We all have stories. Many of our stories are deeply personal. Some of our stories are painful, traumatic, hilarious, heroic, bold, banal. Our stories connect usthey reflect who we are and how we relate to one another. Stories are extremely powerful and have the potential to bring us together, to shed light on the injustice committed against us and they lead us to understand that not one of us is alone in this world. But our stories are also a commodity-they help others sell their products, their programs, their services-and sometimes they mine our stories for the details that serve their interests best-and in doing so present us as less than whole. -Becky McFarlane, Recovering Our Stories event,

No abstract

Medical discourse currently dominates as the defining framework for madness in educational praxis. Consequently, ideas rooted in a mental health/illness binary abound in higher learning, both as curriculum content and through institutional procedures that reinforce structures of normalcy. While madness then, is included in university spaces, this inclusion proceeds in ways that continue to pathologize madness and disenfranchise mad people. This paper offers Mad Studies as an alternative entry point for engaging with madness in higher education, arguing centring madness in pedagogical praxis has the potential to interrupt hegemonic ways of knowing, being, and learning. We illustrate how this disruption is facilitated by examining particular aspects of pedagogical praxis mobilized in Mad Studies, including building curriculum alongside mad community, centring madness in course design and student assessment, and the deployment of mad positivity. Ultimately, this approach provides a metacurriculum of unlearning, challenging students to consider how their engagement with madness in the classroom, and beyond, has the potential to disrupt sanist systems of oppression and the normalcy they reconstitute. Mental health/illness discourse currently runs rampant in higher education. Universities are declaring a 'mental health crisis' on campus (Hawkes, 2019; Reid, 2013) and policy, access, and accommodation strategies rest on tactics that respond with notions of risk and liability. At the same time, critical scholars continue to build on a long line of inquiry refuting the mental health/illness binary, and the responses it develops and valourizes (Fernando, 2017; Foucault, 2006; Mills, 2014; Parker, 2014). Yet scholarship resistant to biomedical epistemes is rarely engaged in undergraduate curriculum, and university administrations remain reticent to engage disability justice approaches to distress. Indeed, through this cumulative collective disengagement, students easily pass through programs of study without encountering alternative ways of knowing. Enter Mad Studies.

<p>Sanism is a devastating form of oppression, often leading to negative stereotyping or arguments that individuals with ‘mental health’ histories are not fit to study social work. However, the term sanism is rarely used, understood, or interrogated in the social work academy, even in anti-oppressive spaces. Indeed, social work has been so loyal to the medical model that sanist aggressions, such as pathologizing, labelling, exclusion, and dismissal have become a ‘normal’ part of professional practice and education. We query the moral integrity of a profession that at its foundational core could play a role in such a discriminatory tactic as sanism. We wonder what the effect of this has been on social work and its education. We ask, who has been excluded, what has been silenced or denied because of the privileging of medical conceptualizations of madness, and how can we work toward anti-sanist social work today? In this paper we provide an overview of sanism. We offer a more critical review of the literature on ‘mental health’ and social work. We report on our anti-sanist participatory pilot research, and aligned with current Canadian rights work, we call for action with respect to how social workers theorize, research, and respond to madness now. </p>

<p>Sanism is a devastating form of oppression, often leading to negative stereotyping or arguments that individuals with ‘mental health’ histories are not fit to study social work. However, the term sanism is rarely used, understood, or interrogated in the social work academy, even in anti-oppressive spaces. Indeed, social work has been so loyal to the medical model that sanist aggressions, such as pathologizing, labelling, exclusion, and dismissal have become a ‘normal’ part of professional practice and education. We query the moral integrity of a profession that at its foundational core could play a role in such a discriminatory tactic as sanism. We wonder what the effect of this has been on social work and its education. We ask, who has been excluded, what has been silenced or denied because of the privileging of medical conceptualizations of madness, and how can we work toward anti-sanist social work today? In this paper we provide an overview of sanism. We offer a more critical review of the literature on ‘mental health’ and social work. We report on our anti-sanist participatory pilot research, and aligned with current Canadian rights work, we call for action with respect to how social workers theorize, research, and respond to madness now. </p>