Read on Twitter
important to remember when assessing txts concerned w antipsychiatry or any social model academic mvmt. this is what those scholars are reacting against, & it shouldnt be suggested that antipsychiatry is anti-medicalized intervention, it's abt transformation from subject to agent
or in other words, often the problem w the medical model is not medicalization but biases/subjective framings which are institutionalized/enforced/upheld thru systems used to allocate (medicalized) resources for survival—the systems of medicine function to label & assign stigma
stigma in turn contributes to worsening health, increased likelihood for non-consentual removal from the community. so, that's all to say that antipsychiatry critiques are at their strongest when attacking the role pathology/labeling plays in marking someone for survival or death
e.g. its easy to misread critiques of the medical model/pathologization/medicalization as eugenic framings which seek to minimize/remove access that certain disabled & chronically ill people rely on for survival—its also easy to misread social model arguments the same way
the most important thing to remember wrt theorizations/conceptualizations of disability is that the very nature of this social/economic category contains w/in it so many varying definitions that no one frame of the 'disabled subject' should ever be presented as an absolute
another example of nuance often overlooked—a social model framing of chronic illness wld posit not that the person "wouldn't be sick" w/o the social forces stacked against them (eg.capitalism) but that the forces of capitalism, which gate-keep care, are disabling social forces
I think often when someone uses the phrase "capitalism makes you ill"/"disabled"/"mentally ill" (which again, is a slogan—a sort of shorthand) it can be misread as, without capitalism we will not be sick/disabled/mentally ill & thats important to remember when using that argument
