Antipsychiatric activism and feminism: the use of film and text to question biomedicine
| Pages | 42-47 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/17465729200500023 |
| Date | 01 September 2005 |
| Published date | 01 September 2005 |
| Author | Diane Wiener |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care |
Diane R Wiener
Assistant professor of
social work
Binghamton University
Correspondence to:
Diane R Wiener
Binghamton University
School of education and
human development
PO Box6000
Binghamton,NY 13902-
6000
USA
edianew@binghamton.edu
ANTIPSYCHIATRY
42 journal of public mental health
vol 4 • issue 3
©Pavilion Publishing (Brighton) Ltd
The influence of the antipsychiatry
movement in the US and western Europe
–especially in the UK, whence several of
the founders hailed and/or worked – is due
in large part to the efforts of RD Laing
(1971), Thomas Szasz (1960; 1973; 1984; 1994; 2003),
David Cooper (1970), and Peter Breggin (1992; 1994;
1995; 1999). (One should, of course, add the proviso
that many of those associated with antipsychiatry did
not or do not embrace the term antipsychiatry itself.) In
the late 1960s and early to mid-1970s, these individuals
argued from a variety of political and theoretical
positions that psychiatry is a form of social control.
Importantly, these thinkers promoted their critiques as
practising psychiatrists and psychotherapists. Szasz
famously maintained that mental illness is a societal
‘myth’ (Szasz, 1960); both he and Breggin continue to
speak publicly and write works on antipsychiatry (see
www.szasz.com and www.breggin.com). For these
activists, psychiatric medication and mental health
treatment are manipulative tools used skillfully by what
Szasz (2003) calls the ‘pharmacracy’ of the nation state
to dictate human behaviour and to manage deviance.
Various monikers – among them ‘liberal,’
‘progressive,’ ‘feminist,’ ‘leftist,’ ‘Libertarian,’ and
‘Marxist’ – are frequently tacked onto antipsychiatric
stances, for a variety of purposes, and these labels are
deployed by speakers and writers in ways that are
sometimes coalitional and sometimes divisive. For
example, on its website the Antipsychiatry Coalition
employs the term ‘democratic’ to serve its potent
politicised ends. The coalition describes itself online as:
‘… [a] non-profit volunteer group consisting of
people who feel we have been harmed by psychiatry
–and of our supporters. We created this website to
warn you of the harm routinely inflicted on those
who receive psychiatric “treatment” and to promote
the democratic ideal of liberty for all law-abiding
people that has been abandoned in the USA,
Canada, and other supposedly democratic nations.’
(www.antipsychiatry.org – accessed 1 July 2005)
In my view, any invocation of an antipsychiatric trend
in the mid to late 20th century and since, and references
to the perceived diminution, cessation, or shifts of such
atrend, cannot and should not be expected to describe
‘antipsychiatry’ as a singular stance, because ideas and
practices that may be understoodto index an
antipsychiatric perspective are historically, culturally,
and personally situated, and include an enormous range
of points of view.Put differently, what is constituted as
an antipsychiatric stance today might not have been
considered an antipsychiatric stance in the past (and
Antipsychiatric activism and
feminism: the use of film and
text to question biomedicine
This article examines the relationships between antipsychiatric activism and feminism, paying
particular attention to the civil liber ties of mental health consumer/survivor/expatient (c/s/x)
individuals in relation to mental health practices. It argues that a continually rigorous exploration of
the complex (and at times uneasy) relationships between antipsychiatric activism, feminism and
mental health practice is necessary and useful for pursuing social justice by working toward the
diminishment of mental health inequalities. The article includes an overview of the ‘spectrum’ of
antipsychiatric stances and a review of some of the literature covering the relationship between
antipsychiatry and feminism, and uses cinematic and literary examples to highlight the complexity of
addressing issues likemedication ‘compliance’ and ‘non-compliance’ among mental health users and
consumers in biomedical contexts.
Key words:
antipsychiatry
feminism
biomedicine
psychiatric survivors
disability rights
To continue reading
Request your trial