what kids really need is food in their bellies, safe places to play and gather, love, attention and consistent expectations/rules, safe shelter to sleep, and parents who aren’t stressed from impoverished, abusive, or otherwise oppressive living/working conditions
Of course this is all true. It is also completely inconsistent with the needs of capitalism. The above article is oblivious to this very basic reality.
What laws currently forbid thoughts?
People can “identify” any way they want; that doesn’t mean others are obligated to accept such identifications as reality. If people want to believe they are “mad,” and that their “madness” gives them special powers that’s their right. If people want to believe that brains can be “diverse,” go for it. Just don’t tell me this is the “new normal” or that I’m a bigot for not buying it.
There can be nothing “Green” about anything labeled “mental health” — a concept that should logically be seen as offensive as “mental illness.”
And what happened to the conversation about putting such psychiatric/medical model terms in quotes at all times?
It should come as no shock to learn that, once some serious impediments to involuntary psychiatric psychiatric intervention began to be incorporated into international law, the forces of coercion would start looking for loopholes and ways of turning this around. Psychiatry after all is primarily a police force, and police don’t work very effectively without the option of coercion.
So glad I’m not a lawyer, as it’s so difficult navigating legal verbiage, but my basic understanding of the situation, if I am correct, is that
a) The original language designates the individual as the captain of his or her own ship in regard to medical decision-making (which by this definition includes psychiatry);
b) As a little icing on the cake, the concept of “supported decision-making” was included in the language, ostensibly to help strengthen the ability of the individual in question to make truly autonomous decisions; then
c) This notion of “supported” decision-making is now being turned around by some who, rather than seeing this support as being available if and when requested by the individual, are instead imposing it as a substitute for rather than an adjunct to individual autonomy; hence the original authoritarian paternalism is reestablished using new language.
I’m glad there is resistance to this, but don’t know the answer as it’s not really my department. However I support Tina’s proposals (though I’d omit the reference to “Mad Pride”), as I’m not aware of anyone who has worked on CRPD as long and hard as Tina, or who would be a more appropriate spokesperson for the interests of survivors. It seems like a fluid situation at the moment, i.e. one that could go either way.
I ask Tina to suggest some ways non-lawyers who support what she’s trying to do vis. a vis. CRPD can help with this effort.
Sort of skimmed over this before but I think we’re maybe reacting to the same things — don’t know if they’re intangible or just hard to define. But real people don’t talk about “frameworks” unless they’re psychologists or “mental health” professionals, so to me this seems like more of an “in-house” discussion which seems to be calling for more enlightened “practitioners,” rather than more revolutionary consciousness among the people.
Agreed. “Mad Pride” is based on accepting system definitions of one as “mad,” and it is offensive to hear people claiming that submitting to such labels “reclaims” anything but one’s sense of self-denigration.
As for “neurodiversity,” it sounds like another suspicious amalgam of the abstract and the material, or of the physical and the political. Neurological functioning and “diversity” are not terms that go together. It also seems like it should be relatively simple to differentiate between “diversity” and “dysfunction.”
Not much to disagree with except maybe the concept of “natural problems in living,” many of which are “natural” only in the sense that it is natural to react to toxicity, be it chemical or cultural.
If people won’t engage unless you accept their beliefs I’d say maybe they’re not ready to communicate. But whatever, I guess it’s mainly a question of style. Analytically though I would still hold that all the concerns you mention here could be sufficiently addressed within the context of anti-psychiatry.
On a more practical note, to what institution of systemic power would one address a demand that they “be allowed to think whatever they want”? Who would even acknowledge opposing such a right?
The colonisation of therapy with medical/psychiatric language is particularly frustrating.
What is the term “therapy” if not medical/psychiatric language?
I think activists need to stop lecturing professionals about changing their language and telling them to make changes on the inside, and then shitting on every effort the professional class attempts to change the language of mental distress and to make those changes from the inside.
Why should there even BE a “professional class”? Or an “inside”? Why do we need a “model”? What happened to revolution as a model??? I’m surprised at this response.
the main changes must happen at that macro level, collectively and politically, and mostly outside the MH system
But what changes, and how are they to be brought about?
When, and why, did forced psychiatric treatment become legal?
Check out the “ships of fools.” Of course there may have been things predating that as well.
Is cognitive liberty a term, a principle, a bottom-line that you can imagine yourself rallying around?
Seems superfluous and overly academic to me. The abolition of psychiatry remains just fine as a principle of unity, and doesn’t need to be watered down as it addresses all the concerns mentioned. If people say they support “cognitive liberty” but don’t oppose psychiatry en toto their words ring hollow to me, and it means they have a ways to go before there’s any reason to unify. “Critical psychiatry” is still psychiatry. “Mad Pride” for many abolitionists is a ludicrous concept, and “neurodiversity” is another thing entirely. So let’s not look for “unity” where there is none, for “unity’s” sake. Again, anti-psychiatry works just fine as something to work towards, if people are looking for a “cause.”
Hopefully Mad In Italy will not adopt the “pre-moderation” of comments which has rendered MITUK useless for robust discussion (and threatens to do so at MIA).
Unfortunately Bob is still under the impression that he was in a hospital.
Why should homeless people have to identify as “mentally ill” to get shelter?
Sounds specious to me. Did they refuse to publish you or simply warn you of the inevitable response by some? Anyway we don’t need another “model,” we need to eliminate the entire “professional” mentality.
Steve — My comment above that you reacted to was addressed to Richard, not you.
The aim is to move, in simple terms, away from the “What is wrong with you?” towards the “What has happened to you?” question.
How about “WHY has this happened to you?” and “HOW do we rid the world of these forces which have done this to you?”
This PTMF thing befuddles me, as there are credible people who like it. But it still defines distress as a personal matter, to be dealt with on an individual level, rather than a collective problem to be approached collectively and politically. Rather than truly moving away from the idea that there must be “experts” to define and “treat” our (system generated) misery, even the name PTMF sterilizes the nature of what’s going on, and categorizes what should amount to fighting and defeating oppression as some sort of “helping profession.” However, pursuing revolutionary transformation (which is really what we’re talking about) is not a profession; it is a responsibility shared by all who are conscious and motivated enough to take it up.
From the article: Lighting a candle and having a glass of wine isn’t helpful for these women
Anyone with any thoughts about what’s wrong with this picture?
This is all so fucked up. It started with Viagra, the idea that not being “able” to “perform” is a medical problem. If you’re not horny you’re not horny. Sexuality is another thing the system turns into a commodity to keep people addicted to and hence controllable.
Why is it a “problem” if men aren’t walking around with constant erections and women aren’t always ready to hop into bed? I once again defer to John Lennon:
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think you’re so clever and classless and free
But you’re still fucking peasants as far as I can see
Matter of fact I’m in the mood for doubling down. One of my earliest MIA comments 5 years ago was to a blog about adolescence by Laura Delano, who was still working at MIA. I said then:
I think that young people are sophisticated enough, and cynical enough (in a good way) that they will respond in a positive way to the way you explain things. My strategy if I were you would be to promote an attitude among youth that, just as signing up lemming-like at the recruiting station to kill for america, inc. is not “cool,” neither is pressuring one’s peers to submit themselves to the orwellian machinations of what you very aptly label the “psychiatric/pharmaceutical industrial complex.” https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/06/envisioning-end-pathologization-adolescence/#comment-43359
Remembering this post brought me again to the conclusion that it is a GOOD thing for there to be peer pressure among youth regarding the use of psychiatric drugs. It needn’t be cruel. But something is needed to counter the idea that flaunting a psychiatric label or taking their drugs is “cool,” and it makes sense that this should come from within the ranks of youth themselves. And in the end hurt feelings are better than brain damage. So the more Sir Hooey & Co. try to employ their PR machinations to hook kids on neurotoxins the more disdain for their tactics we are compelled to convey.
Again, there IS NO “pill shaming phenomena.” THAT is what I was mocking, not Sera, and will continue to mock, and encourage others to mock, and I don’t think Sera & I are far apart on this; furthermore, this is a survivor issue.
You also know very well that this was introduced to create division among survivors and AP people, yet continue to address it as though it were a reflection of serious concern for our feelings on the part of the Royal College of Psychiatry (rather than concern that people might be influenced to stop using their drugs). I know you’re not that naive.
Hey, that’s no way to argue! 🙂
They want to deny that “pill shaming” can even exist within our movement against psychiatric abuse.
Richard, you continue to use this scandalous term even when it has been thoroughly discredited by Auntie Psychiatry’s research, and you fall into the trap of treating it as a serious and systemic problem, when at most it (poorly) describes an unfortunate dynamic which may occur at times between individuals. If this were an ongoing problem within the AP survivor community it would have been raised, as we are nothing if not self-critical. We don’t need the Royal College of Psychiatry defining our issues. The term “pill-shaming” should be mocked and discarded, period. I believe even Sera agrees at this point.
Sounds like scam city. Also sounds like you tried your hardest not to notice the red flags, but at a certain point it became impossible. Next time I hear about an “online charter school” I’ll know what to look out for.
It’s also easy to defensively react to people’s genuine concern as “shaming” when making someone feel “ashamed” is not at all the person’s intent.
There IS a moral component in my view in blotting out or distorting one’s consciousness to avoid the truth, or “reality,” but this is a matter between oneself and one’s own conscience and absolutely not subject to others’ judgemental pontificating.
Also the concerns expressed here have nothing to do with the real motivation behind the “pill-shaming” meme as presented by those who originated it, which is simply to sell more product.
How about as an experiment we encourage people to find past MIA posts which allegedly contain “pill shaming” language and evaluate them (before abandoning the entire subject once & for all)?
If this is such a widespread problem why did it take a corporate psychiatric propagandist to identify it?
Anyway, “shaming” is only effective if you’re open to it. Or if you’re guilty of something. Otherwise the feelings of self-deprecation are already there, waiting to be “triggered” or exploited.
“Schizophrenia diagnosis” is not a disease or condition, it’s something that is foisted upon the person in question; any perceived “correlation” between such a junk science label and anything else is invalid, even if it may appear to support one of “our” positions. (I guess an exception would be a study of the effects of labeling.)
Again, this is a false issue and even discussing it as though it is otherwise falls into the Pharma trap.
I think Auntie Psychiatry has exposed the truth — including the “smoking gun” — of how this pseudo-issue was deliberately concocted by honchos within the psych system, and I think we should simply stop repeating and discussing the term, period.
Should we also discuss both sides of the Holocaust?
MIA is whatever RW decides it is. But the end result of “critical” psychiatry should be antipsychiatry.
I also doubt that before the dawn of psych drugs physically health people simply stayed in bed until they died.
Cool, absolutely nothing about that point that I wouldn’t support.
Sounds like you’re talking more here about people who are shaming themselves.
It is nonetheless important that those of us who have taken an AP stand but somehow find themselves back in the throes of drug dependency don’t feel that they have “betrayed” the movement, or anyone, by not being the perfect heroic storybook role model for resisting psychiatry. We are all human. I’m thinking particularly of Matt here.
she said to me, “Ugh, well, okay, so it’s time for your DRUGS.” It was the look on her face of utter disgust that said everything.
That’s how she felt though, I don’t think being horrified at what someone is doing counts as “shaming.”
I’m not saying no one engages in this, but again we also need to separate the personal aspects of this from the political.
Auntie Psychiatry has clearly exposed once and for all how this term came about, and her revelations should change the entire nature of this “debate” before it even gets started. Survivors are very good at defining what oppresses them; “pill shaming” has never been one of them and was artificially introduced by the other side.
Alex, check out Auntie’s brilliant expose above of how the term “pill-shaming” was coined and promulgated by the industry as a weapon again those who would hamper their profit making.
We need to understand that “pill-shaming” is not a real problem that arose from the grassroots, but a strategy to promulgate a McCathyesque division among AP ranks over “who are the ‘true’ pill-shamers”; we should reject the entire scheme as the diversion it is, and is meant to be.
Damn Auntie! What a scoop! Your above info on how one misled individual’s personal musings were directly appropriated by the psych/pharm industries’ PR shills sounds almost too blatant to be true, and renders my previous speculations, which at the time may have sounded borderline paranoid, as understated instead.
A research gem!
I can assure you that it’s not very helpful to say to someone, “You’re in an abusive relationship – you need to leave right away!”
You’re being too categorical, I’m sure there are situations when that’s EXACTLY the kind of thing someone might need to hear. But again, this is the “personal” side of the personal/political dynamic. Generalizations often tend to obscure more than enlighten.
P.S. I want to second Auntie’s observation — I also am unaware of any instance on MIA of anyone being “shamed” about taking psych drugs, if “shaming” is understood as being an attempt to make someone feel bad about themselves.
OK, a reasonable response. The problem is — and I won’t “blame” you for this as it goes beyond any one person — there are at least two levels of something being wildly conflated here.
The first is the “personal,” and primarily involves what methods of argumentation or persuasion should be used to reach out to or convince a specific friend or individual that you believe they are making a destructive choice. This is highly personal and cannot be generalized about; it depends on the people involved. So of course if you know your friend is going to stubbornly resist your efforts to change his/her mind it probably makes little sense to browbeat them. In fact I don’t accept that the purpose of the anti-psychiatry movement is to “talk people out” of psychiatric “treatment.” I think our goal should be to have the information people need when they’re ready to receive it, as well as a coherent analysis of what has been done to them by psychiatry and a sound plan for exposing and defeating it.
The second level is political, and there we play by different rules — i.e. via “cold” analysis of the situation, not concerned with how people “feel” about it but what it objectively is. And on this level we should regard the whole “pill-shaming” canard as a shameless concoction of the psych/pharma establishment, designed to guilt-trip those who are wont to being concerned about their friends’ pharmaceutical demise and utterly unworthy of serious discussion — any more than would be discussions of racial or sexual matters based on other demeaning stereotypes.
We need to relegate the entire notion of the “pill-shamer” to wherever they keep ogres of the past such as the “welfare queen” and the like. I know we’re largely on the same page here. But the devil is in the details.
I think it’s a little more complicated than this LS but I’m glad to see you checking in; hope you hang around, as I sense this thread is barely getting started.
Kindred Spirit as well as many people are aware of Sera’s history, writings and accomplishments. Comments here are in regard to the content of this particular article. They are not personal attacks and don’t have to be “defended against” as if they were.
I’m sure KS read your article in its entirety. And I think at least some of what she is responding to is the idea that there can ever be “balance” when the reality is so obvious and so glaring.
Yeah, only with psychiatry is dependence on consciousness-altering chemicals suddenly considered not only acceptable, but worthy of plaudits.
For the research prone, it would be very interesting to study where this term originated and who originated it!
You do understand that anti-psychiatry information will soon be going the same route on Twitter, Google, etc. as anti-VAX and other info not consistent with the neoliberal narrative?
Don’t say I didn’t warn you — the more seriously you take these “pill shaming” memes and try to seriously argue with them the more power you will give them. If you really want to defeat them at their own game you need to learn to publicly mock them — and shame them!
@Steve
My reaction to your probing, sensitive well-intentioned comment is that you are falling into the trap of taking the “pill-shaming” trope far too seriously, without the requisite amount of cynicism and attentiveness to the fact that this term is a way of encouraging people to be dependent on anti-depressants en masse. I’m sure it’s a corporate-generated term, meant to guilt trip people who see their friends being destroyed by pharmacology. It should be mocked, as well as the mentality behind it..
What may happen on a one on one level between friends cannot be generalized about. But on a mass/political level these are tools of a vicious and bloody system meant to force us into accepting the demands of a system which has no interest in our needs, other insofar as they interfere with profit-taking. They should be roundly denounced as such. And they should never be called “medications.”
To my mind, a “pill shamer” would be someone who sets out with the deliberate intent of triggering a shame response in their chosen target.
Exactly — and that’s what the term should be limited to, if it is to be used at all. I personally see it as an enemy term that should never be used (except in a mocking way towards those who use it.)
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?
What’s wrong with providing concrete examples?
You must understanding that by talking about something being “overblown” you are acknowledging a grain of truth. So I imagine what Auntie is trying to glean from you is exactly what you consider an example of something being “overblown.”
I’m late for the party here but wanted to be somewhat organized and prepared rather than make assumptions about what Sera’s saying. But I’m still not that organized so will respond to quotes that seem to stand out to me. I haven’t read the other comments yet. I will pre-state my suspicion that these issues would seem less ambiguous and debatable if psychiatry were understood to be a parallel police force, rather than a flawed branch of medicine.
It’s an at least three-quarters straw man argument that seems to suggest that just by speaking truth about how the system has actively lied to us about psychiatric drugs (and more), that we are somehow now “anti-medication,”
If the suggestion here is that psychiatric survivors and other opponents of psychiatry should not be anti-drug I’m afraid there’s a problem with who this “we” is. It’s one thing to assert that people have the right to fuck themselves up with any chemical known to humankind. But to continually euphemize these toxic tools of repression as “medications” (in quotes or not) as anything but what they are, or to imply that calling out this practice of self-toxification is in any way oppressive, is not an anti-psychiatry position. We should not be defensive about being anti-toxin, especially when this is done in the name of healing. And we should never be defensive about being anti-psychiatry.
Actually I’ll have to change my approach here in mid-stream, as the more I read the more convoluted and intertwined all these arguments Sera is making become. And any time I see words such as “woke” and rhetoric about “checking your privilege”appearing the less seriously I tend to take the arguments at hand, as these are bits of jargon I have come to associate with upper-middle class privileged liberals with no systemic analysis of the inherent alienation that characterizes this society. Anyway I do intend to delve into some of these convolutions while this blog remains current. But for now This is what I think is most important:
Brain-damaging, mind-ravaging neurotoxic psych drugs are NOT “medications,” no matter how much anyone is upset by this reality or prefers to remain in denial. The scourge of psychiatric drugs is a major institutional tool used to hold this system in place by redefining the inherent misery it generates as individual “failings” rather than the logical and eternal consequence of its own putrid essence. People should not be forced NOT to take these poisons. But they should not be enabled in doing so by implying that it’s ok, just another “personal choice.” It’s not ok if your friend is self-destructing due to being fraudulently misled into believing they have a “disease,” “disorder” or whatever phony-ass construct they adhere to. That doesn’t mean you must stop being their friend or must constantly browbeat them.
But if a friend comes to you professing belief in all these lies and announcing that he or she is about to start ingesting prescribed neurotoxins for some metaphorical illness, what else is there to say but “That’s a Damn Shame”???
There is no conflict between these communities.
Which communities? The author was pointing out that all sorts of cultural offshoot groups are nonetheless affected primarily by capitalism, even when there are subordinate conflicts within those groups. Are you denying such conflicts?
Racism and sexism predate capitalism, however are currently part of its support system.
I can’t believe this.
Pill Shamers Unite!!!
There are many reasons for MIA rejecting articles I’m sure, not all of them “heartless.” You said you received no response, but also that you spoke to two editors — did they not say whether or not your piece had been accepted?
“The black vote” and “white schools” describe objective things — vote totals among black voters and schools attended only by whites. They are not abstractions. Are you saying there are better terms than “black” and “white”??
“Human rights and “Mental health” are oxymorons.
Which implies that the “diagnosis” is under the control of the “diagnosee” and not the “diagnoser.”
I prefer the term “emotional distress.”
Slippery slope Rachel, big time. Why would you assume all labeled people are “emotionally distressed”? Some are unacceptably happy or carefree; some are distressing OTHER people. This is another way of validating false categories by confirming the existence of an “it,” when we are talking about unique individuals and their unique feelings and perceptions.
My point is that I really don’t care if you call it mental illness or emotional distress or madness or anything else.
First and foremost you should stop saying “it.” Further, why is defining whatever you are discussing so pointless to you if you’re searching for understanding?
You’re missing Steve’s point, Lawrence. He distinguishes between researching “mental illness” and researching the objective effects of neurotoxins.
Why does anybody call them “antipsychotic drugs” then?
Because they’re used to kill “psychotics”?
It was a serious question actually, not posed judgmentally. Does RW define MIA policy or is it more nebulous, subject to input/voting by the staff, etc?
Exactly.
Removed for moderation.
Removed for moderation.
Removed for moderation.
Point taken.
I think what you are tackling here is the difference between self-determination and identity politics. With most of the categories you describe the bottom line is capitalism (though racism and sexism also constitute basic systems of oppression in and of themselves). Capitalism affects each oppressed sub-group differently, so it is not inconsistent for each group to have its own take — as long as it is recognized that the Mother of All Oppression is the capitalist behemoth that sets the preconditions for all our lives, and that individual cultural differences pale in the face of this.
That would be physiological research, not “mental health” research (as long as the existence of “mental illness” is not a hidden premise).
However, even the existence of variations in neurotransmitter levels correlated with mood changes would not signify disease states, or a need to fuck with people’s biochemistry to make them “act right.”
Some commentators here are saying there should be no scientific research into “mental illness” because there is no such thing as mental illness.
Exactly…
But there are also readers here who believe that emotional distress can have very real physical causes.
How does the second sentence follow from the first? In the first you refer to “mental illness,” which is bogus. In the second you refer to “emotional distress” (which is sometimes mislabeled “mental illness”) and people’s beliefs about “it” — a pronoun that lumps all emotional distress into one basket as an “it” (even though everyone’s distress is intimately unique). Then somehow people’s “beliefs” come into play. So it’s unclear where you’re going with this, but I can see you making no logical case for “mental health research” and don’t know exactly what seems to be getting under your skin.
Yes, even worse than “mental health” for sure. Along with all the psych grads MIA should retain at least one linguistics expert (or a poet laureate) who could continually remind us that metaphors are not real.
Whatever you mean you should probably rework that sentence, it doesn’t seem to make much sense grammatically.
Only critiquing “psychiatry,” does not magically make you able to understand someone in true distress that needs another to listen to them, in fact it can be exactly the opposite.
Who ever said it does? Critiquing psychiatry is done for the purpose of understanding and defeating it, not “improving” it or competing with it.
Talking about helping people is always nice, but it is largely irrelevant here. Psychiatry is not about helping people but controlling them; a major part of this is convincing people that there’s something literally medically wrong with them, and calling these demeaning labels “diagnoses.” The collectively disempowering effect of this may well be more catastrophic than all the drugs combined.
So why don’t we know more about long-term effects including withdrawal difficulties and the capacity of these drugs to result in dependence?
Because “we” don’t matter. The purpose of administering these drugs to the population, despite their long known toxicity, is to keep people from openly freaking out and disrupting business as usual, and to “help” them play out the soulless lifestyles endorsed by the system. If this sometimes makes people feel better fine, but it remains a secondary concern. So are any physical or dependency issues.
“Laugh about it, shout about it; when it’s time to choose
any way you look at it you lose.” — Paul Simon
I haven’t seen any barricades around here lately, PM.
Thanks, that’s educational. And it makes me wonder how Paine could have not noticed this about his friend.
While we’re talking about totalitarian language let’s not forget “behavioral health.”
You can’t talk about revolution then depend on the government you oppose to enforce your “revolutionary” dictates.
Crucial point from Steve — if we think we’re fighting “bad medicine” our approach will be different from that which would be appropriate for taking on a police agency.
Again, unjust laws support the perpetuation of our entire society. They won’t be changed until the system is defeated. A law which seriously threatened to undermine the basic structure of society would be met with the imposition of martial law.
This talk is basically all talk, based on jargon sans substance. You will never impose “legal consequences” for psychiatric assault — there’s no one to enforce it except the same system that benefits from psychiatric assault. And impulsive “actions” with no analysis behind them are probably worse than no action at all. The success of the movement will not come about as a result of scattershot emotionalism.
Is there a difference between “MIA’s” stand and your own?
It’s a bore, but we need to grit out teeth and include those quotation marks; if we stop people will stop pausing to question the entire paradigm.
I agree that RW’s focus on “researching” a mirage gives credence to the mirage. (Though his research on what makes psychiatry a scam is totally appropriate.)
Humorous, but in reality any “substitute” term would be at least as bad, since it would nonetheless falsely imply the existence of a valid category where there is none.
I feel as if there should be an MIA disclaimer at the head of any article crediting psychiatric diagnosis with any valid basis in science.
Good suggestion, though I think you mean something more like “disavowing” than “crediting.”
What about those who say there is no “it” to begin with? You need to back up with specifics your accusations about what people supposedly are “unwilling” to consider before making such generalized statements.
There’s no true “debate” on this stuff, just waiting for people to catch on, and catch up.
What about the term “psychotic” itself?
Double ditto.
Maybe, slightly. They’re always more concerned with the reaction than with the impetus however.
Anyway, what the hell — you gonna give a shout soon? 🙂
“Syndrome” is a medical sounding term and wouldn’t be an improvement; it still refers to a “thing.”
A almost acceptable alternative would be to say “so-called.” Nonetheless by referring to an implied “it” regardless of the label one validates the existence of a “something” where there is nothing that can be categorized.
And soon will be holding book-burnings for dictionaries and grammar books.
And sometimes even more oppressive language comes into vogue in the name of “progress.” But that’s another topic.
Hard to disagree with any of the main thrust here — MIA should put quotations around all of these terms — “mental health,” “psychotic,” “depression,” all of it. It is irresponsible to do otherwise. Is anyone here going to seriously disagree?
I agree with Steve of course.
One thing about that whole “nothing about us without us” — while valid in principle, many things said and done “about us” would be equally invalid if we were suckered into participating. So it’s more like “nothing about us period unless we agree it should exist In the first place.”
Is it not absurd on its face to ask or expect the very system that foments such widespread trauma as the cost of doing business to then turn around and provide the solution?
And so I try to come at it from an angle to make the bullshit of the DSM, chemical-imbalance theory, etc. more interesting to them.
The only “angle” you need is to point out that according to the rules of LANGUAGE — not medicine — it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a “mental illness,” so any attempt to “treat” same is absurd on the surface. Just as absurd as calling the SPCA when it’s “raining cats & dogs.” One either gets this or doesn’t, it’s an Emperor’s (or Empire’s) New Clothes situation. To do “research” on a soporific metaphor only perpetuates the absurdity.
Well, it would be interesting to know if Paine ever discussed any of this with Rush (who also considered “Negritude” to be a disease).
There is a larger problem here in portraying the essence of psychiatric oppression as residing in the DSM.
Many mental health professionals have long recognized the lack of scientific validity of the DSM, and its pseudoscience has at times become so obvious so as to be a public embarrassment for psychiatry
This is the cup calling the saucer white. For “mental health professionals” — who by definition accept the notion of “mental health,” itself inherently lacking in scientific validity — to smugly talk about the DSM lacking the same is so hypocritical as to be tragic. The implication is that there are indeed “mental illnesses” but the DSM just goes “too far.”
Except they use stimulants like Adderall for “ADHD,” are you saying they have a sedating effect too.
what kids really need is food in their bellies, safe places to play and gather, love, attention and consistent expectations/rules, safe shelter to sleep, and parents who aren’t stressed from impoverished, abusive, or otherwise oppressive living/working conditions
Of course this is all true. It is also completely inconsistent with the needs of capitalism. The above article is oblivious to this very basic reality.
What laws currently forbid thoughts?
People can “identify” any way they want; that doesn’t mean others are obligated to accept such identifications as reality. If people want to believe they are “mad,” and that their “madness” gives them special powers that’s their right. If people want to believe that brains can be “diverse,” go for it. Just don’t tell me this is the “new normal” or that I’m a bigot for not buying it.
There can be nothing “Green” about anything labeled “mental health” — a concept that should logically be seen as offensive as “mental illness.”
And what happened to the conversation about putting such psychiatric/medical model terms in quotes at all times?
It should come as no shock to learn that, once some serious impediments to involuntary psychiatric psychiatric intervention began to be incorporated into international law, the forces of coercion would start looking for loopholes and ways of turning this around. Psychiatry after all is primarily a police force, and police don’t work very effectively without the option of coercion.
So glad I’m not a lawyer, as it’s so difficult navigating legal verbiage, but my basic understanding of the situation, if I am correct, is that
a) The original language designates the individual as the captain of his or her own ship in regard to medical decision-making (which by this definition includes psychiatry);
b) As a little icing on the cake, the concept of “supported decision-making” was included in the language, ostensibly to help strengthen the ability of the individual in question to make truly autonomous decisions; then
c) This notion of “supported” decision-making is now being turned around by some who, rather than seeing this support as being available if and when requested by the individual, are instead imposing it as a substitute for rather than an adjunct to individual autonomy; hence the original authoritarian paternalism is reestablished using new language.
I’m glad there is resistance to this, but don’t know the answer as it’s not really my department. However I support Tina’s proposals (though I’d omit the reference to “Mad Pride”), as I’m not aware of anyone who has worked on CRPD as long and hard as Tina, or who would be a more appropriate spokesperson for the interests of survivors. It seems like a fluid situation at the moment, i.e. one that could go either way.
I ask Tina to suggest some ways non-lawyers who support what she’s trying to do vis. a vis. CRPD can help with this effort.
Sort of skimmed over this before but I think we’re maybe reacting to the same things — don’t know if they’re intangible or just hard to define. But real people don’t talk about “frameworks” unless they’re psychologists or “mental health” professionals, so to me this seems like more of an “in-house” discussion which seems to be calling for more enlightened “practitioners,” rather than more revolutionary consciousness among the people.
Agreed. “Mad Pride” is based on accepting system definitions of one as “mad,” and it is offensive to hear people claiming that submitting to such labels “reclaims” anything but one’s sense of self-denigration.
As for “neurodiversity,” it sounds like another suspicious amalgam of the abstract and the material, or of the physical and the political. Neurological functioning and “diversity” are not terms that go together. It also seems like it should be relatively simple to differentiate between “diversity” and “dysfunction.”
Not much to disagree with except maybe the concept of “natural problems in living,” many of which are “natural” only in the sense that it is natural to react to toxicity, be it chemical or cultural.
If people won’t engage unless you accept their beliefs I’d say maybe they’re not ready to communicate. But whatever, I guess it’s mainly a question of style. Analytically though I would still hold that all the concerns you mention here could be sufficiently addressed within the context of anti-psychiatry.
On a more practical note, to what institution of systemic power would one address a demand that they “be allowed to think whatever they want”? Who would even acknowledge opposing such a right?
The colonisation of therapy with medical/psychiatric language is particularly frustrating.
What is the term “therapy” if not medical/psychiatric language?
I think activists need to stop lecturing professionals about changing their language and telling them to make changes on the inside, and then shitting on every effort the professional class attempts to change the language of mental distress and to make those changes from the inside.
Why should there even BE a “professional class”? Or an “inside”? Why do we need a “model”? What happened to revolution as a model??? I’m surprised at this response.
the main changes must happen at that macro level, collectively and politically, and mostly outside the MH system
But what changes, and how are they to be brought about?
When, and why, did forced psychiatric treatment become legal?
Check out the “ships of fools.” Of course there may have been things predating that as well.
Is cognitive liberty a term, a principle, a bottom-line that you can imagine yourself rallying around?
Seems superfluous and overly academic to me. The abolition of psychiatry remains just fine as a principle of unity, and doesn’t need to be watered down as it addresses all the concerns mentioned. If people say they support “cognitive liberty” but don’t oppose psychiatry en toto their words ring hollow to me, and it means they have a ways to go before there’s any reason to unify. “Critical psychiatry” is still psychiatry. “Mad Pride” for many abolitionists is a ludicrous concept, and “neurodiversity” is another thing entirely. So let’s not look for “unity” where there is none, for “unity’s” sake. Again, anti-psychiatry works just fine as something to work towards, if people are looking for a “cause.”
Hopefully Mad In Italy will not adopt the “pre-moderation” of comments which has rendered MITUK useless for robust discussion (and threatens to do so at MIA).
Unfortunately Bob is still under the impression that he was in a hospital.
Why should homeless people have to identify as “mentally ill” to get shelter?
Sounds specious to me. Did they refuse to publish you or simply warn you of the inevitable response by some? Anyway we don’t need another “model,” we need to eliminate the entire “professional” mentality.
Steve — My comment above that you reacted to was addressed to Richard, not you.
The aim is to move, in simple terms, away from the “What is wrong with you?” towards the “What has happened to you?” question.
How about “WHY has this happened to you?” and “HOW do we rid the world of these forces which have done this to you?”
This PTMF thing befuddles me, as there are credible people who like it. But it still defines distress as a personal matter, to be dealt with on an individual level, rather than a collective problem to be approached collectively and politically. Rather than truly moving away from the idea that there must be “experts” to define and “treat” our (system generated) misery, even the name PTMF sterilizes the nature of what’s going on, and categorizes what should amount to fighting and defeating oppression as some sort of “helping profession.” However, pursuing revolutionary transformation (which is really what we’re talking about) is not a profession; it is a responsibility shared by all who are conscious and motivated enough to take it up.
From the article: Lighting a candle and having a glass of wine isn’t helpful for these women
Anyone with any thoughts about what’s wrong with this picture?
This is all so fucked up. It started with Viagra, the idea that not being “able” to “perform” is a medical problem. If you’re not horny you’re not horny. Sexuality is another thing the system turns into a commodity to keep people addicted to and hence controllable.
Why is it a “problem” if men aren’t walking around with constant erections and women aren’t always ready to hop into bed? I once again defer to John Lennon:
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think you’re so clever and classless and free
But you’re still fucking peasants as far as I can see
Matter of fact I’m in the mood for doubling down. One of my earliest MIA comments 5 years ago was to a blog about adolescence by Laura Delano, who was still working at MIA. I said then:
I think that young people are sophisticated enough, and cynical enough (in a good way) that they will respond in a positive way to the way you explain things. My strategy if I were you would be to promote an attitude among youth that, just as signing up lemming-like at the recruiting station to kill for america, inc. is not “cool,” neither is pressuring one’s peers to submit themselves to the orwellian machinations of what you very aptly label the “psychiatric/pharmaceutical industrial complex.”
https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/06/envisioning-end-pathologization-adolescence/#comment-43359
Remembering this post brought me again to the conclusion that it is a GOOD thing for there to be peer pressure among youth regarding the use of psychiatric drugs. It needn’t be cruel. But something is needed to counter the idea that flaunting a psychiatric label or taking their drugs is “cool,” and it makes sense that this should come from within the ranks of youth themselves. And in the end hurt feelings are better than brain damage. So the more Sir Hooey & Co. try to employ their PR machinations to hook kids on neurotoxins the more disdain for their tactics we are compelled to convey.
Again, there IS NO “pill shaming phenomena.” THAT is what I was mocking, not Sera, and will continue to mock, and encourage others to mock, and I don’t think Sera & I are far apart on this; furthermore, this is a survivor issue.
You also know very well that this was introduced to create division among survivors and AP people, yet continue to address it as though it were a reflection of serious concern for our feelings on the part of the Royal College of Psychiatry (rather than concern that people might be influenced to stop using their drugs). I know you’re not that naive.
Hey, that’s no way to argue! 🙂
They want to deny that “pill shaming” can even exist within our movement against psychiatric abuse.
Richard, you continue to use this scandalous term even when it has been thoroughly discredited by Auntie Psychiatry’s research, and you fall into the trap of treating it as a serious and systemic problem, when at most it (poorly) describes an unfortunate dynamic which may occur at times between individuals. If this were an ongoing problem within the AP survivor community it would have been raised, as we are nothing if not self-critical. We don’t need the Royal College of Psychiatry defining our issues. The term “pill-shaming” should be mocked and discarded, period. I believe even Sera agrees at this point.
Sounds like scam city. Also sounds like you tried your hardest not to notice the red flags, but at a certain point it became impossible. Next time I hear about an “online charter school” I’ll know what to look out for.
It’s also easy to defensively react to people’s genuine concern as “shaming” when making someone feel “ashamed” is not at all the person’s intent.
There IS a moral component in my view in blotting out or distorting one’s consciousness to avoid the truth, or “reality,” but this is a matter between oneself and one’s own conscience and absolutely not subject to others’ judgemental pontificating.
Also the concerns expressed here have nothing to do with the real motivation behind the “pill-shaming” meme as presented by those who originated it, which is simply to sell more product.
How about as an experiment we encourage people to find past MIA posts which allegedly contain “pill shaming” language and evaluate them (before abandoning the entire subject once & for all)?
If this is such a widespread problem why did it take a corporate psychiatric propagandist to identify it?
Anyway, “shaming” is only effective if you’re open to it. Or if you’re guilty of something. Otherwise the feelings of self-deprecation are already there, waiting to be “triggered” or exploited.
“Schizophrenia diagnosis” is not a disease or condition, it’s something that is foisted upon the person in question; any perceived “correlation” between such a junk science label and anything else is invalid, even if it may appear to support one of “our” positions. (I guess an exception would be a study of the effects of labeling.)
Again, this is a false issue and even discussing it as though it is otherwise falls into the Pharma trap.
I think Auntie Psychiatry has exposed the truth — including the “smoking gun” — of how this pseudo-issue was deliberately concocted by honchos within the psych system, and I think we should simply stop repeating and discussing the term, period.
Should we also discuss both sides of the Holocaust?
MIA is whatever RW decides it is. But the end result of “critical” psychiatry should be antipsychiatry.
I also doubt that before the dawn of psych drugs physically health people simply stayed in bed until they died.
Cool, absolutely nothing about that point that I wouldn’t support.
Sounds like you’re talking more here about people who are shaming themselves.
It is nonetheless important that those of us who have taken an AP stand but somehow find themselves back in the throes of drug dependency don’t feel that they have “betrayed” the movement, or anyone, by not being the perfect heroic storybook role model for resisting psychiatry. We are all human. I’m thinking particularly of Matt here.
she said to me, “Ugh, well, okay, so it’s time for your DRUGS.” It was the look on her face of utter disgust that said everything.
That’s how she felt though, I don’t think being horrified at what someone is doing counts as “shaming.”
I’m not saying no one engages in this, but again we also need to separate the personal aspects of this from the political.
Auntie Psychiatry has clearly exposed once and for all how this term came about, and her revelations should change the entire nature of this “debate” before it even gets started. Survivors are very good at defining what oppresses them; “pill shaming” has never been one of them and was artificially introduced by the other side.
Alex, check out Auntie’s brilliant expose above of how the term “pill-shaming” was coined and promulgated by the industry as a weapon again those who would hamper their profit making.
We need to understand that “pill-shaming” is not a real problem that arose from the grassroots, but a strategy to promulgate a McCathyesque division among AP ranks over “who are the ‘true’ pill-shamers”; we should reject the entire scheme as the diversion it is, and is meant to be.
Damn Auntie! What a scoop! Your above info on how one misled individual’s personal musings were directly appropriated by the psych/pharm industries’ PR shills sounds almost too blatant to be true, and renders my previous speculations, which at the time may have sounded borderline paranoid, as understated instead.
A research gem!
I can assure you that it’s not very helpful to say to someone, “You’re in an abusive relationship – you need to leave right away!”
You’re being too categorical, I’m sure there are situations when that’s EXACTLY the kind of thing someone might need to hear. But again, this is the “personal” side of the personal/political dynamic. Generalizations often tend to obscure more than enlighten.
P.S. I want to second Auntie’s observation — I also am unaware of any instance on MIA of anyone being “shamed” about taking psych drugs, if “shaming” is understood as being an attempt to make someone feel bad about themselves.
OK, a reasonable response. The problem is — and I won’t “blame” you for this as it goes beyond any one person — there are at least two levels of something being wildly conflated here.
The first is the “personal,” and primarily involves what methods of argumentation or persuasion should be used to reach out to or convince a specific friend or individual that you believe they are making a destructive choice. This is highly personal and cannot be generalized about; it depends on the people involved. So of course if you know your friend is going to stubbornly resist your efforts to change his/her mind it probably makes little sense to browbeat them. In fact I don’t accept that the purpose of the anti-psychiatry movement is to “talk people out” of psychiatric “treatment.” I think our goal should be to have the information people need when they’re ready to receive it, as well as a coherent analysis of what has been done to them by psychiatry and a sound plan for exposing and defeating it.
The second level is political, and there we play by different rules — i.e. via “cold” analysis of the situation, not concerned with how people “feel” about it but what it objectively is. And on this level we should regard the whole “pill-shaming” canard as a shameless concoction of the psych/pharma establishment, designed to guilt-trip those who are wont to being concerned about their friends’ pharmaceutical demise and utterly unworthy of serious discussion — any more than would be discussions of racial or sexual matters based on other demeaning stereotypes.
We need to relegate the entire notion of the “pill-shamer” to wherever they keep ogres of the past such as the “welfare queen” and the like. I know we’re largely on the same page here. But the devil is in the details.
I think it’s a little more complicated than this LS but I’m glad to see you checking in; hope you hang around, as I sense this thread is barely getting started.
Kindred Spirit as well as many people are aware of Sera’s history, writings and accomplishments. Comments here are in regard to the content of this particular article. They are not personal attacks and don’t have to be “defended against” as if they were.
I’m sure KS read your article in its entirety. And I think at least some of what she is responding to is the idea that there can ever be “balance” when the reality is so obvious and so glaring.
Yeah, only with psychiatry is dependence on consciousness-altering chemicals suddenly considered not only acceptable, but worthy of plaudits.
For the research prone, it would be very interesting to study where this term originated and who originated it!
You do understand that anti-psychiatry information will soon be going the same route on Twitter, Google, etc. as anti-VAX and other info not consistent with the neoliberal narrative?
Don’t say I didn’t warn you — the more seriously you take these “pill shaming” memes and try to seriously argue with them the more power you will give them. If you really want to defeat them at their own game you need to learn to publicly mock them — and shame them!
@Steve
My reaction to your probing, sensitive well-intentioned comment is that you are falling into the trap of taking the “pill-shaming” trope far too seriously, without the requisite amount of cynicism and attentiveness to the fact that this term is a way of encouraging people to be dependent on anti-depressants en masse. I’m sure it’s a corporate-generated term, meant to guilt trip people who see their friends being destroyed by pharmacology. It should be mocked, as well as the mentality behind it..
What may happen on a one on one level between friends cannot be generalized about. But on a mass/political level these are tools of a vicious and bloody system meant to force us into accepting the demands of a system which has no interest in our needs, other insofar as they interfere with profit-taking. They should be roundly denounced as such. And they should never be called “medications.”
To my mind, a “pill shamer” would be someone who sets out with the deliberate intent of triggering a shame response in their chosen target.
Exactly — and that’s what the term should be limited to, if it is to be used at all. I personally see it as an enemy term that should never be used (except in a mocking way towards those who use it.)
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?
What’s wrong with providing concrete examples?
You must understanding that by talking about something being “overblown” you are acknowledging a grain of truth. So I imagine what Auntie is trying to glean from you is exactly what you consider an example of something being “overblown.”
I’m late for the party here but wanted to be somewhat organized and prepared rather than make assumptions about what Sera’s saying. But I’m still not that organized so will respond to quotes that seem to stand out to me. I haven’t read the other comments yet. I will pre-state my suspicion that these issues would seem less ambiguous and debatable if psychiatry were understood to be a parallel police force, rather than a flawed branch of medicine.
It’s an at least three-quarters straw man argument that seems to suggest that just by speaking truth about how the system has actively lied to us about psychiatric drugs (and more), that we are somehow now “anti-medication,”
If the suggestion here is that psychiatric survivors and other opponents of psychiatry should not be anti-drug I’m afraid there’s a problem with who this “we” is. It’s one thing to assert that people have the right to fuck themselves up with any chemical known to humankind. But to continually euphemize these toxic tools of repression as “medications” (in quotes or not) as anything but what they are, or to imply that calling out this practice of self-toxification is in any way oppressive, is not an anti-psychiatry position. We should not be defensive about being anti-toxin, especially when this is done in the name of healing. And we should never be defensive about being anti-psychiatry.
Actually I’ll have to change my approach here in mid-stream, as the more I read the more convoluted and intertwined all these arguments Sera is making become. And any time I see words such as “woke” and rhetoric about “checking your privilege”appearing the less seriously I tend to take the arguments at hand, as these are bits of jargon I have come to associate with upper-middle class privileged liberals with no systemic analysis of the inherent alienation that characterizes this society. Anyway I do intend to delve into some of these convolutions while this blog remains current. But for now This is what I think is most important:
Brain-damaging, mind-ravaging neurotoxic psych drugs are NOT “medications,” no matter how much anyone is upset by this reality or prefers to remain in denial. The scourge of psychiatric drugs is a major institutional tool used to hold this system in place by redefining the inherent misery it generates as individual “failings” rather than the logical and eternal consequence of its own putrid essence. People should not be forced NOT to take these poisons. But they should not be enabled in doing so by implying that it’s ok, just another “personal choice.” It’s not ok if your friend is self-destructing due to being fraudulently misled into believing they have a “disease,” “disorder” or whatever phony-ass construct they adhere to. That doesn’t mean you must stop being their friend or must constantly browbeat them.
But if a friend comes to you professing belief in all these lies and announcing that he or she is about to start ingesting prescribed neurotoxins for some metaphorical illness, what else is there to say but “That’s a Damn Shame”???
There is no conflict between these communities.
Which communities? The author was pointing out that all sorts of cultural offshoot groups are nonetheless affected primarily by capitalism, even when there are subordinate conflicts within those groups. Are you denying such conflicts?
Racism and sexism predate capitalism, however are currently part of its support system.
I can’t believe this.
Pill Shamers Unite!!!
There are many reasons for MIA rejecting articles I’m sure, not all of them “heartless.” You said you received no response, but also that you spoke to two editors — did they not say whether or not your piece had been accepted?
“The black vote” and “white schools” describe objective things — vote totals among black voters and schools attended only by whites. They are not abstractions. Are you saying there are better terms than “black” and “white”??
“Human rights and “Mental health” are oxymorons.
Which implies that the “diagnosis” is under the control of the “diagnosee” and not the “diagnoser.”
I prefer the term “emotional distress.”
Slippery slope Rachel, big time. Why would you assume all labeled people are “emotionally distressed”? Some are unacceptably happy or carefree; some are distressing OTHER people. This is another way of validating false categories by confirming the existence of an “it,” when we are talking about unique individuals and their unique feelings and perceptions.
My point is that I really don’t care if you call it mental illness or emotional distress or madness or anything else.
First and foremost you should stop saying “it.” Further, why is defining whatever you are discussing so pointless to you if you’re searching for understanding?
You’re missing Steve’s point, Lawrence. He distinguishes between researching “mental illness” and researching the objective effects of neurotoxins.
Why does anybody call them “antipsychotic drugs” then?
Because they’re used to kill “psychotics”?
It was a serious question actually, not posed judgmentally. Does RW define MIA policy or is it more nebulous, subject to input/voting by the staff, etc?
Exactly.
Removed for moderation.
Removed for moderation.
Removed for moderation.
Point taken.
I think what you are tackling here is the difference between self-determination and identity politics. With most of the categories you describe the bottom line is capitalism (though racism and sexism also constitute basic systems of oppression in and of themselves). Capitalism affects each oppressed sub-group differently, so it is not inconsistent for each group to have its own take — as long as it is recognized that the Mother of All Oppression is the capitalist behemoth that sets the preconditions for all our lives, and that individual cultural differences pale in the face of this.
That would be physiological research, not “mental health” research (as long as the existence of “mental illness” is not a hidden premise).
However, even the existence of variations in neurotransmitter levels correlated with mood changes would not signify disease states, or a need to fuck with people’s biochemistry to make them “act right.”
Some commentators here are saying there should be no scientific research into “mental illness” because there is no such thing as mental illness.
Exactly…
But there are also readers here who believe that emotional distress can have very real physical causes.
How does the second sentence follow from the first? In the first you refer to “mental illness,” which is bogus. In the second you refer to “emotional distress” (which is sometimes mislabeled “mental illness”) and people’s beliefs about “it” — a pronoun that lumps all emotional distress into one basket as an “it” (even though everyone’s distress is intimately unique). Then somehow people’s “beliefs” come into play. So it’s unclear where you’re going with this, but I can see you making no logical case for “mental health research” and don’t know exactly what seems to be getting under your skin.
Yes, even worse than “mental health” for sure. Along with all the psych grads MIA should retain at least one linguistics expert (or a poet laureate) who could continually remind us that metaphors are not real.
Whatever you mean you should probably rework that sentence, it doesn’t seem to make much sense grammatically.
Only critiquing “psychiatry,” does not magically make you able to understand someone in true distress that needs another to listen to them, in fact it can be exactly the opposite.
Who ever said it does? Critiquing psychiatry is done for the purpose of understanding and defeating it, not “improving” it or competing with it.
Talking about helping people is always nice, but it is largely irrelevant here. Psychiatry is not about helping people but controlling them; a major part of this is convincing people that there’s something literally medically wrong with them, and calling these demeaning labels “diagnoses.” The collectively disempowering effect of this may well be more catastrophic than all the drugs combined.
So why don’t we know more about long-term effects including withdrawal difficulties and the capacity of these drugs to result in dependence?
Because “we” don’t matter. The purpose of administering these drugs to the population, despite their long known toxicity, is to keep people from openly freaking out and disrupting business as usual, and to “help” them play out the soulless lifestyles endorsed by the system. If this sometimes makes people feel better fine, but it remains a secondary concern. So are any physical or dependency issues.
“Laugh about it, shout about it; when it’s time to choose
any way you look at it you lose.” — Paul Simon
I haven’t seen any barricades around here lately, PM.
Thanks, that’s educational. And it makes me wonder how Paine could have not noticed this about his friend.
While we’re talking about totalitarian language let’s not forget “behavioral health.”
You can’t talk about revolution then depend on the government you oppose to enforce your “revolutionary” dictates.
Crucial point from Steve — if we think we’re fighting “bad medicine” our approach will be different from that which would be appropriate for taking on a police agency.
Again, unjust laws support the perpetuation of our entire society. They won’t be changed until the system is defeated. A law which seriously threatened to undermine the basic structure of society would be met with the imposition of martial law.
This talk is basically all talk, based on jargon sans substance. You will never impose “legal consequences” for psychiatric assault — there’s no one to enforce it except the same system that benefits from psychiatric assault. And impulsive “actions” with no analysis behind them are probably worse than no action at all. The success of the movement will not come about as a result of scattershot emotionalism.
Is there a difference between “MIA’s” stand and your own?
It’s a bore, but we need to grit out teeth and include those quotation marks; if we stop people will stop pausing to question the entire paradigm.
I agree that RW’s focus on “researching” a mirage gives credence to the mirage. (Though his research on what makes psychiatry a scam is totally appropriate.)
Humorous, but in reality any “substitute” term would be at least as bad, since it would nonetheless falsely imply the existence of a valid category where there is none.
I feel as if there should be an MIA disclaimer at the head of any article crediting psychiatric diagnosis with any valid basis in science.
Good suggestion, though I think you mean something more like “disavowing” than “crediting.”
What about those who say there is no “it” to begin with? You need to back up with specifics your accusations about what people supposedly are “unwilling” to consider before making such generalized statements.
There’s no true “debate” on this stuff, just waiting for people to catch on, and catch up.
What about the term “psychotic” itself?
Double ditto.
Maybe, slightly. They’re always more concerned with the reaction than with the impetus however.
Anyway, what the hell — you gonna give a shout soon? 🙂
“Syndrome” is a medical sounding term and wouldn’t be an improvement; it still refers to a “thing.”
A almost acceptable alternative would be to say “so-called.” Nonetheless by referring to an implied “it” regardless of the label one validates the existence of a “something” where there is nothing that can be categorized.
And soon will be holding book-burnings for dictionaries and grammar books.
And sometimes even more oppressive language comes into vogue in the name of “progress.” But that’s another topic.
Hard to disagree with any of the main thrust here — MIA should put quotations around all of these terms — “mental health,” “psychotic,” “depression,” all of it. It is irresponsible to do otherwise. Is anyone here going to seriously disagree?
I agree with Steve of course.
One thing about that whole “nothing about us without us” — while valid in principle, many things said and done “about us” would be equally invalid if we were suckered into participating. So it’s more like “nothing about us period unless we agree it should exist In the first place.”
Is it not absurd on its face to ask or expect the very system that foments such widespread trauma as the cost of doing business to then turn around and provide the solution?
And so I try to come at it from an angle to make the bullshit of the DSM, chemical-imbalance theory, etc. more interesting to them.
The only “angle” you need is to point out that according to the rules of LANGUAGE — not medicine — it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a “mental illness,” so any attempt to “treat” same is absurd on the surface. Just as absurd as calling the SPCA when it’s “raining cats & dogs.” One either gets this or doesn’t, it’s an Emperor’s (or Empire’s) New Clothes situation. To do “research” on a soporific metaphor only perpetuates the absurdity.
Well, it would be interesting to know if Paine ever discussed any of this with Rush (who also considered “Negritude” to be a disease).
There is a larger problem here in portraying the essence of psychiatric oppression as residing in the DSM.
Many mental health professionals have long recognized the lack of scientific validity of the DSM, and its pseudoscience has at times become so obvious so as to be a public embarrassment for psychiatry
This is the cup calling the saucer white. For “mental health professionals” — who by definition accept the notion of “mental health,” itself inherently lacking in scientific validity — to smugly talk about the DSM lacking the same is so hypocritical as to be tragic. The implication is that there are indeed “mental illnesses” but the DSM just goes “too far.”
Except they use stimulants like Adderall for “ADHD,” are you saying they have a sedating effect too.
Which AD huckster wrote the article?