From: "Andrew Phelps" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [S-ACC] disclosure for dialogue
Date: Tue 01/14/14 08:48 AM
You know what funny, for the DSM 3 & 4, both the collage I went to and my county mental health certify in studies of the DSM, as a mental health client, but there where some people against me being certify, but the leaders who worked on the two DSM's, felt it would be good that a client did learn the DSM's in an advocacy way.
What you describe is the expectations of the "proper system of mistruth" where the lies justify the experience of management as "behavior objects." Clearly learning how that system operates helped to ground one's interface. And thus Allen Frances as leader of the DSM-4 task force formerly engaged advocacy in the frame you described. And what he says at this point is that - from that perspective - DSM-5 doesn't "cut it."
What I'm saying is that DSM-5 helps put our complaints about "mistruths" and disrespectful behavior management into a stronger framework. Thus humanist psychology (APA Division 32) and the International Critical Psychiatry Network stood up against the clinical behavior associated with the DSM system, when we demonstrated last spring at the ApA national convention in San Francisco. The advocacy thus went to "changing the culture" rather than simply "understanding better how the system functions."
I have been considered "Goofy" for rendering that perspective, since the 1960s. Now however we are generally being considered "Goofy" and the psychologists and psychiatrists above are becoming willing to join us and share that experience