| Abstract: | This article examines a central plank of mental health policy (‘recovery’) in societies which have attempted to reverse the long-term warehousing of those with a diagnosis of mental disorder (de-institutionalisation). The emergence of the concept is traced in relation to the shift from an institutional to a more dispersed and community-based form of service organisation. Different usages of the term ‘recovery’, each with distinct implications for practice are considered on the part of three main interest groups (traditional bio-medical psychiatrists; social psychiatrists emphasising social skills training; and dissenting service users). These different usages suggest that ‘recovery’ is a polyvalent concept that creates an uneasy consensus point to define the management philosophies of local services enacting mental health policy. Also mental health work is about more than the group of patients mainly considered in relation to recovery (those with ‘severe and enduring mental health problems’). Practice-near research strategies are now required to investigate the varied practical scenarios these contradictions generate and ethnographic research is therefore indicated. Without multiple ethnographies, we will be left with competing rhetoric about recovery and its meaning or meanings may be rendered worthless. |
