Saturday, 12 July 2008

Choose your battles carefully

Of course, I stirred up a hornets nest with my criticism of the latest issue of Outsideren, especially of the article about psychosis.

The first reaction (by the chief sub-editor) was to take my criticism as a FORMAL such, and thus to refer to the "rules of journalism", "how to write an article", something. I replied:

To leave everything, that is said in this issue (and not only in the specific article) unchallenged alone, not only as ONE but as THE truth (and still the question is, whether some of it is as much as ONE truth at all...) is, yah, simply a bias. No matter however perfect style and layout may be.

If it really is the case, that things preferably are to be spelled out, some few and vague remarks on one of the last pages won't do (while the vagueness is of an extent, that lets EVERYBODY read whatever they want into these remarks). Doubtful truths maybe should get investigated further (research), and commented in their direct context, in order to not be misleading? Now, that everything is supposed to be so easy to get.

On the other hand, also this issue quite correctly reflects the Danish information level. So, yes, we do have a lot of DANISH truths here. Hardly anybody will realize. So, let's continue to ignore possible doubts: our belief system says the earth is flat, in consequence, it can and must not be other than flat...

And, yes, I fully understand: You DO risk to get burned at the stake (to lose subscribers and funding) [Outsideren is awarded both governmental funding and has recently been awarded a fund by Lundbeck, producer of the SSRI Cipralex and the neuroleptic Serdolect. Outsideren says, this doesn't have any influence on the contents of the zine, and I do believe, that they really do believe that...]. Rather be good! [Outsideren wants to be "Denmarks most well-behaved magazine", also giving the "experts" a chance to speak - and, geez!, yes, they get that chance!]

As a response to this, the chief sub-editor asked for people to comment on the article and/or tell about their own views of psychosis. He also asked for me to write an article on my view of psychosis, in detail. Praiseworthy.

Nevertheless, once bitten twice shy, I replied as follows:

Articles, or whatever you like to call it, from my computer, will in future only be published at places, that also have space for the deviant, the odd, the maladjusted.

No hard feelings: as said, I fully understand. And, as I also say at my blog, I have no ambitions to go on a mission, in the sense that I'd want to force anything on anybody.

But in order to be accepted around here, I'd need to identify as "mentally ill", and I'd need to subscribe to an overall view of psychiatry as blameless and indispensable in regard to contents (there maybe aren't enough beds at psych wards, places at half way houses, whatever, available, there maybe should be some more focus on overmedication, we'd maybe need more "therapists" like Torben Schjødt, i.e. on a purely FORMAL level there maybe are some things that would need improvement, but otherwise everything is just as it has to be).

I don't identify as "mentally ill", and, although I can accept that there are a lot of people, the majority, actually, who regard psychiatry as blameless and indispensable as far as contents is concerned, mine isn't such a view, I can't subscribe to this myself. So, what am I actually still doing around here?? "Let go of whatever you can't change."

As mentioned: no hard feelings! It's been exhausting and frustrating at times, but it truly also has been very pleasant on a personal level, and it certainly has contributed to me gaining some more insight in who/what I am (not), too.

No comments: