Mutuality and shared power as an alternative to coercion and force
Date | 12 June 2017 |
Published date | 12 June 2017 |
Pages | 144-152 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/MHSI-03-2017-0011 |
Author | Shery Mead,Beth Filson |
Subject Matter | Health & social care,Mental health,Social inclusion |
Mutuality and shared power as an
alternative to coercion and force
Shery Mead and Beth Filson
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how mutuality and shared power in relationship can
avoid coercion and force in mental health treatment.
Design/methodology/approach –This is not a research design. It is rather an opinion piece with extensive
examples of the approach.
Findings –The authors have found that using these processes can enable connection; the key to
relationship building.
Originality/value –This paper is totally original and stands to offer the field, a new perspective.
Keywords Mutuality, Coercion, Forced treatment, Mutuality, Shared power, Alternatives to force,
Shared power
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Forced intervention is a fear-based response to a person in crisis. Its aim is to control and
contain. Force, by definition, is a violation of human rights and personal/bodily integrity and has
become society’s default option because of certain beliefs and assumptions that legitimize its
use, even though there are a range of other options and alternatives. Forced “treatment”is an
oxymoron, because it has had life-long negative consequences for people subjected to it,
like any other trauma and it has all too often become synonymous with “care.”Briefly, some of
the assumptions that underlie the use of force include the notion that people with a mental health
diagnosis are unable to know what they need, or that due to the “illness,”they are unable to fully
participate in decisions made about them (their care). Throughout this paper we refer to these
assumptions and the relationships that evolve from them (one-way “helper/helpee”) as the
“traditional system”and “traditional relationships.”In the traditional system, the view of distress
(as “illness”and coping with “illness”) also asserts that its view is the only, correct view. As peer
support is mainstreamed into traditional mental health services, it faces a dilemma: uphold the
principles and values of peer support such as mutuality and shared power, or comply with job
descriptions that can include the use of force (e.g. monitoring medication compliance).
The result? Clinician the helper has the power to control the outcomes of the relationship.
Only one person’s view is operating, that of the helper, with the power to define the problem,
dictate what help looks like, determine progress, and ultimately, define success.
Intentional peer support (IPS) offers the opportunity to find and create new meaning through our
relationships and conversations that lead to new ways of understanding crisis. It provides a lens
through which to address these issues by talking very overtly about power, who has it, who does
not and to negotiate how we can share it. We do this by coming together based on the
understanding that both of us have experiences or stories to tell, that explain who we are and
how we see the present. This gives both people power, visibility, and expertise. This sort of
relationship is more proactive, building mutuality, and shared meaning making. We offer three
principles; or ways of thinking about what we are doing in our relationships, and then use four
tasks to carry out that intention.
Shery Mead is based at the
University of Vermont,
Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Beth Filson is an Independent
Researcher based in
Williamsburg, Massachusetts,
USA.
PAGE144
j
MENTALHEALTH AND SOCIAL INCLUSION
j
VOL. 21 NO. 3 2017, pp. 144-152, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2042-8308 DOI 10.1108/MHSI-03-2017-0011
To continue reading
Request your trial