What do you think?
Rate this book
Psychopolitics
A classic in the field of mental health, one of the few credible critiques of the anti-psychiatry movement which retains its significance today, Psycho Politics includes scholarly appraisals of the ideas of Goffman, Laing, Szasz and Foucault and proposals for a politics of mental health which neither separates mind and body, nor abdicates responsibility for the alleviation of suffering. Sedgwick argues that mental health movements have overemphasised individual civil liberty at the expense of developing collective responsibility for mental health care.
182 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1981
9 people are currently reading
506 people want to read
About the author
Peter Sedgwick
24 books12 followersPeter Sedgwick was a translator of Victor Serge, author of a number of books including PsychoPolitics and a revolutionary socialist activist.
He grew up in Liverpool and won a scholarship to Balliol College, Oxford, where he became a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain. In 1956, after the Hungarian Revolution, he left and joined the Socialist Review Group, later the International Socialists (forerunners of the Socialist Workers Party). He wrote for the group’s press while also getting involved in the activities of rank-and-file members. He was opposed to the International Socialists' renaming themselves the Socialist Workers Party in January 1977 and refused to join the new organisation. However, he remained dedicated to the far left. Christopher Hitchens called him "a noble remnant of the libertarian left"[1] and dedicated his book Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001) to Sedgwick's memory.
For the 15 years until his death Sedgwick earned his living as a lecturer in politics at the Universities of York and Leeds.
In his book PsychoPolitics (1982) he explained the severe reductions in psychiatric services that were already taking place as an effect of the "politically correct" conceptions of mental illness, such as those of the anti-psychiatry writers Michel Foucault, R.D. Laing and Thomas Szasz, being exploited by governments to justify spending cuts.
Peter Sedgwick was found dead in 1983 in a canal near his home in Shipley, Yorkshire. He was editing some of the works of Victor Serge at the time of his death.
He grew up in Liverpool and won a scholarship to Balliol College, Oxford, where he became a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain. In 1956, after the Hungarian Revolution, he left and joined the Socialist Review Group, later the International Socialists (forerunners of the Socialist Workers Party). He wrote for the group’s press while also getting involved in the activities of rank-and-file members. He was opposed to the International Socialists' renaming themselves the Socialist Workers Party in January 1977 and refused to join the new organisation. However, he remained dedicated to the far left. Christopher Hitchens called him "a noble remnant of the libertarian left"[1] and dedicated his book Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001) to Sedgwick's memory.
For the 15 years until his death Sedgwick earned his living as a lecturer in politics at the Universities of York and Leeds.
In his book PsychoPolitics (1982) he explained the severe reductions in psychiatric services that were already taking place as an effect of the "politically correct" conceptions of mental illness, such as those of the anti-psychiatry writers Michel Foucault, R.D. Laing and Thomas Szasz, being exploited by governments to justify spending cuts.
Peter Sedgwick was found dead in 1983 in a canal near his home in Shipley, Yorkshire. He was editing some of the works of Victor Serge at the time of his death.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 18, 2012
i'm a little torn on this book. first off it is older so a lot of the references are to events and data from its time - that is not that big of a deal but i thought i would point it out. also it is a specific rebuttal to 3 particular persons and their views on mental illness and/or treatment methods. this again is fine because, even without prior knowledge, sedgewick does a good job of conveying the particulars of their arguments (without constructing straw men) in such a way that you understand the thrust of them and thus understand his critiques. the thing that got me though was the writing style itself was very high level and academic and i found it challenging to keep focused. there is a ton of great info in here but i think i might have perfered to read it is a more condensed and perhaps conversational tone. i do not want to run anyone off this book though. if you are interested in mental illness and therapy/treatment/hospitalization and the intersection with capitalism and liberation then by all means read this book - you will get a lot from it. be aware though that it is pretty dense.
March 19, 2020
The best scholarship on the antipsychiatry era, in my opinion. His summaries are effective and intelligible and his critiques are fair, insightful, and poignant. He pointed out things that had always irked me about the various antipsychiatry writers, both things that I was able to previously articulate, and things that I wasn't able to, which was very illuminating. I greatly appreciate that he points out the flaws of /all/ the sides, left, right, and supposedly apolitical and it is the most balanced and sensible approach to mental health issues that I have ever read. Some of the final chapter I skimmed through, just because I was a little less interested in his proposals for the future, but the parts that I did read seemed quite interesting and like they could have made a difference. His prose is very clear and often even quite striking and beautiful? Which I didn't expect given the subject matter. I greatly appreciate Sedgwick for his contribution to the scholarship and it is an immense shame that he passed away so soon after the publication of this book.
March 27, 2024
I wanted to hear the story of the antipsychiatry movement from a position that was dispassionate and balanced and I think I got that here. Sedgwick gives a highly polished series of portraits of the major theorists who had critiques of psychiatry throughout the 20th century, mainly in the 1960s and 1970s: Goffman, Laing, Foucault, Szasz. Sedgwick neither endorses nor wholly destroys the perspectives of these antipsychiatry thinkers. He is willing to absorb their objections and point out where they are right and where they are wrong. It made me want to read further in these writers’ output, particularly in Laing and Foucault (Laing doesn’t come off looking too great with his loosy-goosey interpretations of psychosis and true schizophrenics and their prospects for care and integration into their own social networks). Foucault was challenging and over my head so I want to read more. I went to his Mental Illness and Psychology, and the history Madness and Civilization.
Historically psychiatry has been a heavy-handed tool of social control and the antipsychiatry crowd lodges their major objection regarding this lack of freedom and human dignity. Questions about mental illnesses, and whether (as Szasz states) they can even be said to exist, are inherited from prior conceptions about insane people in medieval and Renaissance contexts — mental patients were locked up like scapegoats and prisoners. As society became more progressive naturally some of these assumptions about the threat, pathology, and perplexing status of the mentally ill began to change. Sedgwick at the end of the book makes a case for dealing with healthcare for severe mental illnesses from the perspective of political liberty and mutual aid. Kropotkin empties the asylums.
Historically psychiatry has been a heavy-handed tool of social control and the antipsychiatry crowd lodges their major objection regarding this lack of freedom and human dignity. Questions about mental illnesses, and whether (as Szasz states) they can even be said to exist, are inherited from prior conceptions about insane people in medieval and Renaissance contexts — mental patients were locked up like scapegoats and prisoners. As society became more progressive naturally some of these assumptions about the threat, pathology, and perplexing status of the mentally ill began to change. Sedgwick at the end of the book makes a case for dealing with healthcare for severe mental illnesses from the perspective of political liberty and mutual aid. Kropotkin empties the asylums.
April 19, 2014
With my understanding of psychoanalysis being somewhere between little to none, I found it really hard to get into the meat of this book, the critiques of Szasz, Foucault, Laing etc.
However the critical approach to psychiatry, and to the anti psychiatry movement, that frames the book, is useful and accessible.
-Sedgwick argues for a rejection of the mind/body duality in a Marxist understanding of all health, not just mental health.
-He is critical of anti psychiatry advocates and activists who, in their largely liberal opposition to the asylum, miss the contradictory nature of therapy, and don't provide any emancipatory strategies.
-He sees the possibilities for movements around health /mental health as arising from an alliance of users and providers, noting that both on their own have sometimes lead to very reactionary positions.
However the critical approach to psychiatry, and to the anti psychiatry movement, that frames the book, is useful and accessible.
-Sedgwick argues for a rejection of the mind/body duality in a Marxist understanding of all health, not just mental health.
-He is critical of anti psychiatry advocates and activists who, in their largely liberal opposition to the asylum, miss the contradictory nature of therapy, and don't provide any emancipatory strategies.
-He sees the possibilities for movements around health /mental health as arising from an alliance of users and providers, noting that both on their own have sometimes lead to very reactionary positions.
October 17, 2012
I think Sedgwick's critiques of psychiatry and anti-psychiatry are the best I've read, and they continue to inform my reading in this area. His discussion of future alternatives, while fascinating, I thought was too speculative and seemed to reflect more his libertarian streak and grounding in post-WWII NHS structures than a consistent application of his critical approach. Apart from that (tiny) caveat, Psycho-Politics is a masterpiece of clarity and incision.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews