Conferring Legitimacy on the Counterhegemonic

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.

A Curse for a Cursed Profession

But a short while ago, I was slugging away on a work-related report – a dreary task that nudges the mind to drift – when I found myself wondering what I might add to the premiere launch of my book Psychiatry Interrogated, soon to be upon me, to lend it that extra “oomph.” Before I knew it, I had set aside the report and was in the midst of penning a poem – one modelled on the Victorian poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s masterpiece “A Curse for a Nation.” 

Now, in “polite society,” cursing is largely verboten. Let me suggest, however, that if done in the correct spirit and adroitly, cursing can be a highly useful type of anti-oppression work. How so? It can at once shed light on oppression, express the outrage warranted, and motivate action.  On top of which, it can be personally liberating. Moreover, as Browning so sagely points out, paradoxical though this may seem, it can itself be a loving act.

In Browning’s poem, what Browning was cursing was the United States. Why?  Because of the abomination of slavery. Read the poem and you will see the force, the satisfaction of “saying it like it is,” the implicit consciousness-raising, all of which made it enormously popular within abolitionist circles at the time. It was precisely with this awareness that as the day of my book launch neared, I instinctively found myself turning to her poem. 

Now to be clear, I am not intending here any kind of comparison between – let alone an equation of – American slavery and the practices of modern psychiatry. Obviously there are profound differences. Nor am I weighing in on either side of the debate that every so often surfaces in venues like Mad in America as to whether or not slavery and psychiatry should be compared. What am I doing? Approaching both as institutional oppression, just as I would approach sexism or classism. Correspondingly, I am allowing the poem to inspire me.

Nor, as it happens, am I the first antipsychiatry theorist to be inspired by this poem (nor likely to be the last). I would refer readers in this regard to psychologist John Breeding’s wondrous Jungian poem “An Anima Curse for a Profession.”

That said, what happened in the days leading up to the launch might best be described as being “taken over.” Half mesmerized, again and again I found myself turning to Browning’s poem, reading, rewriting, rewriting anew, drawing on key phrases and sections, all the while conjuring up the everyday practices of modern psychiatry. What particularly captivated me about Browning’s poem is that the very worst curse that she could imagine bestowing on the targeted oppressors is that they be themselves – that is, they continue to do exactly what they have always done.

What emerged from my labour is a poem entitled “A Curse for a Cursed Profession.” And on February 24th, at the premiere launch of Psychiatry Interrogated in the Nexus Lounge at OISE/University of Toronto, I read this poem to an audience of 200 people. It was the culmination a very different type of pedagogy in which I, as editor of the book, and four other contributors (Dr. Jennifer Poole, Lauren Spring, Mary Jean Hande, and Rob Wipond) introduced the audience to the anthology. 

As Psychiatry Interrogated is the world’s very first anthology of institutional ethnography investigations into psychiatry – itself a major achievement – there was an emphasis that evening on scholarship as we explained the benefit of institutional ethnography as a methodology and, bit by bit, laid out the findings of our various projects. An excited audience learned, for example, how it is that perfectly competent nurses lose not only their jobs but their very nursing accreditation through the everyday activation of psychiatric texts. They likewise learned how the compulsory “mental health” framing in Canadian workplaces routinely operates to the detriment of those purportedly helped.

Following the speeches was a highly animated Q&A. Then came my poem – something far less scholarly and far more visceral. From the smiles of recognition and triumph that quickly inundated the room, nothing could be clearer that that it struck a chord, hence my decision to reproduce it here.

A few words about my poem itself: As with Browning’s, the first section is a prelude; the second, the curse.  In my prelude – and this happened with Breeding too – many of Browning’s phrases and ideas are used, as is her general design. My curse, on the other hand, differs dramatically from Browning’s. This, nonetheless, remains the same: In both cases, each stanza ends with a refrain that gives voice to the curse. Correspondingly, the worst curse that I too could imagine bestowing on my target is that they be themselves. 

Which bring us to the poem:

Please accept this poem as intended – as a part of an account of a Toronto book launch, as a critique of psychiatry in a new key, as a creative way to go about activism, as a moment of inspiration. And do enjoy, ponder, change, build on, and curse as the spirit moves you.

A Curse for a Cursed Profession

I heard an angel speak last night. 

And he said: Write

Write a curse against the profession of psychiatry for me

And send it over and against the therapeutic sea.

I faltered, taking up the word.

“Not so, my lord,” I answered.

“If curses there must be, choose another

To send this curse against my brother

For I am a soul moved by love.

Love of everyone around me

Love of the vulnerable, love of the lofty

Love of everyone who is or ever will be.”

“Therefore,” said the voice, “shalt thou write

My curse tonight.

From the summit of love a curse is driven

As lightning is from the tops of heaven.”

“Forgive me, liege,” I answered. “Ever more

My heart is sore

For the sins of the modern state: For the little feet

Of drugged urchins who stagger across the street

But curse, I cannot.

Cursing is a man's job.

I a woman have only known

How the heart melts and tears run.”

“Therefore,” continued the angel,

“Shalt thou write my curse tonight

Weep and write

For a curse from the depths of womanhood

Is salty, and bitter, and good.”

So thus I wept and thus I wrote

What all may read

And thus, as was beholden on me

– For well I understood the necessity –

I sent it over and against the therapeutic sea.

The Curse

Because thou hast broken the Hippocratic Oath,

Because ye lie about science while donning its garb

And never so much as feel an ounce of shame

As ye and thy professional brethern grab ever more power and fame,

This is thy curse: Prescribe.

When others uncover thy mistakes: Cry foul!

Dismiss without consideration.

When women whom thou hast electroshocked forget who they are,

Call it progress and stand thy ground,

And when the children of women arrive early at the grave,

Having been on Prozac since age 5,

Never forget, as doctors, you do no wrong

Unlike the common throng:

This is thy curse: Prescribe.

Like Bismarck, like Attila the Hun,

Have thy arsenal always ready at hand,

With words begin, with words end.

“Schizophrenia,” call it, “bipolar,” “ADHD.”

If thou thinkest thou might later commit,

Tick “paranoid” next to “PTSD.”

Verily, verily,

Off thy tongue, let the fateful words roll trippingly.

Then before thy office the poor wretch starts to depart,

This is thy curse: Prescribe.

When thou runnest out of people here on whom thy kindness to bestow,

Like the merchants of old,

Be bold

And set sail for lands yet untapped.

How about Sri Lanka? How about Ghana? How about the Congo?

Surely they too can gain

From the white man's game.

This is thy curse: Prescribe.

And if, perchance, thou findeth thyself losing the credibility battle,

Time it will be to name the latest disease –

Prognostically speaking, the horror of horrors! -–

“Acute Antipsychiatry Disorder.”

Quick! Enter it into the DSM, ensuring that no other diseases it borders!

And as the ignorant celebrate in the noonday sun,

And as liberation rings from the mountain top,

This is thy curse: Prescribe.

Starting the New Year with a Bang: A Medley of Antipsychiatry Resolutions

Every year at this time, from Canada to Ireland, from Turkey to South Africa both determined and not-so-determined folk make a very unusual list, known traditionally as New Year's resolutions. They make resolutions about how to assert themselves at work. They make resolutions about how they will treat others, about doing something about their ever growing heroine use, about returning to school, about standing up to the class bully, about spending quality time with their loved ones. All good. This notwithstanding, although there are now a fair number of folk with a high degree of antipsychiatry knowledge and commitment, only but rarely do such factors figure in anyone’s New Year’s resolutions.

Aimed precisely at this population, this article is intended to help remedy that oversight. What follows, accordingly, are antipsychiatry resolutions  -- ones that people may borrow from at will.

More specifically, below are three sets -- 1) a general set for everyone with a critique; 2) a set for survivors and “users” of psychiatry; and 3) a set for “mental health professionals”. Of course, everyone's situation is unique (one size does not fit all). Accordingly, this is a pick-and-choose situation.  If there are any that you find yourself wanting to include in your own Resolution List, with or without modification, just feel free.

A caveat: It is hardly a secret that the vast majority of New Year’s resolutions are never kept -- or even seriously adopted. This is probably because they are vague inclinations to which people have no special relationship, with the making of them primarily a feel-good custom that people are following. I am hoping that we can do better with the antipsychiatry ones. My invitation, accordingly, is to thumb through the list and, insofar as you pick any, pick only ones that fit you, that are timely for you, that so resonate with your sense of yourself and your trajectory that you genuinely will be “resolved”.

That said, read, enjoy, and use at will.

General Antipsychiatry New Year’s Resolutions for All Critics of Psychiatry

I will worry less about damaging my credibility by endorsing an abolitionist position.  Rather I will aim at mustering up the courage to say what I know.

This year, I will stop just yakking about antipsychiatry activism and start putting it into practice (translation: “walk the walk”).

I will familiarize myself with social movement theory and become more strategic as an activist.

For every hour I spend responding to posts on the Internet, I will spend a comparable amount of time “doing antipsychiatry” in the material world. More specifically, I will do at least one of: a) spearhead a demonstration; b) respond to problematic legislation; c) create a new antipsychiatry organization; d) join Tina Minkowitz’s campaign for the absolute prohibition on nonconsensual psychiatry.

I will stop using “mental health” language entirely -- will not use words like “medication”, or even ones like “symptoms” and “mental health” --for as Audre Lorde (1984) so astutely put it years ago, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”

I will work with others at rewriting the woefully inadequate description of antipsychiatry found on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-psychiatry). Minimally, I will correct the conflation between the mad and the antipsychiatry movements, and I will ensure that the entry is far less American-centric (oh yes, that is a problem).

I will do my homework, and by September, I will be able to distinguish effortlessly  between “antipsychiatry” and “critical psychiatry”, between Thomas Szasz and R.D. Laing. I will likewise familiarize myself with the attrition model of psychiatry abolition (see Burstow, 2014), get a feel for how it works.

Whenever faced with a new initiative, I will automatically ask: 1) if successful, will the actions or campaigns that we are contemplating move us closer to the long range goal of psychiatry abolition?; 2) Are they likely to avoid improving or giving added legitimacy to psychiatry?; and 3) Do they avoid “widening” psychiatry’s net?

I will adopt at least one of the book activism strategies outlined in “Getting Our Anti/Critical Psychiatry Authors Read: A Case for Book Activism” (https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/04/getting-anticritical-psychiatry-authors-read-case-book-activism/).  The point is, we need our authors to be read.

I will stop holding my peace when people mention that a loved one is considering starting a psychiatric “treatment”. 

I will demonstrate for a total ban on ECT -- I mean, shooting electricity through a person’s skull -- like, what the fuck?

When asked for my advice regarding a psychiatric “treatment” that someone is considering, I will do everything possible to avoid falling into either of these common errors: a) soft-peddling what I know and b) being insensitive or disrespectful.

I will pay more attention to the plight of families.

I will be conscientious in my attempt to integrate feminism, antiracism, anti-ageism, etc. into my antipsychiatry work.

I will stop treating critics of psychiatry whose analysis differs from mine as THE ENEMY. 

If I find myself acting like a troll on an anti/critical psychiatry site, I will cease and desist  -- then send myself to bed without supper.

I will prioritize infusing kindness into the antipsychiatry and mad community -- for when “push comes to shove”, besides that infighting is counterproductive, it matters how we treat one another.

At least once a month, I will tell antipsychiatry warriors like Lauren Tenney, Don Weitz, Celia Brown, and Mary Maddock what wonderful work they do.

I will inject far more fun into my antipsychiatry activism, for to quote Emma Goldman, “If there won’t be dancing at the revolution, I’m not coming.” (see https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman).

Early in the year, I will form an antipsychiatry think tank which examines each situation for political leverage, for what pressure can be brought to bear.

If I happen upon a “mental health” professional snickering at the tenets of antipsychiatry. I will chime in with what I know, scrupulously remaining factual, clear, and logical, irrespective of how he comports himself. Though in extremis, under my breath, I just might mutter, “May you laugh so hard that your anus turns inside out.” Oh what a joy it is to curse now and then!

I will critique Bonnie Burstow a whole lot less -- I duly swear it!

I will critique Bonnie Burstow a whole lot more -- I duly swear it!

If at any time I see an opinionated shrink coming my way, I will spit three times, throw salt over my shoulder, hightail it out of there -- then treat myself to the yummiest schnitzel in town.

Antipsychiatry Resolutions for Survivors and/or “Users” of Psychiatry

If taking on antipsychiatry in its fullness feels like more than I can do, I will figure out one baby step -- then act on it.

I will remind myself regularly that I deserve a full life, whether or not that means being “psychiatry-free”, which I suspect that it might.

I will stop waiting for recognized leaders in the movement to initiate action.  Where I feel strongly about an issue, I will myself assume a leadership role.

I will continue to tell the story of my psychiatrization, as helpful -- and personal stories are without doubt vital to our movement and to me. At the same time, should at any point such sharing leave me feeling in a rut, I will give myself permission “not to go there” or to contribute in a different way. 

If like last year, I again find myself wondering whether I have a mental illness after all, I will reach out to fellow survivors who are likewise antipsychiatry. Who better than my brothers and sisters who have also “been there”?

Antipsychiatry Resolutions for “Mental Health” Professionals

Instead of dismissing them as impractical, I will make an effort to learn from the various survivors and critical/antipsychiatry professionals who venture further than me, for deep down I know that here is where hope lay.

Bit by bit, I will sever my connection with institutional psychiatry.

I will stop pretending that the “system” can be “fixed”.

For every year in which I was silent about what I knew about psychiatry, I will donate $100.00 to a worthy antipsychiatry project -- and which of them aren’t worthy?

Whatever the personal cost -- and I am well aware that the cost will be high -- I will publically declare myself antipsychiatry -- and explain why.

I will use the credibility bestowed upon me as a professional to add to the credibility of survivor knowledge.

I will stop charging when I contribute to the antipsychiatry cause. If others give of their labour freely, why not me?

I will add institutional ethnography to my repertoire and start mining the everyday “work” with which I  was once associated for entries into critical understanding.

I will forgive myself for the mistake of ever buying into psychiatry, realizing that I too am a product of socialization.

Counterintuitive though this is for me, I will stop trying to increase the number of professionals – even empathic ones.

Enough is enough!: I will become a “whistle-blower”.

I will take as one of my primary responsibilities transferring my skills to the community, in essence, doing myself out of a job.

More and more, I will challenge my colleagues -- doctors, nurses, social workers, and psychologists especially -- to face what they know about psychiatry, indeed, what on some level, the whole world knows -- then to act accordingly.

Closing Remarks

Hopefully, a few of the resolutions in the medley above speak to you. If not, by all means, invent your own set from scratch. What is important here is having a plan and going about the work of antipsychiatry strategically, reflectively.

In ending, wishing one Donald Trump Esquire a new calling -- perhaps used car salesman. Wishing “zei gezunt” (be well) to those who “walk the walk”, whether your social movement be antipsychiatry, feminism, or environmentalism. Wishing for an end to racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, etc. Wishing that psychiatry starts being widely seen for what it is -- a “pseudo-science” on a par with blood-letting. Wishing for peace in the world. Wishing for love, kindness, wisdom, community, and revolution.

And wishing everyone everywhere, whatever your lot in life, a good and “psychiatry-free” year.

References

Breggin, P. (1991). Toxic Psychiatry. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Breggin, P. and Cohen D. (2007). Your Drug May be the Problem: How and Why to Stop Psychiatric Medication. New York: DeCapo Press.

Burstow, B. (2014). The withering of psychiatry: An attrition model for antipsychiatry. In Bonnie Burstow, Brenda LeFrançois, & Shaindl Diamond (Eds.), Psychiatry Disrupted: Theorizing Resistance and Crafting the (R)evolution (pp. 34-51). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Lorde, A. (1984). Sister Outsider. Berkeley: Crossing Press.

Szasz, T. (1970). The Manufacture of Madness. New York: Harper and Row.

Learnings from Earthworms: The Ecstasy of an Antipsychiatry Breakthrough

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.

[For my speech that night, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqY9r4TZxBQ&t=366s].

Turning the Tables: Using the Academy in the Battle Against Psychiatry

The impetus for this article is an exciting new scholarship endowed in perpetuity which has just been launched at University of Toronto. It is a “matching scholarship” in which I personally match up to $50, 000 of contributions by other donors. Called “The Dr. Bonnie Burstow Scholarship in Antipsychiatry”, the scholarship is to be awarded annually to a thesis student at OISE/UT conducting antipsychiatry research. An award of this nature is historically unprecedented, and as such, is itself something to celebrate. It is also part of a larger phenomenon of using academia in the battle against psychiatry. Shedding light on that larger phenomenon as well as on the scholarship per se, such are the purposes of this article.

Why have I dubbed this article “Turning the Tables”?  Because what is involved here is precisely taking a leaf from psychiatry’s book. In this regard, not unlike other hegemonic disciplines, albeit far more aggressively than most, as shown by Foucault (1963/1973) and Burstow (2015), psychiatry has long used academia to legitimate its claims and further what it regards as “knowledge”. Not only does academic psychiatry train people to think/act in ways that serve it, its sheer existence serves as a primary source of legitimation. 

Albeit we do not have the potential to make the same kind of inroads, let me suggest, it behooves those of us who oppose psychiatry to likewise use academia. Herein we have the opportunity to challenge, to educate, moreover to lend a hand to what Michel Foucault (1980) calls “the insurrection of subjugated knowledge.” In the process, we can at once further antipsychiatry knowledge and add to its perceived legitimacy. 

The rise and growing acceptance of Mad Studies is an example which elucidates this principle (see http://www.universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/mad-studies/). Mad views have gained unprecedented legitimacy of late not simply because they provide important perspectives, note, but because courses dubbed Mad History have become a standard part of curriculum in such areas as Critical Disability Studies in several universities. Of course, not being inherently abolitionist, Mad Studies is, as it were, an “easier sell” than antipsychiatry.

Examples of what can realistically be done at this point—and to varying degrees some of us have been doing this for decades—is to rigorously integrate an antipsychiatry analysis into our classes, involve students in our antipsychiatry research, and mount conferences in which antipsychiatry is highlighted—e.g., the historical PsychOut conference (see http://individual.utoronto.ca/psychout/). Via such routes, very real reframing happens.  Some students (both ones new to antipsychiatry and old hands at it) go on to conduct their own research into some aspect of psychiatry, thereby contributing to this growing area of scholarship. At the same time, academia puts the stamp of credibility on such “knowledge”, in essence, legitimates it in the public eye.

Now there are “onside” faculty who intentionally water down their critique of psychiatry, perhaps because they have been attacked by colleagues, as to a fair extent all of us are, perhaps out of fear for their jobs. Given the difficulty of standing one’s ground in the face of this particular power nexus, that is totally understandable. Let me invite such colleagues nonetheless not to automatically to pull back, for the fight is a vital one; we are slowly but surely winning this battle. Moreover, there are other ways for us to protect ourselves. Which brings me to my own extensive history as the one of the sole academics who publically identifies as an antipsychiatry professor.

Since the early 1980s, in every university in which I have taught, I have invariably integrated an unapologetic and hard-hitting antipsychiatry analysis into my work and in every case, the results were positive. That is, despite some students having profound misgivings at least initially, most students quickly found themselves intrigued.  Soon even those who began by dismissing my position or declaring it “extreme” found themselves seriously entertaining vantagepoints that would once have been unthinkable. Telling in this regard is a student who felt she had to be in the wrong class because the perspective utterly alarmed her. By the third class of the course, she vowed never again to set foot in any of my classes.  She proceeded to skip the next class, pretty sure she would not come back. Not only did she soon return and not only did she stick with this class, but she went on to take every single course that I offered. By the same token, over the years a high percentage of my students have ended up abandoning the concept of “mental illness”—something initially unimaginable. Correspondingly many have become antipsychiatry activists and researchers in their own right and gone on to influence others. This is precisely the beauty of what can be achieved in academia.

In this respect, though it may often seem as if no one wants the knowledge which antipsychiatry scholars/activists offer—and on one level this is true—on another, people,  especially the young, are virtually hungering for a radically different vantage point.

Which brings me to the question of direct opposition—a problem that leads many privately highly critical colleagues to “soft peddle” their message. Of course there is opposition, just as there has always been opposition to anything which challenges accepted orthodoxies and runs counter to vested interests. And indeed, I have commonly encountered over-the-top opposition myself as well as more subtle obstruction. More generally, inevitably in every single university in which I have taught, because I am uncompromisingly antipsychiatry and known to be so, at some point or other, there have been efforts to derail both me and my agenda. What is significant here, however, is that none of it ever came from students. Moreover, the opposition has been monumentally unsuccessful. Indeed, if anything, it has but added to my credibility and detracted from the credibility of those out to silence my analysis. The point is that academic freedom is a principle that universities hold dear. And strange though this may seem, it offers very real protection.

Am I in any way suggesting that faculty who introduce new counterhegemonic knowledge are equally rewarded for their efforts as those who replicate traditional (and inherently oppressive) “knowledge”? Not remotely, and especially not in an area like antipsychiatry, which is at odds with disciplinary fields which academia actively supports and whose related industries (e.g., Big Pharma) channel substantial money into university coffers. Am I denying that their work may be trivialized or looked down upon? Of course not. As we all know, that commonly happens, especially to faculty who are psychiatric survivors and known to be so.  Nor would I in any way want to minimize the very serious plight of excellent scholars whose repeated attempts to land a permanent university job have come to naught because of their personal history, their identity (mad, racialized, etc.) or their antipsychiatry stance. This problem is only too real, and this too we need to fight. Nonetheless, it is a mistake to minimize the value of academic freedom as a safeguard.

To clarify the distinction that I am making here, antipsychiatry faculty may be overlooked in all sorts of ways, may be relegated to dead-end positions, may never have their work spotlighted, may even be actively disrespected (all of which, without question, is highly serious and is in its own way a violation of academic freedom). This notwithstanding, if someone obviously and overtly tried to interfere with a faculty member educating from an antipsychiatry perspective, for the most part, even if unenthusiastically, the university will side with the faculty member under attack. Why? Precisely because even in the eyes of the conventionally minded, such interference violates the university’s commitment to academic freedom. The point here is that the commitment to academic freedom has genuine substance, this, despite the ongoing violations of the commitment.

Factor in this commitment and have your wits about you, if your employment is relatively secure, and even in a surprising number of cases where it is not, as an antipsychiatry academic, when it comes to teaching as you wish, you can generally easily win most fights.  Whereupon, in a very effective way, you begin to turn the tables. Some examples from my own history:

In my first year teaching social work in a university in western Canada (and yes, I was junior, and no, I did not remotely have tenure), members of the psychiatry department were distressed upon learning of a ten-minute talk which I gave in one of my classes on the circular nature of psychiatry’s use of language. Their response was to write the head of social work to request that psychiatric faculty be allowed to enter my classroom and in essence teach their own perspective. The rationale given was that this way my students would benefit from having more than one perspective. Well aware that my freedom to teach as I wished (translation: academic freedom) was at stake here, the head of social work handed me the letter and asked me to respond. I wrote back stating, “In the interest of my students having access to more than one perspective, I am more than happy to allow your faculty time in my classes –but only if in the interest of your students likewise gaining additional perspective, I similarly be invited into your classes.” (Burstow correspondence, November 15, 1987). 

Given the ostensible “sensibleness” of my response, given what would be seen as its “even-handedness”, realistically, only one of two things could have happened at that point: 1) they take up the challenge, in which case, as most of us are aware, a solid antipsychiatry critique can beat psychiatric propaganda handily –and so I win (indeed, I win doubly for my message has now gained access to an otherwise unreachable audience) or 2) they decline the challenge, in which case I would have exposed their claim to believe in multiple perspectives as a ruse, moreover, begun to demonstrate that even in their own eyes, they cannot hold their own against an antipsychiatry analysis—in which case once again, I win.  So what happened? The second. We never heard back from them. 

Another example: Shortly after I was offered and accepted a position in social work at a university in eastern Ontario, a credentializing body wrote the President of the university threatening that if this offer of employment was not rescinded, the department’s social work credentialization was in jeopardy. Once again, the attempt to block me backfired, and it did so in part because the university would not tolerate such blatant interference with academic freedom.

A third example: When Coalition Against Psychiatric Assault, OISE’s Adult Education and Community Development program, and I mounted the historic PsychOut Conference at University of Toronto, flexing their muscles, as it were, higher-ups in the psychiatric faculty wrote the President of the university, protesting the existence of such a conference and more significantly, its association with University of Toronto. Similarly one faculty member in psychology wrote, stating that the conference should be canceled in the interests of avoiding confusion.  Otherwise the psychology students who would inevitably attend, she argued, would end up unnecessarily baffled, for they would be bombarded with messages at odds with what they were being taught in psychology classes.

The objections were forthwith forwarded to the OISE dean, who was asked to respond. The dean passed them onto the Chair of my department. The chair passed the onus to respond onto me. To hone in on just one of these, to the applause of the psychology students who began excitedly flocking to meetings of the organizing committee responsible for planning the conference, my response to one outraged colleague went as follows:

In the end, we all have to accept that it is part of academic freedom that scholars bring different and often incompatible claims to knowledge to the table. The hope is that students are enriched by gaining exposure to the very different worldviews and agendas. It falls to them as intelligent human beings and budding scholars to sort out where they themselves stand, having listened to the different positions—and I trust in their ability to do so.” (letter from Burstow, April 25, 2010).

We never heard back from the irate colleague again. And for all intents and purposes, the Conference proceeded as planned—except now a growing excitement had been sparked.

The point is, if handed in the manner which Gandhi followers have dubbed “moral jiu jitsu” (see http://civilresistance.info/sites/default/files/thepowerofnonviolence0206.pdf)

opposition to us can actually serve our own ends of exposing and in the process winning hearts and minds. Again, a turning of the tables.

My encouragement to fellow academics, accordingly, is not to make soft peddling your antipsychiatry message your default mode. While for sure there are times when “lying low” makes sense, there are other and generally better ways for us to protect ourselves. And never forget that the liberal value of academic value is highly serviceable, irrespective of the fact that we are not liberals but radicals.

More generally, master the skill of moral jiu jitsu necessary. Whereupon, the university becomes an important and viable site for our antipsychiatry work—something accomplishable, note, in lectures, in class discussions, in the framing of assignments, in the activist/survivor speakers we are now able to bring in, in special events, in the actual norms of our classes (e.g., one of my class norms is “no mentalistic or psychiatric jargon”), even, as shown above, in fighting the very opposition which initially looks like it will derail us. The point is, paradoxically, both despite and because of the elitism of the venue, and both despite and because of the manifest opposition, there are niches in the  academy which are potential antipsychiatry strongholds—we have but to have courage and do the strategic work needed.

Which brings us to this article’s second objective.

A particularly fruitful way that faculty members can use academia to both further antipsychiatry and to add to its perceived legitimacy is to encourage, supervise, and support antipsychiatry theses. Conducting such research affords students the opportunity to contribute in a major way to antipsychiatry knowledge creation.

Now it goes without saying that such knowledge creation will continue to happen irrespective of whether or not students conducting such research receive awards. This notwithstanding, given the economic straights of oh-so-many graduate students, the financial is hardly irrelevant. Correspondingly, one added measure that antipsychiatry faculty can take is to both nominate their antipsychiatry students for awards and help sponsor antipsychiatry-specific awards. The latter, I would add, is particularly important for the reality is that given the hegemony of psychiatry and the privileged place which psychiatry holds within academia, budding young antipsychiatry scholars have appreciably less chance of winning awards than those involved in more traditional areas of knowledge-building.

More generally, the very creation of one or more antipsychiatry scholarships is a game-changer. Obviously a university cannot have a scholarship in this area without at the same time “recognizing” the area. And insofar as universities “recognize” the area, so does the world at large. By the same token, while it goes without saying that we understandably all have different priorities, anything, however little, that any of us can do to make such scholarships a reality, irrespective of whether or not we are academics or even particularly value academia, is an effort well spent, for it announces to the world that antipsychiatry has legitimacy and it paves the way for ever greater forays into it. In the process, I would add, it helps put a stop to the ongoing harassment of antipsychiatry professors, thereby making it easier for antipsychiatry faculty and would-be faculty to do the job that we in the movement so desperately need them to.

Understanding all this, after a nine month stint of negotiating with University of Toronto officials, who began transparently uneasy with the subject matter, several years ago I arranged for the vast majority of my estate upon my death to go into setting up huge scholarships in this area. And it is with this understanding that likewise, with help from allies –institutional and otherwise—I proceeded to set up the far smaller Dr. Bonnie Burstow Scholarship in Antipsychiatry, outlined at the beginning of this article. My thought here was that besides that the time is ripe, this smaller scholarship could, as it were, prepare the ground for the far larger ones that will materialize later. And a very good thing it was too that I took this measure, for the current scholarship came close to not be approved, and without it,  the tentative agreement about the scholarships set up in my will would surely have been in jeopardy.

The resistance to this scholarship that inevitably materialized, I would add, is itself an indicator of its importance. Moreover, and what is not unrelated, the transparency of the resistance led several institutional players whose support, while real, had begun as relatively modest—including from within the university—to strongly come onside.  Whether this was mainly because the need to uphold academic freedom became increasingly obvious or because they noticed that—lo and behold—they were smack in the middle of a David-and-Goliath story, or because the very struggle itself led them to look at the substantive issues more closely, herein once again we see a “turning of the tables”. 

I would add here, I thank these fellow institutional warriors with all my heart—for you did no less than fight your hearts out—and you did so skillfully, with integrity, and with perseverance! What a force of nature you are!

To end where we began—by honing in on the current scholarship, already this scholarship initiative has a growing momentum. Besides that several donors have already contributed to it or made pledges, the scholarship has been endorsed by as formidable a figure as the member of the Ontario Provincial Parliament Reverend Cheri DiNovo. 

Moreover it has been endorsed by absolute giants in the field like Dr. Peter Breggin, Don Weitz, and Dr. Lauren Tenney, all of whom are very clear about its importance. In this regard, Peter writes:

I am Peter R. Breggin, MD and I am a psychiatrist. As a professional long heralded as the conscience of psychiatry, it is my pleasure to endorse the newly formed Bonnie Burstow Scholarship in Antipsychiatry. Science is demonstrating that psychiatric diagnosis and drugs, electroshock, and involuntary treatment are doing much more harm than good.  We desperately need critical scholarship aimed at stopping this epidemic of demoralization, dehumanization, and brain damage.  –Dr. Peter Breggin

By the same token, survivor and activist Don Weitz writes:

As a psychiatric survivor, antipsychiatry and social justice activist for over 30 years, I strongly support the Bonnie Burstow Scholarship in Antipsychiatry at the University of Toronto.  Dr. Burstow’s recent book Psychiatry and the Business of Madness (2015) is a masterful work and brilliant breakthrough. I feel sure the Scholarship will attract and empower many survivors, students, and scholars. It's time antipsychiatry is officially and widely recognized as a legitimate and growing international movement. This Scholarship will help make it happen.  —Don Weitz.

Correspondingly, the indefatigable Lauren Tenney writes:

As a psychiatric survivor and a mad environmental social scientist/psychologist, I am honored to endorse the Bonnie Burstow Scholarship in Antipsychiatry.  How radical!  How timely! We are so fortunate to have in Bonnie Burstow, a visionary with a commitment to exposing psychiatry, and assisting people making their way into the field, to not have to fight for a right to hold an antipsychiatry position. State-sponsored organized psychiatric industries target children, women, people of color, seniors, and people from oppressed groups. The opportunities such a scholarship program present are enormous for the growth of research that will hold psychiatry accountable.  The important feminist, anti-racist work that can be accomplished from an antipsychiatry framework is significant, not only for those awarded this new scholarship, but for those working with and near those in slated positions designed to allow people to honestly speak out about the damages psychiatry creates. This brilliant move by Burstow is a    game-changer that will further solidify the growing field of antipsychiatry in North America, and around the world. If you are able to support this effort, please do so, today.  –Lauren Tenney, PhD, MPhil, MPA, Psychiatric Survivor

The overly generous depiction of me aside, I am grateful for the words of these remarkable and steadfast allies. How reassuring that they instantly recognized the significance of this moment! And how wonderful that they have so enthusiastically become involved! 

In ending, I would invite readers who are able and so inclined to consider also becoming involved—in any way that feels right to you. Simply helping spread the word about the scholarship would be terrific.  Perhaps email people about it or post a description on your website. If you are able and wish to make a financial contribution (all donations, whatever the size, are welcome), the method is: Everyone other than Americans, write a cheque payable to University of Toronto and send it to Sim Kapoor at: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 252 Bloor St. West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1V6. By contrast, Americans, make the cheque out to: The Associates of the University of Toronto, Inc., and send it to: Dr. Gary Kaufman, Treasurer, The Associates of the University of Toronto, Inc., 58 West 84^th St., # 2F, New York, New York, USA, 10024. In all cases, insert on the memo line: For The Bonnie Burstow Scholarship in Antipsychiatry. And yes, with Canadians and Americans the charitable receipt that will be duly issued can be used for tax purposes for they are recognized respectively by Revenue Canada and US Internal Revenue.

For more information on the scholarship, see http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/oise/About_OISE/Bonnie_Burstow_Scholarship.html. See also https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/10/bonnie-burstow-scholarship-antipsychiatry-campaign-launched/To contribute online (an alternative route), write: https://donate.utoronto.ca/give/show/271. Correspondingly, for answers to other questions that you may have, write to: burstowscholarshipcommittee@gmail.com.

Finally, one parting invitation: For those of you who are likewise antipsychiatry, whether you do so in relationship to this scholarship or otherwise, whether via academia or the far larger world beyond, whether you operate in the streets, in the classroom, on the internet, or in the boardroom, before you go to bed tonight –and the next night, and the next—think of ways that you too can be involved in "turning the tables" –for, make no mistake about it: Such—and no less—is the nature of the challenge facing us.

References

Burstow, B. (2015). Psychiatry and the business of madness. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Foucault, M. (1963/1973). The birth of the clinic. London: Tavistock.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.