I really like Darby’s comment that the dominance of the medical model is what leads to the lack of attention to sociopolitical factors. The need for calling attention to issues that are easily ignored by the majority is an essential function of activists of all stripes. It may be the willingness of some people to present issues in “black and white” that creates motion, even if the proposed solutions don’t exactly line up to their criticisms.
“Business as usual” in Congress, or other public decision-making bodies, is more attributable to the politically disengaged than those with “extreme” views who pay attention and speak up!
The point I want to emphasize is that while individual experiences are important, science policy has population-level real-world effects, no matter how obscure it seems. There are always tradeoffs in any kind of policy-making, but extremist points of view are unlikely to benefit most of the population because they are…extreme. Moderate policy-making (for science and practice) should distribute benefits around the population average.
Thank you for sharing your story. When I was 25 my father asked me what my “vision” was (having not finished college and being on SSDI), and every time I’ve felt like giving up he has reminded me of that conversation or I have reminded myself. It’s frightening to me that Rep. Murphy frames his policy proposals as “love” when speaking to parents, because if mothers’ love was enough to fix these problems (wherever they originate), mothers and lovers would be running the world and we wouldn’t be in these predicaments. Simultaneously, the NIMH promises that in 30 years they’ll have an answer for us. You can’t wait 30 years — I assume you want help for your daughter immediately if not sooner. Twenty years ago my mother couldn’t wait 30 years and she had to do the best she could with available resources/services. Were they supposed to put me in holding pattern until I’m on Medicare (20 years ago + 30 years from now until there’s some magic that emerges from research and public policy)?
I think it’s important that we [especially] acknowledge that the things that create meaning for other humans apply to this. Thanks for bringing up this dimension, warmac, as well as encouraging action.
Thanks, Alex. It’s interesting to think about people who were in the mental health workforce before diagnosis. So many people are so young nowadays that there was no “before”, but I think it presents an entirely different set of issues: whether to go “back” or to use new-found knowledge to expand one’s opportunities, particularly regarding clinical work where one may essentially be “forced” to be a peer specialist if they want to continue working in direct support. Force and coercion can be just as present in employment & education as in treatment–I for one was almost forced to only apply to “special” colleges. Thank you so much sharing, very cool!
I have hesitated to register for comments on MiA even though I have written blogposts before. Now that I have registered to comment I see the guidelines say: “We find that comments that attack a person’s character or underlying motives tend to shut down the dialogue.”
What better way to “shut down the dialogue” than attack members of our community–those who are themselves survivors of psychiatry and emotional distress and have risen to personal and professional achievements such as these folks?
There is continual and legitimate anger about the power of psychiatry and the co-optation of research evidence on this site. But when someone productively and intelligently contributes to the theoretical and research dialogue, they are themselves an “elitist sellout”? We should be damn proud of people who have worked so hard and struggled so much to contribute in ways that not only support others, but contribute to the person’s own well-being so they can continue to fight every day for a better world.
To attack someone like this in such tangential ways is a disgrace to our “community”, and I urge everyone to think of the real value of survivor-led research and theory development.
Not by ANY MEASURE could this post be judged to have anything to do with human rights violations or holding the field (or our own lives) back. I am not myself trained in philosophy or related theory. Sometimes as a trained applied social sciences researcher, I have difficulty with the language. Sometimes it’s useful; sometimes it’s not. But I never see it as implicating the writer in being “out to get me” because I’m not trained in that language. If anything, it inspires me. I should hope these efforts and this work inspires everyone else, too.
You can email me at [email protected] if you have an issue with personal achievements that demonstrate true and pure resilience after such adversity.
I really like Darby’s comment that the dominance of the medical model is what leads to the lack of attention to sociopolitical factors. The need for calling attention to issues that are easily ignored by the majority is an essential function of activists of all stripes. It may be the willingness of some people to present issues in “black and white” that creates motion, even if the proposed solutions don’t exactly line up to their criticisms.
“Business as usual” in Congress, or other public decision-making bodies, is more attributable to the politically disengaged than those with “extreme” views who pay attention and speak up!
Report comment
The point I want to emphasize is that while individual experiences are important, science policy has population-level real-world effects, no matter how obscure it seems. There are always tradeoffs in any kind of policy-making, but extremist points of view are unlikely to benefit most of the population because they are…extreme. Moderate policy-making (for science and practice) should distribute benefits around the population average.
Report comment
Thank you for sharing your story. When I was 25 my father asked me what my “vision” was (having not finished college and being on SSDI), and every time I’ve felt like giving up he has reminded me of that conversation or I have reminded myself. It’s frightening to me that Rep. Murphy frames his policy proposals as “love” when speaking to parents, because if mothers’ love was enough to fix these problems (wherever they originate), mothers and lovers would be running the world and we wouldn’t be in these predicaments. Simultaneously, the NIMH promises that in 30 years they’ll have an answer for us. You can’t wait 30 years — I assume you want help for your daughter immediately if not sooner. Twenty years ago my mother couldn’t wait 30 years and she had to do the best she could with available resources/services. Were they supposed to put me in holding pattern until I’m on Medicare (20 years ago + 30 years from now until there’s some magic that emerges from research and public policy)?
Report comment
Thank you Michael for your support!
Report comment
I think it’s important that we [especially] acknowledge that the things that create meaning for other humans apply to this. Thanks for bringing up this dimension, warmac, as well as encouraging action.
Report comment
Thanks, Alex. It’s interesting to think about people who were in the mental health workforce before diagnosis. So many people are so young nowadays that there was no “before”, but I think it presents an entirely different set of issues: whether to go “back” or to use new-found knowledge to expand one’s opportunities, particularly regarding clinical work where one may essentially be “forced” to be a peer specialist if they want to continue working in direct support. Force and coercion can be just as present in employment & education as in treatment–I for one was almost forced to only apply to “special” colleges. Thank you so much sharing, very cool!
Report comment
I have hesitated to register for comments on MiA even though I have written blogposts before. Now that I have registered to comment I see the guidelines say: “We find that comments that attack a person’s character or underlying motives tend to shut down the dialogue.”
What better way to “shut down the dialogue” than attack members of our community–those who are themselves survivors of psychiatry and emotional distress and have risen to personal and professional achievements such as these folks?
There is continual and legitimate anger about the power of psychiatry and the co-optation of research evidence on this site. But when someone productively and intelligently contributes to the theoretical and research dialogue, they are themselves an “elitist sellout”? We should be damn proud of people who have worked so hard and struggled so much to contribute in ways that not only support others, but contribute to the person’s own well-being so they can continue to fight every day for a better world.
In case anyone missed it, here is part of Nev’s story of suffering in a philosophy program (posted on your own site: http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/07/discrimination-in-higher-education-users-survivors-in-academia-speak-out/) and the full story can be found here: http://www.lernetwork.org/uploads/9/7/9/2/9792838/lern_fpa_brief_002_jones.pdf)
To attack someone like this in such tangential ways is a disgrace to our “community”, and I urge everyone to think of the real value of survivor-led research and theory development.
Not by ANY MEASURE could this post be judged to have anything to do with human rights violations or holding the field (or our own lives) back. I am not myself trained in philosophy or related theory. Sometimes as a trained applied social sciences researcher, I have difficulty with the language. Sometimes it’s useful; sometimes it’s not. But I never see it as implicating the writer in being “out to get me” because I’m not trained in that language. If anything, it inspires me. I should hope these efforts and this work inspires everyone else, too.
You can email me at [email protected] if you have an issue with personal achievements that demonstrate true and pure resilience after such adversity.
Report comment