rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Learnings from earthworms: The ecstasy of an antipsychiatry breakthrough

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca for as little as $5 per month!

Toronto Reference Library. Flickr/Open Grid Scheduler

Approximately two years ago, I penned an article contending that the tide is beginning to turn against psychiatry, listing as examples of telling indicators thereof the ever growing critiques of DSM-5, the abundance of devastating exposés exposing the systematic "cooking" of psychiatric drug trials and the emergence of a special issue of Activa Scandinavica precisely on what has been euphemistically termed psychiatry’s "image problem."

Likewise an indicator, but on a far more modest scale, is the huge success of an educational event last week. This minor example is the focus of this article.

Exactly what was the event? It was a two-hour public library talk complete with Q&A that occurred on Dec. 6. And what makes this even a tiny indicator? This was a totally antipsychiatry talk, and it was the first time a public library sought out an antipsychiatry scholar/activist to deliver a speech of this ilk. What is significant here is the enormity of the turnout together with the highly positive reception. 

The event was the brainchild of Toronto librarian Masha Darkor, the event was kickstarted almost a year ago when Masha took the unprecedented move of turning up at the book launch of a new antipsychiatry book of mine called Psychiatry and the Business of Madness, with the intent of persuading me as author to give a book talk on the subject in the Beeton Auditorium of the Toronto Reference Library.

For those unfamiliar with this library, it is by far the largest public library in Toronto, located in the centre of the city. The significance of this invitation is that for the first time in history an antipsychiatry address would be happening in a totally mainstream venue. 

Discussions took place about accommodation needs, and in the fullness of time the date of Dec. 6, 2016 was agreed on.

As the big day came, the prognosis for even a fair-to-middling turnout was poor, for it was raining mercilessly. Nonetheless, against all odds, in unprecedented numbers, people turned up, most from Toronto, some schlepping in this highly inclement weather all the way from neighboring cities like Milton. According to the estimate provided by Toronto library official Richard MacCallum, the turnout was 212 people -- a figure never remotely garnered before by an antipsychiatry talk.

Correspondingly, hailing the event as a total success, in his correspondence the following day, MacCallum correctly pointed out that not only was the auditorium packed, just outside all three exits stood folk, listening intently, despite not being able to get in or even sit down.

Even a year ago, who would have thought such interest and determination possible?

If the number of people present and the staying power were impressive, so was the response. We began with a minute of silence in commemoration of the women killed in the Montreal Massacre for this was indeed the anniversary of that misogynous horror.

Later in the talk, I problematized the standard psychiatric claim that the various school shootings in general would not have happened had only the perpetrators been on psychiatric drugs. In response, I pointed out that the vast majority of the school shooters in North America had in fact been on a therapeutic dose of psychiatric drugs at the time of the shooting. The point and the horrific irony here is that these drugs, while being one of the causal factors, are being erroneously configured by psychiatry as the solution.

As the talk proceeded, with the problematizing of the concept mental illness, the exploration of the quality of psychiatric research and the etching out of different and more communal and respectful approaches to individual and social problems, not a soul in the auditorium budged. 

Come question period, it was clear that people had been listening intently, moreover, that the audience was not just comprised of what might be called "the usual suspects" but were a highly diverse group that hailed from all walks of life.

In the audience there were transparently students, psychiatric survivors, family members of survivors, academics, former police officers, taxi drivers, social service providers, activists (including from feminist and antiracist movements), health professionals (e.g., medical doctors, social workers, psychologists, naturopaths). 

What likewise suggested to me that an appreciable shift had occurred, the questions asked were both transparently informed and "onside." 

"Can you tell me what to do when someone is struggling with addictions?" asked one person. "What is the number one thing we should be doing as activists?" asked another. "Even if they knew nothing about how compromised the research is that underpins the treatments, how can doctors bring themselves to just impose drugs on their patients?" asked another person, peering about with incredulity.

Hands of people eager to ask questions kept rising, and we could have easily continued with the Q&A for another couple of hours. Adding to the triumph of the day, when the event was ostensibly over, people lined up in large number to connect with me, some professionals who wanted to discuss more about what concretely could be done, some survivors eager to relay their story. 

What adds further to my sense of the significance of the event is that I received an avalanche of enthusiastic emails from attendees the following day. Of these, one story especially touched my heart.

Despite the incessant rain, the woman who wrote the email drove all the way from Milton. Because, according to her, she had the uncanny feeling that coming to this lecture would be a life-changing event. She added that as she headed back home that evening she indeed saw proof that it was.

Irrespective of whether or not she is correct in her evaluation, what happened? As she departed the auditorium, she attempted to buy one of the antipsychiatry books being sold. Unfortunately, the machine refused her credit card. Prior to attending this lecture, she informed me, she would have responded to an outcome like this by becoming instantly downcast. Instead, inspired with a new confidence and hope, she laughed off what had happened as a minor inconvenience and headed home.

Now I am well aware that folk who are totally or even partially positive about psychiatry will to various degrees be unhappy, perhaps even livid, about what happened on that rainy evening. They may well see the enormity of the interest and enthusiasm sparked as dangerous, and several will immediately jump to critiquing both antipsychiatry and its advocates -- which is surely their right. 

Such response is inevitable when a central paradigm of any sort is under attack, especially when: a) people are convinced (indeed, such is hegemony that they have been taught to be convinced) that the well being of the vulnerable and society in general is dependent on said paradigm and the practices associated with it, and b) when they see a paradigm in which they and/or their loved ones have vested their trust beginning to crumble.

Now to be clear, I am in no way questioning the experiences of such folk for I totally respect that people are experts on their own experience -- I am questioning only the interpretation of that experience, as framed by psychiatry. And to be clear, of course, I feel for the fear and the pain involved.

At the same time, like the larger indicators touched on at the beginning of this article, the avid interest displayed signals to me something very different -- that ever more people, including professionals, are at long last seeing though the psychiatric pretense, are tired of false claims, recognize the inherent human rights violations, are disgusted by the vested interests at play and are hungering for a radically different, more human, more communal and more egalitarian approach to human distress and human conflict.

The hunger that evening was visible, was palpable, with a wholesale rejection of psychiatry unapologetically asserting itself. Not a single person, for instance, asked if there just might be chemical imbalances after all or indeed posed any objection to the general direction being articulated.

Now I am well aware that strenuous objections and deeply felt outrage will continue to emerge at future venues, for again, such is psychiatric hegemony. The point is, nonetheless, that evening "happened." That is, what would have once seemed impossible "happened.”

And herein, in however minor a way, let me suggest, we witnessed "the turning of the tide."

One final thought that not only antipsychiatry activists but also activists in other movements might want to take away with them: As an activist, you work for a long time seeing no signs of change and perhaps you are tempted to throw up your hands in despair. However, very often something utterly profound is shifting beneath the surface. 

In this regard, as peace activist Ursula Franklin always reminded us, change comes slowly, with work beneath the surface first preparing the way. To quote Ursula in reference to her earthworm theory of social activism, "From earthworms we learn that before anything grows, there has to be prepared soil."

For the longest while you see no change at all, as you doggedly go about your work of writing briefs, penning blogs, gathering statistics, and mounting demos, including ones that not a single media covers. That is, like the earthworm, you do the work of preparing the ground, albeit seemingly to no avail. Then as if from out of nowhere, you start to see evidence that incredible changes have been happening all along.

Such is precisely what those of us who squeezed into that auditorium had the privilege of witnessing that evening. And such is the ecstasy of it all.

For the original version of this article click here.  

For my speech that night click here

Like this article? rabble is reader-supported journalism.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.