Peter Campbell on the Survivor Movement   |   A response from Donnard White   |   Norman Strange on Campaign Against Psychiatric Oppression (CAPO)

Anti-Psychiatry and the Survivor Movement

I was very interested to read a description of Peter Campbell's talk on "The History and Philosophy of the Survivor Movement in the February issue. I have a great admiration for Peter and his contributions; however he does present the history with a particular slant - I would like, by contrast, to offer my own slant.

In the article, it described Survivors Speak Out, an outstanding organisation that Peter founded, as a pragmatic alternative to the anti-psychiatry politics of the Campaign Against Psychiatric Oppression (CAPO). It said "one of the problems with these groups was that, at times, all they did was argue about philosophical and ideological issues." That's true, but CAPO was a very small group, and most of the people in it were living at the bottom of society, and their lives and health had been considerably damaged by psychiatry. They often didn't have much energy to campaign, and a lot of the time CAPO functioned as a social and mutual support group.

But something has been left out of Peter's history, and that is the group called LAMHA (London Alliance for Mental Health Action). This group was set up a couple of years before Peter started Survivors, and was a monthly forum for mental health activists in London. Everyone active in campaigning on mental health issues used to come to it, and it was a powerhouse of incredible energy and dynamism, particularly in opposing Community Treatment Orders, through a sit-in at the Royal College of Psychiatry, a picket of SANE and other activities.

However, when Survivors Speak Out was set up, many of the people active in LAMHA became involved in SSO and dropped out of LAMHA. But Survivors, as the article makes clear, did not support direct action campaigning. It was a hierarchical and bureaucratic organisation, with no structures in it for activism. Unfortunately, the way that people dropped out of LAMHA led to its takeover by a cuckoo who dominated meetings and used Lama's reputation as a source of personal power. He destroyed it by driving people away, something he had already done to CAPO, and went on to do at the Community Support Network, until he was driven out by Michael Charles, whose name should be engraved in gold in the history books.

But how much did Survivors Speak out achieve through all its cuddling up with professionals? I don't know, but to be frank I don't think that either the strategy of Survivors or of CAPO can succeed by itself. I think talking to professionals is fine - the Communicate group at the Maudsley has demonstrated that. But would they have succeeded without being a bunch of trouble- makers as well? I doubt it. Those in power will only sit up and take notice of users if they are prepared to cause trouble as well as talk - otherwise you become as ineffective as a negotiator for a trade union that is not prepared to go on strike.

It would be nice to see something like LAMHA set up again. I used to be a squatter, and something that squatters did about the same time as LAMHA was very effective in maintaining links between people. Every month, each squatting group in turn would host a meeting called 'All London Squatters', where the local squatters would cook an enormous amount of cheap food for sale to visitors for £1. People used to go there because it wasn't just a boring political meeting - it was a chance to meet your friends and have a chat as well. I think that people you're doing actions with have to be friends too - if I'm going social actions because I care about injustice, I want people to care about me too, on a personal level. I can't trust people who aren't friends. Anyway, I haven't the time to organise it, but how about an 'All London Survivors'?

Donnard White.  February 2000