1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 20th June 2022 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Who is included in the Mad Studies Project?

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by Dolphin, Jul 10, 2018.

  1. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    I’ll leave it to others to find if there is anything interesting in this.

    From: Dr. Marc-Alexander Fluks

    Source: The Journal of Ethics in Mental Health
    Date: July 2018
    URL: http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/23384/

    Who is included in the Mad Studies Project?
    Helen Spandler, Dina Poursanidou
    - University of Central Lancashire


    Mad Studies is an emerging new critical project. As such, its purpose and future direction is open to debate. In any new project, questions emerge regarding its boundaries; who is inside and outside, included or excluded? This paper explores questions of who (and what) is (or should be) included in the Mad Studies project. For example, we explore the place of those who are not 'Mad positive' or anti-psychiatry; the extent you need to be Mad identified to do Mad Studies; and the potential inclusion of a number of related conditions, experiences and perspectives (such as neurological diversity; chronic fatigues syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis ME/CFS; and psychedelic drug use). Whilst we do not argue that Mad Studies is exclusionary, nor that it should be all-inclusive, we do think it could be more attuned to potential exclusions, especially because these are often based on unhelpful binary oppositions (physical/mental; social/medical; psychiatry/anti psychiatry etc). Therefore, we make the case that Mad Studies could more explicitly interrogate underlying assumptions, not only of psychiatry and the 'psy' professionals, but also of pre-existing 'critical' approaches to madness. If so, it could be a truly ground breaking project.
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
    Inara and Sean like this.
  2. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    I'd never heard of Mad studies, so I've been doing some internet exploring. So far I've come across this.
    Here's a quote:
    and another:
    I guess the inclusion of ME/CFS might be because we are also fighting against oppression.
  3. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    adambeyoncelowe, Inara and Trish like this.
  4. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    London, UK
    I worry that this is a case of more and more complicated words getting everyone confused. I think there may be some important and far from obvious things to say about ME and words like psychiatry and psychology but my suspicion is that even those words are too jargonised. It may be better to try to work out what is causing what somewhere in the brain - if it is.

    What is a radically socially progressive foundation?

    What is a 'medical model'?

    And so on.
    adambeyoncelowe, Wonko and Trish like this.
  5. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Isn't that what the Great Wall (in China ;)) is built upon?
    TiredSam, adambeyoncelowe and Trish like this.
  6. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    This looks potentially interesting, but I worry that our views will be taken out of context. Patients are not opposed to, or somehow outside of conventional biomedical models. Likewise, when patients say CFS is "not psychological" they are not invoking mind-body dualism, they are not suggesting that psychology is not important, they are saying the condition is not primarily initiated or primarily perpetuated through cognitive of behavioral mechanisms. It is that simple.
    Sean, NelliePledge and Trish like this.

Share This Page