[login to view URL]
Y
our initial post should be approximately (300 words) followed by 2 responses (100-200 words) to other students or the Professor following this week's time line.
View Part 1 of the Pat Deegan video the ‘Politics of Memory,’ and post on the following: (Use citations from the video to support your assertions)
What is Pat referring to when she uses the term the ‘’Politics of Memory” and the "Master Narrative" in the video? How does this apply to the history of mental health treatment? What examples does she provide from her video to support the need to hear from those who have experienced the mental health system first hand? Why might that be important, and how might it improve service delivery/program design etc.? Where and how should we focus our efforts in creating a new narrative?
POST 1 TO REPLY
Patricia Deegan's "The Politics of Memory (Part I)," a film by Terry Strecker, is incredibly executed, exploring history's "carefully crafted" stories (i.e., mental health); not necessarily factual events. Deegan reveals the problematic effects of one-sided narratives, promoting the need for mental health consumers/survivors to develop and utilize their voices to regain their truth/power.
Some people may say there are three sides to every story; yours, theirs, and the truth. Often, if an individual is at a social disadvantage vs. another group, the latter develops the power to dictate how the story unfolds to the eager ears of the present and future generations. It is highly reminiscent of the holiday Thanksgiving and the teachings of its "history." Deegan (2010), highlights this phenomenon as the "politics of memory," focusing specifically on mental health consumers/survivors and their experiences. With the word politics deriving from the words polite and police, influential voices have crafted narratives that are convenient to a specific purpose or persons. Most mental health professionals are responsible for this practice amongst individuals who are service users/survivors. According to Deegan (2010), the dominant forces get to tell the story, silencing others, giving rise to a master narrative. A master narrative ensures that the preferred stories are enforced, dominating, and does not include the experiences of ex-patients (in the case of mental health). A story can be objective; although, it is often rooted in perspectives. However, the politics of memory creates one viewpoint, neglecting the experiences of others.
The public deserves to hear from service users/survivors (mental health system) first hand. Their stories are imperative to the fabric of their history. Otherwise, the master narrative will continue to dominate. According to Deegan (2010), "people speak for us, define us, and our experience, it is the master narrative, and we are as slaves until we dare to examine history to find the lost stories to retell history as our story." It would be essential to gather the stories and experiences of individuals who are service users/survivors, as it may help improve service delivery/program designs. Creating a diverse narrative can better serve the public. Each story will undoubtedly be the same. Why not develop a wealth of experiences for which each service user/survivor can choose from and use treatments that would provide the most benefit? Telling individual stories can start the healing process, breaking free from the "master." According to Deegan (2010), "to be effective leaders in our movement, it is important that we know our history."
In conclusion, Patricia Deegan provides excellent resources to begin the process of evoking effective thoughts and actions to an age-old problem, perhaps building the voices (sound by sound) of the silenced. Hear them roar.
Hi friend, I believe that you are in the right place. I wish to pledge my top notch experience in conducting research in a bid to provide flawless work.