China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Keep Learning
Published in Rose Cull, Daniel Cull, Museums and Well-being, 2023
In the 1960s a critique of psychiatry called anti-psychiatry moved in two directions. One was outwards, encouraging social action as a means of engagement with a society which may have contributed to mental disorders and through this engagement gaining more control over an individual’s mental well-being. The other direction was inwards, having psychological experiences to raise consciousness, expand, alter or transform yourself as an individual. Part of this criticism was the realisation that psychiatric diagnosis is culturally biased and potentially harmful to members of certain religious and ethnic groups.23 This is similar to the understanding of the intersectionality of oppression, and has been further examined through the power dynamics of early asylums, for example, why the doctors were predominantly men and the patients were predominantly women. Women who acted outside of the incredibly narrow social norms were placed in these asylums “in which the goal was of course less to cure but ‘to correct.’”24
Thinking about mental disorder
Published in Rachel Freeth, Brian Thorne, Mike Shooter, Humanising Psychiatry and Mental Health Care, 2017
Rachel Freeth, Brian Thorne, Mike Shooter
Differences in understanding the concept of mental disorder exist not just between psychiatric professionals and those following a person-centred approach. Mental health professionals themselves represent a variety of viewpoints. Furthermore, whilst it is true that in the UK many (probably most) psychiatrists subscribe to a predominantly biomedical (scientific) view, I think it is unhelpful to make generalisations about how psychiatrists think about mental disorder. Again, whilst most psychiatrists and mental health professionals do use the term ‘mental illness’, there are some who both question its use and validity, and also consider the harmful social and psychological implications of such diagnoses. The Critical Psychiatry Network (not to be confused with ‘anti-psychiatry’) is particularly concerned with these issues (further details of this network are given at the end of this chapter).
Anti-Psychiatry
Published in Michael Farrell, Psychosis Under Discussion, 2017
Essentially, anti-psychiatry is an opposition to psychiatry and psychiatric interventions on various grounds. Psychiatry is seen as doing more harm than good. It is regarded as oppressive and coercive in part because of the unequal relationship that exists between physician and patient. The identification and assessment of mental disorders are challenged. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) is sometimes a focus for such questioning, to the extent that its classifications are seen as unreliable and invalid. This relates to concerns about negative labelling that is seen as based on inadequate grounds and likely to inhibit the life chances of those who are labelled. Critics point to the great expansion of perceived mental disorders in the various editions of the DSM and question whether the remit is so wide that everyone it seems has a mental disorder.
Gut thinking: the gut microbiome and mental health beyond the head
Published in Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease, 2018
Diagnosable mental health problems are said to affect one in four people in any given year [1], they are a leading source of disability globally, and new strategies for prevention and treatment are vital [2]. But the boundaries of these problems sit on shifting sands. Since the anti-psychiatry movement of the 1960s [3] and the analysis from critical psychiatry that has followed [4], debates have continued about what is constitutive of mental illness or mental disorder, especially given the changing nature of psychiatric diagnostic manuals over time [5]. Neuro-explanations of mental health have dominated the last decades of mental health research with mental disorders being re-cast as brain disorders [6], but often on shaky evidential ground and widely contested, especially by social psychiatrists [7].
Political dimensions in the actions of health-care practitioners: Reflections for occupational science based on the Chilean psychiatric reform
Published in Journal of Occupational Science, 2018
As a result of the anti-psychiatry movement, several restructuring processes of mental-health and psychiatry systems took place in first-world countries such as England, France, Italy, Germany and the United States (Huertas, 2017). The reforms took place in varying degrees and modalities but were based on the same critique of asylums. Community driven approaches were introduced; institutional reforms were made (therapeutic communities and institutional therapies in France); and preventive projects implemented (community psychiatry in the United States.) One of the most radical changes was the Italian psychiatric reform and the English anti-psychiatry. Under these trends, a clear political framework concerning the issue of madness was enacted (Basaglia, 1972).
Learning and Unlearning: Two Social Workers’ Autoethnographic Exploration into Mad Studies
Published in Journal of Progressive Human Services, 2022
Kathleen MacPhee, Lynsey Wilson Norrad
I still struggle with and feel overwhelmed at times with the enormity of the psychiatric regime and the seeming impossibility of doing little more than “tinkering” (Burstow, 2015). Warme (2013), a psychiatrist himself, states that “nothing can shift our intoxication with the Dr archetype,” and that “ … it [medical science] is a religion; our faith in medical progress is boundless.” I’d love to argue with this sentiment but largely believe it to be true. This said, I have spoken with people both personally and professionally who wouldn’t classify themselves as antipsychiatry, yet have little respect for psychiatry or the mental health system generally. As strange as it may sound, that gives me some hope.