ABSTRACT
During the 1970s the National Association for Mental Health (NAMH) re-labelled itself MIND, becoming a rights-based organisation, critiquing psychiatry and emphasising patients' citizenship. Its transformation has been coloured by attributions of the influence of anti-psychiatry. This article argues that the relevance of anti-psychiatry has been over-simplified. It examines MIND's history as part of the psychiatric strategy known as mental hygiene. This movement's agenda can be understood as paradigmatic of much that anti-psychiatry renounced. However, building on the sociologist Nick Crossley's description of the interactional nature of Social Movement Organisations in the psychiatric field, this article shows that a 'discursive transformation' can be deduced in core elements of mental hygienist thinking. This transformation of discourse clearly prefigured important elements of anti-psychiatry, and also fed into MIND's rights approach. But it must be appreciated on its own terms. Its distinctiveness under MIND is shown in its application to people with learning disabilities.
ABSTRACT
Current policy and practice directed towards people with learning disabilities originates in the deinstitutionalisation processes, civil rights concerns and integrationist philosophies of the 1970s and 1980s. However, historians know little about the specific contexts within which these were mobilised. Although it is rarely acknowledged in the secondary literature, MIND was prominent in campaigning for rights-based services for learning disabled people during this time. This article sets MIND's campaign within the wider historical context of the organisation's origins as a main institution of the inter-war mental hygiene movement. The article begins by outlining the mental hygiene movement's original conceptualisation of 'mental deficiency' as the antithesis of the self-sustaining and responsible individuals that it considered the basis of citizenship and mental health. It then traces how this equation became unravelled, in part by the altered conditions under the post-war Welfare State, in part by the mental hygiene movement's own theorising. The final section describes the reconceptualisation of citizenship that eventually emerged with the collapse of the mental hygiene movement and the emergence of MIND. It shows that representations of MIND's rights-based campaigning (which have, in any case, focused on mental illness) as individualist, and fundamentally opposed to medicine and psychiatry, are inaccurate. In fact, MIND sought a comprehensive community-based service, integrated with the general health and welfare services and oriented around a reconstruction of learning disabled people's citizenship rights.
Subject(s)
Charities/history , Civil Rights/history , Health Promotion/history , Learning Disabilities/history , History, 20th Century , Humans , United KingdomABSTRACT
The Foucauldian sociologist Nikolas Rose has influentially argued that psychosocial technologies have offered means through which the ideals of democracy can be made congruent with the management of social life and the government of citizens in modern Western liberal democracies. This interpretation is contested here through an examination of the 1948 International Congress on Mental Health held in London and the mental hygiene movement that organised it. It is argued that, in Britain, this movement's theory and practice represents an uneasy and ambiguous attempt to reconcile visions of 'the modern' with 'the traditional'. The mental hygienist emphasis on the family is central. Here it appears as a forcing-house of the modern self-sustaining individual. Mental hygienists cast the social organisation of 'traditional' communities as static, with rigid authority frustrating both social progress and the full emergence of individual personality. Yet mental hygienists were also concerned about threats to social cohesion and secure personhood under modernity. If the social organisation of 'traditional' communities was patterned by the archetype of the family, with its personal relations of authority, mental hygienists compressed these relations into the 'private' family. Situated here they became part of a developmental process of mental adjustment through which 'mature', responsible citizens emerged. This reformulation of the family's centrality for the social order informed mental hygienist critiques of the growth of state power under existing forms of democracy, as well as suspicion of popular political participation or protest, and of movements towards greater egalitarianism.
