December 17, 2016 at 12:49 pm #86262LametamorParticipant
Somebody can explain wherefore I can not do it anymore post messages in the thread: https://www.madinamerica.com/forums/topic/what-is-psychiatry-victim-narrate/ ?
And how can start a new thread? Somehow i can not find this option.December 17, 2016 at 7:02 pm #86284
OldHead, I’m not sure who you are referring to when you use the word “we”. Regarding the last comments you made on this thread, I feel we, you and I (anybody? who identifies as anti-psychiatry), need a number of points we CAN agree on. If you’ve got any way we might arrive at those points, I’d like to hear it.December 18, 2016 at 4:53 pm #86318
If you’re out there, OldHead, however distracted, abstracted, or whatever, the problem is this, The Anti-Psychiatry Movement predates the Psychiatric Survivor/Mental Patients’ Liberation Movement. They are not synonymous. I’m not any more likely to discount contributions from Thomas Szasz, David Cooper, and Wikipedia than I am from Richard Lewis, Philip Hickey, Bonnie Burstow and MIA. Doing so, would in effect be like re-inventing the wheel. Psychiatric survivors can go one way or another, but neither way is a foregone conclusion, that’s an individual decision. Some see the system as eternal. Not me. I’m not saying they can’t do so. I’m saying if we’re going to fight the system, let us use all the artillery at our disposal, metaphorically speaking, of course.December 19, 2016 at 1:35 pm #86361March 22, 2017 at 12:12 pm #95141
Reading The Grammer Of Living (1974) by David Cooper I realize that much of the confusion in terms of the definition of anti-psychiatry can be laid at his feet. In Cooper, initially at least, anti-psychiatry = alt-psychiatry (psychoanalysis) opposing conventional (spirit killing) psychiatry (and psychotherapy), that psychiatry endeavoring mechanistically to adjust human automatons to being automatons.
At one point he begins a paragraph with, “All relationships are therapy or they are violence.” Even if he is non-medical model, this injury/healing model of relations would transform all human relationships into medical model psychotherapy. I find the same problem, more or less, in trauma theory. When one speaks of psychological trauma and healing, one speaking in abstract terms. One might as well call that trauma and healing imaginary. Where is the litmus test to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, it isn’t? Healing from a knee laceration is one thing, healing from a psychological insult another.
The works of Michel Foucault on mental health work and psychiatry supply a natural enough corrective. Before he wrote his dissertation (i.e. Madness and Civilization or History of Madness, he authored Madness; the Invention of an Idea. Madness:
the Invention of an Idea could, in its conclusions, be said to be, ironically enough for a man who was a psychology professor at the time, be said to be anti-psychology in message. History of Madness has provided many people with their own anti-psychiatric interpretations. Following Deleuse and Guattori, he eventually became highly critical of psycho-analysis. He also dwelt with the psy-function, and by extension, the psy-profession, in his series of lectures titled Psychiatric Power.
Michel Foucault in these works then provides a potential basis for anti-psychology, anti-psychiatry, anti-psychoanalysis and more. Specifically, the anti-psychiatry potential is more fully developed, and not a matter of two psychiatries, one dependent on an alternative healing motif.
April 2, 2017 at 1:13 pm #97471
- This reply was modified 4 years ago by Frank Blankenship.
Anti-psychiatric psychiatrist is an oxymoron. The reason people started talking anti-psychiatry movement in the first place was because of the prestige of this or that psychiatrist. Survivors of psychiatry don’t, as a rule, have the kind of clout mental health professions weld, and perhaps that is one of the reasons why so many “consumer/users” (as differentiated from true survivors) would seek employment as mental health paraprofessionals. Psychiatric survivors, in some instances, need to mount the horse of anti-psychiatry theory if this situation is ever to change. You don’t need to be a mental health professional to be anti-psychiatry, in fact, I would call it a deficit indicating what’s been wrong with anti-psychiatry since its inception. There is no reason to throw the proverbial baby out with the dishwater however as this deficit should prove easily correctable with the advent of time, which is to say, there can be no empowerment where no demand has been made for it. The people at the top of the hierarchy of power are not going to topple without the help of a great many people where a great many people are, on the lower rungs and at the periphery.May 16, 2017 at 5:49 pm #102919
Somebody has been calling anti-psychiatry “fringe” and linking to the “fringe science” page at the beginning of the Wikipedia anti-psychiatry webpage. I got into fracas with somebody on this page awhile back for my editorial flair with the first paragraph. I was threatened with being barred from editing. They were saying central to their editorial policy was neutrality. I was saying calling anti-psychiatry “fringe” is not taking a neutral stand. I took “fringe” out. Somebody put it back in. I took it out again. A real cliffhanger here, huh? Stay tuned.
If you go to the “fringe science” Wikipedia page you will see what I mean. There is a list of organizations reputed to be “fringe science”. One of these organizations is an astrology organization. We’ve been claiming for some time that psychiatry was pseudo-science. Calling anti-psychiatry “fringe”, to my way of thinking, is an attempt to make “fringe” or “junk science”, that is, pseudo-science, of anti-psychiatry. I’m neither willing nor able to surrender to psychiatry (via Wikipedia) on this issue. As far as I’m concerned, they are insulting the wrong people.May 17, 2017 at 12:21 am #102929
I don’t know how long I might be allowed to edit this Wikipedia page. Once again, “fringe” “fringe science” qualified the view being described as anti-psychiatry. Once again, I took “fringe” out. My feeling is that this view is coming from psychiatry’s supporters, and not people who identify as anti-psychiatry, or with anti-psychiatry as a movement. I would suggest that anyone else with anti-psychiatric views should do the same who visits the page if they keep adding “fringe”. This is a way of attempting to discredit anti-psychiatry, and my feeling is that the source of this dismissal (non-neutral attack) is probably, in some way, shape, or form, associated with psychiatry, and/or friends of psychiatry.
I have used “fringe” in satire. I had a blog titled Lunatic Fringe after the song. Lunatic fringe was as expression of slander directed at the radical and anarchist left by Theodore Roosevelt who first used the term, ironically enough, to attack modern art, cubism, futurism and other developments. As far as hairstyles go, in the USA we’ve got bangs, in the UK they’ve got fringe. Fringe preceded bangs. I would not approve of Wikipedia saying anti-psychiatry was the bangs view any more than I approve of Wikipedia saying anti-psychiatry is the fringe view. I don’t see anything in this except somebody’s attempt to discredit and diminish anti-psychiatry. Should we allow this diminishment, in my view, we would be violating that same net neutrality that supposedly those at Wikipedia are sworn to uphold.May 17, 2017 at 8:25 am #102973
Apparently, according to Wikipedia, anti-psychiatry is fringe science. I rather suspect that what we have here is, rather than a failure to communicate, an Occupy Anti-psychiatry Movement initiated by organized psychiatry. Using reverse psychology, I’m trying to realize their intent, by changing fringe to unscientific. Same thing, huh?
No skin off my teeth really, after all, I’m anti-mental-health-system-ism. Someday, either these guys catch up, or f**k ’em.May 17, 2017 at 9:41 am #102976
Which is the correct response? Now that anti-psychiatry is fringe science I don’t want to have anything to do with it, or now that Wikipedia says anti-psychiatry is fringe science I don’t want to have anything to do with it?
Perhaps, wait and see is better. “This consensus” reality, BTW, is a crock of shit. Ann Arkey knows. Disconsensus beats all!May 18, 2017 at 12:39 pm #103058
For now it seems the threat has been averted. Anti-psychiatry is no longer described as “fringe” at Wikipedia. It’s a matter of how the editors interpret policy. Were they to see a “conspiracy theory”, for instance, in anti-psychiatry, it is more likely to be called “fringe”. If there is some junk science involved in anti-psychiatry, it is certainly not all junk science, it is much more than that, and so our saving grace resides in this same policy. One reason we can give for not using “fringe” is that it doesn’t express a neutral point of view NPOV, and, therefore, you’ve got partiality and prejudice involved.
I see a need for constant vigilance in guarding against some of the misconceptions about anti-psychiatry spread by the mental health movement, and the anti-anti-psychiatry crowd.
Somebody changed “view” also to “movement”, and that probably didn’t hurt.May 19, 2017 at 4:26 pm #103098
There is still much room for improvement at Wikipedia.
“Anti-psychiatry is a movement based on the view that psychiatric treatment is often more damaging than helpful to patients. It considers psychiatry a coercive instrument of oppression due to an unequal power relationship between doctor and patient and a highly subjective diagnostic process. It has been active in various forms for two centuries and reached its greatest influence in the 1960s and 1970s.”
It is as if, like some of the critical psychiatry people, these guys are trying to make anti-psychiatry an anachronism. Question: How can it have reached its apogee in the 1960s and 1970s if technically the word coupled with movement didn’t exist before 1967. It would help, perhaps, if fewer of their ‘alternative facts’ were gleaned from mainstream psychiatrists.
I will work on this matter when I have the inclination. Right now, somewhat exasperated after “fringe”, I’m giving it a little thought.May 20, 2017 at 7:36 am #103139
It’s amazing. The editorial revision war goes on. I got in trouble, or almost trouble, for supposedly accusing Wikipedia editors of being “corporate shills”. There are individuals there attacking anti-psychiatry from a perspective hostile to anti-psychiatry, a mental health movement perspective. This, I would imagine, in this day and age, should be expected. I recently took the part about the “greatest influence” being in the 1960s and 1970s out. Somebody reversed my changes, and we were back to “the fringe view”. I reversed their changes. I still want to keep the “greatest influence” part out of the definition. This definition is actually, if you check the references, coming from mainstream psychiatry. If anti-psychiatry is a movement going back two centuries, I don’t think anybody at Wikipedia should be trying to kill it off after some kind bump dating back just a few decades.May 20, 2017 at 6:30 pm #103175
Did I write, “The editorial revision war goes on.” I got reported to the administration at Wikipedia, at EditWar talk, I believe, for a violation of some 3rd rewrite rule by somebody who was rewriting my rewrites. This person kept putting “fringe” in, and I kept taking it out. I thought we’d arrived at a consensus at “Anti-psychiatry talk”. I guess I stand corrected.
I had somebody fortunately defend me from this attempt to warp the direction the anti-psychiatry page was taking, but it seems like a losing battle. Know that we have enemies, and those enemies are likely to be spreading a lot of disinformation in the days ahead.May 21, 2017 at 12:42 am #103176
I’ve been reprimanded at Wikipedia for “edit warring”. This is a little comical. They have this 3 revert rule that I violated quite by accident. I didn’t know it existed. Somebody wants to pin anti-psychiatry with a “fringe science” tag. I seriously doubt that they are into anti-psychiatry themselves. That’s the bigger reprimand that worries me.
Watch out! WIKINAMI, WIKIMHA, WIKIAPA, and WIKITAC are out there somewhere. I could be blocked from editing for keeping the WIKITAC from doing its business.
Anti-psychiatry is currently protected from further editing until MAY 24. After that, any volunteer editors want to help ward off the psychiatrists in anti-psychiatrist clothing? If so, seriously, we need you!
- The forum ‘Organizing for Social Change’ is closed to new topics and replies.