Heritage and Stigma. Co-producing and communicating the histories of mental health and learning disability

Abstract

University engagement with mental health services has traditionally been informed by the vocational and pedagogical links between the two sectors. However, a growth in the interest in public history and in the history of mental healthcare has offered new opportunities for those in the humanities to engage new audiences and to challenge perceptions about care in the past. The introduction of the ‘impact agenda’ and related funding streams has further encouraged academics to contribute to historical debates, and to those concerning current services. One such example of this is the Arts and Humanities Research Council funded Heritage and Stigma project at the University of Huddersfield, which was conceived to support mental health and learning disability charities in the exploration and dissemination of their own histories. Using this project as a case study, this paper will draw on primary source material to reflect on the opportunities and challenges of working in partnership with such groups. In particular, it will consider the need to address issues of stigma and exclusion in tandem with a critical understanding of the moves to ‘community care’ instigated by landmark legislation in the form of the 1959 Mental Health Act. Overall, it provides evidence of an inclusive, coproductive model of design and highlights the positive contribution to communicating mental health made by those based in the humanities.

Långbro Hospital, Sweden—From Psychiatric Institution to Digital Museum: A Critical Discourse Analysis

“…Since patients are not permitted to speak for themselves, and since their position is not reflected on, Långbro Hospital perpetuates injustice and prejudice toward patients. The hegemony of official narratives goes unchallenged and the opportunity to provide place-based remembrance from people with lived experience (Ellis, 2017; MacKinnon & Coleborne, 2013; Steele et al, 2020) through a digital archive is once again missed. It is stated that Långbro Hospital presents an overview of the history of mental health care beyond Långbro , but no alternative spaces for recovery are mentioned.…”

“…Such examples show that the urban landscape provides opportunities for alternative historiographies, not least those of marginalized communities (Schwarz, 2013). There are also researchers, practitioners, patients, artists, and laypersons who create both material and digital remembrance that recognize the former patients, whose history has most often been ignored or silenced, and simultaneously strive to counteract current injustice (i.e., Baur, 2018; Ellis, 2017). Such initiatives connect past oppression with current injustice and prejudice toward psychiatric patients and thereby support insight that might hinder the repetition of abuse (Reaume, 2016).…”

Deinstitutionalisation and the move to community care: comparing the changing dimensions of mental healthcare after 1922 in the Republic of Ireland and England

“…As this article has indicated, critiques of institutional care overlooked the relevance of residential care for people undergoing crisis and in need of a place of respite; residential provision may be the preferred choice for some who may need time out from environments not conducive to their recovery. Historians and researchers working in interdisciplinary contexts are increasingly recognising the value of the patient voice by producing collaborative research through sustained engagement with individuals and communities (see, for example: Calabria, 2022b ; Ellis, 2017 ). This participatory approach to researching the past requires a shift in focus to widen the horizon and consider the concerns of the communities being researched, in this case the experiences of those at the receiving end of mental healthcare, who have remained underserved all along, albeit in different ways.…”

Happenstance and regulatory culture: the evolution of innovative community mental health services in Oxfordshire in the late twentieth century

“…In contrast, this paper is an exercise in co-production. Co-production in the history of psychiatry usually means the production of knowledge being shared between academics and service users, in particular to overcome stigma or to allow stakeholders to recover their own heritage ( Ellis, 2017 ). In this case we attempt something different: the inclusion of a clinician who has a key role in the events described.…”