide “prevention” is a common side effect of that. There’s no way to write out easy answers, because the context of people’s lives are unique to them. As to resources, if you’re asking what the infographic is referencing then what I’m proposing is that people who can’t discuss suicide with someone without resorting to force etc have lists of on-line Alternatives to Suicide (or similar) groups, peer support lines that do NOT call 911 (Trans Lifeline, RLC’s Peer Support Line, etc.) on hand so that the person at least has the space to talk about where they’re at without being under threat.
-Sera
Report comment
RevenantXVI,
I’m sorry, it’s so awful when these facilities hide information and prevent people from the outside from even reaching the person locked up. I echo ThereAreFourLights’ question about your/your friends general geographic location.
-Sera
Report comment
30-Watt lightbulb,
Thanks so much for sharing your story. I feel like it would make a powerful published story about the absolute absurdism of the psych system, if you ever decide to write it!
Sera
Report comment
ThereAreFourLights comment is indeed a good one!! :p Thanks to them, and to you, o.o. for spending some time here. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Sam,
Hah, A co-worker (Sean) and I were just talking about what ‘safety’ means within the context of a film we’re working on (related to psychiatric oppression). It is indeed one of the trickiest questions they’ve got, especially as it relates to being a “risk to self or others.” So many words and all their special meanings in the system.. Oy.
-Sera
Report comment
Berzerk,
I’m not sure what happened, but I can imagine several possible outcomes to that that could be really harmful. I’m sorry that they violated your trust however they did. Someone mentioned Open Dialogue above, and from what I at least understand of how it exists in Finland, one of the key differences is that many people actually *trust* their system and reach out for help early on in their distress. Can you imagine living somewhere where the system designed to “help” actually helps more frequently than it hurts, and can be trusted in that regard? I wish I could.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks for your comment, Truth in Psychiatry. Open Dialogue is so interesting. I share about it often in trainings for a number of reasons, but – while I’m aware it’s happening – I’m not terribly familiar with the “Peer Supported” version, and I’ve heard real debates about how ethical it is to have peer supporters be involved. I’m not sure what to make of all that, but you’re absolutely right that the average “professional” is in a bind even if they want to do a good job of supporting someone through a really dark time based on what’s expected of them by their employer/the system overall.
-Sera
Report comment
dfk,
That’s a really interesting idea, dfk, and absolutely..this all or nothing way of thinking about people and their distress is really bizarre and harmful. As is the idea that most “normal” people don’t ever think about suicide. The reality is that most of us do, but even the “suicide prevention trainings” like “ASIST” make that seem shameful.
-Sera
Report comment
I’m sorry that happened to that person (and so very many others). As I noted above, there are many times when answering the questions “right” can help someone stay out of the system… But, of course, one of the great foundational problems of why we’re even here on this site having these conversations is that – when the system has an agenda for you – they have the power to make it happen in far too many instances without their ethics or ‘rightness’ ever being questioned (at least in a way that requires them to respond).
Report comment
ThereAreFourLights,
You’re right that some providers are willing to twist and look for signs of whatever they want if they’ve got a particular agenda… On the other hand, I’ve seen people who’ve been dragged through the system quite successfully give each other advice on things like how to answer the questions so as to not end up in a psych facility, etc. It’s one of the more valuable forms of “peer support” that I’ve seen take place. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Contemplating one’s own life or death (such as Camps spoke of) is indeed an important question that far more people consider than those who will admit to it. It is a far cry from that contemplation coming from another person, often in the spirit of assessing how much control they should wrest from you. :p
Sera
Report comment
Fiachra,
Yep, that’s the issue… When I facilitate trainings on this topic I and my co-workers spend a fair amount of time zeroing in on the fact that loss of power and control is a major contributor to suicidal thoughts and feelings, and examining how the system that’s trying to stop someone from killing themselves nonetheless immediately resorts to things that take power and control away… It makes zero sense, and yet it happens all the time.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Boans,
Ha, interesting question. Fortunately for you, were you to say that within the context of a risk assessment process, they’d probably rule you out for immediate use of force primarily because that’s a pretty long range plan, as opposed to an immediate risk. That said, I’ve seen providers who have an agenda to get someone in to a hospital use statements like “I have a plan” and simply write those down in their notes and leave out the broader details that make the risk seem minimal or at least not current.
And yes, the whole point of this piece really is that these questions aren’t a bad idea because suicide is scary and shouldn’t be talked about, but rather they’re a bad idea because they’re canned questions that usually signal “I’m going to try and take control now.”
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Haha. That’s my fav part of this, too, Steve. I’m wanting to develop a whole risk assessment for providers (to be used on them, not by them to be clear :p) soon!!
-Sera
Report comment
Berzerk,
Well, for what it’s worth, I want to offer that I think it’s best to be really cautious about asking those sorts of questions, especially without asking for consent first. Even people who share pieces of their story publicly aren’t obligated to entertain questions that are intrusive or feel entitled to information that person isn’t up for sharing.
That said, I have put myself in this public forum, and am pretty comfortable talking about suicide, so I feel okay going ahead and answering.
I have wanted to kill myself for a number of different reasons that have ranged from:
* Wanting my emotional pain to stop (moreso, if you will, wanting my pain to ‘die’ rather than my body… which is a way of thinking about things that I’ve learned through my co-worker, Caroline, and really resonates for me)
* Wanting the endless drudgery that requires so much of my energy and feels so pointless to be over… The waking up, the brushing my hair, the showering, the dressing, etc. … Over and over and over, often for no discernible purpose.
* Knowing that whatever pain I’m experiencing is temporary or will shift, and that all my fears of what people are saying about me/thinking about me are probably inaccurate should I only bother to ‘reality check’ them.. But also just being tired of that emotional roller coaster, and having to live in that place of worry/anxiety so much of the time.
* Money. Feeling like my debt will never be resolved, and will only get worse and worse, and feeling like I have no way out.
There are other reasons, but those come the easiest at the moment. And while I can apply ‘wanting to escape’ to each of those in their way… I also want to offer that when you ask, ‘What are you trying to escape from” it feels like you’re making an assumption or applying your own lens/meaning to my experience, and of all the things you said, that made me least want to respond. For whatever that’s worth.
As to how it makes me better equipped… Well, as Oldhead said somewhere above, I really don’t paint myself as an ‘expert’ in general (Well, he was talking about my not painting myself as an expert on non-existent things which is certainly true, but also I generally try to avoid the language of ‘expert’ in general.) But I absolutely do think having ‘been there’ is a really useful tool. It helps me think of questions to ask that might support someone to come up with their own meaning. It makes me a less threatening person to someone else who’s struggling similarly, because I also know what it’s like to have someone step in and take all my power away because I said words like “suicide.” It makes it easier for me to validate other people’s feelings of this nature because I have internal experience to draw from, as well. And while I don’t know what will work for someone else, I’ve had enough experience trying different paths that I know something about at least some of them which can also be useful.
Hope that helps.
-Sera
Report comment
It’s funny (loosely)… Until I read what Leah wrote, I hadn’t even absorbed that it was considered a “teaching hospital.” It’s a bizarre place in every possible way, including that it’s this awful gigantic building surrounded by a golf course, playground, and all sorts of other stuff and most people walking by and around it don’t even seem to know what it is. Actually, even a guard in a booth that led up to the hospital seemed unclear what the building contained when asked by one of our group.
-Sera
Report comment
Hi Rosalee,
Sorry, I missed your comment earlier! Yes, I do so wish more people who have his time and reach would invest their energies as you suggest… But alas, he seems much more invested in misunderstanding and misrepresenting… Sometimes intentionally it appears to me… Thanks for sharing the petition!
-Sera
Report comment
NotCrazyAfterAllTheseYears,
I totally agree. Jaffe is basically – in my experience – someone who discredits anything and everything that hasn’t been studied. Worse, he is someone who tends to discredit anything that hasn’t been studied in the ‘double blind’ blah blah blah supposed “gold standard” of research. The problems with that are many, including that even the supposedly ‘double blind’ research gets manipulated and misrepresented with frequency, and of course… some of those types of research are inaccessible to implement (way too much money, etc.) and simply not a match for treating everyone like actual human beings. It’s super frustrating in many regards, when the answer to his question would be answered pretty unequivocally by – as you suggest – simply asking people. But then, that would not fit his agenda either. :p
-Sera
Report comment
Hi registered,
I’m not sure how to answer your question, primarily because I don’t know quite what the answer is. You’re right. This space is still very much in the minority, and its audience is limited. The accusations, insults, and attempts to discredit are common and it doesn’t matter that they’re baseless because the people who hurl them are backed by the majority. It can be extremely frustrating.
What I can say is that I haven’t found it helpful to try and force people out of that other paradigm… Because force is force and so much of what drives so many of us in our distress is loss of power. However, if you have the energy for it, exposure to other materials and ideas and perspectives will eventually move some folks… Almost every person I know who is here having these conversations now was once in a very different place where they too would not have balked at a diagnostic and psych drug listing in their signatures… Some of them would even have argued vehemently that it was absolutely needed… Short of blowing up what is so as to force the system’s hand (as opposed to individuals) re: change, I think that’s about all we’ve got. But it can be a very lonely spot indeed. I’m sorry I don’t have a better answer, but for what it’s worth, I have seen many people move in that way over the years.
Report comment
Don,
It feels like you’re taking what I said a bit out of context and its actual meaning. I think it’s pretty clear that what I’m saying in that excerpt you’ve pulled out is that I do not think it’s okay to act as if what are often moreso inconveniences experienced by those who hold a significant amount of privilege to the deep and systemic losses of those who do not. But also, where you appear to be going with the rest of your comment isn’t a place I’m at all willing to go in this comments section. Perhaps others will be more available to that conversation, though!
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Itsrey,
Thanks so much for reading and sharing. I really appreciated it, and you totally made sense. 🙂 I absolutely agree with you … this idea that we need research to demonstrate what is so obviously true is absurd… And that – in the absence of research – some are powerful and/or privileged enough to simply deny its reality is completely infuriating. I’m sorry you’ve been harmed in the ways you have, and I wish that aspect of your story wasn’t so common. Thanks again. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Agreed.
Report comment
Eh, neither term is how I would choose to identify myself, oldhead. Sorry. Given that they are used to describe people, they are still labels even if labels representative of ideologies. Particularly the anti-psychiatry one doesn’t even do a good job of describing exactly what i think it truly means, and is too easily misunderstood or used as a label by which to dismiss someone. The anti-capitalist one is much clearer, but still I’m not going to slap it on my forehead. I said already what I mean… The capitalist nature of our system kills people, and necessitates the maintenance of groups that are at the bottom in order to keep others at the top, and so on and so forth. I can’t support such a mess, and I can’t really see a way for it to be different while still maintaining its central elements… So, call that what you will. 🙂
Report comment
J,
Yes, that’s certainly one of the underlying points of my piece, as well… For all its harms, let’s find what we can in all this chaos and make use of it. Thanks for taking time to comment!
-Sera
Report comment
Are you asking me that, oldhead? I mean, I’m typically not a big fan of so many labels or anti’s including ‘anti-psychiatry’ as I think you know… So, I don’t know if I’d be inclined to start labeling myself ‘anti-capitalist,’ but sure, yes, capitalism is a hugely problematic driver of what is destroying the lives of so many people, and the people who deny that are typically those who are most benefiting it *or* those who’ve gotten tangled up in fantasies that somehow, some day, they’ll be able to “show everyone” by becoming one of those ones, too..
Report comment
Rachel777,
“Now that I decided shrinks are full of it I’m no longer suicidal. Just angry.”
That’s so important for people to hear! Thank you for saying it.
-Sera
Report comment
Snowyowl,
Thanks! Yeah, it didn’t end up nearly as bad as it could have been, but was quite the experience… If you’re interested, I wrote about it here: https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/02/asist-suicide-prevention-training/
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Well, I think this is true to a point, but I think we have to also be cautious to not – say – equate the oppressive nature of the work of people in clinical roles with, say, the existence of people who get incarcerated in the system. Many of us do end being cogs in the system, and as was said in a preceding comment, much of psychiatric oppression isn’t about the obvious stuff, but the more subtle every day that many of us do somehow play a role in… But it’s not all equal exactly.
Thanks for commenting!
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Sam! And yes, that would be a really interesting approach/argument that I’d love to see work, though not – of course – how our capitalist interest-driven system tends to work the vast majority of the time.
– Sera
Report comment
Willoweed,
Absolutely, I totally agree… As with most if not all types of systemic oppression, society tends to identify the most obvious, outrageous things and talk about stopping those (or at least hiding them better)… But the more insidious bits of oppression – especially the ones that are most effective at getting someone to internalize the oppression – can be what makes so damn hard to find one’s way back.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks for reading and commenting, o.o. I’m not sure I’m following every sentence you wrote in this comment (the last couple of questions in particular), but I certainly agree that there’s a ton of issues in our own movement, including internalized psychiatric oppression that so many continue to spit back out onto others, as well as many other times of systemic oppression… And it seems that it is really, really hard for us to find a way out of that in said activist communities for a variety of reasons.
-Sera
Report comment
Michael,
I hear you. It’s really hard to know who on earth to trust now – or most of the time – as so many different interests cloud it all, and drive dishonesty, force, marginalization, and so on. That said, I think that’s a whole nother topic unto itself that doesn’t really negate that this may be a learning opportunity re: psychiatric oppression as well. Though, of course, psychiatric oppression is rooted back to many interests, dishonesty, force, marginalization, too.
-Sera
Report comment
Berzerk,
I’m a little unsure if I’m following what you’re meaning with the 9/11 video? In terms of my “expertise” on various experiences in the “mental health” system or with emotional distress… I’m someone who has struggled frequently with suicidal thoughts, been held in a psychiatric facility against my will, seen visions, had DCF called on me for vague worries that I’d be a danger to my kids because of sharing the experience of seeing visions in the past, etc. etc. I also have worked in different support roles, including for the last 13 years, as a part of the Western Mass Recovery Learning Community where we facilitate a number of groups related to suicide, hearing voices, and beyond, and also facilitate trainings on those and other topics. Don’t know if that helps?
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Oh, and one other thing, KateL… DJ is definitely not a doctor. He’s really mostly just a guy with a family member who has struggled and is diagnosed, and who has a ton of time on his hands to get Op-eds published allllll over the place. In fact, looking at his website with its list of places he’s been published or interviewed is one of the most depressing things I’ve done in a while…
Report comment
Thanks so much for sharing that story, KateL. Yes, I guess one of the things I wish for most is less than people fully “get it,” because that is just impossible when someone hasn’t been in it… and moreso that they get that they can’t and don’t get it. Asking you to go out and ask the people you’re desperately wanting to avoid coming to get you is kind of absurd, even if it makes some “logical” sense from the vantage point of one who already feels sure they weren’t there for you.
That said, I *have* had some (minimal) luck using exercises that ask people to consider losses for *themselves* without first telling them that those losses would mirror incarceration in a psych facility. If there were any way to just get people to understand enough about how painful loss is for them, and how much smaller that loss is than what is experienced in a psych facility… maybe they could at least have a little more humility in that regard.
However, often any humility found is fleeting for the sake of keeping things running… as another commenter suggested above. I continue to hang on to the fight that there must be some way, though…
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, kindredspirit. Yes, I do think you’re right that there is a need to keep not seeing in order to keep being in many regards. And yet, I don’t think we can stop trying.
-Sera
Report comment
Rachel777, I think you’re right about his response, unfortunately… But I’d be totally willing to fundraise for a ‘Make DJ Jaffe spend a week in a state psych facility’ campaign if I thought there was any hope of being able to carry it out.
-Sera
Report comment
Eh, Oldhead, I don’t really want to get into a conversation unpacking how much the media is or isn’t over blowing all this chaos. This piece doesn’t really attempt to take a stance on that, so much as a stance on how the response that is may have something to teach people about psychiatric oppression. I can at least agree that there is much to question in how the media and politicians have chosen to respond to all this in pretty much every direction, but what the truth is remains pretty obscured, I think. I can say, however, that I’m not aware of any other illness in recent history that has been killing people in institutions at the rate this one has. About a 50% transmission rate and at least 13 people dead in one of our MA psych facilities alone in the last month. I feel like some of the bigger picture stuff you’re referencing will be easier to assess a bit down the road, but I worry – as with so many things – it will remain hard to get at the full picture for a long time.
-Sera
Report comment
ThereAreFourLights,
I spent some time in a hotel recently which also led to my seeing commercials for the first time in quite a long time… And in the matter of about a day, I became a serious risk of smashing the TV for all those ads saying “We are in this together” in so many different ways, when that’s clearly not true for huge swaths of our communities. No less infuriating is all the money that must be going into all those ridiculous advertisements that could be going to housing, food, and so much else that could actually help in real ways. Oy. Anyway, thanks for mentioning this!
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Sam. You mentioned ‘less nearness’ in units. I’m not sure that’s consistently true. COVID is spreading through psychiatric facilities just like nursing homes and jails, and some hospitals are leaving up to 5 people per bedroom. Others have mostly continued holding groups with people too close together. And so on. There are reports of doctors still on the unit and refusing to wear masks. And then we mix that with the reality that many people in the psych system are more vulnerable healthwise, often *because* of the debilitating nature the “treatment” can have… Oy.
Anyway, yes, some have regarded this all as a vacation and won’t be impacted in the same way… but there are many, many others who have felt pretty impacted, so I hope there’s something to be done with that!
-Sera
Report comment
kuminiexile,
Yes, Robert Whitaker, has done a lot of important work, including developing this website! However, I don’t know that he or anyone else doing similar work has been able to infiltrate the political realm in the US in the way Jaffe has which is quite unfortunate and frustrating.
-Sera
Report comment
Fiachra,
Thanks so much for sharing that letter! And I know, it’s so incredibly absurd that he’d even try and suggest that nonsense. I’m sorry for all you’ve been through at the hands of all these systems.
-Sera
Report comment
Hi Paige,
Thanks for all you wrote. And yes, I was *just* talking with someone about the loss of Matt in particular just a week ago. But you’re right. So many losses. Deron Drumm, too, and I’m sure so many others we’re not thinking of in this moment. And you are absolutely right about people who are incarcerated in prisons, too… Honestly, everyone who was invisible is even moreso now. 🙁
-Sera
Report comment
Yeah, I hear you… it is a leap. So many people get caught up in everything else *but* the impact of the loss of power we inflict on people who are marginalized in this society. But I’m still going to hope we find a way. Thanks for reading and commenting!
-Sera
Report comment
Hi Boans,
Ugh to that quote! I wish people were better at balance… At trying to understand how their own experiences make build understanding of others experiences, without ever thinking they can truly know or have somehow experienced the same thing. I sincerely do hope people can begin to make the connection between quarantine and what it might be like to be held against your will in a psych facility, but *never* in a “Now I know what this is like” sort of way… Moreso “If this felt this bad, imagine how much greater of a loss that would be…” It’s a stretch to expect this to happen in any reasonable way, I know, but somehow we need to find a way for people to better understand the impact of loss of power on humanity. Doesn’t sound like the person in that quote is finding that balance at all.
In any case, thanks for your comment and for reading. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks for your comment, Steve. I agree that many are not seeking pain relief but connection, understanding, and support to make meaning of their own experiences.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Ken. I sure wish I could believe that, but while more alternatives are developing I’m not sure how many of them are developing *with* integrity or in great enough/accessible enough numbers… and at the same time, as watch nonsense like the White House Mental Health Summit and the number of places Dj Jaffe is showing up, I think we’re simultaneously losing ground. I sure hope some real change happens, but I’ve seen *so* much injustice in both the psychiatric and legal systems in the last year alone… It is indeed exhausting. But I appreciate your hopefulness and some of the work you’ve done to impact both the public opinion and alternatives pieces!
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, boans, yeah… it’s not just individuals psychiatrists… the system itself expects providers to protect not only themselves but each other…
Report comment
I don’t mean young idealistic law students. I mean some of us who already get it getting funded to become lawyers.
Report comment
Ah, yes, it’s funny how the very best cures to psychiatric diagnosis seem to include a mix of insurance running out and no longer being willing to pay and liability risk. I’m reminded of Jim Gottstein’s ‘transformation triangle’ through which he argues that it is creation of alternatives + shifting public opinion + legal pressure (I forget what language he uses precisely) that will lead us to real change overall. I so wish more of us could have gone on to be lawyers! I feel like serious money ought to be invested in sending folks who’ve been in the depths of the system and experienced psychiatric oppression directly through law school.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Rosalee! Yeah, you know, I should be completely used to all the hypocrisy and injustice at this point… Like totally used to and numb to all of it at this point. And yet somehow the stuff like what happened with the Suicide Prevention Coalition absolutely pushes me over the edge at times. It’s far from the worst that happens in this system given the numbers of people incarcerated in psychiatric hospitals and how they’re being treated there on the regular… But it’s such a symbol to me of just how absurd it all is. Thanks for reading and commenting!
-Sera
Report comment
True enough, and still really awfully gross. On the other hand, the person who had his “meds” changed did indeed stop wanting to push a complaint, so I guess it was super “effective” in its way. Ugh.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Someone Else! Ultimately, of course, I don’t know what an ‘I’m sorry’ campaign would actually do, especially in the absence of change… But I do think it is relevant to change, personally. On a number of levels. I’d be so curious to see it play out… I hadn’t really made the connections to religious texts that you have here, though, so thanks for that.
-Sera
Report comment
Fair enough, Steve. And yet, many people find it quite relevant, myself included… And perhaps most importantly, I believe it’s shifts toward saying “I’m sorry” and so no that may help some folks realize what they’re a part of. The vast majority of people working in these systems are not people wanting to do harm or people who consciously seek out to just control and silence… They’re simply playing a role that they were taught to play, and perhaps if we could get back to some of these basic human ways of saying ‘i see you, and i see my impact on you, and i’m sorry for that,’ the rest would follow? Honestly, while I get that ‘sorry’ matters far less than actually stopping the harm, I’m pretty perplexed that people don’t think those two things are pretty intertwined.
-Sera
Report comment
Oh, goodness, Oldhead. Sometimes I think you quite intentionally step sideways of the point of things. Not that what you say here doesn’t have lots of validity… It does, and you don’t need me to tell you that… but it’s also not really the point of this piece, which I think you know.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, John! You remind me of the time when someone we were supporting who was incarcerated in a psych hospital got very hurt during a restraint, and when I asked the psychiatrist what he was going to do about the way this person was treated, he said he’d already done it… “changed his meds.” Ugh.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks for your comment, Lametamor. I agree (if I’m understanding you correctly!) that there’s a certain play with dehumanization and objectification that happens in this system!
-Sera
Report comment
About the Love Story reference:
Heyall,
I was reminded by a reader that in Love Story itself there is a deeper meaning to ‘Love Means Never Having to Say Sorry’ that is more about having no regrets than what I write about here. I acknowledge that the story itself had a deeper way of looking at this phrase and that there is truth to that meaning that resonates with many. However, this is a phrase that has lived louder and longer than the meaning from the story, and is nonetheless problematic at least for its superficial appearance and how it’s been used since that time… And perhaps most importantly, what it meant in ‘Love Story,’ just isn’t what this article is about, so hopefully you can look past that even if you are someone for whom the actual book or film was beloved.
Thanks!
Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Anonymous17! You raise many important points here… there’s a couple that jump out most to me including how some people who are in traumatic, abusive, etc. situations are taught that they need to feel guilty/apologize for everything themselves… It’s a complete mind fuck! And some learn it from such a young age or such an abusive situation that they can’t see what’s happening… Others can see it but feel no choice but to go along with it (no matter how much it tears them apart)… and still others see it for what it is, refuse, and pay a price…and so on.
The second is how much people in activist roles or who are inspired by ‘the fight’ can lose sight of how hard and dangerous the fight can be for people in certain situations, and how one of the most insidious aspects of the system is how it rewards people for silence and punishes them for speaking up… And that can truly be dangerous for someone in so many different ways (psych drug changes, force orders, physical abuse, isolation, threats of loss of basic needs being met, and so on!)… And that just can’t be seen as the fault of the person who is just trying to survive in awful, unfair, and unjust conditions.
It sounds like you’ve been treated unfairly from many directions. Thank you for still showing up here, and taking time to share. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Hey Manyshev, Thanks for your comment! I’m not sure I totally follow, though… Do you mean neuroleptics help people contend with/stay calm when facing people in power? I suppose neuroleptics have different impacts on different people, but of course, I worry that for a lot of people (not all, but a lot!) the ‘help’ to not lose control actually comes in numbness and sedation rather than improved ability to navigate the world.
On the other hand, I definitely see (and maybe you mean?) the system use neuroleptics to aid in *their* not losing control/maintaining power. I definitely, for example, have seen a change made to someone’s neuroleptic drugs to quiet them down when they want to make a complaint against a hospital. (It was very effective.)
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Sam Plover! Yes, there’s so much else that could have been said here… So many off shoots, including how power also equals credibility (and how power calls upon others in power to protect one another), and how even (especially) a genuine ‘sorry’ knows that forgiveness isn’t required, and so on. Thanks for raising some of that here!
-Sera
Report comment
Just seeing this now, Oldhead! Interestingly, I went to school with Meatloaf’s daughter (Pearl) briefly (but long enough to attend her birthday party one year… So, I’ve got a strange extra interest/nostalgia for anything he does! I will definitely have to check it out!
-Sera
Report comment
I am frankly horrified that Mad in America would choose to circulate *anything* positive about this film.
The article above says: “But what the movie does quite brilliantly is make it clear that contrary to popular belief, anger and violence are not symptoms of any mental illness. Rather, they are normal reactions to a lifetime spent being treated like an outcast, ignored, taken advantage of, disbelieved, bullied and abused.”
Are you kidding me?!?! Wouldn’t it be lovely were this were true. It’s not.
Sure, people who are already familiar with trauma narratives will be able to pull this idea out of the muck. And yes, the film is well acted, and all that, bit let’s be serious here.
You have a film where a guy talks about needing his psych drugs increased, only to be his psych services are being cut… Then he laments he won’t be able to get more psych drugs with his services cut. Then he exclaims how he’s off his ” meds” right before *murdering* someone for the first time on screen (goodness only knows why he was previously locked up), and then to top it all off, he explicitly refers to himself as “mentally ill” immediately before shooting another person to death.
And you think the film doesn’t make connections between “mental illness” (particularly “untreated” by definition of the current mental health system) and violence?
Forget the (somewhat) “woke” folks who will be able to recognize the trauma narrative… what do you think the average person will take away from it? And how can a site like Mad in America willingly participate in that?
So disappointed.
Report comment
Thanks so much, Teresa. An uprising is sounding real appealing to me right about now. :p 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
I do see your name as attached, but yeah, it doesn’t seem to work if I were to search on your name, and I too only saw two of them. I don’t blame you for not feeling good about it. It seems like that section could use some work both for the sake of people who want to view the art, and those whose work is being viewed.
Report comment
Oh, okay, I hadn’t realized! There is an art section here (if you weren’t already aware), and I did find some of your images in that section once I knew to look for them, but they are right down at the bottom, that is true!
https://www.madinamerica.com/artwork/
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks for your comment, Phoebe. I’d personally love to see some of your art on Mad in America along with whatever experiences you would be willing to share!
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Sam! I know you’ve played that role for your wife.
-Sera
Report comment
(Although I also think kids can and should often be told more than people do, as well but what that looks like is a bit of a different conversation!)
Report comment
Thanks, Julie. Yeah, even people who focus on ‘alternatives’ often still have layers of internalized oppression (etc) to peel away… I’ve seen the ‘no graphic detail’ thing perpetuated in all sorts of communities, and few people ever seem to stop and ask ‘why?’ … And yeah, there’s still room to consider consent and environment when choosing what one will share and where, but that’s far from the overarching silencing we’ve got now in so many places.
Sera
Report comment
Thanks for chiming in, Catnight. Who knows what’s going on in the Trump family, but it doesn’t seem to be anything good… There is indeed so much corruption with power.
Sera
Report comment
thanks, kindredspirit. I am sorry that you’ve been silenced. And I totally agree with you that sometimes – although the ‘no graphic detail’ stuff is explained away to protect other trauma survivors, it is all too often about people in provider roles protecting themselves..
Sera
Report comment
Thanks, PacificDawn. I appreciate your taking the time to read and comment, even if I might not agree with everything you’ve said above. And, I do think some of what you offered above is tricky. For example, I’m not sure precisely what you mean by the Autism hoax… Many people have been forcibly diagnosed as autistic which is a huge problem.. But there are many neurodivergent people who also claim that label for themselves in quite well informed ways. They take that label with power, rather than in concession, and I do not feel it is my place to try and convince them they’re wrong. But again, I’m not sure what you were specifically reference.
And, of course, you and I have talked about drugs before, if I’m recalling correctly. I can’t stand with the idea of ‘no drugs’ across the board. As I’ve said before, drugs have been around in one form or another since the beginning of time. They’ve never been the root of the issue. How they’ve been used by *others* to control certain groups, coerce and force different groups… That’s one of the biggest issues as I see it. I personally don’t use psych drugs, and wouldn’t argue that they’ve caused great harm to many people. That seems factual rather than debatable! But I have other drugs that I do enjoy, however, and I know many others in my life use or have used various drugs to good effect for them. What I want is to be free to choose. While I in no way see your request for ‘no drugs’ as equivalent to those who’ve previously tried to push drugs on me, I’m still not interested in replacing one dictate with another.
Choice and power are where I believe the answers are to be found… Not abstinence.
I also feel confused by your comment about ‘no recovery programs.’ I don’t consider where I work to be a “recovery program”… We don’t even like to use that word ‘recovery’… But I do think people sometimes really do need connection points and support, and that’s also okay.
Anyway, I guess all this leaves me curious… What *do* you think should be available to help people who want support of some kind? And what would it look like to push back and seize reparations?
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Rosalee. It’s so frustratingly true that the systems bury the truth… All. The. Time. Yet, I guess what I’m really saying at the end of this piece is that the truth can set us free, *when its really aloud to be told, seen, and heard*… One of the most destructive things that power allows is the silencing and dismissal of that truth.
Report comment
Thank you, Tinni. There’s so much that is just not talked about in both life and death and our bodies. Too many “taboo” topics. It’s important to keep pushing back.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Thank you, littleturtle! Truth can be hard at times, but I agree that we need to hear it. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Hi Someone Else,
Thanks for sharing so much and going piece by piece in your response… I don’t know that – until quite recently – I’d thought of the mental health system as being complicit in covering up childhood sexual abuse, but I don’t disagree at this point. I don’t know that it’s intentional on most people’s parts, but any system that helps center blame in the individual rather than on the people and/or conditions that hurt them does indeed become complicit in allowing such things to continue. Thank you for helping me get clearer on that point!
-Sera
Report comment
KindRegards,
Thanks so much for your comment, and for noting the synchronicity of the comment and where your own mind was already at. Psychic violence is a great way to refer to it all. Thank you for that, as well!
-Sera
Report comment
LavenderSage,
Wow, that sounds intense… I don’t know if I could manage that level of … well… just the noise of all the pain feels like it’d be overwhelming to me. But, I feel like there are lots of people for whom that’d be powerful, and agree with you we need more space for it all. For me, the words are the key, but I know for many it is something different. Maybe I’d be better off if I could get to that level of rawness, but for now I at least don’t want anyone taking my words from me!
Thanks for sharing this experience!
Sera
Report comment
Steve,
I like that.. Psychiatry as “trauma denial”… So simple, yet I don’t know that I’ve heard it quite that way before. I appreciate and see great truth in your comment.
Sera
Report comment
Thank you, Jim!
Report comment
Thanks, Pat! I hear ya on not always reading through an entire article, or skimming a little too much. Glad that you found this one so readable! 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Jen! 🙂
Report comment
Jess,
I was at the National Council conference in Orlando when he offered his Ebola spiel. I missed out on his hazmat suit laden performance piece on the topic at AAS. :p Thanks for using those articles. It’s always good to hear when that’s happening somewhere.
And fair point re: AAS vs. other movement spaces… I agree that there are *tons* of issues within this world… I guess it’s just harder for me to personally take when we’re talking about a group that is always in the power position and perpetuating so many problematic things, including all that ‘safe messaging’ crap. :p
Anyway, thanks once again for this piece! 🙂
Report comment
Wait, you mean we shouldn’t all listen to David Covington when he compares Ebola contagion to suicide contagion? (And yes, I know his narrative around this is slightly more complex than I’m making it out to be, but really…)
I appreciate your overall point here, and will add this article to our resource list of articles worth reading on the topic… I have an article in the queue that has a similar message (although I don’t zero in on suicide specifically) called ‘No Graphic Detail.’ It does make me wonder how you have been tolerating the AAS scene, though!
Report comment
It will only continue to downgrade any quality and integrity of the peer role. We already know that CPS trainings are *HUGELY* problematic from states like New York. People *NEED* to gather in person and really grapple with the point of this work together. On-line simply doesn’t work.
Failed local CPS systems is not an excuse to further the failure with a terrible on-line system.
Also, you seem to misunderstand this national certification business. It’s only a test (that you have to pay a fair mount of money for). And if you don’t have any in-person training, you may not even qualify for it.
This is a money making scheme that will continue to do harm to any value peer roles actually have.
-Sera
Report comment
Don,
I was a little surprised by how much you said you liked the article on Facebook, and seem critical of it here, but fair enough! 🙂 I absolutely agree that the quote you pulled out is at the heart of what we are saying. Haven’t read what you linked to from Akiko (yet), but she does indeed offer many good contributions to these dialogues, and many contributions are needed as different ones will resonate with different people 🙂 !
Thanks,
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Rosalee. Yes, I love Caroline’s quote, and agree that ‘power’ is at the root of this and *so many* other struggles that end up getting labeled and wrapped up in our various systems.
-Sera
Report comment
Oldhead,
I think we are on the same page even about getting rid of the phrase altogether, as per this part of the article above!:
“1. Check your own ‘pill shaming’ narrative contributions: Stop writing “pill shaming” pushback posts. Stop ‘liking’ them. Stop sharing them on social media. Stop creating, buying, or wearing anti-pill shaming swag. Stop using the phrase entirely. Even if there’s some piece of the message you like, you’re contributing to a larger problem, so find a different way to address that piece and leave the rest behind. At best, the underpinnings of the ‘pill shaming’ accusation are misguided. At worst, they represent a concerted effort on the part of the current power structure to use us against ourselves, and they don’t need any more help. Seriously.”
Report comment
Anonymous2016,
Well, I’m pretty sure the point of the article is that the two sides are *NOT* equal, and that the ‘shame’ should be reserved for those who have the power and are doing the harm, etc. so there’s that…
And I guess you can say that ‘all drugs are bad for everyone’, but I personally don’t think it’s a useful or accurate statement… but yes, you get to make it. And no, I don’t think when you make it that makes you equal to those doing systemic harm or forcing people on drugs… But, I guess I’d ask that you consider what else is caught up in making such a blanket statement… Do you believe that we are the true experts on ourselves? Do you believe that we should get to choose whatever we feel helps us get by and make the most of our lives, provided its done freely and in fully informed ways? There’s several other questions I could add in here about disability, freedom to make choices, and all that, but for the sake of brevity, I’ll just say: If yes to those things – any of them – again, I just don’t know how you can then say ‘all drugs are bad for everyone all the time’… I think that is a harmful statement…
But in the end, the real point of this article was that the ‘pill shaming’ concept is a harmful one that is used by those in power to try and get us to undercut ourselves and each other.
-Sera
Report comment
Auntie Psychiatry,
I guess we were talking about the people who go after *individuals* who have chosen to take psych drugs and not try to come off of them either because the coming off is too hard (at least for now), or because they feel the drugs help them. I *do* think there is an intent of sorts to push shame on people in those situations for making the choices that they’ve made.
That said, while we wanted to recognize that that does happen and that it is harmful, I don’t think it’s any way equivalent to what is pushed on us by the system because it lacks power. And, frankly, I’d never actually use the term ‘pill shaming’ at all, because I do – as Oldhead said somewhere in this thread – see it as a term of the ‘enemy’ overall. That is a point we likely could have been clearer about, while still recognizing that it isn’t helpful and can be harmful to push ideas on people at the individual level or insisted that they are making the wrong choice for themselves.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks for your support here, Andylion. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Hi Annie,
Thanks so much for sharing some of your story here. It can be *so* hard to get off these drugs, even after all the risks and truth are known. It’s not a pain I’ve personally known. (Effexor was the hardest for me to get off of, but not by any stretch as hard as what I’ve heard so many people go through.) However, even having not been through withdrawal as intense as that myself, I’ve seen so many others try to make their way through it – some successfully, and some not.. And I am so horrified by how many doctors just want to deny that it is a thing at all. (I recently had a conversation with a psych doctor who works at a hospital that was offended that I even used the word ‘withdrawal’ in connection to psych drugs, because in her mind, they simply aren’t addictive.) Of course, ‘denial’ is yet another word that the system uses on us freely, but that we’re prohibited from using back against them (at least in any widely accepted sort of way). Thanks again for sharing some of your experience.
-Sera
Report comment
Thank you, LavendarSage. I suppose it is indeed something like that, although without all the power to hurt me in the way the system has. 🙂 But it’s okay. We all misunderstand or read into each other’s words at times, and for any number of reasons. 🙂 Provided we don’t have the power to force our perspectives on each other in any substantive way (as the system does), that’s okay. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Oldhead,
I’ve personally done away with referring to psychiatric drugs as ‘medication’ in standard practice, but the phrase that is used against is us is nonetheless “anti-medication” which is why we used it here. I agree it’s a distortion of reality and a marketing tactic, as well as one that attempts to enforce the system’s absurd differentiation between what they want to call us bad for taking (marijuana, heroin, etc.) and what they want to force on us (neuroleptics, and so on). It is – as you noted – in quotes here to suggest that it is not a term we buy into overall, but maybe you’re right that we need to be even more careful with it. I’m not sure, and will have to think about that.
Also, I *think* we were pretty clear here that actual oppression requires power, and those stating the harms of these drugs don’t have it… So, I’d not personally use the word ‘oppressive’ in any serious manner against people who take that stance. However, as also stated above, I don’t think it is especially useful for people to claim they know all that is ‘right’ for other people. Doctors certainly don’t understand these drugs and their full scope or impact, and neither do we… I’d rather be honest about that. Which isn’t to say we can’t know for our own bodies (at least, certainly better than anyone else), or can’t and shouldn’t speak of the very real harms and lies we *are* aware of… But there is a line that gets crossed that involves individuals telling other individuals what is best for them that I simply don’t think is helpful in any regard. More over, at least some of the ‘I know what is best for you stuff’ is intertwined with privilege, ableism, and so on.
However, none of that was the main point of this piece which is, simply(ish) put: There is no such thing as ‘pill shaming’ in the way it is described in the articles that circulate accusing people of it, because all the power lies on the other side (those who push people to *take* the drugs sometimes under threat of force or loss of liberty), and we have every right to be out there talking, yelling, and screaming about how we’ve been harmed and how the pill pushing – backed by capitalism and corporate interests and the desire to control – is full of lies.
That we think – in offering up that message – that there needs to be nuance and effort to avoid erasure or denigration of those who (being the experts on themselves) knowingly and in well-informed ways decide that psych drugs should be a part of their lives seems to be what has tripped things up here for some, but I guess I’m okay with that.
-Sera
Report comment
Hi Olga,
Good to see you pop up here. 🙂 Thanks for reading, and taking the time to comment! The actions that harm us in the psychiatric system are the ones that ultimately harm us most in the moment, but the system’s ability to control the words that are used to define and explain us and all that happens around and to us are what – I believe – really stick with us over time. It’s so painful.
-Sera
Report comment
Diana,
I think that’s for sure true that people with a lot of privilege are sometimes the ones that are making this argument… I think others, though, have been at the depths of having no privilege at all and it’s just to painful to think that they got where they are because they were lied to… I’ve literally had people say (in trainings where I’m offering some of this info), “Are you saying that maybe my life didn’t need to be like this?” That’s really painful. It’s a sort of grieving. Sometimes people make their way out the other side, and sometimes it is just too much pain… or too much perceived risk (especially if their whole life – housing, income, etc. – revolves around that identity)… It’s comlicated, but I appreciate you bringing up the privilege end of that, because that’s definitely a part of the story!
-Sera
Report comment
rasselas.redux,
Hmmm… An interesting point you’re bringing up. I wonder if that’s truly ‘power’ or more ‘learned helplessness’ that you’re talking about, though? Or learning how to play a system and meet needs based on how the system has played us? I’ll think about it more.
Thanks for bringing it up. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Rachel,
I think that’s very true… and of providers who have spent a bunch of money on education, as well! Thanks for making mention of it.
-Sera
Report comment
Fortunately, it’s not the majority, kindredspirit!! Just a handful here, it would seem, and given so many others have found it to be clear, it’s hard not to imagine that at least some people are just skimming and making assumptions. Fierce debate is fine. It would just be good to be debating over what was actually said. In any case, I’m not going to keep arguing on this point. People are welcome to respond how they are… It’s just frustrating.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Richard! I appreciate your taking the time – as always – to write such a detailed response. I’m in agreement fully that the shame should be on those who are using power to silence and withhold truth.. Particularly appreciating your last paragraph. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Hi all,
I’m writing this comment separate from response to everyone’s individual comments just to try and make a point here that I find myself repeating through a number of the comment threads:
No one is obligated to like or support this article. However, I do feel frustrated by the apparent misunderstanding of it through a handful of the comments being made, and I want to clarify.
This article was written with a lot of intentional nuance and balance, but the fundamental underlying point here is that we find the ‘pill shaming’ concept to be highly problematic, which I hope is clear from the bolded quotes even if you don’t read anything else. In fact, we have buttons made up with some of those quotes that we take to conferences in an effort to push back on people who would claim ‘pill shaming’ when another person simply speaks to the harms they’ve suffered at the hands of the psychiatric system, or when they speak truth about what science *actually* tells us about psych drugs and their efficacy and potential harms.
Where people seem to be getting lost – as best I can tell – is in our recognition that there *are* sometimes people who claim that no one should ever be on any kind of drug or that they know that anyone who says drugs help them is somehow misguided or “deluded”. People who push in this way are *NOT* equal to the system that pushes drugs because (as we say several times in the article) those people have no systemic power.
However, my personal wish is that this movement will eventually get to the point where the focus *is* on power. Not on ‘recovery’… Not on what people should or shouldn’t be doing… but simply on their right to have real information, make real choices, be treated equally where their rights are concerned, and be the holder of power where their own lives are concerned. And along with that hope is one where once people’s power is restored, that we are clear to not tell them what they should do with that power, even if that means they make different choices than we would like. Because if we can’t let go of that agenda – even if we are for more right and more justified than others in what we believe – we just contribute to chipping away at that power once again… or at least don’t contribute to people really owning power for themselves.
I’m sorry if some of my responses above have been snippy, but it is hard to put something out there and then have it not be heard for what it actually says… again, hearing does not need to mean agreeing… but it’s the lack of hearing that feels most bad. Thank you to all of you who have taken the time to truly take it in – whether you agree or not! 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
PacificDawn,
You are welcome to oppose the article. That’s fine. People can speak their truth about anything, including this article, provided they are speaking to what it says. (And I guess even if they’re not, although that’s substantially more upsetting because it feels like we’re being used to make a point that’s not representative of what we worked hard to say and being misrepresented in the process.) I personally would and do feel quite denigrated by the idea that I don’t know myself well enough to know that the drugs I *do* use to numb out some time (not psych drugs, but alcohol for one), and that I’m somehow a ‘victim’ as a result of seeing the value in that for myself… It also feels hard to hear that I’m somehow also not able to do the work that I apparently need to do to process my feelings, etc, if I’m using such substances and am somehow – if I’m reading you right – lesser than for that.
Drugs have been used since the beginning of time to bring about experiences or numb out from them. I do not think that is the issue. It’s the power that comes behind them, in a system that feels it should get to say ‘We force (or punish) you not to take this one that we’ve labeled as bad, and we force you to take this one that we’ve labeled as good and punish you if you try to resist’ while using that same power to lie about why… that’s the problem. The people who then come along and tell me that they also thing I’m bad or wrong for choosing what I do take even in the most well informed way don’t have the same power or cause the same harm in any way, but they surely don’t help.
-Sera
Report comment
Nijinsky,
I didn’t accuse you of not reading. I said it was hard to tell where you were coming from, and hard to tell with most comments… But some of them – those that accuse *us* of shaming people for speaking truth – certainly indicate they didn’t read it at all. Which is – I would hope you understand – quite frustrating.
The article doesn’t ask anyone to silence their own truth or the overall truth about psychiatric drugs or the system. Quite the opposite.
-Sera
Report comment
Njinsky,
Yeah, I think that’s very true: That one can’t argue with someone on psych drugs. I’ve been incredibly frustrated many times by seeing people who are shaking, falling down, etc. and are just at least appearing to be regurgitating what they’ve been fed for so long that this is what ‘recovery’ looks like for them and they’re doing so well (because they’re not getting in trouble)… I regularly share in trainings that there is usually a small group of people that seem to do better on psych drugs longer term in most studies on psych drug efficacy, but that a) We don’t know why and if it is really all about the psych drugs or some other factor given the limited options available for alternatives and b) that small group is tiny compared to the number of people that are *told* in the US that they need to be on psych drugs… and so, if 20% do actually seem to do better, but 100% are being told that they are that 20% (if its even true about the 20%) … what do we do about that?
Honestly, I believe wholeheartedly what we said in there about the most important thing being about people having their power back, and us not worrying so much what they then do with it. Even if we are far more “right” about what would be useful to them, taking people’s power away isn’t useful and often just results in a power struggle. I feel like when people find themselves arguing with someone about what would be right for that person for themselves we’ve lost our way. We have a job to put information out there based on our own experiences and based on science and truth and all that. We have a job to illuminate paths. But the moment we start pushing someone down a path, we are failing to do that most important thing… focus on them holding their own power. We can’t claim people know themselves best and then tack on ‘unless you’re on drugs… then we know better’ without invalidating so much of what we say (those of us who say/believe that anyway). I don’t think it’s comparable in any way to what the system does when we do choose to argue and push an individual person because we don’t have any systemic power… but I still think it means we’ve lost their way.
I’ve seen *so* many people get mad at first when just presented with information… I’ve personally been attacked during trainings for unraveling the ‘chemical imbalance’ theory for people because – even though I’m speaking truth – it shakes their belief system about themselves too much. And while I do *NOT* owe it to them to stop sharing that… not ever… I *do* owe them the right to go through their own process with it…
So yes, ultimately, “It’s their life”, as you said, and we’ve got to focus on illuminating life’s potential and psychiatry’s lies without getting too stuck on the idea that everyone therefore needs to come to the exact same conclusion for what that means they need or want to do.
-Sera
Report comment
Rachel,
I don’t disagree with most of what people are saying in the comments section about ‘pill shaming’ (which includes pretty much anything that’s been said right up until it gets to the point where people start claiming that *every and anyone* who chooses to take them is wrong, deluded, and should be regarded as lesser than or what have you), and that was kind of why we wrote the article and have made buttons that we bring to conferences with the two of the three bolded quotes in the article (which were written by me, but inspired by conversations with Caroline). It’s just frustrating to see the finger pointed at us in these comments when there are so few articles pushing back on the ‘pill shaming’ concept and we worked pretty hard to write an article that pushed back on the silliness and harmfulness of ‘pill shaming’ in alignment with most of those comments and people aren’t taking the time to see that.
-Sera
Report comment
Nijinsky,
I’ll be honest that I’m having a hell of a time figuring out whether a lot of these comments (not just yours) are misunderstanding our article and criticizing/attempting to educate us, or if they’re just riffing on their own take on things. In any case, as someone who has spent literal years, writing, training, and making films about the lack of real evidence of ‘chemical imbalance’ any any number of other elements to do with the psychiatric system, you’ll get no argument from me for most of what you say. And yet, I’m not going to argue with people who say that they want to be on psych drugs and that they’re somehow helpful to them. Pretending I know someone else’s truth – everyone else’s truth – is not something I’m willing to do. It’s a replication of the system that we fight against… I’d rather live in the ‘I don’t know’, so long as we also get to be really clear that the psychiatric system also clearly don’t know either and shouldn’t get to pretend that they do.
-Sera
Report comment
PacificDawn,
I quite enjoy my altering drugs when I have them… They just aren’t psych drugs which I refuse to touch for a number of reasons. It’s hard to tell from your comment – as it is unfortunately hard to tell from many of the comments here – if you read through the entire article and saw that we very clearly took a position *against* ‘pill shaming’ being a legitimate thing. HOWEVER, at the same time, I’m not comfortable with speaking against people who take drugs (whatever drugs they choose) to numb feelings at times, as long as they do so knowingly (knowing that that’s the goal, knowing the risks of doing that, etc.). The problem isn’t that people sometimes want to numb out (frankly, I’d like to numb out after reading some of these comments that so blatantly speak to people not having read what we put quite a lot of effort into writing and fully intend to do so a bit later), it’s that those in power want to force, coerce, and trick them into doing so and in ways that come with dire consequences for those that would be numbed.
-Sera
Report comment
Kindred Spirit,
Did you *actually* read the article? Your response suggests not. It’s primarily a push back *against* people who claim ‘pill shaming’ is a legitimate phenomenon. While we acknolwedge that it is largely unhelpful for people to say ‘all psych drugs are bad for all people’ and try to push people into getting off of them, I wonder how you could read lines like:
“At best, the underpinnings of the ‘pill shaming’ accusation are misguided. At worst, they represent a concerted effort on the part of the current power structure to use us against ourselves, and they don’t need any more help. Seriously.”
Or
““We’re not pill shaming you. We’re just sick of watching people fucking die.”
Or
“Speaking truth about bad science and psychiatric oppression does not equal ‘pill shaming.’”
And see this article as one that is supporting the ‘pill shaming’ concept overall.
Balance is important. So is actually reading what you seek to critique. :p
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Catalyzt.
I do hope that you hear (and I can’t quite be sure from what you’ve written) that we ultimately really don’t want to create an environment where ‘pill shaming’ is lingo that is put upon people, or that the people who’ve been harmed, forced, etc., carry the burden of needing to worry too much about making people who do take psych drugs uncomfortable. Ultimately, we want an environment where all the truths are able to be spoken without any back pedaling… One where we stop short of blanket statements about all drugs being bad and all people who take them being bad, wrong, misguided, ignorant, etc (we need not diagnose each other any more!)… but where we speak truth and get to express our anger at all the bad science and pushing of drugs that come at us without anyone trying to undercut us by calling us ‘pill shamers’ because in the end pretty much all the force and power in this society is on the side of those who push the drugs on us. So, yeah, agendas and blanket statements and intentionally trying to tell other people they’re bad for not choosing the way you have chosen isn’t generally helpful (and, as you say, doesn’t typically move people toward where you’re actually trying to move them even if it *would* be useful to them to move in that way), but I hope you get to continue to speak your truth with all the passion and anger you hold and without needing to back pedal. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Can’t believe what, Oldhead?
Report comment
Johnnyb,
I can appreciate what you’re saying, but I think it’s a bit more complex than that. I rarely here from people who feel they also haven’t been harmed in some ways, for example. That is actually a really interesting topic, I think, because sometimes (most of the time) when someone says ‘the hospital saved my life’ the system just says, “look what we did! hospitals are great!” But few really stop and say, “What exactly was it about your hospital experience that you feel helped, and were there other things that also hurt during that same experience that you wish hadn’t happened?” It’s weirdly all or nothing on a number of levels, and then when we offer any critique of that *we* are the ones painted in that way in an attempt to dismiss us.
In any case, I think a lot of people *do* talk about shaming people who use drugs, cigarettes, etc… talk about AA/NA as very shaming at times, etc. etc… But yes, I think overall I get your point and your right that there’s a boat load of hypocrisy wrapped up in all this and how socially acceptable drugs are regarded and responded to vs those that are not socially acceptable (and socially acceptable has little to do with what is *actually* most harmful). And yes, if each person didn’t have to fight for the power (within or outside of themselves) to simply be who they are and be confident in that, so much would be better… but so much of that is wrapped up in the environmental conditions we all live within that it seems quite the challenge to get there!
-Sera
Report comment
Dmshanin,
I am afraid I can’t agree with a lot of what you are saying here. I know people in my own life who are quite well informed, and hold quite a bit of power, who still choose to take some of the antidopmanergic drugs you are taking at least on an intermittent basis. I also know many many people who experience them and the reasons they ever took them in a way that aligns with what I understand to be your experience.
Some of the point of this article is that it’s generally *not* helpful to put on other people blanket attitudes that assume everything is exactly the same for us all… including things like that psych drugs are uniformly bad and useless for everyone, or that everyone who agrees to them suffers from Stockholm syndrome. However, the larger point of the article is that even though being told something like “you take these drugs because you suffer from Stockholm syndrome” can be hurtful and lead someone to feel pressured, since *all* the real power is in the hands of those who *push* these (yes often harmful and ineffective) drugs, that it’s silly to suggest that making someone feel bad in that way is in anyway equal to actually hold all the power to force them to do anything or influence enough of society to even make the more subtle pressure consistent.
Again, written from a treadmill so a bit more clumsy but hopefully still clarifying…
Sera
Report comment
Nchurch,
Thank you so much for your comment and for putting to words so well what it can feel like to feel so powerless that you need to hide your humanity and light in order to stay some approximation of free that isn’t really very free at all. That can be so painful, and so soul crushing. I’m sorry that that is your experience, but thank you for sharing a piece of it.
Sera
Report comment
Eh, as we said, we have “intermittent respect” for the output of those outlets… not constant. But each of those has certainly sometimes put out useful things and I’d look there before I’d look many other places. But regardless, a critique of which media sources we each like is relatively irrelevant to this topic. Our point was simply that we are starting to see these “pill shaming”-type stories popping up from an array of sources.
Sera
Report comment
Auntie Psychiatry,
Do you mean the really small group of people who do seem to actually go after the people taking the pills in pretty relentless ways or do you mean something else?
The main point of the article was that “pill shaming” isn’t really a thing, for the most part… that it’s often about something else in the little ways it does happen, and that mostly the term is a misunderstanding of or misuse of power because the very few people who actually criticize people for taking psych drugs still don’t actually hold any power over them, and the argument that “pill shaming” is this real and frightening thing that is somehow equal to the force and coercion out there that makes people think they have to *take* drugs is just off base.
Sorry, I’m writing clumsily from the treadmill so that’s also a clumsy synopsis, but I guess I’m just trying to understand why you are asking Caroline and I for real examples when our emphasis is on pill shaming being an over blown often manufactured sort of thing?
That said, I think if you look around Mad in America in some of the comments sections you will occasionally see the people that absolutely do think we should be telling every single person to get off their drugs and that any person who wants to take them … not just the people who – from a big picture perspective – think they do more harm than good or that we as a society are unable to ethically handle prescribing them without resorting to force and coercion – but those who think that anyone who says they truly benefit from them is just misguided or brainwashed and tells them so. It’s not common, but it happens every now and again.
Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Rachel. And, yes, indeed… shame on the people who attempt to center all the problems in so many different ways within the people they are charged with “helping” ..
Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Miranda! Would love to contribute to the parents section. I haven’t spent too much time in the parent’s section just yet, but will take another look 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Not sure what your comment means, Lauren?
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Rosalee! Yeah, so many reasons – both individual and societal – that people seem to get so locked in to defending what shouldn’t be defended.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Rachel! And ah yes… ‘insight’… It only counts if you come to the same conclusion as them. :p
-Sera
Report comment
Hah, thanks for this example, Julie. It’s a good one!!
-Sera
Report comment
Oldhead,
I’m a *huge* fan of ‘I don’t know.’ There’s something so radically not radical about admitting you just don’t know… It’s like blasphemy in this mental health system, and yet so important. Doesn’t fix many of the underlying problems, but at least it leaves more room to talk about them.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Fiachra! I will check out the link.
Report comment
PacificDawn, Thanks! I’m not familiar with Alice Miller’s work. Thanks for outlining so much of your perspective, and that of so many others with whom I’ve not previously been familiar!
-Sera
Report comment
I wish I could say it weren’t a common phenomenon..
Report comment
Thank you for this, Mitzy. Deron has always been one of my favorite people. We drifted a bit, because – I think – he found his inner peace and actively pursued that path, and I’ve stayed more angry. But I’ve still always so appreciated his existence, and his work, and knowing he was just a (relatively) short drive away pushing for similar things, even if in different ways!
I’m going to do my best to remember lots of moments with him… at protests and rallies, driving along the California coast and sharing the terror of being so close to the cliffs, and staying up late (for Deron!) talking about silliness and seriousness in equal measures.
Thanks again,
Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Teresa! Audaciousness is a great word for it all 😉
-Sera
Report comment
Hey FreeDom,
I could have sworn I replied previously, yet my reply seems not to be here, so trying again…
I particularly appreciate your last paragraph about just how hard it is to get people to believe any of the truths, once they’ve bought into the myths… Because giving up the myth means so much more than just believing the one truth that with which they might be presented in that moment.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Well, yeah, I mean, overall I agree with you.
But, for example, the Informed Consent laws I’m aware of require:
* Doc to inform someone of the potential risks and benefits of the proposed treatment
* Doc to inform someone of the potential risks and benefits of any *alternative* treatments of which they are reasonably aware
* Doc to inform someone of the potential risks and benefits of doing nothing
So, even if they stop short of calling “bullshit” or saying “I really have no idea what I’m doing, but this is what the latest pharma rep suggested when they stopped by my office”… the above sure would be a nice change. But most doctors don’t come even close.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Jim! So frustrating (and understatement) and unjust, I know.
-Sera
Report comment
Hey Pat,
Wasn’t sure which “weird thing” you were referring to?
Either way, thanks for reading/responding 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Alex,
Yeah, I get what you’re saying and how my comment could be read. In my mind, I was thinking of a particular group of people including Kevin Hines who are basically just going around and telling their stories to make everyone feel good, but kind of supporting the systems way of being at the same time.
And yeah, I think you could rightly accuse me of being invalidating of that specific group of people, I suppose. But I frankly had a *huge* reaction to hearing Kevin for the first time in person… His story no longer sounded like his story. It sounded dramatized, like a one-person show… and a one-person show that supported many of the things that so many of us are trying to rail against. And I don’t know if I’ve *EVER* received so many e-mails as I received in promotion of his film (which, in fairness, I have not yet seen).
So, I suppose you could say I’m being unfair to him, and maybe I am. I’ll just have to accept that as one of my many flaws. But it just feels so very far away from genuine sharing to me, and he has such a big platform.
-Sera
Report comment
Hi CatNight,
Thanks for sharing what you’ve seen. Ah, truth in advertising laws… Unfortunately, of course, there *are* some laws (e.g., Informed Consent laws) that *do* suggest there should be ‘truth in advertising’ (at least a lot more truth than there is now), and yet those laws are wholeheartedly ignored without any negative consequence (for the folks responsible for upholding them, yet who are not). So many broken systems complicit with one another in making things what they are these days.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Sam. I think what you say is true, but especially challenging when people have been marginalized *before* they open their mouth, I think! Lots of screaming into the void, indeed!
-Sera
Report comment
rasselas.redux,
As Steve already pointed out, what I’ve written is about the way stories are handled, restricted, and used and often *not* about the stories themselves. In the case of AAS, I’m not referring to the specific stories at all. I haven’t read most of them. And I don’t think of the authors as “victims”, even if I wish they wouldn’t have participated. For example, I know Leah Harris reasonably well, and I certainly don’t think of her as a hapless victim fallen into a system’s trap. And I’m sure some – maybe even all – of the “winning” stories have value. I do personally take issue with some of the folks who’ve kind of made their careers off this struggle, and go around endlessly telling their stories *without* being clear about what needs to change, or having much experiencing in supporting others to move toward that change because I do feel like I see them getting used. And, I did get pretty uncomfortable with Des’rae’s partner commenting that they’re riding her “suicide star” to fame (I don’t remember quite exactly how it was phrased, but it was something like that) in the ‘S’ word, but all of those things are at least somewhat different topics, even if overlapping.
So, yeah, I am speaking about the contest itself. What it calls upon people to do. How it uses competition between people for these limited amount of funds, yet fails ENTIRELY to actually value their voice beyond the perceived value (often *entertainment* value, in my experience) of their story by not making the conference ITSELF accessible, and so on. As I already said in the article.
As to the Legislative Breakfast, that’s a whole ‘nother example of this phenomenon where they tend to take people who have very little experience sharing their stories and (as I’ve heard with my own ears) sometimes give *very specific* instructions about not saying anything too negative about any mental health service, and then stick them up there to succeed or flounder (often the latter) and ultimately ask for no real change. It’s PAINFUL to watch. And different than the AAS contest. But under the same umbrella.
In any case, I stand by everything I’ve said in the article above.
-Sera
Report comment
Mecarlym,
Thanks for reading and for your comment. And yes, you’re right. It is so hard to figure out how to navigate challenging the way this works, when we are ultimately talking about people’s personal stories and sharing. Yet, it is indeed often fairly apparent when people are being used or shoved in one direction or the other as to how they tell it… And when that story becomes something else other than entirely theirs.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Steve,
Yes, indeed… “Insane” is a good word for it, but I suspect the ASIST Master Trainer, and the QPR CEO would disagree. :p
-Sera
Report comment
Too true, too often. 🙁
-Sera
Report comment
Fiachra,
Well, I don’t know if I’d go quite as far as saying it only exists outside of the “medical” system, because I think there are few absolutes and I don’t want to rule out anyone’s valid stories… But, I will say that both research and my own experience resonate with what you have to say in that the medical system sure does seem to do a LOT of *getting in the way* of people actually moving forward and beyond such struggle.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Thank you, Rosalee! I’m going to be headed to a “Legislative Breakfast” at the end of this week that is inevitably going to include stories that fit the format you, I, and so many others are pushing back against. I wonder if I might ever reach a point where the screaming in my head while I’m attending will start to come out of my mouth. :p
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, plebtocracy. When I start to think about all the aspects of our society that function in similarly exploitative and corrupt ways I feel a little overwhelmed. And yet, we do need to keep our eyes open lest we get sucked into thinking its okay when it all so clearly is not.
-Sera
Report comment
Got it. Okay, thanks for clarifying! 🙂
Report comment
Danzig,
I always appreciate a good calling out of psychiatry for what it is vs. what it pretends to be!
-Sera
Report comment
Nijinsky,
Thanks for popping up and commenting. 🙂 I’m not sure I totally followed your comment, but I get the undercurrent of “non-compliance” and refusal to conform and all the power (as well as pain) that there is in that, I believe. 🙂 And, I can always appreciate that!
-Sera
Report comment
Icagee,
Thanks so much for what you shared. How the legal system functions and intersects with the psychiatric system is so infuriating. I see horrific examples of it all the time, and most people don’t bat an eye because they – once again – think it’s all “for our own good”. It’s really terrible. I’m sorry for what you’ve had to go through.
Sera
Report comment
Apparently not if it’s “for your own good”!
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Anonymous2016!
Can you just clarify… I’m not sure what you mean here:
But here’s the thing. How do you you learn anything from it if it’s not the truth and the bare and brutal truth. The fact is, we will never learn by sugar coating anything. It’s just not done that way and we’ll never change anything. The truth is uncomfortable and so is making change, one cannot be done without the other.
You write that as if I had said things should be watered down… I can’t tell if I’m misunderstanding you, or you misunderstood me? But, regardless, I’ll just say nothing I wrote above was meant to suggest we should have to water ourselves down, although I did talk about how people often ask us to do that either “for our own good” or to prevent them from feeling uncomfortable… Neither of which I agree with…
Anyway, thanks again for reading and taking the time to comment 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Wishing I’d read the WHOLE “participant guide” for the AAS story contest before finishing this story…
Some highlights include:
* There’s a $10 fee to submit your story to the competition
* There’s a “guide” on “safe” writing about suicide
* There’s a warning that writers’ submissions will be evaluated by judges who are mental health professionals, and that they may be “contacted” if they are believed to be at imminent risk
Oy.
https://www.suicidology.org/Portals/14/docs/Writing%20Contest/2017/ParticipantGuidelines%202018%20contest%20year.pdf?ver=2017-08-29-210039-963
Report comment
Thanks, Alex. 🙂 I’ve gotten a lot from sharing my story, too… Sometimes it’s left me feeling pretty erased (when people have thanked me, followed by immediately speaking in ways that dismiss everything I had to say), but lots of times, it’s been powerful, too. Thanks for being out there doing the work, too. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Bricew. I really appreciate your sharing all this along with your conviction to prioritize morals and ethics over the superficial “goals” our society sets (often to distract us from some of the more covert ones).
Report comment
Thanks, Bricew. It’s always interesting to me how important language is, and how we hear words differently. I do often challenge people re: “Committed suicide” when I’m in training environments. I do *not* ever tell people they “can’t” or “shouldn’t” use it, but just offer food for thought which is this: “Committed suicide” comes from a time when suicide was being painted overtly as illegal (as in “committed a crime”). Based on that, I personally try not to use that frame… but nor am I fond of “completed suicide” or ever telling people *what* precisely they need to say.
In my experience, telling others (and especially others who have first-hand experience with something) precisely what words they’re supposed to use comes from a special brand of ignorance and insensitivity.
Thanks for sharing some of your mother’s story as it intersects with your own. I too struggle with this idea that we should get to put our own priorities of people living as long as possible on other people who may genuinely just not want to be here. I’ve heard there are other countries where there are supports set up for people who want to die… Even heard at one point of a place of that nature where people could go to get support in killing themselves that supposedly ended up not having people actually go through with it, because it provided such a valuable space for people to talk openly about their struggles and death and everything else. I actually don’t know if that place actually fully exists as it was described to be… But it sounds really interesting if it does.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Catnight! The taboo you speak of … the reality that a lot of this comes from a fear of talking about death at all… is definitely one of the things we try to address and bring to the surface with our Alternatives to Suicide work. And it was so weird to watch the ASIST folks twist themselves around the idea that we should be able to talk about suicide, while still sending such a strong message that it should also be really hard and upsetting whenever we talk about death. And yes, it definitely doesn’t have to be like this. There are certainly cultures where talking about death in all its forms is so much more normalized. The issues – being able to talk about death at all and being able to talk about suicide – are absolutely intertwined.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks so much, Richard. And you’re absolutely right.. I shouldn’t have gone alone (from any other than a financial standpoint). Even before some of the worst things happened, it was still painful to be the lone voice in a sea of providers who were all on the same page with the terrible things they were saying. And it made my credibility much lower in a lot of ways.
And good question… Massachusetts doesn’t seem to do much with ASIST right now, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it moved in that direction. We’ll certainly be watching for it 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Alex. Yes, mandated reporter is a serious issue, *especially* since so many people claim that it has anything to do with the topic of suicide which it most assuredly does not. But in general as well… It is a real issue. And what I think many people don’t realize is that once DCF is called in, it’s kind of like getting a diagnosis… I was thinking about my house after DCF was called on me. My kids aren’t getting abused. They’ve got pretty well supported, good lives… but how would DCF interpret my house not being so clean a lot of the time, and all sorts of other things that are just fine when you don’t have DCF looking at you through a particular lens…. Oy.
-Sera
Report comment
Fiachra,
I think the drugs – and their largely unacknowledged contributions to *increasing* emotional ups and downs, disconnections, etc. – definitely have a role. However, I hesitate to say they’re all to blame. The hopelessness that comes with being given some of these diagnoses, the “prognosis” people are given, the hospital environments and how powerless people can feel… All of it also has a role.
Iatrogenic effects are bit… and with more than just the psych drugs.
-Sera
Report comment
Oldhead,
Yes, I know you’re largely right, and I can’t help but try. And no, not a word… although I e-mailed them *ALL* (Office of Mental Health and Northern Rivers leadership and Board members) again yesterday with a link to this article, and telling them that I am *formally* asking for information on how to file a complaint which I believe they should be legally compelled to provide to me… But nope, nothing.
-Sera
Report comment
Hey The_cat,
Yeah, I’ve been in similar situations, too and had to make some really difficult situations. Ultimately, I so appreciate where you landed. It’s where I’ve landed, too. People *need* to be able to say some of those things to other humans and not get locked up for it. That said, there have been occasions when I’ve also said to people, “Hey, it was super unfair when you said that and then disappeared, and I’m feeling angry about that right now.” That (treating them as not so fragile that they can’t handle hearing how what they did impacted me) also turned out to be good for our relationship, though.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Hi Rachel,
Yes, during and following hospitalization is when suicide “risk” is actually the highest according to research, and hospitalization seems to have long-term impact on suicide rates even for people who were hospitalized for reasons other than wanting to kill themselves. It’s pretty staggering and largely ignored data.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks for sharing that, Sam. The idea that knowing that suicide is an option brings a sense of hope, control, and willingness to *keep living* is so hard for so many people to grasp, and yet so true for so many of us.
-Sera
Report comment
Julie,
I hear you, and you’re not the person to suggest I make it about someone else. However, it loses a lot of power when I can’t say “that was me”. Being able to say “that was me” is a huge chunk of the power of sharing these sorts of stories at all. It’s where we get to challenge people’s assumptions in how they might conjure up an image of the person about whom that story is true… I know it’s a risk to me. But in spite of all this, it’s a risk I continue to be willing to take … most of the time. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks for sharing, Fiachra. You’re so not alone in that, but it’s still not nearly well enough known that that can be a thing.
-Sera
Report comment
Rosalee,
I’d love to go no a talk show and talk about this. I think the challenge is getting a talk show to want me. :p If anyone has any ideas, I’m more than open to them! Thank you 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Yes, exactly. Unfortunately.
Report comment
Thanks, oldhead. I’m glad I eluded them, as well… Although, I did get something back from a media person suggesting that they would have been more likely to be interested in helping to get my story “out there” if the consequences had been worse. Oy.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, madmom. I like that idea of an army. 🙂 Unfortunately, if anything, I think so many people have headed in the opposite direction of any real fight, but hopefully we can turn that back around. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, kindredspirit. I’m doing everything I can to get this story out there. No surprise, of course, that the media isn’t interested. First, I’d have to convince them that I shouldn’t, in fact, be locked up forever in order to get them to care. But, I’m working on it as best I can. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Lee! I agree that the language of their name itself is hugely problematic, and powerful. I will check out your YouTube. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
I don’t disagree with you that people don’t want to deal with the politics and just want help. *HOWEVER*, part of the point here is that often they think they’re getting help and they end up getting hurt. Or, if they get legit help at the individual level, it may still contribute to hurt at the systemic level by sustaining the illusion of need for NAMI. None of that ultimately changes anything I’m saying here…
Anyway, I think we’re ultimately basically saying the same thing underneath it all…
-Sera
Report comment
Lenora,
You said: “Places like this, or your doctor, or mental heath professional, etc take things like this seriously and follow protocol because if they don’t, they might get hit was a malpractice suit.”
Yes to a certain extent, however:
1) That’s really misguided, and not at all supported by research evidence that says that both assessment of need and the most common interventions used are wildly ineffective.
2) Even the fear of lawsuit is misguided, as successful lawsuits blaming providers for suicide deaths is actually incredibly rare, and especially in situations where there wasn’t egregious neglect (such as there wouldn’t be should want simply *talk* to someone rather than immediately shipping them off for “help”).
3) I don’t even think that’s *truly* the motivation for a lot of people… Having *just* been subjected to a “wellness” check by a provider this past Friday myself, I strongly believe that some of these things are motivated by power and control, and excused under the cover of liability.
I don’t disagree with most of the rest of what you said, but I’m not – and never have – blamed people for falling into NAMI’s clutches. I blame the broader systems (including NAMI) that make that so damn hard to avoid. So, ultimately, I agree with oldhead… if NAMI were gone, we wouldn’t have keep worrying about all this… but that’s certainly not to say that people don’t really struggle or need support. Just not the NAMI trap brand of it.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Eric!
Report comment
Systemic oppression and privilege do not preclude the success of members of those groups, but it does speak to the default design of society. For example, our holidays and workweek and how many people are afforded time off are structured around a Christian perspective. When kids are forced to stand and say the Pledge in school or people are asked to swear to tell the truth in courts, a Christian perspective on god works its way in. Presidential candidates suspected of not being Christian have had to go out of their way to prove that they are. These are just small examples, and don’t predict the outcome or impact for each individual which will vary significantly… but it seems strange to me to suggest that folks who follow a Christian practice aren’t privileged in this society in ways that make their way of life at least a bit easier.
It doesn’t seem as if we will come to agreement on this. I believe that the insistence on seeing this as insult rather than a reality of the fabric of our society is a part of what keeps these things in place, and that seems really sad to me. But I don’t really know what else to say about it, and I don’t think it’s worthwhile to get into an extensive argument about it here.
Sera
Report comment
I have to be honest, Oldhead, that sometimes I really do wish you’d give it a rest. You seem like you have so much time to spend in these comment sections actively derailing things, and it can be exhausting to even try to keep up.
Her main point was that she felt I’d insulted white people, and discounted her experience. I did my best to illustrate how that is a misunderstanding of what I said which isn’t an insult toward white people at all.
*You* are the one bent on dismissing that in the name of naming capitalism. Of course capitalism has a role in all this, including the fact that it is capitalism that drives big pharma to use groups like NAMI as they do. And that’s not the whole picture, and none of this – not even the white privilege part – was central to the actual point of this article… although overal features of systemic oppression certainly are.
Sera
Report comment
Marie,
I can’t be sorry that I included reference to white privilege in the article, because it’s real and it’s important to keep recognizing that fact. But, I am sorry that you received it as an attack, because it surely isn’t one at all. I know it can feel awful, however, to feel as if someone isn’t seeing your own suffering. I believe that you and your family have really struggled, and faced lots of adversity.
I don’t think that that changes that you’ve received from benefit from your whiteness, but I believe that that’s been much harder to see or feel because of all the other benefits you haven’t received.
In the end, privilege really isn’t about the person who possesses it being bad, or not having earned much of what they’ve gained. Rather, it’s about the reality that our society has been built and sustained by people who’ve had their own needs and wants and beliefs most in mind… That means that society centers and prioritizes mostly white, male, cisgender, christian, heterosexual, able-bodied folks with some wealth and education. And for each of those (and other relevant) qualities that one does not possess, there are at least a few more barriers in their way to the success… and people from the dominant groups blaming them for having a tougher time because many from those dominant groups can’t even *see* the barriers the marginalized group might be tripping over… because that’s how privilege works.
Anyway, here’s a couple of samples of what’s out there about white privilege if it’s of interest:
Joy Degruy presentation on Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome: https://youtu.be/BGjSday7f_8
Joy Degruy clip on white privilege: https://youtu.be/dCv4luaBfk4
Article on white privilege: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/01/16/white-privilege-explained/?utm_term=.d7571600149c
Sera
Report comment
Oldhead,
Whoever said that to you was also being silly. The reasons why black and other non-white people aren’t more present here runs deep, and is reflected throughout any movement closely associated with pushing back on the psychiatric system. The reasons run from the fact that people of different backgrounds and privileges are shuffled into different systems, to how the psychiatric system and racism already intersect to even further marginalize non-white people, to how shitty white people are at making space and centering voices other than their own or hearing and respecting people other than those they see as representing their own image, and beyond. Whether you call people asking folks here not to use the term “psychiatric slavery” as appropriation or simply a show of lack of respect for the multiple black voices who’ve come here and said it doesn’t sit well with them… it doesn’t really matter. If becoming less white were more important to folks around here, they’ve be willing to give on these points even if they don’t fully agree.
But regardless… I’m not going to continue arguing about this. We’ve been round this circle before.
Report comment
I wasn’t offended! Just clarifying 🙂
Report comment
Thanks, Squash. Healthcare facilities, and as I noted above, genetics testing places. All very disturbing. Thank you for taking the time to comment and share your experience!
Sera
Report comment
Will spent a fair amount of lines on ‘peer respite, Frank. It wasn’t just one casual mention. And I think it was out of place. I actually think Will fairly frequently has include off handed lines in several of his blogs here that are targeted at particular people or groups in ways that don’t feel honest to me. This is but one example.
That aside, your reference to “adult babysitting” just tells me you don’t know much about what peer respites are actually intended to be or what the ones done with integrity have to offer, and you are missing my point entirely. I also think it’s strangely naive to suggest that creating alternative supports is a waste of time… that echoes of the criticism many of us often receive about pretending nothing is wrong when we argue against the medical model. Mostly, people who hurl that criticism aren’t actually paying attention… because often many of us *are* acknowledging fully that something may be wrong for lots of people… that their pain and struggles are legit and that they deserve support. Just not within the framework the system has to offer.
I also think you are giving Will way too much credit in what you ascribe to what he was saying there.
Report comment
Sam,
I would frame what I’m doing here largely as offering food for thought, and material to counter those who continue to argue in favor of these large entities like NAMI, MHA, etc without unpacking what’s really going on.
That’s neither as personal as venting, nor as productive as offering a solution… but I do see it as being on the road to the latter… or at least a necessary part of ever getting there.
Sera
Report comment
Will,
I’m not too sure what to make of this article. It seems a little all over the place. I *think* I appreciate the challenge to using the “creative maladjustment” term as its always struck me as appropriative rather than unifying in any way. But, overall, I’m finding myself a little lost in your point.
I’m also a little perplexed as to why you zeroed in on “peer respite” here. I’m not super fond of that terminology because of the word “peer” and how strangely it’s come to be understood and used within the mental health system. However, your focus on it here suggests to me you have some deeper issue against peer respite (or the people connected to them) than anything else. Ultimately, “hospital alternative” strikes me as no solution, although it’s often a piece of the explanation as to what “peer respite” is. Certainly, I’d see little to no improvement in automatic understanding if I began using that terminology instead of “peer respite” , and may actually see an *increase* in people who *think* they understand what I’m talking about but don’t.
I’m all for looking deeply at the power of language, and I’m not at all against looking for an alternative to “peer respite” , but I question the reason for your focus here.
Sera
Report comment
That’s pretty reductive, Oldhead. I don’t think anyone believes that “psychiatric slavery” is what has chase black and other people of color away from here. In general, non-white people weren’t here to begin with. But weirdly appropriative stuff like the insistence on clinging to that particular phrase, along with appropriation related to MLK and so on certainly doesn’t help.
Report comment
Thanks, Frank. I totally agree that it is a treatment/medicalization movement which is precisely why NAMI has been such a tool for pharma… that’s precisely the point made by the pharma exec I’ve quoted in multiple nami articles (he talks about how these “advocacy” orgs are better marketing instruments than any “direct to consumer” ads ever could be).
Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Steve, and yeah, for sure you’re right. It is hard to walk away from privilege. Even for generally good people. I wish it were otherwise.
Sera
Report comment
Fair enough, kumininexile! I wish it were a ‘duh’ for more people, though!
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Catnight! That’s for sure… that NAMI isn’t subtle or nuanced! So frustrating that people continue to live in that bubble and just can’t seem to see what’s right in front of them.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Kindredspirit! For reading, and especially for sharing your experience as to what anosognosia truly is!
-Sera
Report comment
Wow, nice work, the_Cat! What exactly did they say when you asked about pharma money?
Report comment
Thanks for sharing your experience here, Shaun! And for taking the time to read all this and be open to things being different than what you were first told. That openness is so important. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Not really expecting help… Just wanting to say my piece, Oldhead. 🙂
Sera
Report comment
Thanks, yeah_I_survived.. .For reading and sharing some of your own experience. I missed that Mother Jones article (ugh), but yeah, I wish the “liberal” ends of our media and society in general weren’t so hell bent on keeping their head in the sand where psychiatric oppression is concerned. I actually wrote an article about that at one point, too… :p
In case anyone’s curious about that one: https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/04/dear-self-proclaimed-progressives-liberals-humanitarians-youve-really-messed-one/
-Sera
Report comment
I don’t think it is accurate to refer to that as Will’s method. I believe you that it is an approach he uses, but certainly doesn’t sound like one he developed himself. Thank you for clarifying, tho!
Sera
Report comment
Rachel777,
Can you clarify what you mean when you reference Will Hall’s method?
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Seltz6912,
I’m not sure who this comment is directed at? Did you take my article to be suggesting that only the “sunny side” of voice hearing, etc be shared? That’s certainly not what I was saying… not even close… and I don’t think anyone else was saying that either, tho maybe I missed something?
If that is what you took away from this article at first glance, I hope you’ll read through it again, as it’s just not what it actually says.
Sera
Sera
Report comment
Steve,
There’s one that supposedly Pat Deegan put together, but I’m skeptical of *all* the pre-recorded nonsense for all the reasons I already named. I *will* say, though, that the reason I titled the article “almost” is because there are trainings – such as the ones offered through the western mass rlc – that offer live simulations. That means that people – often including many people who have heard or do hear voices – provided a live simulation experience. We have found some value in that because a) it is offered contextually and b) it is debriefed after the simulation at length and most importantly c) it’s embedded in a broader training that talks about all the other pieces of the experience including how different it can look from person to person and moment to moment.
AND as also noted in the article above, the exercise *still* runs the risk of encouraging people to take away sensationalized ideas and/or generalize… but that is at least also discussed in the debriefing process.
Ultimately, I don’t think even the recorded simulation exercises constructed by people who hear voices could ever not be hugely problematic.
Sera
Report comment
Hey Sam,
I tend to believe you aren’t replicating the NAMI stuff I speak of. However, my believing that doesn’t mean that I suddenly think it’s a good idea to confuse the language, as that opens the door for further issues with others. I believe you that you and your wife have played the meaningful healing roles for one another that you describe, but I do think It’s much more useful when you use that language as opposed to language that’s been claimed in other ways. (Although, iin general, I hate the ‘peer’ language in the way it’s used today almost entirely across the board._
Report comment
Sam,
Thanks for your comment, and I certainly remember you from other posts. You are welcome to come visit, btw!
I think where I remember us diverging most is around what ‘peer’ and the role of family is specifically… that said, I’m not sure we diverge all that much. I *do* think it’s essential to *not* confuse family members with ‘peer supporter’ not because family can’t be key, but because NAMI, the whole ‘family partner’ peer scene, etc have had truly dangerous and damaging implications in how they’ve confused those things… and centered family voices *over* the voices of those most directly impacted.
I also do believe that ‘peer’ is more about how two people interact and the nature of their connection, and I remember you resonating with that… but I just think that needs to work in concert with having key experiences (being in the system, etc) in common or else it drifts too quickly into nami land. Although, as I say that, I can also say that our community takes a pretty broad perspective on what ‘peer’ means, too… So, it’s gray.
But somehow, I think we need to continue to hold the tension that exists between family (especially chosen family like significant others) having really important roles *and* recognizing that very often they still come with power dynamics and other complexities and historical trends that mean differentiating is also important.
I fear I’m rambling… perhaps due to being in a vacation state of mind… but ultimately, I’d be all for more trainings, supports, and opportunities for patterns and other family to have positive impact in someone’s struggles… just not to the point of confusing that with the expectation that someone can typically be in that role *and* be in a ‘peer supporter’ role such as we are usually talking about It here.
Sera
Report comment
Steve,
I just didn’t mean to repeat the *entire* blog in my comment is all…
Sera
Report comment
Thanks for sharing your experience, rachel777. I think everyone’s experiences are different/unique in some way, but what you described sounds similar to many I’ve heard… especially how the voices connect to something in the environment and self-blame somehow, as well as how the psych drugs didn’t actually make the voices go away. So true for so many people. In any case, thank you for sharing a piece of your experience here.
Report comment
Yes, that’s a large part of it, for sure!
Report comment
Thanks, Mark. I think for me, the art has a lot to do with how it’s conveyed… if it’s an art display expressly by “crazy” people – like what nami periodically offers and basically just saying “hey crazy people make good pictures too” – then yeah, not a fan. However, if it’s an art installation respecting people’s experiences, or the difference and brilliance that brings that art forth… I can certainly respect that!
Report comment
It’s absolutely true, Kindredspirit. And, in fact, there is research at this point I believe that suggests that people’s sense of having control and understanding over what’s happening means they’ll be less negatively impacted by it.
How something impacts us and our lives really *is* the key point… although the mental health system doesn’t necessarily see it that way, and the simulations certainly don’t convey that point at all. For example, I used to have visions telling me to hurt or kill my daughter when she was a baby. I eventually figure out why… they were a message to me about how I was blaming my body for the babies that died by miscarriage before she was born. Once I figured that out, they lost a lot of their power over me. Before that, I at least knew better than to tell anyone about them… I don’t think the system would have cared at all what the visions meant…
Report comment
Thanks, the_cat! While I do think it’s useful to attempt to increase understanding across people, I don’t think these simulations even begin to actually accomplish that!
Report comment
Madmom,
I wouldn’t suggest IPS for hearing voices at all, actually. I think the 5 day IPS core training is useful for lots of things, but not that.
However, there are alternatives already established. I struggle with not being too self-promoting, so I left out some of the work we do at my workplace but perhaps I shouldn’t have, so let me offer it here now:
We offer three day trainings intended primarily for current and future hearing voices facilitators and sometimes others join those trainings, as well… but they are long.
My co-worker, Caroline Mazel-Carlton coordinated a webinar specifically geared toward family, and I’m sure she’ll do that again in the future.
She and another co-worker of mine, Marty Hadge, fairly regularly offer three-hour trainings on trauma-informed strategies for working with voice hearing like this one: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VoicesPittsfield2019
Caroline, Marty and several others on our team also do a variety of other hearing voices trainings. Everyone who trains on this topic either currently hears voices (true of the majority of our trainers), or has had experiences that fit under the Hearing Voices umbrella.
And we certainly arent the only ones. We have brought out Peter Bullimore and company from England several times, and will have them out again in April. in fact, if you look at our January newsletter, you’ll find information about what Peter and Shaun Hunt will be offering in MA and FL in the spring. https://madmimi.com/s/3ea57d
There is no excuse for the simulations as they are offered. I understand what you are saying, but there *are* better options that simply don’t have the backing of the simulations so people don’t hear about them. That is the result of NAMI and all the other marketing behemoths (see the next article I hope to publish for more on this point). But the options *do* exist. And often they are low cost or free, offered by people who have that experience, and far more meaningful.
Report comment
Nik,
We aim to make things accessible. Typically, getting the fee waived is just about e-mailing us to say you want it waived. Although the fees are helpful to sustainability of our work, we don’t count on them. In general, we only say no to someone who’s asked for a fee to be waived when we also just don’t have enough space to offer them a spot.
If you don’t already get it, sign up for our e-newsletter at our website (www.westernmassrlc.org), so you’ll get notified when the next trainings are coming around. 🙂
Thanks for your input on the name! I imagine we will be putting out some thoughts on the choices we come up with in December!! 🙂
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
CryAngerNow,
Soooo, it’s Community not Center, but yes to the rest! But most begrudgingly for the majority of us who work here. Along those lines, you may want to check this out:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/NewNameRLC
Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment, and feel free to give feedback on our name via that survey! 🙂 In terms of trainings we offer, the vast majority of our trainings are free to in-state folks. There’s a $100 fee for out-of-state people, but it can be waived if it’s cost prohibitive. 🙂
Thank you! 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Out,
A good point. I’ve certainly been in a *LOT* of settings where making those in power/in the roles with the power ‘uncomfortable’ sure was frowned upon… and the sensitivity of those folks in power was NOT seen as *their* issue but mine or the others making them uncomfortable.
-Sera
Report comment
Oh boy, that does indeed sound like a lot for a ‘family friendly’ walk.
Report comment
Thanks so much, Irit. Yes, sometimes people who speak loudly and firmly may lose some people, but also act as an important ‘beacon’ of sorts for those who’ve had similar thoughts and haven’t known what to do with them. It can be so important. 🙂
Admittedly, I do use the term ‘provider’ a bunch because I haven’t felt moved to worry too much about the impact of that one-word label on folks working in the system… but it’s a good point that I should probably think harder about the term and what it conveys to everyone about that role.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Don,
I find that referring to things as ‘politically correct’ is a way to devalue or cut off the conversation. It communicates that someone is “just doing it to seem cool” or “in the know” or “woke” enough. I’m not saying that that is how you intended that term to come across, but it is how it is very often used (as something derisive in some way) and I can’t help be hear it that way.
The RLC dropped the term ‘peer’ from job titles some years ago, and moved to Advocate. That’s also an imperfect word, but at least moves away from the idea that our job titles need be inextricably linked to something some people will see as part of our identities. I’m sure there are other options, all flawed in some way, but what I also say in this article is that it is less about a list of good and bad words than understanding values and aims.
So, if we know that it’s one of our values to not lock people into mental health-system attached identities, then using *ANY* single word to routinely always refer to ‘them’ probably isn’t consistent with what we are working toward. Not client, not participant, not peer, not individual, not acorn. It’s the institutinalization of the language and the person right along with it that is the problem above all else.
So, I’d be leading people astray if I listed out a bunch of words that are ‘okay’. That’s not the point. The point is figuring out what we are actually trying to accomplish in all this?
-Sera
Report comment
Hi Sandy,
Thanks for reading. 🙂 Unfortunately, in my experience, any time a word starts to become a ‘buzz word’ for SAMHSA, the mental health system, etc., it just starts to become hollow. Perhaps there’s something about words uttered by oppressors cannot simultaneously hold value for the oppressed… I think there is sometimes an impossible tension for some folks (particularly those focused on reform rather than abolition, but who still hold some pretty clear lines) who fight for providers to let them define the language, but then should the provider finally listen and use the language as requested by those who’ve until then been ignored or marginalized… it’s anticlimactic because then the language stops sounding so good. So, sure, some of that.
However, some of that is driven by something deeper… So, for example, most providers who use ‘recovery’ language haven’t actually changed a damn thing about the potential they see for people in the system. They consider an acceptable or even *normal* version of ‘recovery’ to be (as I think I mentioned somewhere above in one of the other comments) sitting on the couch, zombified, and just ‘staying out of trouble’. It would *never* be good enough for themselves, but somehow it’s ‘success’ when looking as those in the system. One of the state hospitals in Massachusetts changed its name (when it wasted millions on rebuilding) to a ‘Recovery Center and Hospital’. So, now they’re using ‘recovery’ in relation to forced incarceration. Great.
Additionally, sometimes better language simply gets used to win grants and look good. So, for example, not too long ago, we had to re-bid for our primary contract that funds the RLC and we found ourselves up against a clinical provider…. And it happened to be a clinical provider who’d invested a *LOT* of time learning our language and approach. And they essentially used our own work and words to try and take it from us.
Words are meaningful, but they can also be rendered hollow when they are wielded by people who don’t understand more than their most basic definition, or who then believe that superficial ‘goodness’ is still good when it becomes forced or made hollow by overuse in under informed hands…
Does that make sense? I think there’s probably a lot more to be said on this topic, but hopefully that helps some. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks for reading, J! I do think that a lot of people do find liberty when they just completely reject what they’ve been told! Not always an easy journey, and I’m never going to personally be one who tells people which journey is right for them (because, at the very least, benevolent force is still force), but I know I personally felt an important shift when I moved from somewhat rebellious to just “fuck off”. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks for that, Alex. I remember the interaction you’re referencing, but haven’t hung on to any bad feelings about it. 🙂 And, as I recall, you had some valid points, even if roughly offered in parts.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks! 🙂
Report comment
Ron,
That’s not my experience… that it’s easy to repurpose or reframe words in conversation within the mental health system. Rather, my experience is that routine use of words leads to routine ways of thinking and routine ways of responding to people… And that sometimes it’s absolutely necessary to change the language to signal that people need to change the way they’re thinking and doing things.
In other words, everyone – on every side – gets institutionalized to some degree.
But I do hear what you are saying, and I think that will work some of the time.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Ron,
Fair enough on the broader potential for ‘recover’, but I do believe that the reality is that when it is used within the mental health system the vast majority of people are referring to ‘recovering’ from an ‘illness’, and I think it’s important to not lose sight of that even if it means something different (just like ‘peer’, etc does) outside of the system.
Thanks!
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks for your comment, Stephen. Pushing back on this idea that we need to say things nicely feels very important to me, too. We (RLC) are making a film related to this, actually. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
I appreciate you stating this so plainly, Steve. Very true.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks for reiterating this, Frank. Hopefully it was clear in my article that I agree with you that calling it ‘AOT’ does harm.
-Sera
Report comment
danzig,
I’m not familiar with James Hillman, but thank you for your comment! I do appreciate the idea of going outside of so-called “mental health” in order to better understand it. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
yeah_i_survived,
You make an excellent point. Some of the people with whom I’ve intersected and who refer to themselves as ‘in recovery’ are shaking from psych drugs, unable to work (in spite of wanting to), etc. I’ve heard stories from others now living full lives who were told they were doing ‘great’ when they were unable to get off their couch or do more than smoke and drink coffee because of how sedated they were. It’s painful to see. Although who am I to say what someone *should* look like, it’s awful to see that so many have been sold this particular ‘recovery’ bill of goods.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Yeah, I still use resilience periodically, but as systems inhale the appealing words, they do… lose their appeal.
Report comment
Judi,
I don’t disagree with most of what you write as I understand it, but I guess I think there are different layers to the conversation. Even though I agree that the medical system has lied to people in ways that *should* have legal consequences, I don’t believe in forcing folks on the receiving end of that to give up words they find meaningful. I don’t find force helpful in general. If I am to regard at least some people who’ve been lied to in these ways as – say – trapped in a cave, I believe it’s my role to go in and shine a light on the pathways out that were previously in shadow and thus invisible. I don’t, however, believe it’s my role to grab them by their arm and drag them down the path I’ve chosen for them. That – more often than not – results in their pulling back and struggling with me, *or* in their coming along because they feel they have no choice, but not really feeling committed to that path themselves and so not really even knowing why they’re there (or necessarily staying). In order to be the best support, I believe I need to accept that people may choose to stay, even if they got their because of lies. It’s only by letting go of that agenda that I believe I make space for people *also* to decide differently and go down the path I was hoping they’d find.
Hope that makes some sense.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Alex,
I agree it can be a tricky balance, and that different communication styles match different intentions. For example, wanting to get media and general public’s attention may perfectly reasonably involve yelling at a building housing an org you’re protesting while carrying signs with catchy but ‘inflammatory’ slogans. On the other hand, if you actually want to have a conversation with someone, that’s probably not the best place to start.
However, not bending on honest words and realities seems critical in either place. Thank you for not being willing to bend on words like ‘discrimination’, etc.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Thanks, out.
I have mixed feelings about ‘content warnings’, but I do agree they are a vast improvement and potentially useful in some contexts… The best thing about them as compared to ‘trigger’ warnings is that they say ‘I want you to know what is included here’ vs. ‘This content may be harmful to you.’ Content warnings certainly don’t suggest in quite the same way that ‘trigger warnings’ do that we are all fragile folks that can’t handle certain topics. Yet, I still remain mixed about them, because I still see the heavy use of them resulting in some similar outcomes. Not quite sure where the ‘right’ balance is.
And I hear you on the not wanting to forget, but not wanting to be paralyzed by anger (my own words, not sure if they resonate for you) forever. I can very much relate to that.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
That may have been a little intentional, LavenderSage. 🙂 I suppose we can all read different things into ‘on’ vs. ‘in’, and which is better/worse, tho. :p
-Sera
Report comment
Sure. It’s not all the mental health system, Steve. But they are rather designed around it being a thing and reinforcing that for all its worth.
-Sera
Report comment
Yes, but that sounds a bit of ‘victim blaming’, oldhead. We live in a society filled with systemic oppression, and it’s unfair to expect people to know not to get involved when all signs that they see are pointing in that direction.
-Sera
Report comment
HH,
Apologies for my delay in responding. I was mostly out of reach of a computer yesterday.
In any case, rarely do I advocate for correcting people on their individual word choices for themselves. While I would, for example, correct a fellow team member in my work place (because I think it’s *ESSENTIAL* that they not be reinforcing negative stuff in their language choices, and that they be using words that leave space for other people to self-define), I wouldn’t typically correct someone speaking about themselves (nor advocate that anyone else do so). One of the most important things in many people’s own healing process is to be able to have the space to choose their own path, including the language they use to describe it. If someone came in using a word for themselves that felt really problematic to me or that I at least wanted to explore with them further, I’d simply ask what that word means to them (or similar). For example: “I’m bipolar.” “I’ve known a lot of people who’ve been given that diagnosis, and they and their experiences are so different. What does that look like for or mean to you?” Sometimes people really need to think through that answer because they’ve been given so much systems language that they just haven’t really thought about what it truly means to them. In other words, as you referenced, some people are just ‘parroting’ ideas, and that phenomenon can become dangerous and inhibit growth and progress and healing and freedom on many levels.
That said, in order for people to be able to truly see possibilities beyond the crap the system feeds us, they need to be exposed to it and have opportunity to unpack what it all means to them personally… So, that still brings me back to how important it is that we not be unnecessarily perpetuating all this stuff.
Also, you said?: “When I was trying to educate the Vermont legislature about the problems with forced drugging in institutional situations, I used the term “forced drugging” rather than “involuntary medication” because I thought it was more accurate. But some people who I really wanted to get to understand my ideas, were alienated and stopped listening because they found my language inflammatory and they saw me as not sympathetic to their point of view and not respectful of… yada yada.”
In my experience, people who are in that place at that time will find something to disagree with no matter what you say. Because you are threatening a paradigm with which they are intertwined either through years of work/education, or through years of institutionalization. I also use psychiatric drugs instead of medication. Rarely do people respond to that in any way in either direction. However, I get called inflammatory, and difficult, and all sorts of things all the time. That includes before I was ever writing on Mad in America. Before I’d put out publicly some of the more controversial things I’ve said. Before we made any films. Etc. Simply because I was challenging a paradigm. I used to believe that if I just tried hard enough, I’d be able to find the right words to reach people who are in that place, and that that was my job. But after years of trying and still getting the same ‘you’re too radical’ or inflammatory or whatever, I’ve stopped trying so hard. Because it’s not about me. It’s about them. They are *INVESTED* in hearing me that way, and there’s not a damn thing I can do about that, unless I water down what I say so much that I’m basically just supporting them and have lost all of what I truly believe.
That is a feature of co-optation and systemic oppression. It is not our job to make people comfortable all the time, and they are attempting to trick us into stopping altogether when they put in effort to convince that if ‘only we were nicer about it’ we’d get further. While I’m not suggesting screaming at people is effective in many instances, I’ve not found that watering down is either.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks so much, KindRegards. 🙂 ‘Triggers’ is a challenging word that is so pervasively used within my and so many communities right now. I hope these words alongside other people’s words and lead to more conversation about it. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Stephen. Yeah, I’ve had my share of experiences with the standard medical world, too. Both for myself, and with my kids. I’ve picked up the attitude (that I apply to most parts of my life at this point :p), that if you can’t tell me why (or if your ‘why’ is some stupid bureaucratic reason that has little to do with me), I’m probably not going to do it…
Report comment
The_Cat,
Hmmm, I flipped through a few reviews of the film before I wrote my own, but I’m not sure I looked at that one. Not surprisingly, some of them were pretty insulting in the way they talked about people who’ve been diagnosed, honestly, and I got tired of that. Ugh.
Sera
Report comment
Hey, yeah_i_survived,
It’s a good question. We focus here primarily on the psych industry, but there are issues all around with the medical field… starting with how much power we hand over to them simply by calling them ‘Dr. Whatevertheirlastnameis’ when we are all our first names…
Sera
Report comment
Hey Danzig,
I haven’t read the book, but will have to check it out.
Thanks!
Sera
Report comment
Ugh. Even if a doctor can’t predict and warn of *all* the potential risks, saying not to worry and that a drug you are going to put into your body is “safe” is just awful and stupid.
Sera
Report comment
It’s a good point. There was an awful situation (but much less unusual than they’re making it out to be) at this place in Connecticut where they finally saw on video footage someone hospitalized there being tortured and it became a big news story… but somewhere in there, I believe they also had to admit that most of the time they don’t look at the footage.
Report comment
Thanks for reading, J. I wish it had gone further with demonstrating some of the fake science, but that just wasn’t entirely the story. But it’s an important step in that direction for sure!
Report comment
So, for those interested, here’s one document from the actual case decision: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1771297.html
Here’s an interview with Helena on the film: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/helena-bonham-carter-55-steps-interview-eleanor-riese_uk_5bc4f660e4b0fed45beb93d7
And, I embedded the link to the film on Amazon, but some people don’t seem to realize it’s there, so here is the link to actually watch the film online: https://www.amazon.com/55-Steps-Hilary-Swank/dp/B07JVR24ZL?keywords=55+steps&qid=1539736703&sr=8-2&ref=sr_1_2
Report comment
I’m so sorry you’re going through so much, Rachel! I hope there’s some relief that comes your way. I’m sorry that no one listened. 🙁
-Sera
Report comment
Your criticisms and cyncism is totally fair. We have a similar ruling of sorts called the Rogers Decision out here in Massachusetts. I wrote an article for the RLC’s newsletter about the decision last winter. In it, I describe the original ruling, and then how it’s been twisted and abused. You can find that article here: http://www.westernmassrlc.org/images/stories/Rogers_Article.pdf
Report comment
Frank,
It’s not about status. Even if involuntarily incarcerated, I believe the ruling prohibited forced drugging unless it was defined as an ’emergency’ in some way (and yes, I know that how ’emergencies’ are defined gets pretty sketchy, too). The film doesn’t really get too deeply into what happens between hospitalizations and forced drugging, or the Involuntary Outpatient Commitment laws and all that.
However, like I said in the piece above, I think the film’s true significance is less about that ruling in California, and more about having a film circulating with mainstream actors that says some of these things, and puts it right out there that these drugs have killed people. (As well as some of the statements and fairly accurate representations of things like restraints that are offered along the way.)
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
CatNight,
I think getting the courts to believe that harm was being caused was a long road. They didn’t win at first. In fact, they were barely given a chance to be heard. Eventually, they found some doctors willing to sign on and support their argument which helped. Collette’s having been a nurse and being willing to devote a ton of time to explaining the details of the harms caused was big, too. And then, even in spite of all that, I think people are still so often ignored. So, I’m just not sure beyond that, and I think there’s for sure a risk of any progress they made there being undone.
-Sera
Report comment
God. This is *so* incredibly frustrating. Perhaps most frustrating of all is I can’t get the website to stop sending me notifications so it’s easy to check out of this incredibly frustrating conversation.
Somehow I can’t manage to not respond to this, so as briefly as I can…
You said: “as long as we continue to use race as the sole or major theme to describe who is oppressed and who isn’t, or who is appropriating what, we lose sight of those pulling the strings at the top.” But I didnt say race is the sole theme.
You said: “People of color do not own the term slavery and slavery as a general term refers to much more than the enslavement of African and Caribbean people of color by early Americans.” I didn’t say people of color own it or that that type of slavery is the only type of slavery. But it *sure* would be nice if white Americans would be willing to attend to the fact that it *sure* is that kind of slavery that is most relevant to our recent history and that it might be nice if we could respect that fact when some people of color express that it’s offensive… especially when there are *plenty* of other words to choose from.
You said, “But when we get into the weeds over who is oppressed and who isn’t” but that has literally nothing to do with what I said. However, when we are talking about race it is okay to just talk about race. And when we are talking about sexism it is okay to make space to just talk about sexism. That doesn’t mean the others don’t count. I wonder why you hear it that way?
You said “fashion.
But when we get into the weeds over who is oppressed and who isn’t, I’m supposed to be greatful it isn’t worse” … again, nope. Didn’t say any of that.
No one is nullifying anyone’s suffering. But it is super important that we ask ourselves why these conversations about one type of systemic oppression so often get lost in people wanting to say ‘not all white people’ or ‘not all men’ or ‘not all psychiatrist’ etc etc etc… or why a conversation about one type of systemic oppression suddenly becomes about taking care of someone else’s needs because talking about that systemic oppression somehow made them feel bad.
Good goodness sake.
Yes, sure, capitalism is a tool in strengthening or driving all these forms of oppression, and they all intersect, and psychiatry has also been used as a tool (as driven by capitalism and control from the ruling class) with all types of oppression. Yes, yes, and yes,
And we still need to take a serious look at each piece on its own. Cause we continue to be super white, and we continue to ignore feedback from some of the very few people of color who have tried to speak up, and we continue to be *incredibly* defensive about the issue of racism pops up, and we continue to have enormous holes in what we know/think we know.
Steve, As new moderator, could you make one of your first acts helping me find out why the “manage your subscriptions’ feature isn’t working so I can stop getting notifications about this thread!!
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
There is literally nothing… and I mean nothing… no past history, no commitment to anti-racist ideology or actions… that exempts one from being party to/unable to see their own contributions to racist and white supremacist structures, Oldhead.
Elitism in my assumptions? First of all, I didn’t make the assumption that Richard ‘has no understanding or privilege’… I believe that suggesting that I said such a thing is what ‘they’ call a ‘straw man’ argument… Second, I wonder if you’re able to see the difference between what I said and your own commentary which is rather accusatory and skewing toward name calling.
But really, what is your point here? As far as I can tell, the vast majority of the time, your point is simply to argue. Enjoy that.
I’m going to unfollow this post at this point.
Report comment
Richard,
I can’t give you the apology you seek. What I can say is that I’m sorry it felt so personal to you. However, I am of the opinion that *all* white (and generally speaking, white passing) people have ways of being and moving through society that are based on benefiting from racism and white supremacy. And, I think that we *all* have blind spots as a result. And, my own experience and learning suggests that the more we have in common with the individual for whom this society was designed (the white, educated, male, cisgender, heterosexual, middle-class, able bodied, etc. individual), the harder it is to see all that and to not have those blind spots.
So, I may be forgetting something (though I did skim back through the comment section of the blog to which you refer), but I don’t think I intended to ever say that *you* as an individual are especially racist. Simply put: Although I can see very clearly that you have invested a great deal of time in being good and moral and aware of oppression and the impact of capitalism, etc., that you – like most of us – have your blind spots made of the privilege you’ve experienced in moving through this world and/or the fact that you haven’t had to experience so many of these issues first hand. And that I do believe that at least some of the ways in which you seem to be using the terminology of ‘identity politics’ and denying the importance of hearing people of color when they ask people to not use terms like ‘psychiatric slavery’ and so on is born of some of that. But certainly not you alone. You alongside so many others, and in spite of that fact that I don’t think that’s how you mean any of it at all.
You can call that divisive. But I look around here… Around this movement… This white, white movement… And I wonder why we can’t just do everything in a power to try and make space for that to change. Even if none of us have all the answers or are quite sure what will make the most difference.
Anyway. I’m not going to be able to rehash most of this here. I’m about to start week two of being away from home facilitating Alternatives to Suicide trainings in Maine. I just really couldn’t avoid at least saying what I said about the ‘identity politics’ piece feeling dismissive. And I can appreciate why you wanted to reply back.
Goodnight.
-Sera
Report comment
Shaun,
I’d be silly, naive and whatever else if I claimed you were wrong when you said ‘Second, there are people who will do better after being sent to the hospital.’ We know it’s true because people’s responses vary, and all that.
BUT:
1. Why is it true? What about hospital *actually* helped the person? And what did they need to ignore/avoid/not be impacted by that was negative in order to achieve that positive?
2. How are we defining ‘doing better’? Inevitably, we’d define that in different ways. (Not just you and I… but so many of us…) Some people have been trained to say ‘doing better’ when all they mean is ‘under control’? Some people have been trained to say ‘doing better’ when all that means is ‘numbed out’… Some people have been trained to say ‘doing better’ when what they mean is ‘right in this moment things look better, and to hell with how what we did to get this short-term result may impact things long-term…’
3. Let’s assume we can find people we’d *ALL* agree are ‘doing better’ *after* hospitalization… There inevitably are such people. BUT, there are also people who appear to be ‘doing better’ after being tortured. (See the Judge Rotenberg Center as an example of a place that tortures people with painful electric shocks because some of them seem to ‘do better’ and stop serious and life threatening self injury after being so tortured.) How far are we willing to go with justifying torture because it seems to ‘help’ some people? What if something is just morally wrong even if it sometimes has some desirable outcome with a set of people? And what if it still hurts FAR more people than it helps? At what point does that intervention become unacceptable for *all* because it is morally wrong and/or hurts far more people than it helps?
If we can agree that forced hospitalization is morally wrong and if we can agree (i.e., accept the growing body of research and wide array of individual reports) that it is causing FAR more harm than good… then whether or not it may occasionally ‘help’ some people simply becomes irrelevant.
-Sera
Report comment
Yes, as I noted in my comment, where people aren’t in the same org and there are tensions or a lack of sense of comraderie between the two orgs it can function quite differently. But, in my experience (not just personal, but decades of experience supporting people in different environments who are going through their own experience with the system), the assumption on the part of those with that power that they can and should just do what whichever clinician contacting them says that they should is absolutely pervasive.
(There’s a typo in my above comment btw… It should say that it’s not at all UNcommon that psych nurses get to just tell doctors what to do, etc.).
-Sera
Report comment
Although I realize this will take us right back to where we most went to head-to-head, Richard, I can’t help but state how troubling I find your comment here. There has been – and continues to be – lots that you bring to this site and to the world in general, but i find this ‘identity politics’ business to be incredibly dismissive.
This continues to be a largely white-dominated site, and I for one would be *thrilled* if Mad in America could find a way to take a clearer stand on some of the language that re-enforces some of the white supremacist pieces that creep in here just as much as anywhere else… Including appropriation of terminology like ‘psychiatric slavery’. I’m not interested in re-hashing that particular debate again, so I’m not going to engage even if others comment to say how wrong I am…
But I needed to say *something*. This isn’t just ‘identity politics’… I find that term just as dismissive as people who get irritated when someone else offers a correction that they feel is “politically correct”… Both suggest that the suggestions – usually based in actually being respectful and not replicating/changing the oppressive ways of the broader world – are trivial, and that honoring or truly hearing them are nothing more than appeasing some silly person. It’s a real problem.
-Sera
Report comment
Hi Steve,
So, I know it’s already been head as I saw it come up in my skim of other comments, but I just wanted to echo that I also find the ‘sheriff’ reference to be problematic. Though, admittedly, it simultaneously made me less and more inclined to want to read the piece.
I also wanted to push back against the don’t generalize piece… I don’t think it’s okay to equate generalizing experienced by groups of people as a feature of systemic oppression (such as people of color, etc.) with generalizing about groups of people who’ve been a part of the oppressive structure itself (e.g., psychiatrists). Sure, generalizations will never be entirely accurate, BUT one is coming out of ignorance and/or a desire to keep systemic oppression in place… The other is coming out of justified anger at the experience of systemic oppression, and even if each INDIVIDUAL doesn’t fit the stereotype or what have you, the point is that the generalization is much more accurate because it speaks to the realities of the *system* and what it charges those with keeping the system rolling to do, etc.
I generally (to generalize) have appreciate your comments on Mad in America, so I suspect you’ll do a good job here, but I really hope you’ll give particularly this latter piece some thought as you move forward.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Thanks for this, Jess. I crossed paths with Kevin Hines at the Alternatives Conference in 2017 in Boston. I was pretty horrified. I don’t mean to draw into question the basics of his story, but he presents it in such a theatrical manner that it comes across more as one-many show than genuine sharing. And some of the ideas he promotes and/or re-enforces are just awful and damaging. Watching him ride that story to the level he has without question and with such … rockstarish admiration from others in the movement (and beyond) … has been so frustrating. But I appreciate your drawing out the reasons behind that. What he offers is not only incredibly theatrical and appealing in that story porn sort of way, but also doesn’t challenge the conventional paradigm. In the end, it is a part of what silences so many of the stories out there that are much more rooted in the things people need to hear to make the changes that are needed to stop hurting people.
-Sera
Report comment
Oldhead,
Hopefully you picked up from what I wrote in the original piece that I *also* don’t think someone’s right to kill themselves is equal to their right to do so in front of me. And, I’d be hard pressed to stand by and do nothing if that’s the choice they made. But whatever I did… I’d do as a *human* and certainly not as any sort of ‘treatment’.
Also, this piece isn’t about not calling the cops at all. If someone was in my home and refused to leave, I’d call the cops, for example. that said, I also think it’s true that all the white folk calling cops on black people for doing things like barbecuing in the park (etc.) *IS* atrocious and a threat of violence.
We always bring a ton of intersectional buttons to give away whenever we go to a conference. At the last conference we attended, we premiered several new buttons. The most popular one asid, ‘Fuck your help. My cat saved my life’ But not far behind that were buttons that said ‘Calling the cops on a person of color = a threat of violence’ and ‘Calling the cops on a person in emotional distress – a threat of violence’. This wasn’t intended to mean that calling the cops on people who are literally threatening to/are taking steps to harm someone else is wrong… But I think people got the point, and those also flew of the table.
I don’t think of that as ‘police shaming.’ I think of it as reality. Speaking of shaming, another couple of our buttons said ‘I’m not trying to pill shame you. I’m just sick of of watching people fucking die’ and ‘Speaking truth about bad science & psychiatric oppression does not equal pill shaming.’
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Richard. I agree with everything you say here.
And for the record, I’m technically taking not entirely dissimilar risks in my work, which is still largely funded by the state mental health system. In fact, in some ways, the risks to us are even greater because if *one* bad thing happens in the ‘peer support’ world people are more likely to discredit *everything* we do than is likely to happen in the conventional system But we also know that if we don’t take those risks we defeat our own purpose. In fact, there is risk even in posting this piece and this particular story. Who knows how folks from our funder will interpret (and I do know that they read my posts here).
I only wish more people were willing to choose integrity over risk management, and understand that the risk taking not only is absolutely necessary to do their job well, but also often comes with far less actual risk than they fear should something go wrong (as you also point out).
My one misgiving about your post is the use of the term ‘mandated reporter’… I realize you put it in quotes… But I feel compelled to nonetheless say that that term is wildly used in the system. ‘Mandated reporter’ of course has nothing to do with suicide. Mandated Reporters are required to report when they suspect or become aware of abuse or neglect of a child, someone labeled with a disability, or someone considered elderly by a caretaker. That so many organizations refer to that as ‘mandated reporting’ is a way of silencing the conversation and making people feel forced to behave in certain ways. Because, of course, if it’s a mandate that exists beyond the organization that suggests much less potential to change things than if it’s simply an organization policy.
Thanks!
Sera
Report comment
Ken and Shaun,
I appreciate the truth of what you’re saying… that only doctors often have the right to sign off on papers, etc. to force someone into a psychiatric hold/forced hospitalization.
HOWEVER, it nonetheless feels disingenuous to me to focus on this in most instances. Because doctors often just take clinicians at their word, and do whatever they suggest is the right thing. Because I’ve heard of situations where doctors have left blank forms with their signature on them for clinicians to use whenever needed. Because it’s not at all common for nurses to be able to go to doctors even in psych hospitals and tell them what is needed with someone incarcerated there and have the doctor just do it (force them into a ‘room plan’ that leaves them in isolation, make a change to their psych drug regiment, etc. etc.).
The truth is that clinicians often have a TREMENDOUS amount of power when they say what is needed, even if they’re technically not able to sign off on the related paperwork. I realize there are exceptions or places where individuals aren’t int he same organization and if there’s tensions between the organizations that they may be less likely to listen to one another… but it’s true more often than not.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Hi Shaun,
I can appreciate the realities that clinicians working in the system face, even when they truly want to practice differently. I guess I have several thoughts on this…
1. Read Bruce Levine’s comment. At the most basic, if you could at least be real about *why* you are doing what you are doing, that’s a step in the right direction. Don’t get me wrong. It *still* can be devastatingly harmful to send someone to the hospital against their will, BUT… If you’re real about the reasons then at least you a) Can avoid contributing to the dehumanizing and disabling affects of telling someone that *they* are the problem in such a screwed up system and b) You can perhaps still partner with them to figure out how to minimize the damage. This might even include things like connecting them with folks who can coach them on what to say to get themselves the heck out of there as soon as possible, etc.
2. Read ‘Rational Suicide, Irrational Laws: Examining Current Approaches to Suicide in Policy and Law’ by Susan Stefan. Susan is an Attorney in Massachusetts who has reviewed case law, etc. on suicide across the country. One of the realities that she has been able to identify along the way is that a clinician being successfully held liable for someone’s suicide is about as likely as being struck by lightning. Reading this book may give you some useful information as to your options and realities of your and others’ fears.
3. Be upfront *before* someone comes to you and says they’re suicidal. *Tell* them what that would look like, and what you’d be obligated to do. Perhaps give every person you work with an informational sheet that explains all of your limits on privacy and what you’d be required to do if they said certain things. Be as specific as possible. But, don’t stop there. After you’re done being specific about all that, also give them resources for places where that’s NOT true… even if just a phone support line they can call. (But, be careful which one because many phone lines are also set up to call the cops if they perceive someone to be in imminent danger. But, there are SOME out there where that’s not true. The Western Mass RLC’s peer support line is an example of a place that simply won’t call the cops on someone talking about killing themselves, though it’s hours and funding are limited to 7pm to 9pm from Monday through Thursday and 7pm to 10pm from Friday through Sunday. (The number is 888.407.4515.) There are other options out there, too, but you really need to do your research to be able to be confident that they won’t call the cops, because most lines (including those most frequently promoted) will.
4. Connect with others in your field who are trying to do things differently. Folks in England (for example) have done a much better job of forming ‘critical’ networks where they can get together and talk about how to do their jobs differently, and support one another to know they’re not alone in trying to do so.
5. Also be honest about your fear and regret, and be willing to say you’re sorry. These things don’t make up for the worst of it, BUT being willing to talk about your own fears, regrets, worries, etc. *is* a big deal. Being willing to say you’re sorry when you cause harm is also huge. It almost never happens in the system.
Those are my best ideas for now.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Thanks for chiming in and adding to dfk’s comments here, Steve! 🙂 Certainly, childhood trauma can have such deeply integrated impacts on how we walk through the world that it can be hard to realize it’s even happening. Thank goodness for neuroplasiticity!
Report comment
Thanks, out! 🙂
Report comment
Okay, thanks for clarifying a bit. I feel like I understand a little bit more. Although, I’m not sure that I agree with your thoughts about people chosen. Either way, thanks for taking the time to read and share your thoughts!
Report comment
Thanks, dfk. You’ve offered an interesting perspective on this that I need to digest a bit more, but this certainly seems to be true for many people!: “Maybe the helping professions are not giving the right kind of feedback to those in distress.”
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Catnight! This is so true: “Education and intelligence sometimes obsufacstes human kindness and compassion.”
It gets at that unlearning vs. learning piece that I referenced in a prior comment!
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Thanks for reading, Diana!
Report comment
Bruce,
Thanks, Bruce. Your point is an important one… If folks in professional roles could at least be more honest (with themselves and those around them) about why they’re doing what they’re doing, that’d be a huge step forward. At the very least, if someone was honest about doing something to cover themselves, at least the person they’re doing it to might be a little less likely to internalize the idea that they’re bad/the problem/hopeless/etc. It is so much of that latter issue that drives people getting stuck in these systems.
-Sera
Report comment
Hi Danzig, I’m not totally sure I followed all of your comment, but I hope you didn’t think that this piece was suggesting a connection between biology and people’s emotional distress. While I think there are some situations where we might not know exactly what’s at the root for some people and I would never want to presume to know what causes people’s distress other than my own, I do think that so much of it is environmentally based.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Thanks for commenting, Noel. 🙂 Few things are truer than this: “We can’t connect when we’re too busy trying to fix, save, and control.”
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Ken! That’s a great quote. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Someone Else! I totally agree with you that so much of what I described above is really just about treating one another with basic human dignity and respect. Which is often why – when we do trainings on this topic – we find ourselves talking far more about *unlearning* (of all the layers of systemic crap that gets piled on) than learning.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, John. I can appreciate feeling so desperate about someone potentially being in medical distress that you call for help. I also really appreciate that it’s not what you jump to.
Unfortunately, overall, I don’t think policies that put it as ‘only in extreme situations’ go far enough because… Well, it still leaves it as an option and we’ve seen through history time and time again that what happens is providers tend to define more and more situations as extreme.
If we could *at least* get to the point within the provider system that it’s not see as ‘okay’ and is seen as a failure of the system to provide useful options and mandates a review of practices (including an interview with the person themselves)… Well, that would sure be a step in the right direction!
To come back around what I appreciated about what you offered… That you’ve been able to hold that line and had so few instances where you did resort to calling the police… is really useful toward demonstrating that that level of reduction is possible to folks who believe that ‘extreme situations requiring extreme measures’ are commonplace.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, J! 🙂
Yes, problems in families are often a part of what drives people to feel so alienated in the world. Along with poverty, racism, bullying, and so much other violence and hatefulness.
One of the concepts we talk a lot about in Alternatives to Suicide is that suicide isnt the problem… it’s a solution to so many other problems, albeit a desperate one.
Report comment
Thanks, Darby. 🙂 I always appreciate that you take the time to read what I write. I’m glad that this one touched you. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
I’d encourage you to watch it, Oldhead. I think you’re right, we don’t need to keep asking… And in fairness to the film, it doesn’t overtly ask. It’s pretty smartly constructed. But it does put the viewer – many of whom will not have come to the same conclusions as you already – to give thought to those points.
Report comment
Yes, well, you’ll get no argument for me on it being a rights/political issue, rather than an intellectual one… Although, I think we all fall into our own intellectual traps much of the time for lack of seeming to have any truly effective way to make satisfying change.
Report comment
Thanks for reading and commenting, Fiachra! Are you familiar with Suman Fernando? (Named in the article above) He speaks a great deal to what you’re referencing in the UK.
Report comment
The thing is that acknowledging racism does *not* mean we can’t also acknowledge collective fights. It also doesn’t need to mean that it’s ‘race against race’. In fact, the Hamiltons said many times while they were here that we’re all in this. We’re all being affected.
It’s also possible to acknowledge racism in a way that isn’t all about blame. I benefit from white privilege. I benefit from white supremacy. That doesn’t mean it’s me vs. black people, or that I’m operating with intent with any of that. Often there’s power to be found in acknowledging these issues honestly.
-Sera
Report comment
(I should add that – as aforementioned – I know zero about Roseanne’s politics, and have never seen the new version of her show so I have literally no opinion on any of it. I’m simply responding to her comment, and the subsequent effort to excuse it as ‘mental illness’.)
Report comment
Fair enough, meremortal. I would have balked less had Oldhead not begun his entire commentary by stating flatly that he hadn’t read anything I’d actually written… 🙂 As an author here, it can be very frustrating to have people come in and immediately go off topic. It can, unfortunately, change the whole energy of the piece.
-Sera
Report comment
Just one last quick note:
When you say this “There’s also something deeply bizarre with the idea that “the Blood is at” Roseanne’s “doorstep.” You may, as a white woman, feel that this extreme stance is really putting your weight behing the noble cause of supporting POC. As a POC, I can tell you that I find it profoundly weird that you would compare one comedian’s offhand, ambien-fuelled comment on Twatter to things like redlining, slavery, Jim Crow laws, lynchings, police brutality, etc. ”
It really makes me wonder if you’re misunderstanding how the phrase is getting used? As I understood it when Dameion stood at one of the screenings and told the audience the blood is now at all of our doorsteps, it was more about not being able to ignore what’s happening in the world… Not an accusation that we are each responsible or any sort of direct cause so much as a call to action, to not look away, to face the challenge of making change… Again, I’m not sure you’ve taken the time to understand what I offered here, but I at least wanted to be clear about that point.
Report comment
Rachel777,
Thanks for reading and commenting. I agree it’s a dangerous road to go down for so very many reasons.
-Sera
Report comment
Markps2,
Certainly there are issues with the police, their training, their focus, power, and so on. It’s a multilayered issue for sure. But, it would be a mistake to say that color doesn’t matter. It certainly plays a role.
-Sera
Report comment
Rachel,
As I understand it, Dontre was *not* homeless. He was simply resting in a park in the middle of the day. I believe there was a report that went out stating he was homeless, but I believe that that was an erroneous assumption (and likely an assumption worth examining the roots of).
I don’t actually know if Christopher Manney knew of Dontre’s diagnosis when he interacted with him. But I do know that how they painted Dontre afterward was skewed by that fact… (Check out the film if you have a chance.)
Report comment
Make of it what you will, meremortal. Oldhead came in here, openly acknowledged not reading this article, and then proceeded to make the whole thing about Trump verses liberals which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote. I know what happens around here when people do that. It has the potential to throw the entire comments section off track, and, yes, I find that disrespectful.
It also seems to me that you’ve misunderstood much of what I’ve said here. I certainly didn’t compare her commentary to those things. What I actually said was:
A) It is ridiculous that people are trying to excuse her behavior under the defense of ‘mental illness’.
B) That, yes, there is a history of ties between psychiatry and racism, but that it is of a very different nature.
C) That while, yes, Roseanne’s behavior shines a light on a much deeper and more serious issue of racism in this country, our focus would be much better served on the people and stories worth hearing about… That focus on a famous person’s offensive comments aren’t where to put our attention.
So, while you seem to have read what I wrote, I’m not sure you’ve taken time to understand. That’s fine. At least you read it. Thank you for that.
Report comment
I called everyone in the article by their first name, as best I recall. Yes, I referred to Trump as Trump… That’s just habit, I guess. But typically, I go for first names.
And no, I will not be changing my lead in. It is what it is. I don’t know if you’ve actually taken the time to *read* the article at this point, but one of my points is that racism is *systemic* and Roseanne’s comment is merely illuminating that fact. She’s not so different than many people in the country, and as you know very well, I’m someone who believes that all white or white-presenting people have benefited from racism and white supremacy in this country, so it’s far more complicated than Roseanne being any sort of villain. However, I do absolutely believe that consequences for such overt racism are merited and necessary to initiate any sort of real change…
MOST importantly, though, the point of the article is that it’s *absurd* to try and excuse her behavior as a symptom of ‘mental illness…’ That that’s wrong on many levels. And that the rush to focus on her while we’re still ignoring the voices and stories that deserve to be heard is a problem.
This is the last time I’m replying to you on this. I find it disrespectful to come onto articles – especially articles that expressly make the point about how important it is that we shine the line on the people who deserve to be lifted up – and attempt to derail things in this way.
Report comment
I do hope you’ll take this elsewhere, Oldhead. I didn’t know that Roseanne was a Trump supporter at the time I first heard about her Tweet, and I certainly didn’t have to have that in my head to hear her comment as pretty blatant bigtory. I don’t care if she is or isn’t a Trump supporter. It’s irrelevant. And.. If she didn’t realize that Valerie was black… Well, I don’t even know what to say about that. I find it hard to believe, even if she’s now claiming it.
More than anything, I really don’t appreciate this article being turned into a ground for strange political arguments and insults. This isn’t what all this is about. It’s more important than that.
Report comment
Thanks, Frank. 🙂 As with so many things, I don’t see this country suddenly ceasing to focus on the ‘celebrats’ as you so aptly put it, but we can definitely try and do our part. 🙂
Report comment
Thanks for reading and commenting, Darby. 🙂 I hope that others will get involved in turning the spotlight, too. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Fiachra,
It means they were given a diagnosis. I quite intentionally use that language when stating a diagnosis that is relevant to a story or circumstance because being given a diagnosis is a fact (if someone in fact was given one by a doctor, psychologist, etc.), but what that means or why is left open.
For example, I was personally given a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder. Can’t deny that. I sat before a therapist. They wrote it in my chart. But that still leaves space for me to say ‘and it was bullshit, and means nothing to me beyond the pain it caused me in the system.’ It’s fundamentally different than saying someone ‘has’ or ‘is’ a diagnosis in that way. It was relevant to mention here because the fact that Dontre was so diagnosed influenced how people, including the police, saw, interacted with, and spoke about him. It makes no claim about who he was or why.
I certainly hope that is not all that you got out of this. I quite intentionally didn’t make this yet another article that goes on about the injustice of the labels themselves because I believe it’s clear in what I did write (for example, in the paragraph where I name some of the relationships that have existed between racism and diagnosis) that there is a problem. The main focus deserves to not be lost.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Jan! 🙂
So, we did do a facilitator training in Melbourne, and the e-mail address for folks in that area who are getting things up and running is this: [email protected]
We just did some broader events in Sydney and hope to go back to do a facilitator training at some point, but the contact e-mail publicly listed for that area in relation to the events we did do or bringing a facilitator training to that area is listed as [email protected]
In Perth, there’s a committee managing getting things up and running (we’ve done the largest number of events/trainings in Perth) and their e-mail is: [email protected]
It’s all still quite in the early stages, but hoping things develop soon. 🙂 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Hi Jan,
Yes, Caroline and I arrived on March 1 and begin our flight home late on the 24th. We started in Melbourne where we offered an Alternatives to Suicide facilitator training. We then went to Sydney and did a couple of related events with hopes to return in the future for more. We’ve been in Perth for a week now, and between last week and this one up we will have done several events and both a When the Conversation Turns to Suicide and an Alternatives to Suicide Facilitator training. 🙂
We didn’t get to Brisbane, unfortunately, but would love to in the future! 🙂
Sera
Report comment
Jasna,
Challenging feedback is hard, and I’ve certainly been subject to it myself when I’ve written here. However, I feel confused by your feedback which seems to be largely referring to my comment (though maybe I’m wrong about that?). I wasn’t simply looking for the fine points with which to argue for the sake of argument… I found pretty substantial issues with what was offered here that I think either confuse or take away from what was good, and I guess I don’t see the value in ignoring that. Endless fighting over irrelevancies won’t take us forward – you’re right about that… But neither will silence.
-Sera
Report comment
Steve,
Thank you, but actually I think I appreciate your deconstruction of saneism above more than my own, so thanks for adding it! 😉
-Sera
Report comment
Hey there,
Well, you named Alternatives to Suicide so inevitably, I’m sure you knew, I’d pop up at some point. 🙂
There is plenty I agree with in what you wrote, but I guess I have a lot to say about the things I question or disagree with… I want to start with the opening paragraph:
“The radicalness of the anti-psychiatry movement has unfortunately become one of its greatest hurdles to overcome. Even in otherwise radical spaces like prison abolition, neurodiversity, or intersectional feminism, the most common reaction to anti-psychiatry ideas is to dismiss them as so intuitively ridiculous they need not be engaged with. Sanism, behaviorism, drugs and force have permeated our culture to the point many people literally can’t imagine life without them.”
I see others already disagreeing with your first sentence. I guess I do want to say a few things about the paragraph as a whole, though. I still think that ‘anti-psychiatry’ falls way short as a term. It implies focus on psychiatry rather than a whole system, and distracts from the actual arguments for being a term so often used as an attack or diagnosis against someone others wish to dismiss.
Meanwhile, I’m concerned about terms like ‘sanism,’ as well. I don’t get it. These terms seem to be raining down on us from leftist intellectual land, but I guess I don’t really appreciate what this one seems to suggest. If racism is a systemic oppression that centers whiteness and assumes it as society’s ‘default,’ and heterosexism does the same where heterosexuality is concerned… Are we saying that society society is centering those who are sane and setting that as society’s ‘default’ as opposed to those who are insane? I don’t get it. And I really, really do not accept the idea that I am ‘insane’ (or mad, etc. etc. etc.).
This language seems to fly in the face of the idea that we all have (or have the potential to have) deep distress, extreme states, etc. at various points, and that those experiences often make a ton of sense in relationship to our environments. It also flies in the face of the idea that experiences like hearing voices or seeing visions are the norm within some cultures, and can be a variation from the norm that does not mean anything is actually ‘wrong’ in our own. So, not only do I not really get that terminology… it actually seems actively harmful to me.
So, on to your second paragraph:
“On a good day, our leaders pontificate about “reforms” that would somehow fix a system whose deepest foundation is a bed of violence, oppression, and at best pseudoscience. They ask for cultural awareness training, yoga classes, art therapy, and healthier food options in psychiatric facilities, without ever questioning the confinement that made those things unavailable in the first place (let alone the coercion involved when participation in such activities becomes a condition of obtaining release).”
Wait, who are you thinking of as our ‘leaders’? And who on earth among our ‘leaders’ isn’t questioning the confinement and coercion? Myself and most (if not all) of my co-workers fall in the middle of the ‘reform’ vs. ‘abolition’ debate… Many of us believe abolition would be best and is a noble goal, but also that it is naive and harmful and unfair to desert those individuals still stuck in the system… And so we spend time working on making the conditions more tolerable, too. But we *NEVER* lose sight while engaged in our efforts in the latter of the force and coercion that occurs. We write articles about it, we talk to providers about it, we offer trainings that incorporate awareness of it, and – most importantly – we take action to push back against it wherever we can both in individual situations and overall.
I think there are some people who fit the description you offer, but it’s completely inaccurate to suggest that any and everyone who hasn’t invested all their time in abolition talk fits the definition you’ve provided here.
Another section I want to quote directly: “Mad and neurodivergent people would be managers, not “peer specialists…The essential function of a “peer specialist” is to appear non-threatening, earn people’s trust, and convince them to stay on their meds. Hiring managers know that these positions only exist because others don’t, that there are far more job-seekers than jobs to fill, and thus that anyone they hire is easily replaceable.”
Again, this seems misinformed to me. I certainly agree that a *huge* number of ‘peer’ roles are co-opted, poorly designed, and harmful. But the definition you offer defines the co-opted lot, and not what these roles are truly meant to be. And what they’re truly meant to be *does* exist in at least some peer-to-peer *and* provider settings. It also suggests to me that you’re unfamiliar with the true landscape of things when you say that there are far more job-seekers than jobs to fill. In many areas, people are struggling deeply to find qualified individuals to fill peer roles.
Also, there are a number of places where people who you might define as part of the ‘mad’ movement do hold managerial roles. I know many in my state alone. Although, what precisely are you suggesting they should be managers of, if the system will no longer exist?
I understand where you’re coming from with the following: “If the “peer specialist” has more power than the patient, then they’re not a peer, and if they have the same or less power, then they’re not needed.” Yet, it also seems a little misinformed to me. There’s still a tremendous need to have someone – even who has no more power than the individual stuck in the system – to be by their side, bear witness, help them strategize about how to get heard, help them learn about ways out, etc. There’s tremendous power in these things. Though, I’ll also add that of course people in peer roles don’t have exactly equal power as the person they’re trying to support.. They’re getting paid. They get to leave locked environments. They’ll be seen as more credible because they’re an employee. Etc. Etc. Etc. But if they’re well trained and supported, their role will be designed to reduce and avoid power imbalances as much as possible.
This is also inaccurate: “Currently, all hotlines train their staff as mandated reporters, to listen for key phrases and if the caller utters one of them, secretly send people with guns and a history of recklessly using them, directly to the caller’s location. The sole exception is Trans Lifeline, which is of course exclusively for trans people, only a fraction of everyone who might want to call a crisis hotline.”
Unless you’re not counting ‘peer support lines?’ The Western Mass RLC operates a Peer Support Line and we absolutely do not track calls or notify 911 no matter what someone says. I agree with you that what you describe is a huge issue among such lines, but please be careful about misrepresenting these points. I’m pretty sure there are at least a few others who do not track calls, too.
Meanwhile, I’m also concerned about your use of the language of ‘mandated reporter.’ While some employees within the system are misinformed that mandated reporter is generally connected to reporting people who are suicidal, this is not what it means in most places. Rather, ‘mandated reporter’ most commonly means that people are required to report known or suspected abuse or neglect of children, elders, or individuals labeled disabled by care givers. It’s important that we not further contribute to that common misunderstanding.
And there’s this: “In a post-psychiatry world, both would be regularly, sternly reminded of their humility. Moreover, they would be taught when not to intervene, and they would not need to have basic respect packaged as just another proprietary methodology, with a sexy name like “Open Dialogue,” “Intentional Peer Support,” “Emotional CPR,” or even “Alternatives to Suicide.” You follow this up with the following in the comments section: “Essentially they boil down to “don’t do Mental Health First Aid” or “don’t call the police” and the rest is just fluff to make them sound more like something social workers might accept into their existing paradigm. IPS, eCPR and Alternatives to Suicide are good tools for mitigating a big problem, but I long for the day they become unnecessary.”
So, first of all, I wasn’t aware that “Alternatives to Suicide” was a ‘sexy’ name, but… thanks? I will say that the rest of what you say about it here, though, is both confusing and offensive, if I’m honest. I’m not aware that you’ve been through the Alternatives to Suicide training… Have you? Am I mistaken about that? Caroline and I are currently traveling around Australia offering a variety of presentations and trainings on just that approach right now, and while I’ll agree with you that some of each training and presentation focuses on the research about how current approaches are harmful… There’s a heck of a lock more to the approach than ‘don’t funnel people into the system’ or ‘don’t call 911.’
We talk an awful lot in these trainings about what *to* do… How to respond… questions that can be really useful to ask… fears that can arise for the listener and how to work through or learn to sit with them… This is only the briefest of summaries. But the point is, it’s not ‘fluff.’ I also don’t experience Intentional Peer Support in the way that you describe.
And I wonder about the society where you feel these sorts of supports would have no use? Do you really mean to suggest that its only the mental health system that’s seen death and suicide as taboo? Cause I’m pretty sure religions that long preceded the mess we’re in now have had issue with it… And that families and communities have struggled in various ways since basically the beginning of time.
Are you really meaning to suggest that the absence of the mental health system trap would mean a lack of need for healthy supports for people who are struggling? Cause I can’t quite help but hear some of that in what you’re saying right now.
I’m going to stop going through your article point by point because it’s just so long and I don’t want to basically write a blog of my own in your comments section… I do agree (as I said at the start) with many of your points including the problems with the idea of rebranding (although I think there’s value in referencing psych diagnoses as opposed to most of the other terms as it’s simply a fact that one’s been diagnosed and said nothing about what’s *actually* going on), with the need to dispose of the diagnostic system, and with some of the overarching points about the problems with in and need to do away with the mental health system.
But I keep getting lost in what feels like a lack of full understanding, contradictions, and what feels like a disregard of how the mental health system and its functions and perspectives are rather inextricably linked to school systems, prison systems, capitalism, and so much else…
-Sera
Report comment
Hi Julie,
Thank you for sharing your experience, as always. I’ve definitely seen people called suicidal as a way of controlling them. It’s awful.
-Sera
Report comment
Well… Thanks, Pat. I’m often not quite sure what to say in response to your comments, but thank you for reading… If you did…
Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Mik. High sensitivity is in fact how I think about a lot of my experience in the world. It’s good to know how many people have similar experiences. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, beckys!
Report comment
Thank you, Slaying_the_Dragon. I’m working on it. 🙂
Report comment
Thank you, humanbeing! 🙂
Report comment
Yep, A lot of people have already responded, and we’re hoping to use people’s input to publish something focused on this idea of ‘what we’ve learned about the spoken and unspoken rules of the system’ that we can make available to everyone. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Steve! 🙂 I guess blog writing on long plane rides isn’t such a bad idea after all 😉
-Sera
Report comment
Hahah. Thanks for chiming in, FeelinDiscouraged! Saturday morning cartoons, indeed. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Bradford, Sounds like you may have spent even more time in at Suicide.org than I did! I missed the angel bit. :p Thanks for sharing some of your experience. It is strange (but true) how both the absolute fear to talk about death and the hyperfocus on preventing on death at all costs can co-exist. In a way I guess it make sense… because if you talk and act only to prevent it, then you don’t need to actually talk about it in any depth? It’s definitely a symptom of how messed up society is.
I’m sorry about your friend. I’ve lost a few people to suicide. It’s hard, and only gets harder when no one will actually talk about what happened.
-Sera
Report comment
dfk,
That’s a powerful statement. Thank you for sharing.
-Sera
Report comment
Hey Eric,
I haven’t really thought of it as voice hearing, but I see the connections you draw. 🙂 thanks for reading!
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Fiachra. It’s always good to hear when someone relates to my experiences. 🙂
Sera
Report comment
Hi Diana,
Thanks so much for your comment and support. 🙂 And thank you for your efforts in Canada, as well! (We just offered our first training – on Alternatives to Suicide – in Canada in late October which was great. 🙂 )
-Sera
Report comment
Richard,
I’ve come back to your comment a few times, and I’m not really sure how to respond. I guess I agree with a lot – maybe almost all – of what you’re saying. And yet, I do find the message paralyzing, as much as you say you don’t mean it to be. I’m also not totally sure I agree that the *only* way to shift some of this is to undo capitalism. Even with capitalism in place, I think I’m going to have to at least hope that there are other ways to adjust its focus or what feeds it… Somehow it feels more attainable to me to *use* capitalism’s tools to undo its capitalist appeal than to undo capitalism. Perhaps that’s foolish, but I’d be interested in a conversation about what *that* could look like.
-Sera
Report comment
Eh, I see some of what you’re talking about, Julie… I personally support people to use *any* drugs they want in whatever way works for them, and without needing to post about it. People always have used drugs. It’s not inherently bad. What’s bad is the system that pushes a particular set of drugs as the ‘cure,’ while demonizing people who use the other set.
I personally do talk about not using psych drugs at this point in my life… because it’s important to have some people (and not just some, but a critical mass of people) out there challenging the perception that psych drugs and psych diagnosis are a meaningful and consistent link in any sort of way…
Sera
Report comment
Rasselas,
Thanks for your comment… Although, I don’t think this is accurate:
“Some people, I accept, such as Sera, work hard at bringing people together. Other people, such as myself, encourage people to break free and go it alone.”
I think part of the challenge of the community in which I work, myself, etc, is that we do both things… We offer talks and trainings to providers, attempt to develop better ways for people who might be more succeptible/willing to ‘get it’ to begin to think about things in a different way… While *also* making films like the ‘Virtues of Non-Compliance’ that is basically all about how being so-called ‘non-compliant,’ ignoring what we were told in the system and getting on with life, in fact, saved our lives… Or a project we’re working on right now that is all about gathering information from people who’ve survived the system to share their wisdom about how they navigated the system’s unwritten rules and were able to ‘play the game’ well enough to get out, etc.
We do both, and we don’t apologize for it. That makes us pretty hard to tolerate for a lot of people… And that’s fine.
Sera
Report comment
Thanks so much for your reply, Susan.
I love what you wrote here:
“I came to the conclusion that many people who say they to want to hear ‘the other side’ actually don’t. They want to feel smug in their ‘open-mindedness,’ but they are threatened by any hint of real change.
It’s called cooptation – they pretend that you have a place with them, but that place is only to make them look better than they are.”
I think it is exactly true… Please stick around only so long as you make us look/feel good about ourselves.
-S
Report comment
It is indeed, John. And yet no less frustrating and demoralizing…
Report comment
I genuinely am not sure why you are posting this here. This blog isn’t about ‘recovery.’ I’ve been pretty clear for many years that I don’t support the concept. And I am a part of a community that rejects most conventional ideas about psychiatric diagnosis and ‘help,’ and takes many pretty concrete actions toward change.
Feel free to not like what I do or say, but arguing with me about something that has nothing to do with me because you – for some reason – need to believe that that’s part of my message is… not too much better than how the system treats me at the moment.
I’m not going to respond anymore. 🙂
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Yes, I believe you are being presumptuous… You responded to a blog that has nothing to do with recovery with what feels like an attack on what I do based on the concept of recovery. And when I say you are being presumptuous it is because there is nothing that I write about that indicates support of the concept ‘recovery,’ and in fact, what I write about specifically speaks to my rejection of the term. Because there’s nothing on our website that speaks to ‘recovery’ beyond our name. And so on. We didn’t come up with our name, and while we’ve talked about changing it, frankly, we’ve been too busy with the ‘doing.’
If you’re curious to see what happens with our work, just take a look… at our films, at our materials, etc… We’ve been around for over ten years. There’s already plenty to see in terms of where we come from.
Report comment
Richard,
Honestly, I didn’t have time to fully read your post to respond more in depth so I just tried to put something out there recognizing you posted. I’ll try to read and respond more in depth over the weekend.
Sera
Report comment
Nope. What you’re saying is presumptuous and sort of empty. Our name has the word ‘recovered’ in it because it was chosen 15 years ago and we didn’t have control over it. We’ve talked about changing it more recently and are working on that. But I don’t think there is a single person on our leadership team that would say they are invested in the concept of ‘recovery.’ We talk about our lack of belief in that, ‘mental illness’ ‘suicide prevention’ and many other such concepts all the time. So, please stop making assumptions and look at our actual work. 🙂
Report comment
Thanks for taking time to write out so many thoughts and lessons learned, Richard. We may not always agree, but I appreciate that you’ve got much experience and wisdom to lend to these conversations.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Deena. Unfortunately, I just haven’t experienced most folks in the system *truly* hearing too much, even when watered down. Sure, they are less angry, more entertained, more thankful. But not necessarily more changed. not saying it never happens, but the overall trend…. I dunno.
Report comment
Thanks, Brett. I appreciate your reading and kind words. I know it can also be difficult to be in a more clinical role and oppose the current paradigm. In fact, in one of our current film projects, there are three groups – individuals who’ve been ‘in’ the system, clinicians/direct support works, and administrators… And truth be told, Group 3 (administrators) was FAR angrier with Group 2 (clinical providers) when they said critical things about the system than they were with Group 1 (people who’d been ‘in’ the system). I imagine the reasons for that could be interpreted in at least a few different ways, but nonetheless, there it was.
-Sera
Report comment
You may have noticed that I use the word ‘recovery’ nowhere except in the name of where I work, which was a name developed something like 15 years ago.
Perhaps you’d enjoy this blog I wrote quite some time ago called the ‘Recover’ Trap. https://www.madinamerica.com/2013/04/the-recovery-trap/
Once again, please take some time to know me and those I work with before presuming criticisms.
Report comment
I have to admit this comment makes me angry, so I’m going to do my best to respond as best I can without falling into that.
I am not ‘in bed’ with anyone in the sense that you speak. The community with which I work has done more to support people to get out of the system, to push back against the system, to challenge psychiatry, etc. In the last ten years than most other communities and groups and activists I know. We work hard beyond our limits and take risks all the time to have that be true. I would suggest you check out our work first hand before assigning it to any category.
I do not ‘want to be.’ I am. And at least half the folks I know who disparage what we do as being somehow ‘in the system’ are spending most of their time saying those things, not actually doing themselves.
By the way, my blog says nothing about change ‘needing to come from the inside.’ And frankly, it’s more than a little insulting that you suggest I have such a childish view that lacks any real nuance.
This blog was about how hard it is to hold the lines I’ve held and do the work I do and the cost that comes with that… the cost to me as a human being who can only take so much poor treatment, even if it is expected.
Perhaps my next blog should be the predictable way in which people in this movement tear each other down, too.
Thanks for reading,
Sera
Report comment
steetphotobeing,
I can only imagine what you might have watched, but thanks! I’ll take a look at the article.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Lily. I hear you on just choosing to stay away. Obviously, I’ve made a different choice, but it doesn’t always feel so sustainable.
-Sera
Report comment
Pat,
I continue to be perplexed by your portrayal of things. I’m sorry that you didn’t feel welcomed with Hearing Voices USA. And yet, I repeatedly hear you misrepresent what people have said, what Hearing Voices USA or the charter stands for, what I’m saying here, etc. You’re also conflating Hearing Voices USA and the RLC. The RLC is the group that brought Rufus May and Elisabeth Svanholmer to the US to offer some training on Voice Dialoguing. We don’t expect others to do what we are doing. We choose our own priorities, and I think many people have benefited from many of the choices we have made. I’m sure they also disagree with some of them, or wish we’d prioritize other things. We do the best we can.
My experiences with you in person have always been pleasant, but I’m pretty baffled by the parts of yourself that you bring to this forum. Ultimately, I guess it’s your choice how you show up here, but I do want to ask that you do your best not to misrepresent other people/groups wherever possible.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Oh for goodness sake. You’re over hear arguing semantics, and Pat is down below ignoring the problems that paid peer roles have created. Perhaps the two of you could argue together?
I’m done and holding out hope that people may show up here who want to actually talk about the blog, and not these arguments that are getting us nowhere.
Report comment
Oldhead,
I guess part of my point is that it’s (largely) impossible to not eventually feel beaten down by the constant abuse, disregard, dismissal, etc… It doesn’t have to be about approaching them as lesser than or needing their approval. That I don’t is, I imagine, part of the problem. And yet, I am human. And it gets exhausting.
I very much disagree with your ‘black power’ analogy, although I get your point. As I’ve already stated, I don’t care for the term ‘anti-psychiatry’ and it’s not really about try to soothe anyone’s fears. I simply don’t relate to it, and the fact that that’s actually my *truth* and people *still* want to use it to dismiss makes the whole thing all the more maddening.
Yes, I realize that a large part of the downfall of the strength of this movement came with paid ‘peer’ roles and such. I talk about that with a great deal of frequency. And yet, expecting people to network, gain strength, and have a voice long-term with*out* any funding to support that is part of what made what was also not sustainable, I believe. Kind of a lose:lose…
-Sera
Report comment
It’s funny. My post feels so clear to me, and seems to be connecting with several others to whom it also feels very clear. But, I guess we all see things through our own lenses and experiences, and so I can’t fault you for feeling otherwise.
Perhaps it comes down to my simply not liking the word. I do not think that the term ‘anti-psychiatry’ conveys the things that you say above very well at all. I also feel that many people who talk about ‘anti-psychiatry’ as their primary perspective tend to over simplify things, but as you’ll see above some people feel that over-simplification is a bonus.
It doesn’t work for me. That’s kind of all there is to it. It’s like arguing about what the word ‘bipolar’ means. Even for those who accept that label, it actually *looks* a thousand different ways, let alone if you factor in those who do not. It is not a way I choose to identify myself, and I think the term misses the mark, at the very least, in being a way to accurately convey what (some) people mean by it. I don’t really see the point in arguing about it, honestly.
-Sera
Report comment
Criticism is fair, and there’s already a good amount of it in this comments section if you missed it! But I’m often troubled by your comments, as they seem to misrepresent what I say and what I do more often than not. I’m also confused by your capitalization in the above, but that’s also fine. And, you’re welcome to continue to e-mail me or the RLC for resources… My point was that you seem to tend toward attack here, and yet you clearly must see *some* value in what we do.
Report comment
Yes, I like to call like to call it activism with integrity, and you’re right, it’s hard to do that sort of activism without burning out. 🙂 It’s hard to imagine that you’re actually trying to argue with our push back against the Boston Globe for their deeply offensive ‘mental health spotlight’ series, or the way our school systems are failing our kids… Is that really what you’re doing? Also, my ‘getting along/synthesizing’ comment wasn’t about my blogs. I say what I want here. I was talking about my ability to navigate my daily work. 🙂 And speaking of my daily work, didn’t I – at your request – just send you a book I wrote on developing peer respite? It escapes me a bit why you keep coming on these blogs and intentionally misrepresenting or disparaging what I have to say. 🙂 But that’s okay. I hope all is well in your neck of the woods. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
I absolutely refuse to have the slavery compared to psychiatry argument again. This blog was deeply personal for me and took me a long time to write, and I simply won’t participate in having it hijacked in that way.
As to the rest… The whole argument misses the mark for me. Almost any perspective that is completely one-sided is usually missing something in my eyes. That is how ‘anti-psychiatry’ feels to me. It a) misses that humans have used drugs for an eternity to manage their feelings, experiences, etc, and I’m not entirely sure that’s wrong in the most fundamental sense b) misses the fact that iatrogenic harm and dehumanization happen in the system for many reasons that include but extend beyond psychiatric drugs… At a minimum it misses those things.
In any case, I’m done arguing about this, too, but thank you for reading the blog.
Report comment
Thanks, Steve. You’re right… we’re working against corruption, and data doesn’t help. I appreciate that frame. 🙂
Report comment
Meh. As I said in my blog, I don’t think ‘anti-psychiatry’ is helpful. I’m all for anti-oppression, anti-force, etc… but for me, anti-psychiatry kind of misses the mark. Sorry!
Report comment
mecarlym,
Thanks so much for reading and commenting, as much as you’re not so generally inclined. 🙂 There seems to be a real push/pull for so many of us when it comes to staying in this work and fighting vs. walking away to do something else, or at least not get paid within the system. Touch choices all around, but you sound like someone I’m happy is still connected. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
I suspect we will continue to disagree on elements of this, Frank. I’m mostly going to look past your first paragraph (which feels a little insulting) and say this:
As I said in one of my comments above, I agree that wiping the slate clean and starting over in terms of what we regard as ‘helping’ people and why and how to go about all that in our society is the ideal.
Where we most strenuously disagree, I believe, is where I feel you have over simplified things. It’s not *just* about people being ‘different,’ as much as that’s a huge part of it. It may, in fact, be the most motivating part of it for the roots of this system… And yet, there are also people who are really struggling and want help, etc. Additionally, whenever I hear people get so fixed on abolition rather than change, it feels like it comes from a place of privilege to me. (Not privilege as in wealth or lack of hardship or whatever, but privilege nonetheless…. The privilege of not so much being at risk anymore of ending up in one of these places. The people I work with go in to institutions every day to try and help people get on their feet and get out… Abolitionist talk misses that. I realize that if we were truly successful in abolition, those people would also get out… Except, it wouldn’t be those people… They would have been lost and died off long ago. And I’m just not comfortable with sacrificing people in the now for what we might achieve somewhere far down the road.
Report comment
I hear you, feelindiscouraged. Most of this blog was directed as those who hold power and aren’t at any particular risk, not people who are trying to avoid incarceration. I’ve definitely experienced marginalization, but fortunately haven’t faced any real threat of incarceration in a long time for which I am very thankful. -Sera
Report comment
Got it. Thanks. 🙂
Report comment
Mark,
Eh, there are lots of ‘smart’ reasons why people leave those of us who are speaking up on our own, yes. It’d probably be smarter for me to shut up, too… Maybe follow my brother’s path, and work in the field of computers. And yet, here we are.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, J. In the best of worlds, I think abolition is indeed where it’s at. I’m not sure how we fix something that is being driven by so many interests that just aren’t helpful or healthy. What keeps me chasing reform is knowing how many people are stuck in there if we stop tending to that, and the numerous successes many of us have seen of helping people move beyond stuckness to a full life. I don’t feel great about getting too black and white about abolition goals primarily for that reason… But, yes, we need something totally different than what we have now.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Darby. I appreciate your response, and knowing that my experiences resonate with others. And that you’re still here! 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Not totally sure how to interpret some of your comment, but thanks for reading, either way.
I disagree with your link between ‘critical psychiatry’ and ‘moderate,’ but perhaps that does – as you say – depend on who you’re asking. I only know that the only place I ever get called a ‘moderate’ is around here, and only by a pretty small group of folks. :p
Personally, I’m not backing away from ‘antipsychiatry’ to justify anything. I’ve never cared for the term. It’s too black and white. I prefer to be critical of anything and everything. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks. 🙂
Report comment
Hey Will,
I’ve been traveling and am super sleepy at the moment, but wanted to write a quick comment since you took the time to name us (Western Mass RLC) in your blog!
I hear you on the fact that our movement hasn’t been nearly as successful as we want to be or should be or need to be in making real change… And I can totally support the idea of trying to re-evaluate strategies, and decide if we need to change direction a bit (or a lot) and how. This is actually not the first conversation I’ve had of this nature in the last sevenish days.
However, I feel confused about your proposed strategy here… Not because I think capitalism hasn’t been harmful, but… because I’m not sure lack of capitalism has particularly led to success for individuals with psychiatric histories, and I certainly don’t feel more hopeful about our changing the tide of our political and economic systems than I do about changing the the mental health elements around us…
I also feel confused about why you called out RLC specifically? I’ll just assume it’s because we’re such a good representation of what peer-to-peer support can actually look like 😉 … But bear in mind we aren’t just doing peer support and sitting around for others to change the world. We’re trying to work on all of it… but we’re definitely open to new ideas about how to move forward. 🙂
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Oldhead,
I did receive a head’s up both that an article was coming, and a notification when it actually went up. I didn’t get to see it in advance or anything, but I knew it was on its way.
Sera
Report comment
I find myself continuously surprised at the animosity of your comments, Pat, particularly since your misunderstanding of our work seems to run deep.
Report comment
Lael,
I hope you will see my full response to Patrick below. I did not question anyone’s ‘peerness’…. not in the way he suggests anyone. I do however question the way that word gets thrown around, and the hiring practices and intent of many orgs hiring up people into peer roles.
Sera
Report comment
I believe Darby would agree that the organization to which I am connected (correct me if I’m wrong, Darby!) is one: the Western Mass Recovery Learning Community. http://Www.westernmassrlc.org
Report comment
Hi Patrick,
I’m finally back. I hope you’ll bear with me in my more detailed response to your piece. It’s going to be long, although it’s late and so I’m afraid it won’t be quite as thorough or well thought out as I would have liked.
First of all, let me begin by saying (once again) thank you. In order to respond to your blog, I needed to go back and read my own. I forgot how much I liked that particularly blog, so thanks for making me take another look! 🙂
Okay, but, let’s get down to business. For starters, no, I am totally not kidding you. Do I mean to suggest that this certification has taken a completely healthy ‘peer support’ industry and knocked it off its perch onto the ground? No. ‘Peer support’ was suffering for being an ‘industry’ at all, and it was already deeply in trouble. But, Mental Health America certainly ain’t helping the situation.
My complaints about Mental Health America (MHA) date back well before this last blog. In fact, the very first blog I ever wrote for Mad in America (back in December of 2012) was about MHA’s disappointing connection to mental health screening tools. See here, for more: https://www.madinamerica.com/2012/12/i-am-the-number-60/
I followed that up with others, including ‘Dear NAMI: My apologies. I’ve been unfair’ (https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/03/dear-nami-apologies-ive-unfair/) in 2014 (in which I detail MHA and a few other organization’s heavy connections to the pharmaceutical industry), and ‘Do NAMI and MHA suffer from Anosognosia’ (https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/09/do-nami-and-mha-suffer-from-anosognosia/) back in 2015, where I discuss (among other things) Gionfriddo’s testimony in support of the Murphy Bill. So, you see, the problematic roots of MHA run deep.
But, that aside, let’s look at what you wrote.
So, the bell. I think you missed quoting what the bell *actually* said, or accurately representing my concerns with it at all. It’s not the ‘mental illness’ language. As harsh as that is on my ears, I understand the language of the era and all that. It’s the actual message. A refresher: Here’s what the bell’s inscription says in full:
“Cast from shackles which bound them, this bell shall ring out hope for the mentally ill and victory over mental illness.”
It doesn’t say that the bell shall ring out hope for the ‘mentally ill’ and victory over the system, the abuses they have suffered, the discrimination, the maltreatment, or whatever words might have been most commonly used to describe these phenomenon in that year. No, it suggests the bell ‘ring out hope’ for ‘victory over mental illness.’ That’s a *completely* different message, isn’t it? In fact, it sounds exactly like NAMI’s message, and every other organization that seeks to increase treatment to ward off and conquer these destructive ‘diseases’ without any real critical eye on the system itself (except perhaps to say it doesn’t offer enough beds or access for the “seriously mentally ill”). So, either you have re-interpreted what was written to what you wish it said (or what serves you in this moment), or the author(s) was a really poor writer. Either way, I’m sticking with my assertion that it is tone deaf and gross.
You continue with several other points (I particularly appreciate the details on who makes what per each certification, so thank you for that), but also misrepresent another point I made here:
“On a side note, I have no qualms about saying that all of the peers, including me, involved directly in the creation of this credential have just as much right to claim membership in the peer community as anyone else. When other people, particularly those with large audiences, try to disparage our “peerness” I have visions of a so-called recovery center I once visited which required proof of diagnosis before people were allowed access to the facility. It makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.”
Not a single time did I question anybody’s ‘peerness.’ Anyone who knows me or has read much of what I written will know that anything that links me to any place that would ask people for their diagnosis (or any other such thing) isn’t taking the time to understand what I’m saying at all.
This is what is called a straw man argument, Patrick. You are responding to an argument I never made in order to (intentionally or not) distract from the points I actually made. I have *never* questioned the experiences of anyone who claims to have a psychiatric history or to have faced enough life-interrupting challenges to work in a peer role. What I *actually* said was that many organizations eat up the people who have internalized oppression, or who are prone to be silenced and changed when their paycheck comes from those they’ve previously sought to change.
This is an important argument. It does not seek to diminish one’s experience or identity (and certainly doesn’t seek to ‘prove’ whether or not they qualify for membership to the ‘club’), but rather it questions whether or not they have had or currently have the support to not be swallowed up whole, co-opted and used by the system. And, it further questions the nature of a system that would prefer to hire people in this position than those who have gone through a fuller process of self and system realization.
Based on what you say here, I’d also go several steps further and question your use of the word ‘peer’ in at least two other ways. First, you seem to be using it to mean an identity. Thus, right from the start, you are using the word in a co-opted manner. ‘Peer’ is not an identity you get to claim because you have some particular life experience. ‘Peer’ is a way of relating to other people. It’s an approach. A way of being. You serve to do the work of co-optation of the role simply by changing it to mean something else. (See my blog, ‘Cheers for Peers’ for more on this: https://www.madinamerica.com/2013/07/cheers-for-peers/)
Meanwhile, by claiming doctors and licensors and all that can be ‘peers’ you also go a step or two deeper into dangerous territory by not only claiming ‘peer’ as a singular identity, but by also ignoring that peer supports and peer-to-peer relationships are fundamentally built on minimizing power imbalances. So, while doctors, licensors, and all sorts of other people may have psychiatric histories and legitimate wisdom to share from those experiences, they are full of power.
Is this what you mean when I say I’m questioning people’s ‘peerness,’ Patrick? Because, if so, then I guess you’re right on. I do not question anyone’s right to claim a psychiatric history, or to choose to work in peer support. I do not think someone needs to share a diagnosis, take a qualifying test, prove they’ve been hospitalized, or anything else in order to play this game. But, yes, I sure as hell reject that I am a ‘peer’ (I am a human) or that doctors who have psychiatric histories are able to participate in offering peer support for all the power they hold.
On to the clinical dance: You say, ” What is not said, through no fault of Ms. Davidow, is that in the initial interview I accentuated that individuals choosing to participate in DBT do so voluntarily and arrive at treatment goals and methods in concert with their therapist.”
Now it’s my turn to say, ‘Are you kidding me!?’ Hundreds of thousands of people have been forced into DBT-inspired programs. If they’re given a choice at all, sometimes it goes something like this, “So, you could live in this here DBT-based residential program, or… you could be homeless. What do you choose?”
Additionally, some people who ‘choose’ DBT do so under coercion or misinformation. And, once they’ve ‘chosen,’ and they realize it’s not working for them, they can’t easily or immediately undo their ‘choice.’ So, yeah, what you offer here changes nothing, and simply re-enforces my impression that you’re not paying attention to what’s actually happening to so many people in the mental health system.
By insisting that peer supporters deviate from listening to the person they’re supporting over all other influences, you are diminishing the most very basic point of this all. At the very least, if a person participating in DBT chose it voluntarily, then surely THEY know that. If, knowing that, they still choose to reach out to a peer supporter and ask them to advocate or help with something that clinicians may seen as ‘interfering,’ they do so also knowing that. Are you suggesting that the peer supporter nonetheless treat that person as a child who can’t knowingly decide to act outside of the DBT framework, and that the peer supporter needs to take on that responsibility?
In my world of peer support, we practice responsibility *to* one another, not for. The system has already done far too much harm being responsible ‘for.’ If a peer supporter has a question (so much of our work is about questions and curiosity), then they can *ask* the person with whom they’re connecting. After all, this is all so much more about understanding THAT person’s worldview and NOT someone else’s (and certainly not Marsha Linehan’s). I reject this idea entirely, and continue to assert that such beliefs will contribute to further destruction of whatever good and potential may be left. So, yes, ‘clinical, I do think so.’
You go on to offer that, “Ms. Davidow’s comments on the Code of Ethics are her opinion… They are the same as the majority of codes of ethical behavior that any certified professionals agree to.”
Well, okay, but this isn’t the “majority” of work. It’s an employment structure for people who have faced silencing and discrimination. It’s already been severely co-opted and misunderstood. While I don’t agree with everyone here who says its pointless altogether, I do seriously question whether there’s any way to have it exist and hold it on track as anything else than what people here accuse it of being. Peer support is also already something that people like Tim Murphy, Susan Inman, Elinore McCance-Katz, E Fuller Torrey, and DJ Jaffe have sought to control or destroy. The language of not practicing beyond one’s expertise is precisely what was put into the Murphy Bill in an effort to control peer roles in really limiting ways.
Saying this is all ‘just the same’ as any other license is just silliness as far as I can tell. Don’t you at least think the level of potential for discrimination is worth considering before people start signing off on this thing? Has it not occurred to you that various Anosognosia disciples might lodge complaints simply to push these issues? Are you ignoring national news of the Murphy Bill passing under the 21st Century Cures Act or McCance-Katz making her way into SAMHSA with destroying peer support on her mind? Might you not be handing them just the tools they need?
I just recently received an e-mail from someone wishing we’d get ‘shut down’ simply for hosting a Coming Off Psych Drugs event. You seem to be very naïve about the potential dangers here, and that is terrifying given you are constructing a framework in which so many other people may get caught.
You close with this: “Ms. Davidow is writing this in a blog about Mental Health America, so the clear implication is that MHA is shrouding itself in “so-called peers” and “party liners.” The comments about not being able to see through their own medicated haze and tokenism are even more revolting.”
Are you denying that organizations across the country are hiring up “party liners” and people who haven’t made their way out from under the weight of over prescriptions and other varieties of disabling treatments enough to think about their role? If you’re truly suggesting that’s not a thing, then you’re not paying any attention at all. None of that is meant to disparage the people working in peer support who get caught up in that trend, as it’s usually not really their fault. But, to ignore the phenomenon is just as dangerous as everything else you suggest.
But you seem really wed to ignoring all this. For example, when you say “The individual who “confessed” to feeling beholden to their employer was not referring to us since they are not an employee of our office,” you’re missing the point entirely. Is it intentional?
It doesn’t matter if they were talking about Mental Health America when they told me how silenced they felt at times. They were saying it in regard to a presentation they were offering, and in general. They were explaining how they felt that – whenever they acted in a professional capacity relating to their role in any way – they felt they needed to watch what they say, and tow at least some part of the party line. Your unwillingness to understand how that connects to MHA’s work is baffling to me.
Patrick, this national certification is not a good thing. (And neither, I suspect, is Canada’s, though I know much less about it.) None of this is news to you. People have spoken up at your presentation at iNaps, at Alternatives, and more. Your blog really doesn’t present a convincing argument otherwise. I hope you’ll consider this further, but it seems clear you won’t.
Report comment
Hi Patrick,
I don’t have time to respond to this right now (but, boy is there a lot to respond to)! However, I just wanted to say thank you! I’ve been cited in blogs and articles before, and even been the focus of an article outside of the Mad in America world.. But this is totally my first Sera-focused Mad in America blog written by another party. 🙂 It’s kind of like when I got my first ever hate mail following a letter to the editor that got published in the New York Times. Pretty exciting stuff.
I look forward to having the time to respond.
-Sera
Report comment
Yes, as far as I understand it’s allowed and happens with relative frequency, as long as you do – as you suggest – link back and attribute credit. 🙂 So, yes, you’re welcome to do that! 🙂
Report comment
Not arguing with you! I believe you know what works for you, and I believe you are far from alone. Just not my thing personally. 🙂
Report comment
Thanks, Nancy! I’ll definitely check out your blog. 🙂
Report comment
Eh, I see you are poking at another argument underneath your main points here, oldhead. I don’t disagree with much of what you say – that he is recklessly exposing what others don’t want to have seen.. .But much of this is also about him, specifically.
Report comment
Thanks, J. That is indeed part of the premise… That what happens to Trump – and what it is seen as acceptable to do and say about him – will come back to haunt *us*… Because we certainly don’t have the amount of buffer he has in play!
Report comment
Thanks, Fiachra. Neither one is my gig, but I hear ya… The discrimination they put out there and the assumptions inherent in it are obnoxious! Not only is there that statement, but they ask you in your application form about your psychiatric history.
Report comment
I know, though part of the goal was to try and get people to be willing :p
Report comment
Thanks, Stephen! I’m definitely trying! Unlearning is a really complicated task, for sure. Especially when there’s a vested interest in things being a certain way…
Report comment
Thanks, Waynem… Don’t get me started on anti-stigma campaigns, though! 😉
Report comment
Thanks, uprising! I agree, but I fear my experiment in trying to better reach people is failing. The Mad in America Facebook thread for the blog is a terrible mess! Sigh.
Report comment
Hi CatNight, Very true indeed. I almost included some of that history in the blog, but decided not to go off on another thread… However, it’s nonetheless a valid point. This is not the first time we’ve had a president who is potentially ‘diagnosable’, but that means little for each president and certainly nothing for them as a group compared to one another.
Report comment
Eh, I’m not sure anything about our current situation feels like ‘politics’ as usual, Frank, but I can appreciate at least some of what you’re saying!
Report comment
Thanks, Eric. 🙂 You bring up an important point that I’ve also argued at times… Not only is there a low prevalence of violence among people with psych diagnoses, but the fact that someone who commits violence has a psych diagnosis does not necessarily mean there’s a causal relationship. Far fewer people recognize the latter, than the former. And, of course, when we *do* start to look at what qualities and characteristics are most common in people who commit violence, it points us in another direction entirely…
-Sera
Report comment
Thank you, Sa. Totally agree about the message it sends… The question I’m most grappling with by writing this blog is how on earth to get people beyond our bubble to get that. So challenging!
Report comment
Thanks, littleturtle. I agree, looking at the bigger picture and how we got here/where on earth we’re headed is much more important… and much more productive than the same old routine of putting the weight of the blame on those who are already marginalized.
Report comment
Thanks, Stephen. I’ve heard the comparison to Hitler before, certainly, and the first part of it seems apt (in terms of people thinking the idea that he’d end up in office is absurd and thus nothing to worry about, etc.). Hoping that’s as far as it goes!!
Report comment
Thanks for your thoughts, Anonymous!
This is an interesting and good point: In some respects, I hope they do succeed with getting the president with a diagnosis. I would love to see a congressional hearing on it for all the world to see. How annoyed do you think he might become then? Can you see his lawyers pick apart the basis for psychiatry and diagnosis?
However, the likelihood of that success is super low, and the likelihood of harm done (or at least perpetuated) is high (and already happening).
In some ways, this article is a bit of an experiment. I’ve intentionally NOT challenged the basic psychiatric paradigm (though I’ve equally as intentionally not supported it), because I’m not sure it’s necessary (and in fact may be detrimental) to use that as a starting point with people in the liberal/progressive camp. It’s such a leap from where they sit now, but trying to win understanding by focusing more on the basic human rights violations and injustices is less of a leap…
Perhaps, if the conversation starts there, rather than with something that is SUCH a leap for people to take, they might listen a bit more… And then, if they do, they might be more open to the next push..
We’ll see. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Hi there,
There’s a growing amount of research available. There’s a fair amount available here: http://www.hearingvoicesusa.org/resources
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, The_cat. Let’s hope. 😉
Report comment
Hi BigPicture,
Thanks for your lengthy and eloquent response. 🙂 I certainly want to believe by ‘doing’, we are leading the way to something different, and in many ways, we see the evidence that we are… And yet, it is all so easily co-opted and then the ‘doing’ can also lead us astray.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, John! Hoping to get some report and video! 🙂
Report comment
epthe,
The Hearing Voices movement definitely isn’t about telling people that it’s safe to come out about hearing voices! It’s definitely understood that that’s a risk for a lot of people. And, at the same time, when people are willing to come out, hopefully they make it a little safer for others to be able to do the same eventually. Totally respect your position, though. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Hope so, Sam! 🙂 Or even more hopefully, this movement will keep spreading across the country 🙂
Report comment
JanCarol,
Thanks for your comment! Yeah, I’ve noticed more and more the weird little recommendation buttons popping up in my chatboxes on Facebook… or ads that correspond to some element of what I’m saying! :p It is disconcerting to say the least… Though in fairness to Joy, what I’ve seen in her responses suggests a total lack of attention, rather than too much. But, I hear you and your fears on this count seem totally valid to me!
-Sera
Report comment
John, I do see you last comment got removed for moderation! I can’t quite remember what it said. :p Joy does seem fair game, though, all things considered… Someone recently e-mailed me to let me know there’s a new bot on the Facebook scene called ‘Woebot’, too…
That one is… I don’t know. Different. It gets around Joy’s biggest issues by simply providing pre-determined bubbles one can choose for response. :p
Report comment
Hey, The-cat, I haven’t forgotten about your request for me to take a look at that site… 🙂 But, Joy has been waiting oh such a long time. 🙂 Things are pretty hectic on my end, but I do plan to look soon. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Icagee. Joy is admittedly fun to play with… for all the wrong reasons! :p 😉
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Stephen. I agree he doesn’t have too much understanding at all… Precisely what I meant to convey with these lines:
“This isn’t your world. You don’t belong here, at least not without some humility and a guide.”
“Joy basically is Danny. All his good intentions, hopes and dreams, naivete, ignorance, arrogance, and blind spots are there in equal measure.”
I wish he’d recognize that.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, J! And good point about the potential benefits of Joy having been unleashed on the public, rather than in some more covert manner. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Hi John. Thanks for reading through. 🙂 I have honestly had some fun with Joy over these months… But not for any reason related to her intended mission… :p
-Sera
Report comment
Feelingdiscouraged,
Em. I hear both the truth and the sarcasm in what you write. Ultimately, it does strike me as a big step in the wrong direction, if for no other reason than it is a blatant acceptance of what you describe.
-Sera
Report comment
Hey Codeman, Yeah, I found that out shortly after I wrote the article, but I figured I’d just let it go till someone mentioned it 😉
Report comment
Hi Bradford,
Actually, just for your reference (and anyone else’s), if you go to ‘About’ in the Mad in America drop down menus, and then go to ‘Contact Us’, there’s a drop down menu from which you can choose any Mad in America employee or author and send an e-mail.
People have definitely contacted me that way! I also don’t mind giving people my e-mail, but I’m reluctant to post it here for spam purposes.
I’ll also be upfront that while I do my best to respond to all e-mails I do sometimes read something and then lose track of it, if I can’t respond right away, and so sometimes it may require people to ‘nudge’ me to bring me back around…
I heard someone else talking about that film, but I at least *thought* they responded more positively to it.. I don’t know much about it myself at all.
In any case, I’m realllly overwhelmed in work life right now, and am headed out of town for three weeks mid-summer, but I’m willing to give it a go, if you think I can somehow be useful up there!
-Sera
Report comment
Matt,
Yes, it does seem invisible to many who are on the inside of it! I think even of commenters here who are simultaneously challenging the validity of this article’s claims, while unknowingly pointing out some of the fundamental pieces of exactly what the article says makes the whole system tick along. It does all end up feeling a bit like asking the organization to change is like asking a human being to learn to not only live but prosper without food…
Anyway, thanks for reading and commenting!
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, messenger48! I tried submitting one article to Counterpunch, and didn’t get through. (I think the first time is always the hardest!) I’ll have to try more. I’m certainly interested in reaching a broader audience. 🙂 Thank you for the reminder to give it a go.
-Sera
Report comment
Hi epthe,
Thanks so much for sharing some of your experience. The involuntary outpatient commitment stuff is *so* short-sighted… So limited. So harmful. I’m glad you had the support you needed to find a way out… I wish more people have access to what you did to help push for more options!
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Diana. Indeed, I do think fear of giving up control and all that people know is a part of what is happening for so many people.
Sera
Report comment
Thanks, CCHR. Unfortunately, I worry your posting here under that name and promoting that website will suggest to people that this article is somehow related to Scientology, given that CCHR does seem to be linked. I do, at least, want to be clear that what I’ve shared here in this article is actually independent of any CCHR research, and includes sources like Mother Jones, New York Times, and even some very conservative sources like Pete Earley and DJ Jaffe. I don’t mean to suggest, either, that CCHR doesn’t include some valid and independently findable research, as well… But I do worry about the motives that are at the roots.
Report comment
Michael,
Unfortunately, part of NAMI’s gig is to suck up all the air so no other ‘gas station’ is able to grow. It’s not as if they just benignly offer supports that people can take or leave… They are a part of a machine that conveys *one* way of thinking about such distress (intertwined with capitalistic interests), that lobbies for force and money to be taken *away* from alternatives and put into more ‘clinical treatments’ (that’s, after all, part of what the Murphy Bill aims to do…), etc. etc. etc.
-S
Report comment
Thanks, Catnight, for all your thoughts.
You mentioned a church you thought was progressive… I think one of the things we’re up against, is that people who are generally ‘progressive’ see ‘reducing stigma’ and increasing ‘treatment accessibility’ *as* the progressive things to do, without ever really stopping to understand that all the ideas that underlie those things are decidedly *not* progressive at all. It’s a huge part of the struggle.
Sometimes theater pieces help, and there’s been the occasional good media piece (this for example! http://thesunmagazine.org/issues/496/an-open-mind), but *so much* that is geared toward making people think is just going out to the same audience as always.. So, part of the challenge is not just how to construct those pieces, but to find a way to expose people beyond our own bubble to them and *then* have those dialogues. Such a complex web to sort out…
-Sera
Report comment
Carrieb, I am definitely no expert when it comes to search optimization, but I’d like to become one… I think it’d be good for our community to learn far more about that. As far as Mad in America goes, in the background they are paying attention to ‘SEO’ ratings which help articles rank higher… I always make sure my SEO rating is ‘green’ (good to go!) before I submit it for consideration, and I know there are Mad in America staff that will help with that if the author isn’t familiar with the process. And yet, that’s certainly not nearly enough to compete with NAMI just yet!
Report comment
It’s a good question! I wonder if there’s a way to find out what became of the scholarship…
Report comment
Pat,
I spent some time trying to figure out what you mean about ‘Split’, since I never actually refer to anyone as a “good boy”…I think you must mean this passage:
First you have the goodhearted soul loved by all (or at least most), but who inevitably slips up every now and again, falls off their drug regimen and gets at least a tad out of control… Perhaps all in effort to provide a sort of ‘Public Service Announcement’ about just how bad it can get when one is so ‘non-compliant.’
Maybe not? I’m not sure. I guess, if you mean that passage, I think you may be misinterpreting the point. The point wasn’t to put down people who actually have that experience, which is valid, but to put down the use of that experience as a boiled down stereotype used to scare everyone else into never trying to withdraw from their psychiatric drugs.
I feel like there are a lot of times when you are misunderstanding what is being said, or reading a lot more into it… Not just here – where admittedly my sarcasm and ‘snark’ are turned on high a lot of the time – but in other settings and with documents and conversations that aren’t mine. I think you have a lot to offer from both your own experiences and your work, but I’m left wondering why there’s such a barrier to simply understanding what’s being said…
Report comment
Thanks for adding the formal diagnosis, Carrieb! It’s so frustrating to me that NAMI not only mentions such misuse as valid, but gives it its own section on their website.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Ron! I wish there were some clear way for us all to get what we’ve written to show up on the Google searches!!! For all my poking around in writing this article, I didn’t come across your or so many other articles that are out there.
-Sera
Report comment
Steve,
Fair enough. This whole science conversation is an interesting one… How easy it is to discredit actual science as anti-science when it simply doesn’t fit with the power structures and dominant beliefs…And how hard it is to get people to listen to the *actual* holes in the ‘science’ that supports them.
Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Truth. I don’t blame you for wanting to make change from within, and if it were merely a matter of opening people’s eyes to different information (rather than getting powerful entities to give up a lot of power), I might be more hopeful about it. I hope your alternative efforts are successful!
Sera
Report comment
Steve,
I agree with your comment.. .AND, I would add a point which I also tried to make in this blog (as well as – perhaps more strongly – in my Autism Speaks blog): While local chapters may sometimes be miles better than the national NAMI, at least part of what that accomplishes is to give national NAMI an opportunity to say ‘see, we’re not so bad!’ and distract people from a very serious problem. In other words, it’s great when local NAMIs are better… great for those local people… but still, in some ways, potentially harmful to the bigger picture.
Report comment
Hi BillDare,
Thanks for reading and for your comment. Yes, there’s lots of articles and fear circulating with Elinore, with the potential new appointments to the NAMI national board, and with so much else. Not too sure where it means we’re headed, or what conversations we might be having in a year, or two, or five as a result…
-Sera
Report comment
Hi Christopherj,
I really appreciate your sharing your experience! What you say makes a lot of sense… about individuals verses groups. It’s frightening in its way, but if we look at history (of all sorts of things, not just NAMI), it makes all the sense in the world.
-Sera
Report comment
Any ideas?
Report comment
Hey, The_Cat… I’ll have to check them out. I’m not familiar with them! Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Johanna! You are helping do exactly what I’d hoped would happen.. Add additional details and evidence in the comments section. 🙂
It’s amazing how attached people remain to ignoring what seems so very obvious with all this…
-Sera
Report comment
Michael,
Everything I said above is quite specifically about NAMI… Everything I wrote in the article above is quite specifically about NAMI.
But you’re free to disregard!
-Sera
Report comment
Michael,
NAMI has never pushed drugs? Hmmm… Aren’t they essentially doing that by pushing the Murphy Bill and Involuntary Outpatient Commitment?
They have also pushed ideas like that psych diagnoses are unquestionably brain diseases, chemical imbalances, and/or ‘just like diabetes’…
And, if you disagree, well, they’ve got that great little ‘anosognosia’ section on their website..
These are all pushing drugs in one way or another… In fact, they’re much more effective ways of pushing drugs, then if they literally pushed drugs in the ways you seem to be imagining we mean…
-Sera
Report comment
Hi Madmom,
Thanks so much for sharing your experience with NAMI. It’s disturbing, as so much is when it comes to them. I share your hope that some energy can be gathered to take action.
Sera
Report comment
Thanks for reading and commenting, Slaying_the_Dragon. I agree that corruption abounds.
Report comment
Hi Michael,
So, I can appreciate you have felt helped by NAMI, and won’t attempt to take that away from you. However, when you say this:
“aside from helping me come to terms with an illness and encouraging that I listen to recommendations by a psychiatrist, NAMI has done nothing to sell me or feed me drug information.”
I say THAT is exactly what I – and the pharmaceutical rep I quoted above – am talking about. NAMI *does* engage in overall advocate and lobbying that help drug companies directly, but more notably they push people into the paradigm that *leads* them to take the drugs…
The pharma rep’s point above was exactly that. That direct pushes toward specific drugs are NOT the most helpful approach. But that the more indirect approach of just convincing people they *need* drugs via advocacy to regard one’s self in a particular way… that’s proven quite effective.
So, I’m not surprised what you say… in fact, it fits well within what I’d expect.
Report comment
Thanks for your post and thoughts. 🙂 I fear that we have a longgggg way to go before we can really say that it’s mainly just the politicians/1% that are pushing in the psych drug direction…. BUT I do think there’s nonetheless validity in what you say, and we should definitely be paying attention. It makes sense that it would be that way when we think of the ways in which systemic oppression works.
Report comment
Wow. That’s awful.. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised she was asked to leave, and yet, people are often at least a bit more subtle. Ugh. Well, I’m glad you both have found your way here. 🙂
Report comment
Hey, Frank. Thank you for your (measured) support. 😉 I agree, and honestly wonder if groups like NAMI might actually deserve even more focus than the APA…
Sera
Report comment
Thanks, samruck. Frustrating, indeed. I’m sorry that the potential of that collaboration is looking less bright to you, but I hope there are alternatives and that being here has been somehow helpful even if not in person.
Sera
Report comment
Steve,
Yes, I think you’re on track and are understanding what I’m getting at very well. I *would* ditch the world ‘client’ (as you seemed to realize during your post) as I’ve seen too many people internalize that they are ‘client’ into their identity and that *alone* can keep them stuck in a system that often isn’t truly helping them. But the rest of what you say is great.
Kurt, I don’t think anyone here (myself included) are trying to say that you are ‘bad’, but I am saying that you haven’t hit the mark yet… You and co-workers may be miles better than the average clinician who hasn’t considered some of the things you have… But you *and* your co-workers and students still seem to be missing a huge piece of the puzzle.
If, as you indicate below and Steve says above, you’re only here because you care about Bob’s work and the problems with the pharma industry, you’re missing how deep some of the system’s problems run. I don’t mean the occasional time when it got so big that you were able to see it again (as you’ve named a few exceptional examples above), but when it just stayed at that sort of day-to-day level of bad and power-ridden and oppressive so that it was mostly invisible to those who weren’t looking for it.
This is the nature of most systemic oppression. The big and obvious examples are able to seen by *most*. But the system actually runs on the more insidious, harder to see stuff… Harder to see because you’re on the power end of it, and so it just looks like business as usual to you. And by you, I don’t mean *you*, but really anyone who is living on the privilege end of the stick (so, also you).
It’s the *same* phenomenon that means the average white person *can* easily see the really egregious examples of racism, but has a much harder time pulling out the conditions or microagressions that are truly what sets up the environment for those bigger things to happen… Same with sexism… and homophobia… and all of it.
I hope you’ll spend some more time trying to see.
-Sera
Report comment
Yes, I misapplied *one* statement (about people being ultimately happy to be in hospital). Everything else has been a response to you. Nothing I said in my last comment – and only one bit of my first comment – had anything to do with what I misapplied.
Kurt, You’ve come here to this site for the first time… a site full of people who’ve lived these things (though that’s certainly not representative of all bloggers here or the site’s full point), but you don’t seem to have a lot of respect for that. Or, at least, that’s how you come across to me.
No, I don’t know who you are. But, I do know that what you’re conveying – as I believe someone else said – comes across as feeling tone deaf to me. You’re talking about what you believe to work in the world of ‘suicide prevention’ (a problematic concept at its very roots), but you are speaking in some of the least human-sounding language about what is the most human of matters: life and death.
I don’t think you can fully see it, which is why I brought up privilege. I hope something makes it all more visible to you at some point.
Sera
Report comment
Okay. I was trying to be reasonably polite. This might be somewhat less so.
Your response – and much of your blog – comes across as pretty pretentious and … well, I’ll leave it at that.
In fairness to you, I did mix up some of my notes and was attributing some of what Dickson said above to you…So, apologies for that much.
However, the rest is for you. Your overly academic way of speaking, assumptions about what people (including myself) do and don’t know, and globalized way of speaking about *all* of your students and virtually *all* of your co-workers as somehow different and more special than almost every other clinical worker in the country is extremely off putting.
And sure, you can’t vouch for an entire website of tools… The problem is, if you’re going to blindly direct people to such a thing, you might want to offer *some* information about just how much drek they might have to sort through. It’s not just that some will work better culturally for some groups than others, and vice versa. Some of it is actually dangerous. Some of it is primarily a marketing tool to get kids into ‘treatment’.
It’s interesting that you defaulted to your whiteness and maleness when referencing my comment about privilege. It is true, you are privileged in that way, and I share the privilege of whiteness with you. However, what I was specifically referring to is your privilege of power in your role. You’ve never been – at least as far as I can tell – on the opposite end of the ‘suicide prevention’ stick. I have. Almost everyone I work with has. The privilege of not having ever been there – and not living on that cusp now – is big, and I do not think that you recognize it.
You’re all theory and acronyms. I’m familiar with CAMS (and if I wasn’t, I luckily say through the aforementioned extraordinarily painful and offensive suicide training on Tuesday where it was reviewed). I’m also familiar with the BS that is ‘Zero Suicide’, I’m intensively trained in DBT by Charlie Swenson and Cindy Sanderson. Blah blah blah. I *know* what you’re talking about.
And I disagree with most of it.
Report comment
Kurt,
I have admittedly only read through your blog and then skimmed the comments, so I may be missing something already said in the subsequent dialogue, but I would like to point out that you have linked to a ‘suicide prevention’ resource that promotes products that are – in some cases – pharmaceutically funded. For example, it includes the SOS program about which I wrote a blog (https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/01/middle-school-invasion-when-the-pharmaceutical-companies-come-to-town/) when they tried to peddle it to my son at his middle school.
While I understand what you’re getting at with some of what you write, I found myself reacting with concern to a number of points. For example, this emphasis on restriction of means… It reminds me of a suicide and self-injury training I attended earlier this week.. One (of many of) the most disturbing moments was when the trainer said that – after a particular suicide – he restricted anyone receiving services at the org where he worked from living in an apartment that was any higher than the second floor. Great. (Not really.)
I’m also having trouble getting past your statements about people basically being happy to be locked up and become powerless… I mean, sure, some people experience an *element* of that, but if that’s your main takeaway on most occasions, I fear for what you’re missing.
On the whole, I hope you realize that when you live the privilege of as much power as you hold, it’s almost *inevitable* that you’ll be missing several elements of what it is like to live on the other side of that power split. I hope you’ll hold that in mind and consider it deeply as you move forward.
Sera
Report comment
Steve, I appreciate your comments here. I really don’t see autistic people telling other autistic people that they *must* be happy to be autistic, or that points of struggle that may somehow be connected to being autistic aren’t actually struggles… Same for people with various psychiatric diagnoses.
What I *DO* see is people with those experiences saying ‘let me decide for myself what is ‘struggle’ and why, and stop trying to speak for me, or force your ideas on me based on your perspectives’…
-Sera
Report comment
Strandra,
If you haven’t heard people say ‘I want it back’ or, more commonly, ‘I wouldn’t want to lose it’ in regards to some of the experiences that have led to their psychiatric diagnoses, than you surely haven’t been listening. I have heard *lots* of people say they wouldn’t want to lose their voices, especially once they’ve learned to navigate them. I’ve heard many people say they appreciate the benefits their various sensitivities bring, especially once they’ve learned to balance them and navigate the world. And so on and so forth
As to polio and who was or wasn’t ‘born this way’… Many people certainly do have the experiencing of having been born autistic, or neruodivergent and coming to appreciate many of the benefits that have come with that for them.
Your excuse that many people who are autistic have difficulty with communicate is immediately belied by hundreds of thousands of autistic voices, several of which are found in the links I have included in this blog. Sure, there are people who would choose otherwise… Many of us would choose something different than what we have, the intensity and variances of our why or why nots are based on many different variables. I’d not take away from someone their desire to be different… but you’re ignoring and discounting MANY people with your extremely simplistic response.
Perhaps even more importantly, whether or not you think of autism as an example of born neurodiversity, there are many points in this blog that hold either way. And there are many voices that I include that you might benefit from hearing.
-Sera
Report comment
John,
Sami is great. I’ve met and interviewed him for a film I’m working on.
However, I don’t feel like it’s my place to argue against such a diagnosis, when people who are quite empowered and educated about their experiences say otherwise.
What’s clear to me is that the approach of Autism Speaks and NAMI are abusive and damaging, and that can certainly drive a diagnostic process that is dehumanizing (such as the one that led to my own pscyh diagnoses, which I’ve since discarded). And, I’ve certainly heard from people who’ve been given autistic diagnoses that oppose or feel harmed by them.
But, I don’t think it’s necessary to buy into a ‘autism diagnoses’ are inherently bad or wrong framework in order to see that was Autism Speaks has to offer is terrible!
-Sera
Report comment
The_cat. That is true… Just saying it is out there. Note the 990 stats I just posted, though.. I hadn’t realized just how much larger Autism Speaks is than NAMI. Lots of work to do on both fronts!
Report comment
Hmmm… Looking at the 990s for the overall orgs is interesting. Have you checked them out?
Here’s what I find for Autism Speaks on the contributions/grants line:
(2012) 53,245,999.
(2013) 63,725,069.
(2014) 57,552,851.
(2015) 58,085,859.
Unfortunately, that shows an overall upward trend, albeit gradual/small.
For NAMI, I find:
(2012) 8,375,875
(2013) 8,605,802
(2014) 11,226,125
(2015) 7,934,069
So, they each have a bump year where things were substantially higher and that seems not particularly reflective of the overall trend… NAMI seems less clearly going up, but not exactly consistently headed down either…
And *holy crap*, I didn’t realize that Autism Speaks was that much bigger than NAMI overall.
Interesting stuff.
Report comment
Great to hear the downward trend, Daniel! I’ll have to see if I can dig up the same sort of data for NAMI. Would be interesting to compare!
Report comment
Thanks, Natan! Happy to do.. -Sera
Report comment
Daniel,
Yeah, I think the concept of ‘normal’ is a mess to start with… But Feelingdiscouraged was – at least as I understood it – using it within the context of what NAMI considers to be the ‘normal’ (aka undiagnosed) group and their ability to have voice verses those who’ve been deemed other!
-Sera
Report comment
The_Cat,
I don’t know if there’s an easy way to truly measure that… When I personally just googled ‘NAMI criticisms’ two of the articles that popped up on the very first page were:
https://www.cchrint.org/2009/12/15/nami-is-on-the-defensive/
https://www.madinamerica.com/2013/07/nami-and-robert-whitaker/
I myself have also written about NAMI on more than one occasion:
https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/03/dear-nami-apologies-ive-unfair/
https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/09/do-nami-and-mha-suffer-from-anosognosia/
(Though I’m certainly not making the front page of any google searches)…
And while I wouldn’t choose to promote anything from CCHR (being the Scientology front group that they are), all four of the above links note the NAMI/Pharma link.
And, as I said at the top, I’m just not sure how to measure the success in fighting back. It doesn’t seem we’re too successful as of yet on either front. Hoping we can change that somehow!
-Sera
Report comment
J, Thanks! That was precisely the aim. 😉
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Feelingdiscoruaged.
I should clarify that the woman’s org analogy was from an autistic blogger who goes by codeman38.
I intentionally quoted and referenced a number of autistic people here, because I did not want to be just another non-autistic person speaking about autistic experiences, without actually including those voices. Though I recognize the risk in doing so under my name is still that their words could be attributed to me, so I want to be careful about clarifying that when I can, too.
I really appreciate this point: “Normal people are allowed to be assertive, independent and have good self esteem. For the “mentally ill” these are no no’s.”
I’m glad it feels like your voice and awareness are coming back.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Frank.
It’s a funny thing, this hate that comes under the umbrella of *wanting* to love. The ‘Don’t Mourn for Us’ piece that I quoted above gets at that idea well, I think.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks for reading, as always Darby. 🙂 Hijacked is a good way to put it! I wish it were more obvious how to cut them back down.
Report comment
Pat,
I’m not sure I’m totally following what you mean? I love to write and stir things up, but as you know, I also work in a world where many of us are out there doing the work in person, too.
I really don’t think there’s agreement on this national certification business, including that it needed to exist at all. Thus, I don’t know that the answer is to simply offer MHA some competition.
-Sera
Report comment
Stephen, Exactly. My favorite line to offer people in this vein is “When did what you call life, with all its ups and downs, become what I’m supposed to call ‘recovery’ forever and ever?” 🙂
Report comment
Julie, I hear you. I think the only challenge with *no* training if we’re going to do this whole ‘peer’ thing is that *so* many people go through some of those life experiences and come out the other end all full of internalized oppression. I have to admit that I do find *some* training helpful on top of all that personal life experience to help work through some of that, think through what it really means to ‘be’ with people, be curious, support, etc. But overall, I appreciate your post a lot. 🙂
Report comment
Thanks Bruce! And thanks so much for your recent article on suicide, as well.
-Sera
Report comment
Stephen,
If I had more time on my hands, I’d be fascinated to do some research that involves not only comparing licensure requirements between these various professions and the peer role, but *also* the logistics involved in meeting those requirements as they differ for each, *AND* how they’re applied… For example, I imagine a requirement that one put their licensure on ‘hold’ as a dentist is *likely* to bear many fewer actual risks and lower likelihood of abuse than for a peer role. Oy. What a mess.
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Steve! (And Agreed!!!)
Report comment
Their own agenda indeed. I appreciate your pointing out the question of what qualifies as ‘recovery’… I talk about that silliness a lot when I tell my story… It’s foolishness, and in its foolishness it gives all those who have more credibility than us in a system of this nature it puts us in a really vulnerable position.
Report comment
Steve, I get the impression from what I read that the Florida Board may have similar requirements for many different ‘professional’ fields. However, even so, it’s absurd and *much* more dangerous for a ‘peer’ role than the others… Oy.
Report comment
Frank,
Overall, I agree with you the idea that everyone who goes into the system should come out as its employee. However, there are many people for him that has been a really important path. Many of my co-workers have seen the depths of the system, and now get much satisfaction out of fighting against it in the way that they do. Of course, most of them also work with the RLC which is much less direct than working for a traditional provider. Working in a traditional provider in a peer role is a terribly hard position to sustain and not lose sight of one’s self again.
Report comment
Thanks, J! I can’t pretend to know what some of the people referenced truly believe, but I do agree that we must fight.
Report comment
Hi The_cat. Comparing some of what happens in this world with Munchausen Syndrome is interesting… There does seem to be a bit of a common element in terms of somehow getting emotional gratification via public attention associated with one’s child’s struggles… Although, I’d stop short of the idea that most of these parents don’t also really care about their kids and wouldn’t find it much more important for their kids to be in a happier, better place.
Thank you for the story! I look forward to checking it out.
Report comment
Thanks, Samruck2. I hope you and your wife get to a better place soon.
Report comment
Laysha,
It is a really good question, and not one to which I have the answer. Of course, my fantasy is that articles like this one and word of mouth will prevent so any people from taking the damn thing – or organizations from being willing to pay for it – that it will fall apart for lack of funding. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely, but it won’t keep me from trying!!
Do you have any other suggestions?
-Sera
Report comment
Eileen. Agreed! I wish I had some better sense of how much they stand to make off of it.
Report comment
Hi bchariss, Thanks for sharing a bit of your experience working around the ‘system’.. I wish it didn’t have to be that way! Sera
Report comment
Yeah, don’t get me started on DBT and what it means to be an ‘evidence based’ practice. Oy!
Report comment
Anonymous, It’s unfortunately highly prevalent for people working in ‘peer’ roles to be lured in and used to try and silence others. It’s very sad. Thanks for reading and commenting.
Report comment
oldhead, Actually, I believe BOTH of the Murphy Bills contained similar language (as I pointed to in the article I linked to above). I agree that so much of this has been a tactic to silence – not support – our voices.
Report comment
You are very welcome, and thank you for reading and commenting! I agree it’s absolutely dangerous. Even more dangerous is the fact that so many people seem blind to that fact. 🙁
-Sera
Report comment
Dan,
It’s all needed. As you know, I spend most of my day focused on creating. This recent Sun Magazine article speaks to much of what I’m doing with my day job 🙂 http://thesunmagazine.org/issues/496/an-open-mind
But speaking out against the Globe… and hoping others are listening (both those who might join in the speaking out, and those who might be swayed by the speaking), whether or not the Globe folks themselves are… It’s all important.
Sera
Report comment
Haha. Quite the history you have here. 🙂 Look forward to hearing the details. 🙂
Report comment
Oldhead,
You may be right that it’s masochistic, but I’d be interested to see what they would make of it if they did show up. I can’t quite get myself to stop trying. And, if nothing else… it was an opportunity to publicize that the Congress is happening :p
-Sera
Report comment
Agreed, Frank. It is pretty appalling that they’re allowed to keep writing such stuff without being checked at all.
I also agree that the frame (that I’ve also heard frequently on DJ Jaffee’s Facebook group) that the police are somehow victims of lack of ‘treatment’ of those they hurt is maddening…
-Sera
Report comment
Hi Julie,
Thanks for taking the time to comment, as always. 🙂 I know it’s true that the Globe is not alone… though it’s beyond my capacity to poke at them at all. :p But almost everything I write could be lifted and applied to these other outlets as well. Though I worry that the Globe’s Spotlight Team has more capital and credibility than most. I mean, they’re saying the same stuff everyone else is, but already seem to have been lauded more than most for doing so… as if they’re saying something new.
Anyway, I’m sorry about your CBFS experience. 🙁 I wish it were more surprising…
-Sera
Report comment
AA,
I’m not expecting them to change, but I think its essential that we keep asking them to… And that – if nothing else – we keep speaking up about how they should!
Sera
Report comment
Dan, I’ve been wondering for some time what it will take, as well. As with so many things pertaining to this movement, I’m afraid that financial interests and staying in line with those who hold the most power are a major force.
Thanks,
Sera
Report comment
Thank you, Icagee!
Report comment
I fail to see how you’re interpreting me as having said much of anything about Hilary Clinton, let alone that she would have been some sort of savoir? This blog is quite clearly primarily about the problem of diagnosing Trump. While I do express some negative feelings toward him on occasion, that doesn’t change the primary focus and has next to nothing to do with what I do or don’t think about Hilary or how she would have treated people who’ve been psychiatrically labeled… That seems like quite a leap…
Sera
Report comment
Thanks, Zippy. I appreciate you’re mansplaining… Though, I’m not 100% sure you’re a man? Are you? An, thanks for your mansplaining explanation… It’s always good – as someone who has experienced a particular type of oppression – to be told by someone who hasn’t when and when not to be offended!
Thank you 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Zippy,
You’re treading in territory where many of experienced systemic oppression that has crushed their lives and spirits. You’re speaking from a place of privilege when you tell those who’ve experience oppression that you have not that they’re trying to curtail your speech and thinking. What I’m telling you is that that terminology has been used to harm people. It has done harm. It continues to do harm.
I suspect you could find another way to express your meaning. Kind of like you could express your concern for Trump’s behavior without using the non-science of psychiatric labels that have also harmed people.
-Sera
Report comment
“We shouldn’t be squeamish about applying DSM criteria upon the powerful. Otherwise it remains only a way of manipulating the less powerful in this society.”
That’s an interesting point, lizadeeza. You seem to both be acknowledging that it’s a manipulation, *and* wanting to see groups across classes more equally ‘manipulated’? I’m not sure I get that.
Certainly, many of us see that he’s a danger to this country. I maintain that I don’t need the DSM to see that.
-Sera
Report comment
Ah, high functioning.
Here’s a good read about that term:
https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/03/must-strike-terms-high-functioning-low-functioning-vocabulary/
Report comment
It is not my fear. It is a reality. One I see *every* day for hundreds of thousands of people.
No one is suggesting we ignore people are struggling. What we are suggesting is that these experiences of struggle are very human, and often environmentally related in some way… And that we need not segregate out those who are struggling with diagnosis. This medicalized manner of regarding people’s human suffering came about for many reasons… To make psychiatrists feel more legitimate… For the purpose of billing. As an effort to to reduce what you keep calling ‘stigma’ (and I would call prejudice and discrimination).
It has succeeded only at those first two causes, ant not to anyone’s betterment.
-Sera
Report comment
I am suggesting that people struggle. Sometimes deeply. And that it leads us far down the wrong path to understand those *human* struggles by lumping them all into *medicalized* groupings that are largely artificial.
Sure, *sometimes* people will speak to benefits… Helped them better connect with others with similar struggles and hear what’s worked for them, etc. But the benefits are far outweighed by the negative impacts, many of which I’ve already mentioned.
We’d be far better off seeing struggle as struggle, and then being able to pick and choose from the array of supports that people have used to make their way through such struggles… Lumping the struggle into a man made category that does not objectively exist, narrows our view and our options and does harm to many of us.
-Sera
Report comment
I do not ‘have’ a ‘personality disorder’. I have a diagnosis that was the subjective opinion of other human beings, based on the subjective process of man made creation of that diagnosis for which there is no test and cannot be a test because it is literally only a way of trying to boil down what is going on with someone.
And, if that way of boiling down an explanation didn’t lead to poor assumptions about what to ‘do’ with them, and/or lead to discrimination against them in all matters of life (including child rearing, employment, housing and basic freedom), that wouldn’t be the end of the world. But that’s not how it works.
Report comment
I was diagnosed with a ‘Personality Disorder’ at one point in my life. What it did most effectively was give those who hurt and traumatized me a pass, because the diagnosis suggested it was a ‘mental illness’. The best thing I did to ‘cure’ my ‘mental illness’ was get *away* from the system and all the ‘help’ they were trying to provide me. Whether or not the various things I was doing then or since then had any relation to any sort of diagnosis is completely subjective opinion. But, somehow, I’ve managed to be a successful mother and leader of a fairly complex organization.
Your ‘perspective’ is *exactly* the sort of thing that leads people to lose their kids because of a psychiatric diagnosis, or not be hired into complex and stressful jobs… Your ‘perspective’ would serve to ruin my life, and it has ruined the lives of many others.
Look at what someone is doing, not some subjective, man made diagnosis.
Report comment
Yes, it sure is discrimination… It is making assumptions and limitings someone potential based strictly on some sort of label… and, in this instance, it’s a label that has no objective proof as to its existence. What about having been diagnosed makes someone unqualified to act as president? Having been formally diagnosed does not necessarily make someone unreliable or dangerous, nor does NOT qualifying for a diagnosis render someone reliable or ‘safe’. Additionally, having a diagnosis and doing something strange or dangerous doesn’t necessarily mean that one did the later *because* of the former.
The primary benefit you are offering to diagnosing this man is based on playing on the country’s fears and prejudice about ‘mental illness’ itself to your own advantage. I get that, but it is harmful to do so, because it feeds into erroneous and damaging beliefs that already act as the basis for this system of oppression where psychiatric diagnosis is concerned.
This is not ‘political correctness’. That’s just an insulting way to shut down the conversation. This is people’s lives. We don’t need diagnosis to see that what he is doing is wrong and dangerous.
-Sera
Report comment
Could you please explain to me why calling what Trump is doing ‘mental illness’ changes how we might respond to it?
Report comment
Let me give a quick summary of the point of the article:
1. Why is whether or not he qualifies for a psychiatric diagnosis relevant to whether or not he is president? It actually doesn’t matter. What matters is what he’s *doing* as president, and whether or not he is demonstrating that he is fit to serve.
2. He could have or not have a formal diagnosis, and that wouldn’t tell us anything, and to suggest it would is discriminatory and misguided.
3. Pointing the finger at some ‘disorder’ in his brain does little to help us examine how we got to the point where we were willing to elect someone who demonstrates the characteristics you describe above.
4. Arguing about this legitimizes that which is not legitimate… Psychiatric diagnosis is a system heavily influenced by privilege, racism, sexism, and various other biases. Diagnoses can’t be objectively ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ because they’re not objective. This is a distraction, and harmful to those of us who have experienced societal oppression due to the legitimization of such things.
-Sera
Report comment
Eh, systemic racism refers to all of the systems that we live entangled within. Every last bit of it, as it is an overall system that was designed by white, christian, (etc. etc.) men. In general, systems are racist and people’s actions and words are bigoted. Since racism and sexism etc. are systemic issues, referring to one person *as* that thing doesn’t make a ton of sense. It makes much more sense to say they are a part of it, or have somehow perpetuated or supported it, etc. In some ways this is just semantics, but overall, I think it’s critical that these issues be recognized as systemic and so I think it’s important at that level to try and use the words properly.
In any case, I don’t really think that argument is particularly helpful here. I get to share some of my political perspective in my blogs. You get to disagree. My overall point about Trump and psychiatric diagnosis remains the same. I’m going to stop responding to this thread now. 🙂
-Sera
Report comment
Thanks so much for writing this, Danny. It’s been great to see how it’s developed from an idea into reality. It’s a strong piece. 🙂
Sera
Report comment
Eh, I don’t particularly agree with the frame of ‘everyone is racist/sexist/etc.’ However, I *do* agree with the fram