The Hearing Voices Network training that I attended in the end of January turned out to be a time for self-reflection and personal growth. I experienced a mixture of validation and a profound sense of alienation. One of the trainers, Marty, sensed this in me and asked me to reach out after the training was over. In sharing my experiences and perspective with Marty in a lengthy email, I felt very heard. I know the truth about the way I have been treated locally and the importance of taking a best practice and adjusting it to local cultural contexts. Marty’s curiosity and ability to acknowledge and support my perspective means a lot to me.

Locally, I have tried to work with the hearing voices network in a collaborative manner. As a board member, I have faced a significant amount of objection to this from people with whom I have wanted to collaborate. Instead of feeling co-promoted, I have tended to face suspicion and have sensed a tendency to be marginalized and silenced. Some have objected to me expressing my work in trainings and two people even left the group with this as one of their complaints. Additionally, I have felt incredibly underestimated and slighted by some people with whom I yearn to collaborate.

As a neuro-divergent man I come with a mix of abilities and disabilities. The sense that people are judging my disabilities and using them to marginalize me goes back a long way for me. I had to repeat kindergarten and would not have been accepted, had my parents not been teachers at the private school I attended. When I brought home straight A’s my father said that I should not be able to get such high marks. I achieved a great deal in high school and graduated cum laude, but I lost my respect for school when I experienced stigma for having anorexia. I knew my writing was improving and yet my grades went down. My essay nearly got me kicked out of the school instead of receiving the praise it deserved. As a result, I chose not to go to the fancy schools I got into and continued to work hard living in the library when I wasn’t working.

During the training, I was validated that the jargon that was laid out matched much of the gooney-goo-goo jive/jargon that I co-created with people who attended special messages group over the years. I have been writing to sharpen this jargon for the past ten years. While my work is organized as a structural redefinition of psychosis (or special message crisis,) hearing voices network is structured around normalizing and accepting the experiences of hearing voices. They have “an other” section that includes many of the experiences I lived with for two years, and I have done some work to further define this.

While my groups cannot be acknowledged as part of the hearing voices network because they are professional, I feel I have done a good job replicating the values and ethics of the Hearing Voices Network movement quite naturally as I have become a professional who identifies as a person with lived experience. I hope that the fact that the same concepts have been learned in different locales might help validate the paradigm shift and legitimize the concepts. I am in favor of teaching professionals the lessons of the HVN so that we can get therapy specialists who better know how to work with experiences associated with hearing voices and special messages crisis.

At the same time, I had some important points reinforced during the training. For example, when I train people not to re-traumatize themselves, I may in fact alienate many participants. Doing this does not reinforce and equal and mutual relationship, it reinforces power dynamics that are toxic to many and prevents many from sharing their story. I had the opportunity to reflect on times I had done this in the community and lost participants as a result. This important point is something that I needed to have reinforced because I am often warned not to re-traumatize people as a clinician. This is something I can fix.

Another thing I learned from the training, is that I must do more to get off this uninhabited island I am stuck on. I need to reach out to people. I need to stop raging against things I have no control about and make friends like Marty. During the training, I had the opportunity to network with some people who had read my book or are willing to support me. Not everyone is working to exclude me. The more power I give to those feeling of exclusion the more real it becomes. When I get angry that the HVN excludes me, as I did during the training, I only give those critics who are looking to marginalize me the power and satisfaction that they can be successful.

I loved the HVN training and I think that the fact we have a handful of trained people is a massive opportunity to expand the formation of local groups. I met a grant writer in the training and perhaps I will be able to promote outreach groups to help those isolated in board and care homes. I know that to extend HVN groups to institutionalized peoples that we need to know the local culture and act accordingly. I think this can be done. I have done it for ten years and I hope to be able to do it for twenty more.

I have applied to present my six-hour training to CASRA Spring Conference. They have supported me in the past. I have also applied to present a small portion of my six-hour presentation and hope that at least one will be selected.

I have many posts I am trying to officially publish in a host of different venues.  This is a very frustrating process fraught with rejection. Still I have published the following posts on my blog you can see by clicking below:

The post Reflections on a Hearing Voices Network Training appeared first on Redefining "Psychosis".

I fervently believe that having survivor-led group therapy that redefines “psychosis” is missing in the system.

Over the last nine years, I’ve been leading what I call special message groups in multicultural settings. I have found that such groups can be run safely and have the power to transform lives. However, I do admit that when it comes to kicking people out of group to maintain group equilibrium and safety that I believe there are a few things to consider first.

Firstly, I believe that a group leader needs to be prepared for the fact that mad people show up in very different ways. Group facilitators need to be familiar with and recognize a wide variety of presentations or manifestations. Perhaps group members may feel like they are being mocked by others in the group via illusionary ideas of reference or even controlled by them. They may code up their language for protection. They may treat the facilitator as if the facilitator can hear the same voices they hear. They may not believe, in spite of stories shared, that the facilitator has experienced what they have.

I have prepared myself for these challenges by attempting to better define “psychosis.” I have reconstructed a definition that can sync up a wide variety of what have historically been defined as conditions. I believe if the leader is not prepared to accept all presentations, people will not feel safe talking about their experiences. Intolerance for people who show up in a different or what is perceived as a difficult manner can be extremely hurtful.

Secondly, I believe the facilitator can take measures to help train the group to be brave and tolerant of each other. I frame coming together with the specific purpose of sharing untold stories to be an oft neglected privilege that has unfortunately been denied because the “they” experts say it is not safe.

Spirit of Risk Taking

I am always willing to start out with my own story. I advocate for a spirit of risk taking by acknowledging that people in the group may be so used to dangerous or distressing experiences that guaranteeing safety would be a disservice. I also point out that despite what “they” say, this practice has been an effective movement in different countries and I’ve done it for a long time.

These kinds of comments are treating the “set of symptoms” as a neglected culture that is subjugated. In the earlier stages of group development, keeping the group focused on the things they have in common can help. Also, strongly supporting alienated individuals helps train the group to be more tolerant and can help avoid many problems that come up later in a group. It discourages them from expecting a trouble maker will be kicked out.

Thirdly, because there is a high degree of diversity in the mad community, I believe the facilitator needs to be extremely sensitive to all forms of culture, particularly pertaining to relevant issues of subjugation. Discerning the social factors that are affecting the person shows up in a difficult manner is key. Race, class, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, education, legal justice history, substance abuse history, immigration, gang affiliation, disability, employment history are all social factors that can show up

It is wrong, I believe, to exclude someone because they are testing or trying to teach you about these kinds of issues. Some people may try to dominate the groups. A group facilitator needs to be prepared to accept, learn and support everyone. Again, a person who is not accepted on the basis of something that the facilitator is ignorant about or is not curious to explore, may do harm.

Fourthly, it may be necessary to meet with individuals outside of group to learn more about why they are hurting the group. If a group member is dominating to the point he or she is doing intentional harm, that individual may, in fact, be expressing a need to connect with you.

Perhaps, he is experiencing messages that are extremely misunderstood or there is a cultural issue with you that needs to be talked about.

But when the group is truly becoming unsafe for participants, which is rare, out-of-group meetings are necessary and the facilitator needs to work to better understand the problems that come up in group and clear up any cultural issues.

A meeting could involve two individuals. Making the time for this encounter outside the group is an important resource.

Behavior Contract

Finally, if taking the time for a meeting or two doesn’t improve the behavior, the leader can propose a specific behavior contract to protect the group. This approach is best utilized in real emergency circumstances and needs to be devoid of the leader’s cultural biases to the best of his/her ability. This approach is also something that requires the participant’s input so that the problem can be identified and an agreed upon solution can be proposed.

At the very least, the contract needs to be something the participant can buy into. When the participant takes the power to get involved, consequences can involve sitting some groups out or being referred to an individual therapist or perhaps a different group.

I’d suggest that if the participants take steps outside the group to improve themselves, the leader can be in communication with them, pining for their return.

It is true that many people who suffer from “psychosis” or message crisis also have complex histories, trauma and other co-morbid problems like substance abuse and nuero-diversity. I have seen these kinds of complex issues, that may challenge safety, get addressed within a group process as described, even by survivors who visit programs rather than work in them.

The post How to Keep “Psychosis” Focus Groups Inclusive: appeared first on Redefining "Psychosis".