BADD 2011 post - a wee rant

This is my post for Blogging Against Disablism Day.

I had plans for well reasoned and referenced posts on some great topics. But... when I tried it, the energy just went. So I thought I would just go for it, try not to privilege rationality. I think for too long, when writing publicly or semi-publicly, I have tried to be reasonable and persuasive. Look the mad person can be reasonable! Well not today.


Ok, here are some of the madness/disability things that have been bugging me lately!


People's impairments being discounted in some way because they weren't totally laid low by them. Being even a bit capable seems to mean you are somehow trying it on - "you only have symptoms when it suits you".  You know the type of thing - wheelchair user transfers themselves to a chair or even can walk a bit with a stick - ah, they don't need the wheelchair! Person who battled anxiety to attend a special event with the help of lots of meds and support from friend - ah, they don't have anything wrong with them!


The current "all people on benefits are potentially scroungers" mindset contributes to policing of disability. And disabled people do this policing as well as non-disabled people. Which sucks. A lot. I even find myself doing it and have to give myself a good talking to.


This happened ages ago but it pops up in my head every now and again and gets me riled up still. I had listed a book by R.D. Laing on an book related website. Someone sent me a private message to tell me that basically I was wrong to like Laing. Assuming that owning a book means I like it! This person explained that a family member had schizophrenia and Laing blamed families and this was wrong as it was a chemical imbalance and the family were blameless. And me owning this book and admitting it publicly was a kick in the teeth to the families of everyone with schizophrenia. Which no doubt was why I had listed it.


Which brings me to two other argh! topics.


'Mental illness' being entirely a 'chemical imbalance'. Better than me have done a much more critique of this than I can manage.


And a particular type of 'carer'. (I don't mean all carers here but a subset.) I have met carers who in public will tell you intimate details about their 'loved one' and their lives. They do this at events aimed to gather the experiences of people who use mental health services and carers. Service users tend to say things like "our group think that it is important to..." but some carers will say things like "my Johnny didn't take his tablets and the services didn't section him immediately!". Whoa! Does Johnny know you are talking about him like this? And are you not here as a representative?


When I first heard about recovery, I was really excited by it. I went to the first recovery event in Scotland (Would recovery work in Scotland? in Dundee in 2002) where I heard Ron Coleman and Audrey Reid talk about their own recovery despite the mental health system. It seemed to bring together all the ideas I had people talk about in collective advocacy groups. And now it is mostly just another words services use - oh yes, we are a recovery focused service - or even as justification for cutting services to people.


And wellbeing! Well! What's not to like about wellbeing? We all want to be well, surely! but when a word is used a lot all of a sudden in policy documents I get a little suspicious... I think it is because it pretends to be neutral and it isn't. My feeling about wellbeing is that it is really about individualising and depoliticising health issues - which is an ongoing project. So we're told "lose weight, stop smoking, do 6 sessions of CBT… while we cut services in health, education, community development and through our economic policies, we further increase the inequalities that lead to health inequalities".


And I think I am done. For now. I am sure there are more things I could rant about but I am tired now.