Julia, I remember talking with you about Judith Rich Harris's work back in the day. I think what I eventually drew from her challenges to the prevailing psychodynamic, psychiatric models was that all models are just coat hangers to hang our cultural coats on... (sorry for the mixed metaphors!!). We can learn from the seeds that germinate and grow, but also from those that don't. It seems to me that PTMF can be a more nuanced alternative to the straight line 'trauma' causes everything, or parents fuck up their kids (Rich Harris's nurture assumption), as well as a counter to the lazy biochemical brain balance assumption. Like you say, it's fine to throw seeds at the old system, but is that also a recognition that there are things of value to be retained? Having said all that, it's always good to keep an eye on where the power really is... and where it might be shifting to. Great piece as always...
Hi Julia, that's a really good article. I think it's kind of where we've been - in different ways - over the past decade or so... Maybe a Substack dialogue - or even a pamphlet from Unpsychology... ?
Hi Julia. Thanks for your interest in the PTMF. As one of the lead authors, I would like to clarify that it isn't about MH services, and any use of it 'as a mandatory part of treatment' or to endorse or support professional power (which, of course, the authors cannot prevent) would be a serious travesty of its intentions. It is a set of PRINCIPLES about our understanding of the experiences described as 'mental health problems' - and as such, raises exactly the issues you have mentioned. Do we need professionals, or indeed a MH system, at all? Many of those who have taken up the PTMF are survivors and peer groups who decided to use it without any input from professionals at all - which is exactly as we had hoped. Some are using it within services - and if it can help to reduce some of the damaging impact of services, then we welcome that - but of course it is true that there is a fundamental incompatibility between services and PTMF principles. As you say, 'Why can't we all be human together?' Why indeed? That is the core message of the PTMF - 'We are all story tellers and meaning-makers.'
Thank you so much for finding my post and giving it thought and commentary. :-) I've been thinking a lot lately about co-option and what to do if our intentions are distorted. When I spoke at the Too Mad to be True conference last October, the host Wouter Kusters asked me a question about how do we convince others of our ideas/perspective when seeking social change. I responded something along the lines of that I don't intend to convince anyone. All we can do is offer our ideas with integrity and try to live as a good example, rather than taking it upon ourselves to convince others - what others do with our ideas and our example is beyond our control (and should be beyond our control, if we maintain human rights.) But this ties in with the problem of co-option, whereby grassroots initiatives such as the recovery movement and peer-led support are then absorbed into the present power structures and sapped of their original meaning. And that then takes us into the reform-or-revolution question about power structures. I must end here (I've just found your comment and now must go start my workday) but I'll just end by saying I really value the PTMF; have read your book about it and I agree with that core message!
Thank you for this comment. You say: 'All we can do is offer our ideas with integrity and try to live as a good example, rather than taking it upon ourselves to convince others - what others do with our ideas and our example is beyond our control (and should be beyond our control, if we maintain human rights.)' This is exactly the approach we have taken to the PTMF. We are not (contrary to some reports) pushing it on anyone... if people are interested, great; if they are not, that's fine; and if the ideas are useful, they will endure and have an impact. The biggest danger is of co-option - which, as you say, no one can prevent, and for that reason, we confidently expect it to happen to the PTMF too. At the same time, there are others who will hear its more radical message. That in itself is worthwhile, even if their numbers are few. They say it only takes 2.5% of the population to change its mind in order to achieve a major shift. It is those people we are aiming to reach.
Julia, I remember talking with you about Judith Rich Harris's work back in the day. I think what I eventually drew from her challenges to the prevailing psychodynamic, psychiatric models was that all models are just coat hangers to hang our cultural coats on... (sorry for the mixed metaphors!!). We can learn from the seeds that germinate and grow, but also from those that don't. It seems to me that PTMF can be a more nuanced alternative to the straight line 'trauma' causes everything, or parents fuck up their kids (Rich Harris's nurture assumption), as well as a counter to the lazy biochemical brain balance assumption. Like you say, it's fine to throw seeds at the old system, but is that also a recognition that there are things of value to be retained? Having said all that, it's always good to keep an eye on where the power really is... and where it might be shifting to. Great piece as always...
thanks Steve - there is more food for thought here in this article
https://www.madinamerica.com/2024/10/what-matters-to-you/
about models and their limits :-) xxx
Hi Julia, that's a really good article. I think it's kind of where we've been - in different ways - over the past decade or so... Maybe a Substack dialogue - or even a pamphlet from Unpsychology... ?
Hi Julia. Thanks for your interest in the PTMF. As one of the lead authors, I would like to clarify that it isn't about MH services, and any use of it 'as a mandatory part of treatment' or to endorse or support professional power (which, of course, the authors cannot prevent) would be a serious travesty of its intentions. It is a set of PRINCIPLES about our understanding of the experiences described as 'mental health problems' - and as such, raises exactly the issues you have mentioned. Do we need professionals, or indeed a MH system, at all? Many of those who have taken up the PTMF are survivors and peer groups who decided to use it without any input from professionals at all - which is exactly as we had hoped. Some are using it within services - and if it can help to reduce some of the damaging impact of services, then we welcome that - but of course it is true that there is a fundamental incompatibility between services and PTMF principles. As you say, 'Why can't we all be human together?' Why indeed? That is the core message of the PTMF - 'We are all story tellers and meaning-makers.'
Thank you so much for finding my post and giving it thought and commentary. :-) I've been thinking a lot lately about co-option and what to do if our intentions are distorted. When I spoke at the Too Mad to be True conference last October, the host Wouter Kusters asked me a question about how do we convince others of our ideas/perspective when seeking social change. I responded something along the lines of that I don't intend to convince anyone. All we can do is offer our ideas with integrity and try to live as a good example, rather than taking it upon ourselves to convince others - what others do with our ideas and our example is beyond our control (and should be beyond our control, if we maintain human rights.) But this ties in with the problem of co-option, whereby grassroots initiatives such as the recovery movement and peer-led support are then absorbed into the present power structures and sapped of their original meaning. And that then takes us into the reform-or-revolution question about power structures. I must end here (I've just found your comment and now must go start my workday) but I'll just end by saying I really value the PTMF; have read your book about it and I agree with that core message!
Thank you for this comment. You say: 'All we can do is offer our ideas with integrity and try to live as a good example, rather than taking it upon ourselves to convince others - what others do with our ideas and our example is beyond our control (and should be beyond our control, if we maintain human rights.)' This is exactly the approach we have taken to the PTMF. We are not (contrary to some reports) pushing it on anyone... if people are interested, great; if they are not, that's fine; and if the ideas are useful, they will endure and have an impact. The biggest danger is of co-option - which, as you say, no one can prevent, and for that reason, we confidently expect it to happen to the PTMF too. At the same time, there are others who will hear its more radical message. That in itself is worthwhile, even if their numbers are few. They say it only takes 2.5% of the population to change its mind in order to achieve a major shift. It is those people we are aiming to reach.