No abstract

In this paper we argue that the field of psychology—and the psy-disciplines generally—need to embrace an interdisciplinary approach if they are to be relevant and contribute to global social justice initiatives. We focus on two such initiatives: The Global Mental Health movement and calls for increasing access to mental health services for immigrants. We suggest that a stronger focus on the upstream causes of ill-health, a deeper appreciation for the ways in which neoliberalism deflects attention away from these upstream determinants, and a greater engagement with the field of human rights and other disciplines will lead to more substantive gains in population mental health.

This article examines contemporary examples of psychiatrization as a tool of disciplinary control and repression, focusing on new research on the co-option of consumer/survivor/ex-patient movements within the Global South. Here, we understand psychiatrization as (1) the process of imposing certain interpretive limits on states of difference and distress and (2) the conceptualization of treatment and recovery through the teleological notion of normalcy. By interpreting difference solely in psychiatric terms, psychiatrization functions as a tool of disciplinary control in both domestic and international contexts by reterritorializing efforts to resist hegemonic norms and political institutions of gendered and racialized oppression, colonialism, and imperialism. After setting out our understanding of psychiatrization as a political process in the sense that it enacts a particular “ontological politics”, one that foregrounds psychiatric interpretations of difference and dissent to the exclusion of other possible meanings, we examine the reach and complexity of psychiatrization in the suppression of political and social movements that attempt to resist oppressive norms and institutions. We then present new research within the consumer/survivor/ex-patient and psychosocial disability movements in the Global South to show how psychiatrization can thwart activist's aims of transforming how we view both the end goals of mental health treatment and the political valence of mental distress.

No abstract

Humanistic psychologists have made some of the earliest and most powerful critiques of the medical model. Rather than medicalize experience, the emphasis in our field is on authenticity, empathic seeing, and a relational and contextual approach to understanding emotional distress. As such, humanistic psychologists are typically cautious about the (over) use of psychotropic medications. Yet, all practicing psychologists are required to be knowledgeable about the efficacy and side effects of psychotropic medications, even if they do not have prescriptive authority. However, the prevalence of academic-industry relationships and financial conflicts of interest in psychiatry have eroded trust in the scientific literature because of inflated claims of efficacy and an underreporting of harms. Additionally, industry exerts undue influence on regulatory decisions, educational materials, and patient advocacy groups. Thus, clinicians must take extra steps to ensure they are fully educated about the risk/benefit ratio of psychotropic medications and are aware of, and can respond to, the distorting impact of commercial influence on psychiatric research and practice. In this paper, we use the normative and conceptual framework of institutional corruption to examine the economies of influence that create challenges for ethical practice. We take as our starting point the idea that enhancing the informed consent process for clients considering taking, tapering, or discontinuing psychotropic medication is a social justice issue-and one that aligns well with the core values of our field. Specific recommendations and independent (i.e., nonindustry funded) resources are provided.