From: "Andrew Phelps email@example.com"
Subject: [S-ACC] counter-intuitive
Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 11:30 AM
Thanks Uxa for bringing the point to my attention.
"DV" work for our movement does not mean fighting domestic violence, and getting the support of the "DV" providers. Rather, that means talking about domestic violence and helping the providers stand up to the prevailing "mental health" paradigm. At SJCC we were told to provide a "treatment" framework by having a "licensed mental health clinician" present. Instead, we used "communication skills" to improve the talk and then enhanced our trusting engagement with the DV providers, who are "dangerous" in the eyes of conventional "mental health."
Similarly, the philosophical advocacy for "institutional betrayal" does not mean trusting the institution, rather that means embracing the institution's courage in being willing to change. Thus what happened last summer in the APA (psychology) leadership was often exhibited as their need for "political treatment" due to making excuses for "embracing torture" - yet courage to change is problematic. Our madness must needs transcend "pointing the finger" and then reach to those seeking for socially responsible change. We go as models of "good behavior" as people rather than as those who engage by way of rendering our version of "badness critique."
That approach puts our advocacy "in the driver's seat" and aligns us with those who already attempting to "do right" - our "madness" is good.
On Thu, 12/24/15, Andrew Phelps wrote:
I've been 'quiet' as I've worked into the way of being of engaging domestic violence (DV). That concern relates directly to the oppression concern of the client/survivors, as people who experience (or observe) DV confound that concern with madness. My work is one sort (of many) of grassroots activism meant to strengthen our movement. Others are invited to speak to alternative efforts!