What do we want to call ourselves? I could currently go by patient, client, consumer, user and the psychiatrized. I am neither an ex-user or a psychiatric-survivor just yet–though I hope to become both of those. Some might argue I’m surviving, but as long as I’m a “consumer” I don’t feel I can call myself a survivor. I’d like to think that ultimately, like in Breggin’s piece yesterday I will “triumph” and move beyond the self-limiting term of a mere survivor. I am determined to be free of the system and thrive without it.
The mainstream term considered most politically correct at this time for someone who uses psychiatric services is “consumer.” I find this name to be particularly unpalatable. A term created based on a capitalistic system where money and purchasing power dictate all. The consumer is one who buys on the free market. One who has choices and is empowered to choose. We are rarely if ever offered choice. We are also some of the poorest people in the country–consumerism is driven by money and the power money gives you.
And then to turn the word on it’s head–what do we as people who utilize psychiatric services consume the most? Drugs. We are consumers of drugs. We consume them with our pockets and we consume them with our mouths and bodies. Who in the hell thought that this term did a service to those of us with psychiatric labels?
I’ve talked to people who are offended by the term “client.” I’ve always felt it was a very neutral term and seemed respectful. I used it as a social worker for the people I worked with and it never made me feel anything but the respect I already had for them. It was towards the end of my career that the shift to “consumer” began. It made me cringe from day one.
I’d be curious to get comments on this issue in general. But I’m also interested to know why we went from patient to client to consumer and what people think about that. I understand not wanting to be called a patient, which implies illness and we certainly don’t all think of ourselves as ill–though I’m sure with the biomedical model many people are completely comfortable being called patients as well. It’s rather odd that an organization like NAMI who pushes the biomedical model so hard is probably the leader in the “consumer” movement. Seems like active double-speak to me.
In any case I suppose for me now, as educated and in control of my care as I am, consumer may actually fit. My psychiatrist certainly works for me. I tell him what to do. He trusts me and allows me to employ him. He is not a patsy. He recognizes my motivation and intelligence and my right to self-determination and respects it. This kind of relationship between “consumer” and doctor is extremely rare. I also choose with empowerment what I put in my body and what I am slowly removing from my body. I am a consumer in a truly rare sense. Most of us are not so lucky.
thank you Alarryyk,
very thoughtful important ideas you reveal here.
I’m basically taking a break so I’m not responding with as much as I’d like, but I very much value and identify with your struggle.
Peace,
and I’ll be visiting your site!!
I self-identify as a ‘psychiatric survivor’ and have to constantly deconstruct and reconstruct this identity formation in practice. At times my psychiatrization seems so far behind me and since I have gone on to earn credentials in academia it is sometimes tempting to forget that I do not want to merely ‘pass as normal’. Because the stigma of diagnosis with mental disorder is so undermining to dignity and identity I spend most of my time fighting for psychiatric rights and the right to define myself outside of the discourse of biomedical-legal structures. The split between consumers and survivors is most distressing to me sometimes. I was at an international conference this past summer and presented a paper from the survivor perspective that argued the importance of fighting these powerful discursive structures through the practice of peer-support and counter-discursive measures. As soon as I was done my talk I was accosted by a consumer who told me that I was doing psychiatric consumers and survivors everywhere a disservice by using language like ‘fight involuntary committal’ and ‘fight for your rights’. He was cowed by the psychiatrization process and scared that any such emotionally charged language would reaffirm the erroneous assumption that madpersons are inherently dangerous. He had been stripped even of his ability to fight for his basic human rights because he was a consumer par excellence. He was benefiting from his cooperation with the system and felt that it had saved his life. Maybe it did and I told him I was happy for him but that he should respect my decision to fight for my dignity in opposition to the mental health care system. This exchange symbolized the great tragedy of the conference. Where the possibility existed for broad-based coalitions of persons who have had experiences with the mental health care system to form to advance the rights of the psychiatrized we spent our time bickering over language.
I wish I could be a “consumer” with a comfortable relationship with my psychiatrist. We are consumers because we, well, consume drugs. We are consumers more than clients are patients. We consume our drugs every day – we see our doctor maybe once a week to once a month. Consumer is not a favorable term, but it’s not inaccurate either.
For the purposes of this discussion, I’d probably call myself a ‘psychiatric survivor’, since it really did nearly kill me. Otherwise, I’m just plain old Ruth. I don’t think that describing myself as such in the relevant context precludes my being able to thrive in the future – or at least so I would like to think. Actually, I don’t think I’m doing all that badly so far (knock wood).
But it would be self-limiting would be to start thinking of myself as a ‘victim of psychiatry’. That would be a bit like putting a full stop on my life circa 1996.
For the purposes of this discussion, I’d probably call myself a ‘psychiatric survivor’, since it really did nearly kill me. Otherwise, I’m just plain old Ruth. I don’t think that describing myself as such in the relevant context precludes my being able to thrive in the future – or at least so I would like to think. Actually, I don’t think I’m doing all that badly so far (knock wood).
But it would be self-limiting would be to start thinking of myself as a ‘victim of psychiatry’. That would be a bit like putting a full stop on my life circa 1996.
The reason people use the term psychiatric survivor is to implicate psychiatry (is bad). A survivor is defind as “a person who continues to function or prosper in spite of opposition, hardship, or setbacks”. A psychiatrist or mental health professional would/should have difficulty speaking the words “psychiatric survivor”. They have to acknowledge you(the patient) were harmed.If you are alive and dislike what you experianced in psychiatry feel free to use it.
The reason people use the term psychiatric survivor is to implicate psychiatry (is bad). A survivor is defind as “a person who continues to function or prosper in spite of opposition, hardship, or setbacks”. A psychiatrist or mental health professional would/should have difficulty speaking the words “psychiatric survivor”. They have to acknowledge you(the patient) were harmed.If you are alive and dislike what you experianced in psychiatry feel free to use it.
I suppose I did not express myself as well as I should have. I don’t really think we should accept any labels either, but they are indeed used and many people feel attached to them. I’ve not ever been treated as ill except by insensitive mental health professionals. I’ve always had enough self-esteem to have credibility among my peers, so there was never a noticeable lack of respect from peers and coworkers who knew of my diagnosis. I am lucky that way. Liz, I too will go with being labeled human–with all the frailties that entails. No one is free of some kinds of dysfunction at certain times of their lives. Even the best of us. Thanks for your comments Pablo and Liz!
I suppose I did not express myself as well as I should have. I don’t really think we should accept any labels either, but they are indeed used and many people feel attached to them. I’ve not ever been treated as ill except by insensitive mental health professionals. I’ve always had enough self-esteem to have credibility among my peers, so there was never a noticeable lack of respect from peers and coworkers who knew of my diagnosis. I am lucky that way. Liz, I too will go with being labeled human–with all the frailties that entails. No one is free of some kinds of dysfunction at certain times of their lives. Even the best of us. Thanks for your comments Pablo and Liz!
I refer to myself as a person. Like most people in this society, I also employ the services of various sorts of dr’s, therapists. I no longer use the pharmacy however. Like you, I too have overcome a lot in life and believe, like any one else, this entitles me to be called a person. I would think this applies to you as well. I understand the problems with these lables and struggeled with them for quite some time, but them I realized it was how I presented myself and how I felt about myself that really matter, not someone else’s idea of who I was. since making this descision, the difference in the way most treat me is quite marked and generally very ecceptable to me. If someone wan’t to use a lable on us, it is our choice as to whether we buy into it or not. In the end, whatever we choose to believe about ourselves will be a self-fulling prophecy.
Labels for people are always problematic. Does this name express the way I see myself or the way I’m seen by others? Does it have the breadth and malleability to suggest who I am or is it in some way self-limiting? Does it connect me to other people in an exclusive or inclusive way? Does it make me feel more or less human?