The Theory of Recovery Psychology/Preface

Preface

• Often the behavior sciences; such as psychology, barely address the concept of recovery from psychological disorders. While such do acknowledge that people do have psychological disorders, such courses of study do not address how a person with a disorder grows, changes, copes, adapts, learns or rises above the label of a disorder. After the establishment of the person-first language policy by the American Psychological Association was imposed to change the language bias of labeling a person as a disorder or an illness first and person second. Now with person first language, we would say that a person is a person first and second that a person who has a disability has a disability second to being a person; Behavior Sciences courses tuaght at colleges and universities still exist in their realm of disability first labels. Abnormal Science or Deviant Science, whether it be psychology or other wise implies the study of deviance and abnormality. In regards to pathology and nosology, anything in order to be discussed must obviously named and defined so that it may be discussed. No subject can be discussed without points of reference, without symbolic interaction communication of ideas may not be conveyed in seeking solutions for problems.
• So far psychology has aimed to discuss treatment of abnormal behavior in the context of remission instead of recovery. To say a persons disorder is in remission is not the same as saying the person is living a satisfactory life that would have been lived with out a disorder, or that the person has regained the ability to live life. In the field of psychiatry the term mental disorder, psychiatric condition or mental illness is used, in rehabilitation the term disability is used, and in psychology the term psychological disorder is used to describe the diagnoses which these prespective sciences study. Since recovery psychology addresses all of these, it is important to note from which prespective the various writers and speakers are coming from to understand thier influence on recovery psychology. "Recovery" is a concept that is faced with great skepticism with in the academic and scientific community; however it is not simply going to go away if ignored.
• The movement toward parity in the medical establishment may leave many in a state of confusion regarding the proper speak in their attempts to develop their efficacy. The debate over terminology may impede progress, although there may an obsessive compulsive or anal retentive need for perfection in some professionals' efforts to advance the technology. Mental disorders are psychiatric conditions, are we allowed to call theses conditions illnesses? Can we say a person has a psychiatric diagnosis? And what about the people served by the mental health system; what title or category should they be organized under.

Using vocabulary that can help restore dignity, a person can say that they have a physical illness of the brain which involves a chemical imbalance or that neurotransmitters are not functioning as they should. The term "chemically imbalanced person" has an adjective which is modifying the noun, and limits the noun as it describes the whole being. As we would not use to describe a person with cancer as a "cancer person or cancerous individual", the more correct would be "a person with cancer." A person receiving services from the mental health system is often referred to as a "consumer." This has certain benefits and certain shortcomings. First, it has a connotation of empowerment, as in the “customer” or primary stakeholder would have the authority that dictates proper business practices; however any person with a knowledge of biology would question the term “consumer.” The term “consumer” is associated with the term “decomposer” which is similar to bacteria, fungus, insects and scavengers. What a grotesque term the word “consumer” sounds like? Another compliant about the word “consumer” is that it is a political designation; it assumes a person went out and purchased their plight and so their care may then be legislated at the will of the powers that be. In the past the terms: “survivor”, “patient”, “ex-patient”, “member” and “SMI” have been used. SMI for seriously mentally ill, used to be SPMI for severely and persistently mentally ill or CMI for chronically mentally ill. As one trainer at rehabilitation staff training stated SMI can be looked upon as meaning “significantly more interesting” suggested as a more positive way of viewing persons with psychiatric disabilities. A step further would be to say that a person is not disabled but differently abled. The definition of psychology is the study of mental processes and behavior of living organisms. A human being is a living organism. Behavior is anything that an organism does, whereas recovery is something that a person with psychiatric condition does. It is perhaps the significant detail about psychiatric conditions which are not discussed in abnormal or deviant psychology courses. In establishing this first-person language to describe individuals with the conditions, during the academic semester of a course entitled “abnormal” or “deviant” would be counterproductive. Such courses commonly entitled “Abnormal Psychology” should be replaced with courses entitled “Recovery Psychology”, or such a course should be developed as an alternative to the prior, or that the so-coined recovery model should be more expressed and-or represented in such studies of Behavior Sciences, which often precede Medical studies or courses, or upper graduate study. Behavior is defined as: anything that an organism or person does. People do recover, so therefore would not recovery also be a behavior.

The analogy of “psychology” is to______ as “abnormal” is to ______, should the primary concern of those who are fighting the stigma of mental illness. If psychology is to behavior then abnormal is to stigma. For the most part, Abnormal Psychology characterizes persons with psychiatric conditions as hopeless causes. The proposal for this textbook and the establishment of a new behavior science called “recovery psychology.” This may be interpreted as an indictment of the education system in the United States, or against the education system internationally; and it is not as it may appear intended to be as such; nor is it intended to be an indictment of the service providers nationally or internationally. Rather it is an attempt to seek further advancement in to promoting recovery in an area not fully accessed, where the author of this textbook feels would produce the maximum benefit for all parties involved.

The ideological impetus of this proposal, is rooted in the sentiment that in order to fight discrimination against persons of psychiatric disabilities, empower persons labeled as such, fight stigma against those with psychiatric conditions, raise the consciousness of the public with regards to persons with mental illness; there is a need for complete and total eradication the words such as “Abnormal” or “Deviant” from psychology, social work, behavioral health and all other behavior science courses which are taught at colleges, universities, higher learning institutions, and from the titles of textbooks from such courses; in which are intended for the purpose of educating students on the subject of psychiatric conditions. Working on the text “Recovery Psychology” has been a painstaking effort. Instead of keeping it a secret like Pat Deegan did, I spoke to others seeking constructive criticism like Mary Ellen Copeland did. A text on “Recovery Psychology” as I see it would cover first, the anecdotal testimonials of recovery stories from consumers, along with recovery theory. Second it would cover Psychosocial Rehabilitation and-or Psychiatric Rehabilitation with a distinction between rehabilitation and treatment. Last but not least it would cover the informative material regarding psychiatric conditions typically covered in abnormal psychology. 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 alliterate, illiterate, computer alliterate, computer alliterate, 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…” First of all they mistaken it for a consumer testimonial narrative about anything I experienced, which is miles off course from what I am talking about. There are no Cliffology 101 classes at colleges and universities and I doubt if the moments of my personal life are so significant that one could make a profession out of it; if it were so I would be at the top of that profession with the PhD and all, and I would be saying job well done, my life is complete, I am Cliff there is no more to accomplish. Second of all they mistaken my project as being some sort of self-help book, I am not a fan of these kind of books; mostly I feel that Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus and the fools who write this pop psychology nonsense having coming from Uranus. I have termed this to be “stupid human tricks” after a segment from the David Letterman Show, any time a person basically insults my intelligence and my ambitions. 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. It is designed to represent 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 psychiatric conditions. 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. My motivation is only the creative or ingenuity to take on such a laborious task, I have a computer and I am going to use it to be constructive…so what is your goal in life? Thank you; Go back to Mars, Venus or Uranus! The idea of being famous is funny; I am not working on a Stephen King or John Grisham novel! After all this is done, if it all were to go as I plan the amount of fame I would then receive would be…(Nees, 2007) a reference in somebody else’s writing. Recovery Psychology may serve as form of preventative medicine; it may need to encompass all the content of abnormal psychology as well as interventions of recovery. If we take in to consideration incidents such as the tragic Virginia Tech shooting on April 16th of 2007 and look at the character of Seung-Hui Cho, being labeled as abnormal or deviant; we will see a psychosocial looking glass into the consequences of mental illness. The stigmatization of being categorized as mentally ill or deviant and abnormal may be all a person requires to refuse to accept any form of treatment. The recovery concept when applied to mental illness can help make receiving mental health care far more desirable to those who are reluctant to receive mental health services. The scope of the psychosocial aspects of mental illness is that a person with a psychiatric condition is aware, that is they are cognizant of their immediate social environment and this effects their world view, cognitive functioning, decision making and emotions. By no means am I apologizing for or condoning the tragic events that occurred at Virginia Tech. However, it was noted that there were warning signs or red flags about the psychiatrically disturbed individual. Were these red flags the stimulus or the trigger for the person who does not fit in? At least in Cho’s mind, other people as he said had driven him to do it. So many multiple factors can be implicated in the Cho, but what level of education or expertise does a person need to have to figure that he had psychosocial issues. The individual was in college, and having a mental illness did not shield him from the reality that people were afraid of him or thought, said, or otherwise unpleasant things about him during sometime in his prior to his acts of murder on innocent persons. In the past the “strengths” model focused on people’s abilities and coping skills rather than the disabilities; however the need to focus on recovery is obviously apparent. Just to say a person has strengths; does not imply that people recover from a psychiatric condition. Strengths may represent tools to be used or be a factor in recovery; but recovery is the ultimate goal of any medical endeavor. Without recovery, the medical establishment has no excuse to exist. The idea that “recovery” is just a fad or sensationalized buzz word stems perhaps from the fact that it is a buzzword. However, the word does have its underlying meaning concept with regards to psychiatric conditions that everyone outside the recovery movement has failed to acknowledge. Persons with psychiatric conditions do recover more successfully than from any of the socially acceptable medical conditions such as heart disease, cancer or diabetes. The established academic system wants to create a behavioral science or a college course for everything. Why not study recovery as a behavior? Positive Psychology courses have been established out of Cognitive-Behavioral psychology, When some PhD joker thinks he is original and creates a new sub-science and colleges rush to sell the textbooks of this “new” revolutionary science, and of course students sign up to attend. Positive psychology assumes that every one is mentally healthy and does not need to recover. If the recovery movement is to be more prevalent in academia, it can do so just as positive psychology emerged from cognitive-behavioral psychology. The initial dilemma of recovery is the term itself. One of the problems for scientific research in the area of recovery is to find a definition of the term so that results can qualify as recovery. Of the many definitions of recovery there is a problem of the scope of the term to be used in any scientific hypothesis. The two different ranges of the meanings are the broad realm of definition and the narrow realm of definition. The broad realm being a catch all statement: a person who has just had their first ever nervous breakdown, episode, diagnosis, etc. would be considered to be in an earlier stage of recovery. This view paints the notion that the whole experience of mental illness is the recovery process. The narrower realm of the term recovery is the land-marking statement: a person in recovery has notable life changing events that serve as evidence markers, tangible results and outcomes that measure and show an improved state of mental health. This is an area that seems to me could be classified as hard science, relying on facts and figures, statistics and so forth. Soft science is that realm of anecdotal evidence of testimonials. Most of the psychosocial data regarding recovery is of this “soft science” nature. This is better for the “show me, don’t tell me” crowd. A text on Recovery Psychology must contain the elements of both this soft and hard science. However, it is this writer’s opinion that no matter what preferred approach to the definition, a researcher or a practitioner may use with recovery, it is definitely a step in the right direction. Any person, seeking automotive service and finding the Auto Repair Model after ten years of feeling life-wasting frustration by automotive service techs trained in the Auto Mechanical Model, would likely see the authors point. How ever wide or narrow a persons view of recovery it is certainly positive and to the benefit of everyone involved; that the term, as sick or worn out of a buzz word that it may be, is absolutely crucial that it be forever used in all discussions of mental health. Perhaps, with all the different definitions of recovery and all the variegated perspectives of it; the true meaning of the term need not be universally agreed upon; and it should continue to bring about progressive advancements that better mental/behavioral health science and medicine. 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. Recovery as the rule not the exception in all mental health care and all people’s knowledge of mental health should pertain to recovery. To reach the untapped audience of students, pupils, pendants for the dissemination of the recovery concept, research and publication on information about recovery behavior must be done. Recovery psychology needs to be established as a science, to validate the social and behavior sciences of recovery and direct these efforts toward the academic and professional strata. The purpose for such proposal; is to assert the notion that textbooks, course materials, course lectures, syllabi, and course handouts at most behavior science courses: are strictly medical model at most colleges, universities, higher learning institutions. Students, who in turn are candidates to become future mental/behavioral health staff persons; are often not privy to what has been termed as the recovery model, it has become apparent to various consumers of behavioral health services, who themselves have college degrees or at least pursued college educations in behavior sciences, etc; that the graduates of the standard college education of which have associate degrees, baccalaureate degrees, or masters degrees, may not have been educated in correct or relevant information concerning psychiatric conditions; or may have been indoctrinated by Doctorate level textbook authors; who often teach at Universities information which may be obsolete or irrelevant to the health and welfare of persons with psychiatric conditions, waste too much of a students tuition, discussing this obsolete or irrelevant; often archaic or potentially detrimental to the students imminent career, 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 see a pink elephant in the 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 essay “What will endure?” In this 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 to the present recovery movement “Where was your mass audience!!?” The NAMI “Walk for the mind of America” happens on street downtown on a Saturday, when nobody is down town to see it. It happens to not be of the mind of America at all. It does not get any media coverage once so ever. Instead of walking down some closed anonymous street on a Saturday morning, it would be better to walk to the dean of students or the psychology faculty office at places such as Stanford University, if it were not for the overwhelming stigma generated by the Virginia Tech incident. However, the Virginia Tech incident is why events like the NAMI walk should be at college campuses. The USPRA conference happens in hotel, where many mental/behavior health workers attend. This is great for transforming the mental health system to a recovery-orientated system but this does not reach the masses. Reading vision statements, mission statements, code of ethics, core principles, guidelines, studies, and other documents which serve as a framework for such organizations the likes of USPRA and NAMI; demonstrate the need for action here in this proposal to occur in society, for the sake of progress and advancement for the recovery movement. 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 persons…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 (Anthony, Cohen, Farkas, Gagne 2004). Mental Health professionals often downplay or delay the exploration of employment goals: many mental health professionals still tend to focus on the emotional lives of the people they work with-either because of the academic training or their agencies fiscal priorities (Baron, 1999). 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 consumers, being that they are eventually the primary benefactors of this textbook movement with in the recovery movement, I have attempted to solicit behavioral health workers for their assistance and 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. 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. The assistance this author sought out was an editor-collaborator who had the capacity to function in the way a college instructor facilitates a student’s thesis during a semester of school. I have found that when I asked for criticism, persons who said they would love to read the material and critique it would take a hard copy from me and never discuss the subject again. Thanks for your input! I can say. I have found great frustration in writing this text, but greatly worthwhile frustration. Perhaps the best critique I have received for the concept, was at an USPRA conference from Pat Nemec of Boston University Sargent College Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation, she suggested writing recovery-oriented supplements for abnormal psychology. I thought of this as an interesting suggestion, to which I am not against partaking. But I have elected to continue working on my original vision; by which could possibly splinter off in to various future projects. After awhile of hearing from the naysayers I choose to clam up about writing the text, being that I did not need the psychological abuse. It is greatly difficult to discuss a work as such with destructive persons.

The usage of an editor is dependant on the performance on such a person; if an editor lacks the ability to edit obviously such personal should not utilized. In a sixteen-week semester course, the written, materials for rough draft are often submitted for critical evaluation by the second to the fourth week of the semester. This is evaluated by an instructor; it is criticized, punctuation is marked, typo errors are noted, reasoning, flow, content and structure are analyzed. The instructor may say “scratch this” or “clarify this” or flat out rewrite a sentence for the student as a suggestion, the instructor might say “this line makes no sense” or draw lines and arrows to redirect the author in their restructuring of the article. This version of the rough draft is usually not graded, it is not expected to be anything more than an initial attempt. It is regarded as a work in progress not a completed masterpiece in which overcritical persons who may be under-qualified to evaluate it may assume. After the instructors comments are considered the author has time to rewrite their article according to the guidelines and critique of the instructor. The author may then have a better direction to write a whole new piece that is a gradable rough draft version of the article. This is still not regarded as a finished work; rather it is regarded as only a work in progress. This say can obtain a “B” or a “C” on the usual grade curve; be critiqued yet again and still yield an “A” on the overall course at the end of sixteen weeks.

In my research into the academic instructors acknowledgement in the emergence of the recovery movement on the feasibility of recovery as a behavioral science; I have found that after sifting through literature, that the word recovery is more represented than I initially had anticipated; however the concept itself may not be as pronounced as it needs to be. For the purpose of this text, I attempted to define certain terms in the comprehensive definitions possible. Psychology is the academic study of the mind and mental processes, in relation to behavior. Social Work is the academic study of a profession that promotes, social change, problem solving in human relationships, empowerment and liberation of people to enhance well being. Human Services is the academic study of services related to the needs of humans in relation their well-being. Behavior Sciences is an umbrella category for courses of study related to behaviors. Behavioral Health Services is the academic study of organizations that provide behavioral health services. Sociology is the academic study of human social behavior. Psychiatric Rehabilitation is an academic study of the facilitation of well-being through enabling the psychiatrically disabled. Psychosocial Rehabilitation is similar to psychiatric rehabilitation, but with a connotation of psychosocial factors as a critical psychological element or factor of well-being.

 Recovery is the improvement of a condition towards well-being, and processes related to such improvement.  Abnormal Psychology is the study of mental and emotional disorders and maladaptive behaviors.  Mental Health is a branch of medicine that deals with the achievement and maintenance of psychological well-being.  Behavioral Health is the combination of the fields’ substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment

Psychiatry is the medical treatment of mental/emotional or psychological disorders. Social Sciences is an umbrella of studies concerned with humans in related to culture. Treatment is any intervening action done to or towards a person or thing. Services are professional aid given to persons. Health care is the treatment services in regards to well-being.