From Tension to Cross-Constituency Solidarity: Coalition Building in Mad Studies

A Comment on Greg Procknow’s ‘Monopolized Madness’

Abstract

Procknow (2025; this volume) contributes another important critique by highlighting that people who identify as consumers (i.e., people with lived experience of the psychiatric system who partner with professionals to push for system change and greater control over their lives) have been largely excluded from Mad Studies. While I agree that the exclusion of consumer voices is concerning, Procknow (2025) suggests that survivors and anti-psychiatry proponents act as gatekeepers who intentionally exclude consumers. Although this may occur in some instances, other factors may also play a role, such as historic cross constituency tensions and consumers not seeing a place for themselves in Mad Studies due to the dominance of survivor and anti-psychiatry voices.