In Defense of Madness: The Problem of Disability

Abstract

At a time when different groups in society are achieving notable gains in respect and rights, activists in mental health and proponents of mad positive approaches, such as Mad Pride, are coming up against considerable challenges. A particular issue is the commonly held view that madness is inherently disabling and cannot form the grounds for identity or culture. This paper responds to the challenge by developing two bulwarks against the tendency to assume too readily the view that madness is inherently disabling: the first arises from the normative nature of disability judgments, and the second arises from the implications of political activism in terms of being a social subject. In the process of arguing for these two bulwarks, the paper explores the basic structure of the social model of disability in the context of debates on naturalism and normativism, the applicability of the social model to madness, and the difference between physical and mental disabilities in terms of the unintelligibility often attributed to the latter.

‘Isn’t Everyone a Little OCD?’ The Epistemic Harms of Wrongful Depathologization

“…We are not, of course, suggesting that all attempts at depathologization are wrongful. Indeed, powerful voices within the neurodiversity movement and Mad Pride advocate depathologization as a social justice goal (Chapman 2019;Graby 2015;Rashed 2019;Walker 2013). The decisive factors are the presence or absence of trivializing and the identity of the one doing the depathologizing.…”

Responding to Sanist Microaggressions with Acts of Epistemic Resistance

“…Another form of epistemic resistance involves reclaiming pejorative language by reconceptualizing mental illness experience as Mad identity rather than as inherently pathological and by taking a public stance of pride. Proponents of Mad identity reject the psychocentric view of mental illness that views it as necessarily disabling and focus on the way mental illness experience is integrated, sometimes in a positive way, into one's identity (Schrader, Jones, and Shattell 2013; Rashed 2019a; Rashed 2020). Targets of sanist microaggressions can reconceptualize how they view their own mental illness experience and reappropriate derogatory language such as “mad” or “crazy” to be prideful terms expressing identity.…”

Testimoniale Ungerechtigkeit gegenüber Menschen mit psychischer Erkrankung in der Gesundheitsversorgung. Eine konzeptionelle und ethische Analyse

“…Körperliche und psychische Gesundheit sowie die Abwesenheit von Beeinträchtigungen werden damit als deskriptive und präskriptive Norm gesetzt (Peña-Guzmán und Reynolds 2019 ). Rashed ( 2019 ) zufolge werden Abweichungen von psychischen Normen im medizinischen Modell als inhärent behindernd angesehen. Demgegenüber postulieren soziale Modelle von Behinderung, dass Behinderung primär und maßgeblich durch die Beschaffenheit der sozialen Umwelt verursacht wird.…”