The Theory of Recovery Psychology/Preface pt3: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 18:45, 28 June 2009

Preface Part3

my expeirince

In the past textbooks regarding psychiatric conditions have spouted Gestalt psychology, Freudian psychology, Existential psychology, Lobotomy and other theory or practices which are not conducive to the premise of recovery, which indoctrinate a more stigmatizing view of what a person with psychiatric condition experiences. Such that should not be tolerated by psychiatric rehabilitation practitioners, advocates, and consumers alike who consciously oppose discrimination and stigma; exemplify the problems associated with psychiatric conditions; while giving little or no focus on solutions for persons with mental illness demonstrates that persons with psychiatric conditions are abnormal, or defective; instead incorporating that such persons are human, eventually it is time again for persons with psychiatric conditions to reaffirm the adage nothing about us without us.

I have discussed this concept of studying recovery as a science with people; and of the few who have had even slightest clue of what I was talking about; they have responded by saying first that it was a great idea but second that such ideas are grandiose, over-idealistic, too progressive, radical or futuristic for this point in human civilization. To which I say, if anyone had told Leonardo Da Vinci to not draw blueprints for flying machines, would that have prevented two brothers who worked in a bicycle shop to then later invent the first known flying machine? I am not sure if other see what is in front of them.

This is where I initially failed, not finding the proper environment to solicit constructive criticism. I had people thinking writing a book was complex concept. A majority of which were aliterate, illiterate, computer aliterate, computer aliterate, bibiliophobic, or collegiphobic. The responses or inquiries from others were quite bizarre from my perspective. It appeared that persons had a distorted misconception about what I was doing. They would say things like: "...when you get famous for writing your book..." or "when you finish your best seller" or "when you sell your book..." or even more inappropriate "when you get rich and famous off of your book..."

This leads me as a thinker to ask: If a tree falls on the internet and nobody hears it does that mean I have written a book? This text is a thesis. It is the thesis I would write for my doctorate. If persons smarter than a shoe box that was ran over by concrete truck, were to listen to a word I was saying they would get what I am saying. I t is designed to represent the what could be in future of academics in regards to psychology, psychiatry, mental health, social work, social services, and issues of social justice regarding persons with psychological disorders.

There was one person I asked to look at my writing for critiquing and they responded that I should write it from the point of view of a consumer mental health services; this offended me as a college student. This person told me that a college student is a nobody, and that it would mean nothing to anybody. I bit my tongue...no point in explaining to any one what a doctoral thesis is or why it is what it is.

Another person at another time said "...he’s writing a book to help people". To this I was astonished. I did not know that rewriting or attempting to reform the academic view of an entire course of education in a subset of behavior science was helping anybody. I guess it would not only help colleges and universities, higher education institutions, professors and instructors of such academia, but students, pupils, pendants, etc but psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, mental/behavioral health workers etc, and consumers, survivors, members, clients, patients etc.

I like to say that I see a pink elephant in this so-called recovery movement, every time I read about what person with a M.S.W. or a Ph.D. is claiming to be promoting recovery. I watched a video of Pat Deegan as a key note speaker at a conference. She read her well written essay "What will endure?" In this great essay of hers, she discusses the idea of what will people in the future will think of the current recovery movement; she asks the rhetorical question: "...in the future what will they think of us now for believing ourselves to be humane, understanding and enlightened?" I think they will say of this present recovery movement "Where was your mass audience!!?"

It is this authors notion that promoting self-direction, self-efficacy for consumers, eliminating stigma and discrimination, empowering the consumer, offering the consumer an opportunity to explore their own meaning in life, assisting consumers in their developing a personally satisfactory role in the community and facilitating the recovery process for consumers would occur more easily if the concept of "recovery" was taught at the local community college. I was first inspired to write a textbook when trying to reconcile the stuff taught in training at work, with my studies in school.

I have been speaking about these ideas since I my hire date at a behavioral health agency, to a great many person...the responses have been an almost a negative understanding of what I am talking about to flat out a declaration that I am grandiose... The need to change these scholarly curriculums is apparent from my view as a student. The need for a psychiatric rehabilitation to assist persons with psychiatric disability has been well documented. In the U.S. self-help, family members, advocacy groups, NIMH, the Rehabilitation Services Administration, and many state agencies, however psychiatric rehabilitation continues to be of little interest to university educators of mental health professionals.

Preface Part1 Preface Part2 Preface Part3 Preface Part4

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == Preface Part3 ==
-*Many I have discussed these concepts with others who had mistakenly thought I wanted to write some kind of testimonial or anecdotal.  They obviously failed to understand just what it was I have been talking about.  They feel perhaps this subject is important to be as a behavioral health worker, when it is my experience as a student that drives me.  I feel that many fear science, as if it were an ugly four lettered word.  I have attempted to solicit the assistance of other persons in recovery, believing that they are eventually the primary benefactors of my textbook movement with in the recovery movement, I have attempted to solicit behavioral health workers for their assistance; CPRPs as well as PhDs, the best responses I have received as of yet have been that of college oriented consumers who have recently attended college, and it is still fresh in their minds the level of stigma at some of the most progressive and enlightened circles.  It appears to me that many feel it is a difficult concept that a person would write a book; although this is a strange experience to me, maybe my logic is erroneous but I thought books came from people who write.
+''my expeirince''
-*Having not attended a university but having read the trickle down of literature from such institutions, this writer has only his previous experience to go upon.  In developing the first recovery psychology text, the need for assistance from qualified critics for editing, collaborating, co-writing etc; was absolutely apparent.  Methodology was a major consideration of the author.  First there was the frustration of explaining to other members of the recovery movement, why such an action was important to the author.  A majority of individuals feel reading books are difficult enough, let alone writing books.  Many social workers, who pay lip service to the recovery concept, don’t even grasp the concept that psychology is a science taught in colleges, even though I imagine the word might be mentioned in social work textbooks.  There are those who are in the recovery movement who fail to see that colleges and universities are even relevant to mental health.
+*In the past textbooks regarding psychiatric conditions have spouted Gestalt psychology, Freudian psychology,  Existential psychology, Lobotomy and other theory or practices which are not conducive to the premise of recovery, which indoctrinate a more stigmatizing view of what a person with psychiatric condition experiences.  Such that should not be tolerated by psychiatric rehabilitation practitioners, advocates, and consumers alike who consciously oppose discrimination and stigma; exemplify the problems associated with psychiatric conditions; while giving little or no focus on solutions for persons with mental illness demonstrates that persons with psychiatric conditions are abnormal, or defective; instead incorporating that such persons are human, eventually it is time again for persons with psychiatric conditions to reaffirm the adage nothing about us without us.
-*Obviously, clinical psychology has some connection to the mental health industry.
+*I have discussed this concept of studying recovery as a science with people; and of the few who have had even slightest clue of what I was talking about; they have responded by saying first that it was a great idea but second that such ideas are grandiose, over-idealistic, too progressive, radical or futuristic for this point in human civilization. To which I say, if anyone had told Leonardo Da Vinci to not draw blueprints for flying machines, would that have prevented two brothers who worked in a bicycle shop to then later invent the first known flying machine? I am not sure if other see what is in front of them.
+*This is where I initially failed, not finding the proper environment to solicit constructive criticism.  I had people thinking writing a book was complex concept.  A majority of which were aliterate, illiterate, computer aliterate, computer aliterate, bibiliophobic, or collegiphobic.  The responses or inquiries from others were quite bizarre from my perspective.  It appeared that persons had a distorted misconception about what I was doing. They would say things like: "...when you get famous for writing your book..." or "when you finish your best seller" or "when you sell your book..." or even more inappropriate "when you get rich and famous off of your book..."
+*This leads me as a thinker to ask: ''If a tree falls on the internet and nobody hears it does that mean I have written a book?''  This text is a thesis.  It is the thesis I would write for my doctorate.  If persons smarter than a shoe box that was ran over by concrete truck, were to listen to a word I was saying they would get what I am saying. I t is designed to represent the ''what could be in future of academics'' in regards to psychology, psychiatry, mental health, social work, social services, and issues of social justice regarding persons with psychological disorders.
+There was one person I asked to look at my writing for critiquing and they responded that I should write it from the point of view of a consumer mental health services; this offended me as a college student.  This person told me that a college student is a nobody, and that it would mean nothing to anybody.  I bit my tongue...no point in explaining to any one what a doctoral thesis is or why it is what it is.
+*Another person at another time said "...he’s writing a book to help people".  To this I was astonished. I did not know that rewriting or attempting to reform the academic view of an entire course of education in a subset of behavior science was helping anybody. I guess it would not only help colleges and universities, higher education institutions, professors and instructors of such academia, but students, pupils, pendants, etc but psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, mental/behavioral health workers etc, and consumers, survivors, members, clients, patients etc.
+*I like to say that I see a pink elephant in this so-called recovery movement, every time I read about what person with a M.S.W. or a Ph.D. is claiming to be promoting recovery.  I watched a video of Pat Deegan as a key note speaker at a conference.  She read her well written essay "What will endure?"  In this great essay of hers, she discusses the idea of what will people in the future will think of the current recovery movement; she asks the rhetorical question: "...in the future what will they think of us now for believing ourselves to be humane, understanding and enlightened?"   I think they will say of this present recovery movement  "Where was your mass audience!!?"
+*It is this authors notion that promoting self-direction, self-efficacy for consumers, eliminating stigma and discrimination, empowering the consumer, offering the consumer an opportunity to explore their own meaning in life, assisting consumers in their developing a personally satisfactory role in the community and facilitating the recovery process for consumers would occur more easily if the concept of "recovery" was taught at the local community college.  I was first inspired to write a textbook when trying to reconcile the stuff taught in training at work, with my studies in school.
+*I have been speaking about these ideas since I my hire date at a behavioral health agency, to a great many person...the responses have been an almost a negative understanding of what I am talking about to flat out a declaration that I am grandiose...  The need to change these scholarly curriculums is apparent from my view as a student.  The need for a psychiatric rehabilitation to assist persons with psychiatric disability has been well documented.  In the U.S. self-help, family members, advocacy groups, NIMH, the Rehabilitation Services Administration, and many state agencies, however psychiatric rehabilitation continues to be of little interest to university educators of mental health professionals.
+[[A Textbook on Recovery Psychology/Preface|Preface Part1]]
+[[A Textbook on Recovery Psychology/Preface pt2|Preface Part2]]
+[[A Textbook on Recovery Psychology/Preface pt3|Preface Part3]]
 [[A Textbook on Recovery Psychology/Preface pt4|Preface Part4]]

wikademia>Wikademia

Latest revision as of 18:45, 28 June 2009

Preface Part3