Recovery in mental health policy: good strategy or bad rhetoric?

Abstract

This article explores current positions on ‘recovery’ in Scottish mental health policy and the practical limitations of these positions from a rhetorical perspective. It is not our intention to conduct a formal policy analysis but rather to open up an argumentative space for thinking critically about recovery. In adopting a rhetorical perspective, we are concerned not with the quality of evidence in support of recovery per se, but with the quality of the arguments and the manner in which these have been produced, reproduced and promulgated to support recovery in terms of its adoption in policy and practice within the Scottish context. We sketch the background to the ‘case for’ recovery in Scotland by drawing upon key policy documents, referring to the public mental health focus in Scotland's mental health policy, and indicate how policy and practice on recovery have been evaluated in that context. We then explore the value of critical dialogue by exploring the potential limitations of the case for recovery by considering hope and the medical model as examples of themes in recovery policy and practice. In light of this analysis, we argue that while the policy and its implementation might be understood as a good strategy for addressing major issues in mental health, it is bad rhetoric to the extent that it limits argument, and therefore practical deliberation, about recovery. In conclusion, we discuss the implications of our argument for mental health practitioners, for whom a critical stance on health policy is a necessary resource.