Approximately two
years ago, I penned an article contending that the tide is beginning to turn
against psychiatry (see https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/09/yes-the-tide-is-turning-against-psychiatry/),
listing as examples of telling indicators thereof the ever growing critiques of
DSM-5, the abundance of devastating exposés exposing the systematic “cooking”
of psychiatric drug trials, and the emergence of a special issue of Activa Scandinavica precisely on what
has been euphemistically termed psychiatry’s “image problem” (see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acps.2014.131.issue-1/issuetoc).
Likewise an indicator, but on a far far more modest scale, is the huge success
of an educational event last week. This minor example is the focus of this
article.
Exactly what was
the event? A two hour public library talk complete with Q&A occurred on
December 6. And what makes this even a tiny indicator? Besides that this was as
a totally antipsychiatry talk, and besides the fact that never before had a
public library sought out an antipsychiatry scholar/activist to deliver a speech
of this ilk, what is significant here is the enormity of the turnout, together
with the highly positive reception.
So how did this
event materialize? And what exactly happened?
The brainchild of
Toronto librarian Masha Darkor, the event was kickstarted almost a year ago
when Masha took the unprecedented move of turning up at the book launch of a
new antipsychiatry book of mine called Psychiatry
and the Business of Madness with the intent of persuading me as author to
give a book talk on the subject in the Beeton Auditorium of the Toronto
Reference Library. For those unfamiliar with this library, it is by far the largest
public library in Toronto, located in the centre of the city. The significance
of this invitation is that for the first time in history an antipsychiatry
address would be happening in a totally mainstream venue. Discussions took
place about accommodation needs, and in the fullness of time the date of
December 6 2016 was agreed on.
As the big day
came, the prognosis for even a fair-to-middling turnout was poor, for it was
raining mercilessly. Nonetheless, against all odds, in unprecedented numbers, people
turned up, most from Toronto, some schlepping in this highly inclement weather
all the way from neighbouring cities like Milton. According to the estimate provided
by Toronto library official Richard MacCallum, the turnout was “212 people” -- a
figure never remotely garnered before by an antipsychiatry talk. Correspondingly,
hailing the event as a total success, in his correspondence the following day, MacCallum
correctly pointed out that not only was the auditorium packed, just outside all
three exits stood folk, listening intently, despite not being able to get in or
even sit down.
Even a year ago,
who would have thought such interest and determination possible?
If the number of people present and the
staying power were impressive, so was the response. We began with a minute of
silence in commemoration of the women killed in the Montreal Massacre for this was
indeed the anniversary of that misogynous horror. Later in the talk, I
problematized the standard psychiatric claim that the various school shootings
in general would not have happened had only the perpetrators been on
psychiatric drugs. In response, I pointed out that the vast majority of the school shooters in North
America had in fact been on a therapeutic dose of psychiatric drugs at the time of the shooting (see Burstow,
2015: http://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9781137503831). The point and the horrific irony here is that
these drugs, while being one of the causal factors, are being erroneously
configured by psychiatry as the solution.
As the talk proceeded, with the
problematizing of the concept mental illness, the exploration of the quality of
psychiatric research, and the etching out of different and more communal and
respectful approaches to individual and social problems, not a soul in the
auditorium budged. Come question period,
correspondingly, it was clear that people had been listening intently, moreover,
that the audience was not just comprised of what might be called “the usual
suspects” but were a highly diverse group that hailed from all walks of
life: Some were transparently students,
some psychiatric survivors, some family members of survivors, some academics, some
former police officers, some taxi drivers, some social service providers, some
activists (including from feminist and antiracist movements), some health
professionals (e.g., medical doctors, social workers, psychologists,
naturopaths).
What likewise suggested to me that an appreciable
shift had occurred, the questions asked were both transparently informed and “onside”. “Can you tell me what to do when someone is
struggling with addictions?” asked one person. “What is the number one thing we
should be doing as activists?” asked another. “Even if they knew nothing about
how compromised the research is that underpins the treatments, how can doctors bring
themselves to just impose drugs on their patients?” poignantly exclaimed still another,
peering about with incredulity. Hands of people eager to ask questions kept
rising, and we could have easily continued with the Q&A for another couple
of hours. Adding to the triumph of the day, when the event was ostensibly over,
people lined up in large number to connect with me, some professionals who wanted
to discuss more about what concretely could be done, some survivors eager to relay
their story.
What adds further to my sense of the
significance of the event, I received an avalanche of enthusiastic emails from
attendees the following day. Of these, one story especially touched my heart.
Despite the incessant rain, all the way
from Milton the woman drove. Why? Because, according to her, she had the
uncanny feeling that coming to this lecture would be a life-changing event. She
added that as she headed back home that evening she indeed saw proof that it
was. Irrespective of whether or not she is correct in her evaluation, what happened? As she departed the auditorium, she attempted
to buy one of the antipsychiatry books being sold. Unfortunately, the machine
refused her credit card. Prior to attending this lecture, she informed me, she
would have responded to an outcome like this by becoming instantly downcast. Instead,
inspired with a new confidence and hope, she laughed off what had happened as a
minor inconvenience and headed home.
Now I am well aware that folk who are totally
or even partially positive about psychiatry will to various degrees be unhappy,
perhaps even livid, about what happened on that rainy evening, may well see the
enormity of the interest and enthusiasm sparked as dangerous, and several will immediately
jump to critiquing both antipsychiatry and its advocates -- which is surely
their right. Such inevitably and understandably transpires when a central paradigm
of any sort is under attack, though especially when: a) people are convinced
(indeed, such is hegemony that they have been taught to be convinced) that the well
being of the vulnerable and society in general is dependent on said paradigm
and the practices associated with it, and b) when they see a paradigm in which
they and/or their loved ones have vested their trust beginning to crumble. Now
to be clear, I am in no way questioning the experiences of such folk for I totally
respect that people are experts on their own experience -- I am questioning only
the interpretation of that
experience, as framed by psychiatry. And
to be clear, of course, I feel for the fear and the pain involved. At the same time,
like the larger indicators touched on at the beginning of this article, the
avid interest displayed signals to me something very very different -- that ever
more people, including professionals, are at long last seeing though the
psychiatric pretense, are tired of false claims, recognize the inherent human
rights violations, are disgusted by the vested interests at play, and are
hungering for a radically different, more human, more communal, and more egalitarian
approach to human distress and human conflict.
The hunger that evening was visible, was
palpable, with a wholesale rejection of psychiatry unapologetically asserting
itself. Not a single person, for instance, asked if there just might be
chemical imbalances after all or indeed posed any objection to the general
direction being articulated.
Now I am well aware that strenuous
objections and deeply felt outrage will continue to emerge at future venues,
for again, such is psychiatric hegemony. The point is, nonetheless, that
evening “happened”. That is, what would have once seemed impossible “happened”.
And herein, in however minor a way, let me
suggest, we witness “the turning of the tide”.
One final thought that not only
antipsychiatry activists but also activists in other movements might want to
take away with them: As an activist, you work for a long long time seeing no
signs of change and perhaps you are tempted to throw up your hands in despair. However,
very very often something utterly profound is shifting beneath the surface. In this
regard, as peace activist Ursula Franklin always reminded us, change comes
slowly, with work beneath the surface first preparing the way. To quote Ursula
in reference to her earthworm theory of social activism “From earthworms we
learn that before anything grows, there has to be prepared soil” (see http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ursula-franklin-canadian-scientist-and-activist-had-a-passion-for-peace/article31123033/).
For the longest while you see no change at
all, as you doggedly go about your work of writing briefs, penning blogs, gathering
statistics, mounting demos, including ones that not a single media covers. That
is, like the earthworm, you do the work of preparing the ground, albeit
seemingly to no avail. Then as if from out of nowhere, you start to see
evidence that incredible changes have been happening all along.
Such is precisely what those of us who
squeezed into that auditorium had the privilege of witnessing that evening. And
such is the ecstasy of it all.
No comments:
Post a Comment