Those of us who are radicals are commonly struggling to find
ways to confer legitimacy on positions which substantially challenge hegemonic
constructions/ruling (oppressive status
quo ways of constructing/operating made to look like common sense). In this
article, via a case study, I will be exploring how to accomplish such feats
successfully, leveraging the authority of mainstream organizations in the
process (obviously, not the only way to go). Highlighted are: what kind of problems
happen along the way, and how you might deal with them. The “case” in question
involves two separate but related campaigns to establish an antipsychiatry scholarship
at a leading university. What makes this case particularly instructive is that
psychiatry and all that surrounds it is the height of hegemony, universities
are recognized gatekeepers of what counts as knowledge, and academic psychiatry
is pivotal to psychiatric hegemony (for a discussion of academic psychiatry,
see Burstow, 2015).
The Case
The first of the struggles to launch such a scholarship began
early in 2006. Knowing of course that someone
personally endowing such a scholarship would be pivotal to making this happen—for
the extremely counterhegemonic are hardly agendas that mainstream organizations
rush to implement—I wrote the Senior Development Officer in the Gift Planning Office
at the University of Toronto with this proposition: That in accordance with previsions that I was
creating in my will, my residual estate would go toward creating scholarships
in two different areas—antipsychiatry and combatting homelessness, and such
scholarships were to be awarded annually to thesis students at Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education (OISE).
The stipulations were: 1) students who were psychiatric survivors and
students who had experienced homelessness would be given priority; and 2) the
words “homelessness” and “antipsychiatry” would both be squarely in the title of the award. Why I put these two
areas together, to be clear, is that besides that they often interact and that
I was committed to both, I was counting on the fact that the antipsychiatry
area could, as it were, “ride in on the coattails” of the homelessness area.
At this point, you may be wondering why did I not just let
the will speak for itself after I died?
I did not because that would seriously jeopardize the success of the
venture. After I died, the president of the university, the university’s lawyer,
and the dean of OISE would have to agree to the terms of scholarship, and I
would not be around to marshal my arguments.
Given how out-of-the-box the antipsychiatry part was, given, moreover,
that it conflicted with the teaching of psychiatry, and given that academic
psychiatry is a mainstay of most universities, such a gift would hardly be
approved easily. However if I could
prevail upon the current dean, current lawyer, and current president to agree
in principle in now, it could pave the way for future agreement.
Was there any interest in the scholarship? There was. Nonetheless, what followed was a very
difficult nine-month struggle—at this juncture, all of it at OISE. Examples of challenges presented and how I
responded were: I was told that having such a scholarship was probably a
no-starter for it would outside of everyone else’s area of expertise and so no
program at OISE would ever agree to administer the scholarship. I realized that this was likely to be the
first of many obstacles, and if I did not deal them thoroughly, the initiative
would go nowhere. I proceeded to ask the coordinator of my program (adult
education) if our program could oversee it.
She sounded doubtful. I instantly
suspected that my best course of action would be to see if I could interest
another program in it, for this might well result in two programs agreeing to
oversee the award. Whereupon I turned to “Sociology and Equity Studies” (SESE),
who quickly passed a motion agreeing to administer it. Then I returned to Adult Education. As I had intuited,
in response to SESE, adult education passed a similar motion (see minutes,
Adult Education Program October 11, 2006).
So now I had official minutes of meetings showing that two different programs
were happy to oversee the scholarship. With such obvious “buy-in”, would it now
be “clear sailing” for the scholarship?
Of course not!
Next problem: I was informed that while it was just fine
giving priority to students who had experienced chronic homelessness, there was
a serious problem giving priority to students who were psychiatric survivors
for doing so would constitute a human rights violation, moreover, no students “in
that position” would even want such a scholarship. Leaving alone the question of
possible prejudice here, I quickly demonstrated that it was not a human rights violation for we have
queer scholarships for which gay students are given priority. Correspondingly, I went on to write both an
antipsychiatry and a mad organization, who forthwith consulted their
membership, then went on record stating that their members very wanted such a
scholarship (Coalition Against Psychiatric Assault and The Mad Students
Society). All of which evidence, I duly presented. Was this the end of the
objections? Hardly!
Though naturally, this had been the issue all along, the
word “antipsychiatry” was now objected to. I proceeded to successfully defend
the term/concept. Whereupon, I was asked
to sign a variance clause that in essence would allow the university to do
anything they wanted with the money if they thought that the area was no longer
relevant. Knowing that no gift is
acceptable to the university without a variance clause, I immediately created a
substitute variance clause that seriously limited what they could do, would
ensure that the money would be used for the purposes intended. And indeed, they
agreed to the clause.
Now I thought that this must surely be the end for nine
months had passed and I had dealt with every single objection. However, at this
very juncture yet a further objection arose: I was told that it would be
important to consult with the head of my department to see if antipsychiatry
made sense to her as an area (a very nice person but one who, significantly, had
no knowledge of the area at all). Realizing that the same issue was just
returning in a new guise but that it was possible that they wanted my money
more than they hated the area, I figured that the moment had come to “play hardball”,
so said to the dean, “Thanks for the consideration, but this has been going on
too long, and if the general tenets of this scholarship have not been approved
by you, the university lawyer, and the President of the university within the
next week, I will extend the offer instead to the School of Social Work at
Carleton University.” Three days later an agreement had been reached—all three
players had consented. And a few days after that, in a highly collegial spirit,
the dean, the gifting specialist, and I got together for a celebration.
Now I proceeded to go on to other projects as if this matter
had been thoroughly resolved. However, about eight years later it dawned on me
that the antipsychiatry part of this scholarship might not be secure after I was
dead, for here lie the bones of contention—moreover, no one else would fight for
it as skilfully as I did. My solution?
To endow and to endow now a scholarship in antipsychiatry only —an initiative that I took on partly because it would be good
for the movement if such a scholarship existed now, partly to prepare the way for
the later and far larger scholarship which would materialize upon my demise. I named the new scholarship “The Bonnie
Burstow Scholarship in Antipsychiatry” and I constructed it as a matching scholarship wherein I would be matching
up to $50, 000 of contributions by others, and where I would do the
fund-raising work necessary.
Negotiations quickly ensued. Now this battle I deliberately fought
on the grounds of academic freedom—something that was transparently an issue
and something dear to the hearts of all of us academics. And “sellable” grounds it proved, for
everyone at OISE quickly understood the relevance. Nonetheless, on four separate
occasions I was asked to remove the inconvenient term “antipsychiatry” from the
name of the award—something which, of course, I refused. In fact I was even asked to consider endowing
instead a scholarship in counselling—obviously, an attempt to depoliticize. Now
at one point for reasons unclear to me, the process stalled for about a year,
though I used this time profitably to construct lists of possible donors. Then something utterly unanticipated happened—the
administrator who had been the central contact for both scholarships was let
go—at which point I found, much to my chagrin, that no one at OISE had any
record whatever of the previous agreement. Fortunately, I had kept 7 years
worth of email and found what I needed.
New people stepped up and negotiations continued, and support at OISE
grew. With the new dean agreeing, we approached University of Toronto. Where once again, we encountered stalling.
It is here where my having upfronted the issue of academic
freedom really paid off. Interceding on
my behalf, picking up on my words, the person doing the negotiating for OISE, repeatedly
told the relevant official at University of Toronto, “I have two words for you—academic
freedom”. And in the fullness of time, the scholarship was approved by
University of Toronto.
And was everything okay now?
With respect to the University of Toronto part of the struggle,
yes. We happily signed on the dotted
line, and with helpful staff at OISE lending a hand with the fundraising, the
next stage of the work commenced. However, this was also the time where the
most unpleasant of the obstacles presented themselves. From where?
From the mainstream media. Not
exactly surprising that the media would react highly negatively once they heard
tell of the development, as for decades now, they have “tripped over
themselves”, rushing to support psychiatry’s standard line (e.g., psychiatry is
progressive; its treatments are life-saving, and anyone who says otherwise is
an enemy of progress). Though who would have guessed the extent of it?
Both the scholarship and I personally were forthwith trashed
in several major newspapers, including The
National Post (see http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-u-of-ts-antipsychiatry-scholarship-and-not-believing-in-mental-illness-is-an-attack-on-science).
We were likewise trashed on one national television program, on approximately a
dozen radio programs, and several leading social media blogs. Although I am a
recognized scholar in the area, who, among other things, has challenged
psychiatry precisely on the basis of
science, I was portrayed repeatedly as unscientific, as the enemy of progress,
and someone who was unconscionably placing vulnerable people at risk, this by
people most of whom had read virtually nothing that I had written, never mind
checked their own bogus claims. Correspondingly, the scholarship itself was
depicted as “affront to science”. On top of which, I began receiving death
threats. I was likewise warned (read: threatened) that several lawsuits were in
the process of being drawn up against me. Moreover, I was repeatedly urged by an
OISE ally not to talk to the media at all.
Now amidst this onslaught, this utter ignoring of the
principles of good journalism, I “kept my cool”. I decided carefully what to
respond to and what not. I ignored the
lawsuit threat for it was not credible. Despite
being urged to, I never once cancelled a speaking engagement—and the public
turned up to my events in droves. I asked one particular publication as a
counter to the sensationalistic article penned by their reporter that they
grant me an op ed piece, to which they consented (see http://thevarsity.ca/2016/11/13/op-ed-understanding-what-is-at-stake/).
I gave an interview to a solid reporter—Kevin Richie—who worked for a
sympathetic lefty newspaper—Now—and he
wrote a terrific piece (see https://nowtoronto.com/lifestyle/class-action/bonnie-burstow-launches-worlds-first-antipsychiatry-scholarship-at-oise/).
I likewise rallied students and other allies to respond to some of the attacks.
More significantly, along with students, I created a video about the
scholarship (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJyA6RyQmMo),
wherein, among other things, antipsychiatry students shed light on the bias which they face when applying for
scholarships—and how this award counters the inequity. Moreover, we created both
fact sheets and letters. Along with allies like Coalition Against Psychiatric Assault,
correspondingly, we all of us together created fundraisers, with one that was
particularly enjoyable and participatory being an auction facilitated by a
joke-cracking auctioneer who donned a thick Yiddish accent for the event. In
essence we created our own good press, while making what we could of the bad
press. We created community. And we all
of us watched as the contributions rolled in.
What is especially interesting here is that while the bad
publicity pieces greatly outnumbered the good, if anything this only encouraged
more people to join the cause. The point is that bad publicity is still publicity—in fact the
contributions to the scholarship picked up considerably after the bad press
began for now way more people knew of it, moreover, many were outraged by the
shoddy journalism.
Now by most standards, our fundraising was proceeding well.
This notwithstanding, as the campaign began to draw to a close, we still had
come nowhere near reaching the $50,000 target—and please remember we needed to,
for this was a matching scholarship with me matching up $50,000 of donations by
others. That said, close to the very end
came a most unexpected development. An
anonymous Texas donor materialized who pledged enough to bring the amount to be
matched to $50,000. How did he know
about it? In a word, because of the deluge of negative publicity.
And were this not gift enough, the anonymous donor proceeded
to create a second stage of matching. That is, he signed a contract with the
University of Toronto committing to match every Canadian dollar subsequently
contributed over the next period with an American dollar.
In short, we had prevailed beyond our wildest dreams!
As an aside, I would add, I received a call around that time
from the executor of my will, who said, “Bonnie, I can’t tell you how relieved
I am that you did all this! Otherwise they would never have honoured the
conditions of your will.”
Lessons to be Gleaned
While every situation is of course unique, what follows are
general “take-away” lessons that arise from this “case”, some guidance for others,
whatever their cause, in their efforts to involve a mainstream organization in
the struggle to bestow legitimacy on their counterhegemonic area:
1)
Ask for something relevant to your cause, that
fits with their standard ways of operating, and which they have the power to
grant.
2)
Always keep your eye peeled for what could go
wrong imminently or in the long run.
3)
Keep in mind both the instrumental goal and the
final goal, as well as various accompanying goals. In this case, the
instrumental goal was getting the scholarship approved. An example of an accompanying goal was
assuring that students doing research in this area had access to scholarships.
The final goal was raising the credibility and enhancing the profile of
antipsychiatry. Now by way of example,
had my only concern been the immediate goal and the accompanying goal, I could
have simply contributed the whole $100,000 myself and saved us all literally
thousands of hours of work. Creating a matching scholarship, however, and
involving many in the campaign was a way of mobilizing the community—which
community, in the final analysis, are critical to what Foucault (1980) calls
“the insurrection of subjugated knowledge”.
4)
Know the law or consult an ally who does.
5)
Prepare for a long haul and prepare to do a
whole lot of educating.
6)
If you think at any time that you are
“home-free”, think again.
7)
Be prepared for the fact that parts of the fight
that seem to have been won will return in new ways, for such is the nature of
hegemonic rule. Do not get frustrated. Just tackle whatever new form emerges.
8)
Do not
accept the concept of impossibility. In this regard, take every obstacle in
your path as a practical problem for you to solve.
9)
While working cooperatively with the
organizations whose cooperation you are requesting, always be prepared to challenge
and to stand your ground. Note they will
likely want you to “water down” what you are asking for—and please note, this
is just not the way that revolutions happen.
10)
If there is money that you are giving in the
process, know that this gives you leverage and you should use it (if not, do
spend time figuring out what your leverage is or might be—for battles of this
significance are seldom won without leverage).
11)
Identify principles held in common by you and
those whose cooperation you are seeking.
Then use this as leverage, and what is even more significant, use it as
a basis of solidarity (note the enormous importance of the principle of
academic freedom in the saga above).
12)
What relates to the last point, help people comprehend
exactly what they are standing for in aligning themselves with this project. In the case study, they were standing for
academic freedom, they were standing for the creation of new knowledge, they
were standing for liberatory knowledge; and they were standing up for equity.
13)
Realize
that the very slowness of the process can work in your favour. The time taken
gives folk with whom you are dealing the experience necessary to truly identify
with the cause. Then by the time the
inevitable challenges arise from higher ups or the public at large, the people
that you have spent all this time educating have become so identified with the
cause, they are not simply fighting for you. They are fighting for something
they have come to believe in, something that they too have invested their care
and energy in.
14)
Be very clear what the organization as a whole
gets from taking the measures that you are suggesting and help people
internalize this. In the case study just
presented, note, they got money, they got the opportunity to both be moral and be
seen as moral, they got the opportunity more generally to be leaders in the
sense that the University of Toronto would be the first university anywhere to
have such a scholarship.
15)
What relates to the foregoing, help people take
in that they have something to lose if they do not get involved. This sense of gain and loss and can enter in in
a variety of ways. Sometimes the issue is
that someone else might get what you
are offering them—in which case it starts to look more attractive. Note how the coordinator of adult education
became more interested in an adult education connection once it looked like
SESE as opposed to adult education would end up associated with the award,
similarly how the dean of OISE in 2006 became more committed to the scholarship
once the prospect arose of it going elsewhere. Other times, it is simply the
reality of losing the chance to be associated with and to be part of a
wonderful and ground-breaking venture.
16)
Hold on to evidence of agreements reached for institutional
players come and go, and when they leave, institutional memory typically goes
with them.
17)
Be aware that most of the press will be lined up
against you, and so begin developing a media strategy early on.
18)
Even if you and the venture are being attacked
mercilessly, never devote more than 2% of your effort to responding to
attacks. Instead spend the time getting
your message out. Note in this regard, I
personally responded in writing to only one attack (in the OP Ed piece
referenced earlier). Correspondingly, I
quickly summarized what was wrong with the article, then devoted the vast
majority of the piece to explaining what made this scholarship vital. To put
this another way, be active, not reactive.
19)
Rally your allies wherever you can. You at once
receive considerable help and what is far more significant, you turn this struggle
into what it absolutely has to become
—a community effort and a common cause.
20)
Build in fun events, optimally using art and
celebration. In this regard, remember
anarchist Emma Goldman’s famous remark, “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be
part of your revolution.” (see http://www.ificantdance.o
rg/About/00-IfICantDance/OnEmmaGoldman)
21)
Upfront
the voices of those who will benefit from the measures being taken (note, in
this case, the up-fronting of voices like the Mad Students’ Society and the
voices of current students who would themselves benefit directly or indirectly from
the scholarship).
22)
Figure out what to counter and what to ignore.
23)
Reach out to sympathetic media and create/co-create
your own positive coverage.
24)
Never let threats scare you off. The more they
threaten you, the more visible/audible you need to become. Such is the nature
of revolutions.
25)
Operate on the principle that “bad publicity” is
almost invariably better than “no publicity”.
Finally, keep in mind that there is a type of dialectic by
which issues of this ilk operate. That is, in the very ways that the forces of
hegemony go after you lies the seeds of your eventual (and collective) success.
You have but to apply the moral jujitsu of principled social activism.
Concluding Remarks
My hope is that these general principles are of service to
you in your ongoing work. Whatever your
counterhegemonic battle is, whether it be antipsychiatry, or prison abolition, or
gender-bending, feel free to use them, add to them, share them with friends.
This said, I, along with many of my readers have a special interest in their
use in the war against psychiatry. May they help us reach new heights! May they
help us slowly but surely turn antipsychiatry/critical psychiatry into an
accepted form of knowledge.
In concluding, to return to Dr. Bonnie Burstow Scholarship
in Antipsychiatry itself: I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all who joined
the cause, including my ever trusty allies Lauren Tenney, Don Weitz, Peter
Breggin, and Cheri DiNovo; thank you all who contributed money; all organizations
who put time and effort into the venture (e.g., Coalition Against Psychiatric
Assault); all the students and others who phoned people, mounted fundraisers,
co-created videos, responded to critics, spread the word (e.g., Sharry Taylor,
Sona Kazemi, Efrat Gold, Lauren Spring, Simon Adam, Rebecca Ballen, Mark Federman,
Edward Fox, Nichole Schott, and Oriel Vargas). Likewise, a special thanks to OISE
employees for your enormous support, for going the “extra mile” (e.g., Mark
Riczu, Inna Hupponen, Charles Pascal, and Sim Kapoor).
To close, correspondingly, with a timely reminder: A new
stage of matching has just begun—so if interested in contributing to the cause,
check out the OISE website (http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/oise/About_OISE/Bonnie_Burstow_Scholarship.html);
also see https://donate.utoronto.ca/give/show/271).
References
Burstow, B. (2015). Psychiatry
and the business of madness. New York: Palgrave.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge
(C. Gordon et al, Trans.). New York: Pantheon.
