Tag: activism

Survivor Knowledge

November 22, 2024

Survivor knowledge has for a long time been devalued in research, with critics arguing that it places somebody ‘too close’ to their inquiry and so undermines their ability to reach objective conclusions. This view can be seen as an extension of the positioning of positivist research as superior to other forms of knowledge. It is a perspective which invalidates those who often hold the most knowledge about a subject area, as it denies their credibility to know about things which directly impact upon them. 

However, survivor knowledge is a key means through which we can harness insights into the ways in which things can be different to build more personable mechanisms for supporting those who may be experiencing distress. Understanding this threatens to disrupt long held notions of what good research entails, painting a picture in which the shorter the distance between the knower and generated knowledge, the less distorted, inaccurate and damaging it is likely to be. This runs counter to the assumptions of ‘scientific’ knowledge, which argue that it is only through a detached reason that we can reach genuine understanding.

The subjugations of certain knowledge relate to ideas of power-knowledge and the ways in which certain understandings are not seen as legitimate, with experiential knowledge in particular only seen as valid when it is corroborated by other means. Whilst it is still necessary to be in some way systematic in order to avoid personal biases clouding judgement, reconsidering the philosophy that sees distance as good and experience as bad could be revelatory for how we undertake social science, particularly where it is expected to intervene in somebody’s life.

It is also worth bearing in mind that all knowledge is open to question, with it often being that certain ‘truths’ only become apparent retrospectively. Whilst all forms of knowledge production can be victim to biases clouding its validity. This is apparent if we consider RCTs, seen by many to be the cornerstone of vigorous research, which have regularly been questioned for being influenced by the pharmaceutical industry and the ideological framework in which researchers on such projects operate. 

Earmarking a new philosophy for knowledge creation around experiences of distress has practical concerns for the delivery of services and the wider psychiatric system. This is apparent if we consider how interventions are regularly touted as needing to be ‘evidence-based’, and emphasising the significant contributions survivor knowledge can make disrupts what counts as evidence. Something which, taken further, invites practitioners to base interventions more on their relational understanding of a service user than the words in a textbook. An idea which highlights how we can all empathise with others better if we allow ourselves to first get closer to our own experiences by making space to interpret and relate them to others.

 

Critiques of survivor knowledge

Experiential knowledge has been criticised for only being able to talk about individual experiences. This is particularly the case as each individual can have multiple ways of interpreting their own experiences whilst the ways we talk about this can be complicated, subtle, ambiguous and sometimes unclear. This does not however have to mean that survivor knowledge need be unusable but care needs to be taken in how it is collected, with efforts being made to create a safe situation for people to share their insights in ways that remains close to how it has been felt. This means it is important to reduce the distance between an experience and its interpretation, both in time but also in context. That is, approaching survivor knowledge with scepticism may lead to a clouding of an individual’s perspective and see them adjust their experience or memory in a way that makes the knowledge less valid.

The Survivor Movement

November 22, 2024

The survivor movement can be considered as the means through which those who have been defined as Mad have organised to resist psychiatric oppression. This is particularly the case when it has involved self-organised, grass-roots initiatives which can form as learning opportunities and inspiration for further movements against the cultural dominance of the current psychiatric system.

 

A Brief History

People have been critical of asylums since their inception, however collective and organised resistance in the form of survivor involvement only have evidence from the 20th century onwards. That is, original movements in the 19th century were drawn from social elites who looked to draw attention to the processes through which people were deemed clinically insane and their improper treatment once inside. This was prevalent between around 1845 and the 1860s but then burnt out for around a century.

The 1960s and 1970s saw near-simultaneous formation of self-organised campaigns among psychiatric patients and ex-patients. Some of these groups coalesced around radical professionals of the time (such as R.D. Laing and David Cooper) whilst some distanced themselves. The most significant group to form in Britain was the Mental Patients Union (MPU), which was started by social workers. MPU, representing patients and rejecting medical orthodoxy, was defined by an ethos of self organisation. 

Other groups that came before included the short-lived Scottish Union of Mental Patients and the looser network of People Not Psychiatry. Building on other autonomous movements at the time, one organisation CAPO (Campaign Against Psychiatric Oppression), which formed in 1985, was known for adopting a punk ethos and the direct-action tactics of radical political groups. It is from the actions of all these groups that a growing advocacy movement developed and language was altered to begin to reflect ‘service users’ and ‘survivors’ instead of ‘patients’. Activism continues in the current guise of Mad Pride and Mad Studies.

 

Activist sources and the history of psychiatry

Researching the survivor movement can be a way of uncovering an alternative history of psychiatry, which places those at its heart at the core of analysis. This promotes agency of the psychiatric subject and undermines narratives which construct them as a by-product of a clinical gaze. The problem however arises in uncovering source material, due to the ephemeral and temporal nature of movements. This means stories often come from the privileged type of story teller in the form of middle or upper class biographies, instead of conceptualising the survivor movement as a whole and situating it in the lived histories of ordinary people. 

 

Activism and the practice of history

It is important for activists to assert their own histories so they are not lost in the footprints of the dominant cultural narrative. They can show the impacts activist involvement can have and how rights now enjoyed are not an inevitable consequence of history but needed to be fought for. Furthermore, this contributes to a recalibration of the kinds of knowledges which are seen as credible in wider discussions around Madness. History is rarely the telling of facts but serves to culturally construct our understanding of the present by shaping our understanding of the past.