Ghislane at S.F. Ethical APA demo
From: target@batstar.net
To: psysr-disc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [psysr-disc] "client/survivor" history
Date: Thu 08/13/09 09:06 PM
Hi
I like to see "client/survivor" activism as a contribution to psychology. Conventional psychology intends to be "ahistorical" but this activism impels changes in psychological viewpoint. There are of course theoretical directions such as those given by Lev Vygotsky's circle and then at a deeper level by directions provided by Giambattista Vico, but here I'm just addressing the current history. In particular, I want to speak to the political locus of today's "wellness and recovery" agenda.
The first identified phase of this movement, especially prominent in the period 1968 to 1985, had to do with developing an "identity politics" for this kind of activism. Two major practices developed, being "self-help" and "patients' rights." Projects such as "Madness Network News (all the fits that's news to print)" moved forward this sense of identity. The mental health system learned to talk the "identity" talk.
The second identified phase of this movement, from the later 80s up until the New Freedom Commission report 2003, had to do with "empowerment," with the catch words being "voicing" and "freedom." The practices of "alternatives" and "opposition to forced treatment" took hold, practices that to some extent networked with people who were not themselves "client/survivors." The mental health system learned to talk the "empowerment" talk.
The third and current identified phase of this movement, has to do with "trauma work," with the catch words being "recovery" and "respect." The practice of "wellness and recovery" is taking hold, as well as a practice sometimes called the "freedom train," where mutual involvement with others seeking change is slowly emerging. The mental health system is now learning to talk the "trauma and torture" talk.
In PsySR there is talk of action work around "wellness and recovery." I contend that that is vague and does not speak well to the overview of "building cultures of peace." We should not center on being the critics of how this process is "bogging down," or on exposing some "Mitchell and Jessen" of today's practice of clinical psychology. We can note those difficulties but they don't have the same salience as their predecessors in the APA's involvement in detainee torture.
Rather it is needful to provide the "safety net" so that the positive construction of "cultures of peace" embraces the "client/survivor" activists and helps them pull forward. "Wellness and recovery" is a slogan of today's mental health system and mainly reflects their "learned helplessness" at how to engage the social support and human rights agendas that challenge them. We should instead focus on advocating for the value of "taking responsibility," for the value of "dignity."
Andrew Phelps