April 4, 2015 at 9:13 am #57064
Ted-I agree with you that there is not and never was something wrong with the A-word. It’s important to get straight what was up that kept it unpopular, still. Szasz got hung-up with word meaninfs generally and with dustinguishing his venture ans settling on his thrust, all stodgingly when it came to saying he was Anti- what he was anti. That’s what I see Torrey running with, just like Francis takes away what he can about the fact-value distinction to keep the conversations that matter to insider arrangements over regular people’s heads, since they then never mention the fact-value difference for diagnosis except in lay terms unless convening with all their academic counterparts. The whole regime of intellectual history for the human sciences is what they use to fight off every criticism. So ultimate power plays are tougher to grasp than selling your neighbor on the cause. Not trying to tell you anything, just wondering about how media bias xan get turned with all the complicity in government arrangements, etc. What you seem to work with is how much give you find among conventional people for sowing the seeds of knowledge about how psychiatry isn’t medicine. My point is to emphasize that we should make it a point among ourselves to see the more rigorous demonstrations of why it never can be as a main resource. That’s why I thought copycat’s video link was superb. We need to recognize that Szasz left us in a bind here. He could so easily have coopted the word that it’s impossible not to think of that when you hear of a joker like Torrey trying to make hay with the inversions of what he knows are Szasz’s correct views. So once we get people coming up with their original notions to define anti-psychiatry, we should also follow the lead you suggest in not backing off it. But survivors give ground all the time because they think the sentiment will go too far and keep someone from getting treatment. We have our work cut out for us.April 4, 2015 at 9:40 am #57066
I can formulate statements that express a not absolutist position against the idea of a human relations specialty that offers drug prescriptions and calls itself psychiatry. In fact, we have to be able to do this. Experimenting with the slogan pro-psychiatry proved distinctly irritating to try even hypothetically, though. The identifying with absolute anti-coercion from the inside of our movement, since it can’t be let slip, is going to matter for how fact’value distinctions are the insider track in “defining”mental disorders. The point again is that if you don’t get the one-on-one picture, you’re in trouble. It’s not going to be movement refuge opportunity time ever. We have to stay explicit, carve out how it is that the conventional movement-friendly careprovider is anti-us as survivors when their reckoning suggests that the worthy term “problems in living” is the harder to employ, ambiguous abstraction. That mental disorders puts solutions talk neatly at hand. We can’t fall for this or ignore it or lighten up. Nothing stops us outdoing Szasz at the height of his recognition if we curry ordinary people’s attention and favor for publicity, is what you convince me of. But we have to denounce all the solutions that bring us back to square one with elitist scientific denial of free will. People like Eric Kandel andand the APA look at deliberately corrupting common sense views. So we should get all the right lines of explanation of fact-value in dysfunction talk and causal explanation tied to understanding problems in living down to common sense level. Together. We should convene aroud copycat’s Freedomain video and correlate our stabs at seeing the limitations of centering on anti-psychiatry (which are few) and the fluid linkage between our concepts for getting existing treatment providers to talk straight. To say problems in living. To admit their hands are dirty if they force treatment. That it’s against what they insist for us, not to force change. We should get the video down pat since it’s manna from heaven.
April 6, 2015 at 3:17 pm #57251Frank BlankenshipParticipant
- This reply was modified 6 years ago by travailler-vous.
It feels like the idea of a new website is off the table for now.
My thoughts, too. We need to get back to the website idea. Thanks.
Travailler-vous, I would refrain from using the words Szasz and Torrey in the same sentence. It just seems like bad grammar to me.
When I first went to an International Conference for Human Rights and against Psychiatric Oppression, there was somebody there who objected to the word anti-psychiatry because a psychiatrist had come up with it. I’d say that was a very valid complaint at the time. I think the situation has changed dramatically since that time. At present, there are fewer psychiatrists who would think of using the term anti-psychiatrist to refer to themselves because it could jeopardize their careers. If it’s a school of psychiatry or psychoanalysis, that isn’t biological medical model harmful, then you’ve got what is referred to as critical psychiatry. I, myself, am not just critical of psychiatry, I’m against it. Psychiatry doesn’t attract me. I think I’m much better off if I think of myself as the reverse end of a magnet repelling psychiatry and all mental health mistreatment. Healthier, too.
You can’t, after all, have an antipsychiatry website without it.
Together. We should convene arou[n]d copycat’s Freedomain video and correlate our stabs at seeing the limitations of centering on anti-psychiatry (which are few) and the fluid linkage between our concepts for getting existing treatment providers to talk straight.
Few limitations? I don’t actually see any. Existing treatment providers don’t talk straight because medicine is not going to solve anybodys social problems. Ditto, pretending it will. Mental health comes of avoiding mental health treatment almost by definition. Mental health treatment is what we do to our “mentally ill”. What do you need in order to be “treated”? Well, a psych label for starters, and we know that that isn’t necessarily ‘user friendly’. Endless “consumption” of human services is it’s own critique. Where is the “mental health” in that? It isn’t in that. It’s in ENDING that. Treatment, er, maltreatment, is not the kind of crutch I need, thanks anyway. Voila! LONG LIVE ANTIPSYCHIATRY!
Nope, an antipsychiatry website is not such a bad idea at all.
April 6, 2015 at 4:54 pm #57256
- This reply was modified 6 years ago by Frank Blankenship.
Ha-ha, funny…bad grammar. Website…I even have ideas that seem too good to lose control of. The reason for allowing meticulous attention to details of the possibility of some denotation or connotation of A-thing getting away from us, for me, is that almost no one is set to be appropriately hard line. Giving ground to those who offer gold stars for your attitude while affirming your “non-compliance”…? This permeates almost the whole site’s philosophy (not Robert Whitaker’s) but in the threads. Except that they respect the abolishment perspective as intrinsically worthwhile and potentially viable people are willing to show their ingrained credulity and obedience skills which are forever too tentatively adequate. We would obviously need to totally reshape common perceptions of the efficacy of any kind of personal growth therapy or program for rational, energetic wellbeing that are cheap smokescreens for the bid to further implement medico-state therapeutism. The fact that MMPIs return verdicts in psychiatric terms along with the shallow execration of self-determination that psychologists frequently enough employ is something all kinds of people stupidly regard as a myth. Subscriber “Alex” harps on this. I read this about it today. “The indifferent man defines people by their functions or by the use he can make of them. A whole system of psychology has been built up on the art of using people by foreseeing the reaction of the average human being….” (Jacque Sylvan on Sartre). This cannot be stopped by knowing and wanting nothing but what you always wanted before psychiatry hurt you or therapists messed you up. You have to continue destructively in their midst, and you must forcefully reveal the misdirections in these pseudo-reliable mappings out of the good life. So we should have Actions, Discussions, and Movement Politics headings, heavy censorship of threads that simply are for shuffling independent efforts to clarify, justify, and situate anti-psychiatric doctrines. Return rather than delete comments and dated postings, accumulate and build up the mechanism providing the engine power for annihilating credentialists and apologists and neutral authorities on every going thing named mental health. Because it is illusory in the main, underhanded or mer conventional wisom most of the time, or (now) securely parity-fied for free insurance rackets, and typically intended to provide excuses to judges, schoolboards, and bureaucratic parasites, and simultaneously to curry favor for the professional classes associated with treatment and research. Mentall illness is dangerous, mental illness is tragic and incurable, people need us to show we are trying to stop it. This variety of mottos shows up through the chinks of most every survivor’s rap who has decided to “give back”. That it’s risible is Not the least of the problem. Likewise, we should constantly finger the Academy for its water-logged liberal paternalism and plagiaristic double standards, and we should therefore call the site Worldwide Antipsychiatry Referendum. We should seek to protect intellectual property rights, maximally, of impromptu contributors to Discussions, etc., encouraging people to take advantage of reactions by which core persons can organize doctrine and protocols down the line, or for drafting propositions to governmental leaders, business tycoons, celebrities, or crusaders just a bit different than David Healy. We should remind people that Foucault is the most quoted intellectal by professional academic writers in the Humanities in the history of mankind, so… maybe that could somehow help us out?! Duh. Like aiming to produce volumes called Survivors Read Foucault, and showing how Antipsychiatry also serves to undergird legal and prison reforms better than this present system. Meanwhile we will be letting initial phases of most theory and activism efforts reach the public, and that means things further along don’t go too many different ways, and both solo and group efforts behind the scene can still feedbak to influence our formulations while producing variations of their own. We should have one happy page for saying what’s a Go in some Sensible version of “helping” commitments like subscriber John Hoggett intends and Noel Hunter is carefully fleshing out, them being young blood that makes a point. We should try to creat the climate that identifies the premiums in favor of good listeners in such econimic roles. The radical and genuine teacher and critical types (unlike the adoptees of the title) should be the only people who ought to feature on the happy page, and ala those overnight infomercials for Third World “survivors” ensconced by malarial opportunities, refuse, and indoor campfires, the happy helper of the month should appear with free advertising to CCHR’s Psychiatric Museum of Death. These are easy to believe will work types of gambles, allowing creative expression and liberal language and chances to politely try arguments and circumscribe practical internal fights and frame our self-criticisms. We’d play the all-willing whore to whoever understood the message of getting out of the personality and mental illness evaluation Dark Ages.April 6, 2015 at 11:27 pm #57271Copy_catParticipant
I remember finding this website, its gone now. It was cool but by the time I found it the forums were vandalized and full of spam.
Anyone remember this or maybe made it ?
April 6, 2015 at 11:49 pm #57274Frank BlankenshipParticipant
- This reply was modified 6 years ago by Copy_cat.
Yeah, I think it was called Mad In America.
There are other websites, etc.. and maybe that’s a theme we’d want to return to, or should it be Antipsychiatry is not the solution, etc., even if it is.
When I think A-word I don’t think antipsychiatry. Of course, psychiatry has a good chance of becoming the pee-word.
Excuse me if my statement happens to be in poor taste. Being into the mental patient liberation thing, mental patient gloves just don’t suit me.April 8, 2015 at 10:31 pm #57422
Frank, But you take it where it should go, so that was sort of the needed abbreviation at the time, considering how otherwise tasteful all the rap was….April 8, 2015 at 10:40 pm #57423
copycat – I’d mainly want to know where people were going to be and to be able to connect through some sort of email directory encrypted that referred to who was where with stone-throwing actions if they wanted to brag about them and suggest the best way to hit vulnerable spots in the f’ing Dragon. So, the other thing, and no idea about Survivor Today btw, is that if you think of how to head off their intakes of involuntary any neat list of ways, spell it out as soon as you think of it, please. I mean it that that is their total trip. We probably can never keep people from thinking the hospital is somehow going to work out as not wrong to try, just because it’s called that. But not going and making them innovate to attract business, and visiting support groups if we can, to go on about how unnecessary mental health arrests are, are real peccadillos for the lot of these carers. So, keep the striking the hot iron ideas cued up. Thanks.
- The forum ‘Organizing for Social Change’ is closed to new topics and replies.