Σπίτια φυγής

Για να δραπετεύεις..Πώς δημιουργήθηκε το Σπίτι Φυγής ( Peter Lehmann - Πέτερ Λέμαν )

2008-05-04T17:00:00.000-07:00

Peter Lehmann

Στο: Kerstin Kempker (Hg.), »Flucht in die Wirklichkeit. Das Berliner Weglaufhaus«, 1996, σ. 30 - 37

Μετάφραση από τα γερμανικά: Άννα Εμμανουηλίδου

Για να δραπετεύεις..

Πώς δημιουργήθηκε το Σπίτι Φυγής

Μια φορά κι έναν καιρό ήταν μια αντιψυχιατρική ομάδα αυτοβοήθειας επιζησάντων τη ψυχιατρικής, μια κοινότητα αλληλεγγύης με το όνομα «Η επίθεση των Τρελών» (Irrenoffensive e.V.). Οργανωθήκαμε μεταξύ μας το 1980 στο Βερολίνο, με σκοπό να στηρίξουμε και να ενδυναμώσουμε ο ένας τον άλλον, να ανταλλάσσουμε εμπειρίες και να αναλάβουμε από κοινού δράση ενάντια στην ψυχιατρική.

Μαζί με μέλη του «Κέντρου Διαμαρτυριών γύρω από τα Ψυχιατρεία» η ομάδα μας πήγε το 1982 με δύο βανάκια volkswagen στο Άμστερνταμ στο συνέδριο »Psychipol«, το οποίο αφορούσε σε εναλλακτικές λύσεις στην κλασική ψυχιατρική. Στο περιθώριο του συνεδρίου η ομάδα μας επισκέφτηκε το Wegloophuis Kaizersgracht, ήταν το ολλανδικό Σπίτι Φυγής στο Κάιζερσκραχτ. Η έκπληξή μας που υπήρχε κάτι τέτοιο, οδήγησε μετά την επιστροφή μας στο Βερολίνο στην σφοδρή επιθυμία να οργανώσουμε ένα σπίτι για ένα πρόγραμμα δικό μας. Δημιουργήθηκε μια «Ομάδα Σπιτιού» από μέλη της «Επίθεσης των Τρελών» και του «Κέντρου Διαμαρτυριών» του Βερολίνου, κατά κύριο λόγο από φοιτήτριες και φοιτητές ψυχολογίας, οι οποίοι δεν είχαν προσωπική ψυχιατρική εμπειρία (Stöckle 1983a). Αυτή η ομάδα συναντιόταν σταθερά και άρχισε σιγά-σιγά να διατυπώνει με κάποια σαφήνεια το τι έμελλε να διαδραματίζεται σ’ αυτό το σπίτι που οραματιζόμασταν. ΄Ηδη από το 1983 φάνηκε ότι υπήρχαν διαφορετικές απόψεις.

Ένα τμήμα της «Ομάδας Σπιτιού» ήθελε να ιδρύσει ένα εναλλακτικό αντιψυχιατρικά εμπνεόμενο τρελοκομείο, ένα «Σπίτι των Τρελών», στο οποίο θα έμεναν αποκλειστικά πρόσωπα με προσωπική ψυχιατρική εμπειρία, και κυρίως μέλη της «Επίθεσης των Τρελών». Το σύνθημά τους ήταν «κοινή ζωή, κοινή δουλειά, κοινός αγώνας». Το σπίτι θα πρόσφερε προστασία από την μόνιμη απειλή της προσαγωγής στο ψυχιατρείο. Επιδόματα πρόνοιας, ανάρρωσης και αναπηρικές συντάξεις θα πρόσφεραν την αναγκαία οικονομική εξασφάλιση, θα έκαναν περιττές κρατικές επιχορηγήσεις και θα καθιστούσαν εφικτή την απαλλαγή από την απομόνωση και τις συνθήκες ζωής που παρήγαγαν την τρέλα (Pietsch 1983).

΄Eνα άλλο τμήμα της «Ομάδας Σπιτιού» ήθελε επίσης ένα «Σπίτι των τρελών»: ωστόσο θα έπρεπε να είναι χρηματοδοτούμενο από το κράτος, καθοδηγημένο από τις εμπειρίες των άμεσα ενδιαφερόμενων, αλλά χωρίς αποκλεισμό άλλων εμπειριών. Η αμιγής πρόταση της αυτοβοήθειας θα διευρυνόταν, λαμβάνοντας υπόψιν ικανότητες ανθρώπων χωρίς ψυχιατρική εμπειρία και προς όφελος και άλλων κοινωνικών ομάδων. Αυτό το σπίτι όφειλε λοιπόν να στελεχωθεί και να λειτουργεί από μια κατά το δυνατόν μεικτή και αμειβόμενη ομάδα. Η Tina Stöckle, μια από τις συνιδρύτριες της «Ομάδας Σπιτιού» έγραφε εκείνη την εποχή, πως ακόμα δεν είχε αποφασιστεί «... αν θα μπορούσαν να δουλέψουν στο Σπίτι των Τρελών άνθρωποι που δεν είχαν υπάρξει ακόμα στο ψυχιατρείο. Η ουσιαστική προϋπόθεση για κάτι τέτοιο είναι, αυτοί οι άνθρωποι να έχουν αναπτύξει μια κατανόηση για τα προσωπικά τους προβλήματα και άρα για τα προβλήματα και των Τρελών, και να μπορούν να είναι εκεί, χωρίς την απαίτηση να εξαναγκάσουν ή να πειθαναγκάσουν σε κάτι κάποιον απ’ αυτούς που ζητούν βοήθεια (...)

Αυτό που μας έκανε εντύπωση στην «Σοσιαλιστική Αυτοβοήθεια Κολωνίας» (SSK, Sozialistische Selbsthilfe Köln e.V., P.L), είναι ότι οι επιμέρους συνεργάτες πρέπει να είναι πάρα πολύ δεσμευμένοι σ’ αυτό που κάνουν, και να λειτουργούν αυστηρά μέσα σε ομάδα, διαφορετικά θα κατέρρεε η συνολική οργάνωση. Σε ένα τέτοιο σχήμα υπάρχει ουσιαστικά πολύ λίγος χώρος για ανθρώπους, που για κάποιο διάστημα δεν μπορούν να οργανώσουν τον εαυτό τους και είναι υπερβολικά απασχολημένοι μ’ αυτό που τους συμβαίνει. Η ζωή στην «Σοσιαλιστική Αυτοβοήθεια» (SSK) είναι σκληρή και ως εκ τούτου απορρίπτεται για το δικό μας «Σπίτι των Τρελών» ως πρότυπο, γιατί εμείς θέλουμε ακριβώς να προσφέρουμε χώρο και προστασία σε ανθρώπους, που δεν λειτουργούν πια – πράγμα που κάποια στιγμή μπορεί να αφορά και σε μας τους ίδιους. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι μπορούμε μόνο περιορισμένα να αυτοχρηματοδοτηθούμε μέσα από συνεταιριστικές κολεκτίβες. Για τη δημιουργία ενός «Σπιτιού των Τρελών» θα ήταν αναγκαία γι’ αυτό μια κρατική επιχορήγηση« (Stöckle 1983b, σ. 31f).

Συμβιβαστικά καταλήξαμε στο εξής: κάθε πτέρυγα προσπαθεί να υλοποιήσει τη δική της ιδέα, οι δύο ιδέες δεν πρέπει να αλληλοαναιρούνται, αλλά το αντίθετο.

Στην πορεία του χρόνου η «Ομάδα Σπιτιού» μεγάλωσε. Σ’ αυτήν εντάχθηκαν όλο και περισσότερα μεμονωμένα άτομα, που δεν είχαν προσωπική ψυχιατρική εμπειρία, αλλά σκέφτονταν, λίγο ή πολύ, έξω από την ψυχιατρική ιδεολογία. Όπως είναι φυσικό, αναπτύχθηκαν σχέσεις και έρωτες ανάμεσα σε μέλη της «Ομάδας Σπιτιού». Και λειτουργούσε καλά, όσο κρατούσαν και οι σχέσεις. Όταν όμως διαλύονταν σχέσεις, ειδικά ανάμεσα σε άμεσα ενδιαφερόμενους και μη, ακολουθούσε και η γνωστή προσωπική καταστροφή των εμπλεκομένων: δεν ήταν πια εφικτή μια συνεργασία ανάμεσα σε άμεσα ενδιαφερόμενους και μη και ο πρώην σύντροφος που είχε απορριφθεί (ο μη άμεσα ενδιαφερόμενος), έπρεπε «να ψάξει τον εαυτό του και να αποχωρίσει».

Ενώ στα επόμενα χρόνια δεν αναφέρεται καμιά περαιτέρω δραστηριότητα από την πτέρυγα που υποστηρίζει την ίδρυση του «Σπιτιού των Τρελών» μόνο από άμεσα ενδιαφερόμενους, η Ομάδα που είχε οργανωθεί γύρω από την Tina Stöckle είναι πράγματι πολύ δραστήρια, παίρνει πάνω της όλη τη δουλειά για την οργάνωση του προγράμματος και αρχίζει να διατυπώνει τη φιλοσοφία.

Το 1986 ακούμε, τα μέλη αυτής της «Ομάδας Σπιτιού», για ένα ίδρυμα ενός μυθικά ζάμπλουτου ανθρώπου με το όνομα Jan Philipp Reemtsmas. Μάλιστα ένα μέλος της «Επίθεσης των τρελών» είχε στο παρελθόν και προσωπικές σχέσεις με την οικογένεια Reemtsma, καθώς η οικογένεια είχε χρηματοδοτήσει τις σπουδές του. Ωστόσο δεν θα ΄πρεπε να αναφερθούμε σ’ αυτή τη σχέση, μια και το μέλος μας είχε στο παρελθόν, στον καιρό της τρέλας του, εκνευρίσει δεόντως τους ευεργέτες του.

Μάθαμε πως το ίδρυμα Reemtsma χρηματοδοτεί κατά κύριο λόγο ερευνητικά προγράμματα. Έτσι, κάναμε αίτηση για κεφάλαια για έρευνα, και μάλιστα ειδικά για να ερευνήσουμε κατά πόσο μπορεί να δημιουργηθεί ένα «Σπίτι Φυγής» στο πρότυπο των ολλανδικών, αλλά με αντιψυχιατρική φιλοσοφία και χωρίς ψυχοφάρμακα (Πρόγραμμα Weglaufhaus 1987). Αυτή η ιδέα είχε κάποια πλεονεκτήματα σε σχέση με το «Σπίτι των Τρελών»: έμοιαζε πιο απλό να ιδρυθεί, γιατί η εμπειρία είχε δείξει ήδη ότι άνθρωποι που δραπέτευαν από τα ψυχιατρεία έψαχναν προστασία στην «Eπίθεση των Τρελών». Αυτοί οι άνθρωποι δεν ήταν καν τόσο τρελοί και αναζητούσαν κυρίως στέγη, νομική και οικονομική υποστήριξη και ανθρώπους για να μιλάνε. Δεν χρειαζόταν να βρούμε καμιά περαιτέρω φιλοσοφική απάντηση στο ερώτημα, πώς θα έφταναν στο Σπίτι τρελοί σε κρίση και τι θα έπρεπε τότε να γίνει μ’ αυτούς, γιατί η γενική εμπειρία ήταν ότι σ’ αυτήν την κατάσταση οι άνθρωποι δεν ήθελαν με τίποτα να μείνουν, ακόμα κι αν έξω υπήρχε η απειλή του ψυχιατρείου. Εκτός αυτού μπορούσαμε να χρησιμοποιήσουμε την εμπειρία των ολλανδικών σπιτιών.

Άνθρωποι χωρίς ψυχιατρική εμπειρία, με τους οποίους είχαμε μια θετική εμπειρία ως τότε, μπορούσαν να συμπεριληφθούν στη συνεργασία μαζί μας. Η επιρροή των άμεσα ενδιαφερόμενων στα τεκταινόμενα εξασφαλίστηκε με την κατοχύρωση του δικαιώματος του βέτο. Το Σπίτι Φυγής θα έπρεπε να προσφέρει αμειβόμενες θέσεις εργασίας και τα στελέχη του θα έπρεπε να διατηρούν το δικό τους σπίτι εκτός, ως έναν χώρο προσωπικής απόσυρσης και ξεκούρασης.

Δημιουργία της Ομάδας του Σπιτιού Φυγής

Οι επιχορηγήσεις απορρίφθηκαν με την κλασική αιτιολογία «καμιά αρμοδιότητα», ωστόσο η αναγκαία πρώτη γραπτή διατύπωση της φιλοσοφίας του προγράμματος μας βοήθησε να ξεκαθαρίσουμε οι ίδιοι το πόσο ριζικά διαφορετικές ιδέες υπήρχαν ανάμεσά μας, όταν μιλούσαμε για το «Σπίτι». Η δημοσίευση ενός άρθρου στο περιοδικό της «Επίθεσης των Τρελών», καθώς και άλλου τύπου δημοσιοποίηση της ιδέας, π.χ. στο ραδιόφωνο, οδήγησε στο να έρθουν σε επαφή με την Ομάδα του Σπιτιού και μια σειρά ενδιαφερόμενοι, χωρίς προσωπική ψυχιατρική εμπειρία.

Έτσι γεννήθηκε η «Ομάδα του Σπιτιού Φυγής» και εξελίχθηκε σε μια ομάδα με προσωπικό στίγμα και ομαδική συνείδηση. Η φιλοσοφία εξελίχθηκε περαιτέρω. Γράφτηκαν αιτήσεις χρηματοδότησης, εν μέρει και κάτω από τεράστια πίεση χρόνου, μια και από τις διάφορες διοικήσεις ετίθεντο συνεχώς προθεσμίες, με την τήρηση των οποίων συνδέαμε μεγάλες ελπίδες για την έγκριση του αιτήματός μας.

Ακόμα σ’ αυτή τη φάση το Σπίτι Φυγής βρίσκεται σε στενή σύνδεση με την «Επίθεση των τρελών». Ωστόσο στους κόλπους της «Επίθεσης» αρχίζουν να φαίνονται τα πρώτα μεγάλα προβλήματα. Η πρακτικές παύουν να είναι τόσο ειρηνικές και ικανοποιητικές όσο τα πρώτα χρόνια. Έρχεται η ρουτίνα. Μερικοί συνεργάτες, που βρισκόταν συχνά υπερβολικά πολύ στο επίκεντρο των δρώμενων, χάνουν την όρεξη να αφηγούνται ξανά και ξανά τη δική τους προσωπική ψυχιατρική ιστορία. Εμφανίζονται κατηγορίες εναντίον τους ότι γίνονται ελίτ, ότι είναι πιο καλά απ’ όσο θα ΄πρεπε, το καλύτερο θα ήταν να ξαναζήσουν για λίγο τι θα πει ψυχιατρική βία. Εμφανίζονται αμφιβολίες στο κατά πόσο έχει νόημα η ομάδα αυτοβοήθειας. Οι παλιές ιεραρχίες, οι βασισμένες στο πόσο είναι κανείς αγαπητός και αναγνωρισμένος, αντικαθίστανται από νέες ιεραρχίες: ποιος είναι π.χ. ο πιο επιζών της ψυχιατρικής ανάμεσα στους επιζώντες, ο πιο άμεσα ενδιαφερόμενος ανάμεσα στους άμεσα ενδιαφερόμενους, ποιος νιώθει χειρότερα; Οι άμεσα ενδιαφερόμενοι χωρίς ακαδημαϊκές σπουδές ή χωρίς πτυχίο είναι από άποψη αρχής πιο αυθεντικοί απ’ αυτούς με ολοκληρωμένες σπουδές; Το να υποφέρει κανείς μετατρέπεται σε εύσημο και το να είναι κανείς μορφωμένος σε μομφή, μια κομψή εμφάνιση ξυπνά υποψίες, άνδρες με κουστούμι θεωρούνται έτσι κι αλλιώς κοινωνικοί προδότες, όσα βασανιστήρια κι αν έχουν περάσει στα ψυχιατρεία. Ο χώρος συνάντησης της ομάδας πρέπει να θυμίζει τεκέ με την ακαταστασία του και όποιος θέλει εκεί να καθαρίσει και να συγυρίσει απορρίπτεται ως αστός και «Φυσιολογικός». Αλλά και άλλες συγκρούσεις εμφανίζονται και μπαίνουν ανάμεσά μας. Πόσο μπορούν οι ευαισθητούληδες να αντέξουν την εργασιομανία των τύπων Μάνατζερ; Πόσο ακόμα θα ανεχτούν όσοι επιχειρηματολογούν ψύχραιμα αυτούς που μοιάζουν να έχουν πάρει εργολαβία τον συναισθηματισμό; Και η γενική συνέλευση, στην οποία εκτός από το Προσωπικό συζητείται επίσης και το Πολιτικό, δεν βρίσκεται πολύ μακριά από τις ανάγκες αυτών που θέλουν κυρίως παρέα και κοινωνική ανταλλαγή («καφέ και κουτσομπολιό»);

Μερικά μέλη της «Επίθεσης των τρελών», που συνεργάζονται και στην ομάδα του «Σπιτιού Φυγής» προσπαθούν να αποφύγουν την γκρίνια που υφίστανται στη δευτεριάτικη συνέλευση της «Επίθεσης» και κανονίζουν να γίνονται οι γενικές συνελεύσεις της Ομάδας του Σπιτιού επίσης Δευτέρα απόγευμα. Αν σ’ αυτή τη συνάντηση έρχονται και μέλη της άλλης ομάδας, που δουλεύει για το «Σπίτι των τρελών» οι υπόλοιποι αισθάνονται ενοχλημένοι: δεν παρακολούθησαν τη συνολική εξέλιξη μέχρι τώρα και δε γίνεται να ξανασυζητιούνται και πάλι όλα απ’ την αρχή, επειδή τους έρχεται αυτούς να εμφανίζονται πότε-πότε.. Μη άμεσα ενδιαφερόμενοι, που τείνουν να χρησιμοποιούν πότε-πότε ψυχιατρικές έννοιες, δεν διαολοστέλνονται απ’ την αρχή. Στην ομάδα του «Σπιτιού φυγής» έχει ήδη αναπτυχθεί ένα ιδιαίτερο, πιο υπομονετικό στιλ συζήτησης, παρόλο που, κυρίως, η ιδεολογία της κοινωνικής ψυχιατρικής είναι το ίδιο απορριπτέα, όσο και στους κόλπους της «Επίθεσης των Τρελών».

Η Ομάδα του «Σπιτιού φυγής» και η «επίθεση των τρελών» φτάνουν σε σύγκρουση. Από την άλλη πλευρά η συμμετοχή μερικών προσώπων και στις δύο ομάδες και το γεγονός ότι και οι δύο είναι αντιψυχιατρικές και ελεγχόμενες από άμεσα ενδιαφερόμενους δημιουργεί μια σημαντική σύνδεση. Εκτός αυτού η «Επίθεση των Τρελών» είναι αναγνωρισμένη από το Δήμο του Βερολίνου ως οργανισμός κοινής ωφέλειας και τέλος πάντων δεν ήταν δική της επιθυμία να ιδρύσει ένα σπίτι φυγής; Αυτά τα δύο δεν αρκούν, ώστε να μην αμφισβητείται από πρώτης αρχής το ότι το Σπίτι Φυγής θα τρέξει κάτω από το φορέα της «Επίθεσης των τρελών»; Και όμως…

…τότε ήρθε το Εκατομμύριο

Ένα μέλος της ομάδας του Σπιτιού Φυγής επαναλαμβάνει από καιρού εις καιρόν ότι θα ήθελε να κάνει μια δωρεά για το Σπίτι, όπως έχει ήδη οριστεί η φιλοσοφία του. Αυτός ο άνθρωπος, ο οποίος όμως ήταν νέος στην ομάδα, δεν βρίσκει την αναμενόμενη προσοχή από τους υπόλοιπους, μια και η ομάδα είναι πεπεισμένη ότι είναι πολύ νωρίς για μια δωρεά μερικών χιλιάδων μάρκων , με την οποία δεν μπορούμε να πάμε και πολύ μακριά, κι έτσι αυτός πιέζει επιτέλους για ένα συγκεκριμένο ραντεβού. Σε μια πιτσαρία, με την παρουσία τριών έμπιστων για τον ίδιο μελών της ομάδας, ο άνδρας βγάζει από την τσέπη του το βιβλιάριο ενός λογαριασμού, και τον δείχνει: 1.000.000 μάρκα. Μ΄ αυτά τα χρήματα θα μπορούσαμε να αγοράσουμε ένα σπίτι.

Θέλει ωστόσο να παραμείνει ανώνυμος, από φόβο μήπως πια αντιμετωπίζεται από φίλους και γνωστούς μόνο ως χρηματοδότης. Η είδηση για τα λεφτά εξαπολύει στη ομάδα του Σπιτιού ενθουσιασμό, και πρώτα απ’ όλα στην «Επίθεση των Τρελών». Κι όμως…

…τότε έρχεται η σύγκρουση

Η Ομάδα του Σπιτιού φυγής οραματίζεται τον εαυτό της να φτάνει στο στόχο της αγοράζοντας το σπίτι. Το ίδιο όμως κάνει και η παράταξη του «Σπιτιού των Τρελών»: με αυτό το εκατομμύριο θα έφτανε πολύ κοντά στην πραγματοποίηση του ονείρου της. Εκπρόσωποι αυτής της παράταξης εισβάλλουν κυριολεκτικά στην γενική συνέλευση της «Επίθεσης των Τρελών», από την οποία έπρεπε να εκλεγούν το διοικητικό συμβούλιο και ταμίας, για να απαιτήσουν «πρόσβαση στο λογαριασμό». Για όσους δεν ξέρουν, πρέπει να ειπωθεί ότι μέχρι εκείνη τη στιγμή και για τα οχτώ χρόνια της ύπαρξης της ομάδας, η γενική συνέλευση της «Επίθεσης των Τρελών» ήταν ένα πράγμα που τελείωνε ειρηνικά και εντός δεκαλέπτου. Τώρα η συνέλευση πρέπει να συγκληθεί ξανά και ξανά , γιατί διαρκώς ακούγονται ουρλιαχτά και πετιούνται κούπες και ποτήρια στον αέρα κατά τη διάρκειά της. Ωστόσο αυτό δεν άλλαξε σε τίποτα στο θέμα του λογαριασμού. Το Εκατομμύριο δόθηκε όχι στην «Επίθεση των τρελών», αλλά στην ομάδα του «Σπιτιού φυγής» και μάλιστα όχι μετρητά, αλλά ως πληρωμή ενός σπιτιού, που έμελλε να αναζητηθεί και να αγοραστεί. Αυτές όμως οι λεπτομέρειες δεν ενδιέφεραν όμως κανέναν πια. Αν το εκατομμύριο δεν είναι στο λογαριασμό, αυτό σημαίνει ότι κλάπηκε – αυτή είναι η κατηγορία που διατυπώνεται τώρα. Ο δωρητής πρέπει να κατονομαστεί και να γίνει γνωστή η διεύθυνση του, ώστε μέλη της παράταξης του «Σπιτιού των Τρελών» να μπορέσουν να πάνε και να τον βρουν και να του εξηγήσουν ότι αυτοί έχουν μεγαλύτερα δικαιώματα στα χρήματα απ’ ό,τι εμείς: χρειάζονται μόνο ένα σπίτι και θα μπορούσαν να ξεκινήσουν αμέσως. Και αρχίζει η σφαγή της λασπολογίας.

Μια σειρά από υπόγειες συγκρούσεις καθιστά αδύνατη μια ειρηνική συμφωνία. Η Ομάδα του Σπιτιού Φυγής, παρόλο που στο μεταξύ έχει κερδίσει μια σχετική αυτονομία, παραμένει συνδεδεμένη με την «Επίθεση των τρελών», τόσο λόγω της ιστορίας συγκρότησής της και του κοινωφελούς χαρακτήρα της, όσο και λόγω της επικείμενης οικονομικής υποστήριξής της από το Δήμο. Μερικοί άμεσα ενδιαφερόμενοι της Ομάδας του Σπιτιού Φυγής συνεχίζουν να πιστεύουν σε μια καλοπροαίρετη λύση και προσπαθούν γι΄ αυτή, κάνοντας αδύνατο έναν γοργό χωρισμό των δύο ομάδων. Ο προσωπικός χωρισμός και ενός ζευγαριού από δύο μακροχρόνια μέλη της «Επίθεσης των Τρελών», η δυναμική του οποίου συχνά ξεσπούσε και εν μέσω των γενικών συνελεύσεων, επιβαρύνει ακόμα περισσότερο την κατάσταση. Η απέχθεια πολλών μελών της «Επίθεσης των τρελών» απέναντι σε ψυχολόγους, αποτέλεσμα των προσωπικών τους δυσάρεστων εμπειριών στα ιδρύματα και σε θεραπείες, παίρνει εύκολα τη μορφή προσωπικής επίθεσης εναντίον μεμονωμένων μελών της Ομάδας του Σπιτιού Φυγής.

Το 1989 ιδρύεται ο κοινωφελής «Σύλλογος για την προστασία από την ψυχιατρική βία» (Verein zum Schutz vor psychiatrischer Gewalt e.V. ). Η νομική δομή του συλλόγου και η εμπλοκή του με την «Επίθεση των Τρελών» αποδείχθηκε ανασταλτικός παράγοντας για δράση, και εκτός αυτού πρέπει να δοθεί η δυνατότητα σε πρόσωπα με μη ψυχιατρική εμπειρία να αναλάβουν δράση μέσα στο σύλλογο. Παρόλ’ αυτά εντάσσονται στον νέο σύλλογο και μέλη της «Ομάδας της Τρελών» Μακροχρόνια ενεργά μέλη της Ομάδας του Σπιτιού Φυγής εγκαταλείπουν με εκνευρισμό το σύλλογο, επικρατεί η σύγκρουση και το πράγμα μπλοκάρεται μέχρι του σημείου δημόσιων επιθέσεων, καθώς και μιας παρότρυνσης τριών μελών της «Επίθεσης των τρελών» προς την αντιδημαρχία Υγείας να μην υποστηρίξει οικονομικά το προγραμματισμένο «Σπίτι Φυγής». Ωστόσο όλ’ αυτά δεν προκαλούν καμιά σοβαρή ζημιά, γιατί ο Δήμος απορρίπτει έτσι κι αλλιώς την αίτηση χρηματοδότησης.

Peter Lehmann

Στο: Kerstin Kempker (Hg.), »Flucht in die Wirklichkeit. Das Berliner Weglaufhaus«, 1996, σ. 30 - 37

Μετάφραση από τα γερμανικά: Άννα Εμμανουηλίδου

Βλ. http://www.antipsychiatrieverlag.de/verlag/titel/flucht.htm

Για να δραπετεύεις..

Πώς δημιουργήθηκε το Σπίτι Φυγής

Δημιουργία της Ομάδας του Σπιτιού Φυγής

…τότε ήρθε το Εκατομμύριο

…τότε έρχεται η σύγκρουση

οικονομικά το προγραμματισμένο «Σπίτι Φυγής». Ωστόσο όλ’ αυτά δεν προκαλούν καμιά σοβαρή ζημιά, γιατί ο Δήμος απορρίπτει έτσι κι αλλιώς την αίτηση χρηματοδότησης.

Στα επόμενα χρόνια, αρχές της δεκαετίας του 90, εγκαταλείπουν σταδιακά και άλλα μέλη την «Επίθεση των Τρελών» και προσχωρούν εν μέρει στο Σύλλογο για την Προστασία από την ψυχιατρική βία. Όλα τα μέλη της παράταξης των «Τρελών» χάνουν επίσης το ενδιαφέρον τους για την «Επίθεση των τρελών», αλλά συνεχίζουν να κριτικάρουν στο περιοδικό τους με το δικό τους τρόπο (Aύγουστος 1991) το πρόγραμμα του Σπιτιού Φυγής. Αυτά τα γραπτά συνεχίζουν να εμφανίζονται και να ανάβουν μια φωτιά, που παλιά δεν υπήρχε.

Το φάντασμα του τρόμου συνεχίζει να στοιχειώνει ατέλειωτες και κυρίως άχρηστες συζητήσεις και τη σιωπή που έμεινε πίσω, ο καταστροφικός διχασμός των κριτικά σκεπτόμενων επιζησάντων της ψυχιατρικής στο Βερολίνο συνεχίζει να υπάρχει..

Πέτερ Λέμαν, 1996, το κείμενο γράφτηκε λίγο πριν την τελική ίδρυση του Σπιτιού Φυγής.

Unconventional approaches to psychiatry

2008-05-04T16:58:00.000-07:00

Peter Lehmann and Kerstin Kempker, Berlin

Unconventional approaches to psychiatry

The interestes of "users" of psychiatry, who want to have self-determination, physical health and help free from diagnosis and neuroleptics, oppose the interests of psychiatrists. This contested occupation, sponsored by drug companies, tries, even by force, to "help" disturbing and troublesome people.

Berlin's patients' movement tries to organize the isolated victims, to fight for human rights of psychiatrized persons, to aid self-help, to overcome the straitjacket of psychiatric diagnosis, to publish information about the risks of psychiatric drugs and electric shocks and to influence political decisions on psychiatric developments (Stöckle, 1983).

Of course, the Berlin government and institutional psychiatry' especially community psychiatry' ignore the demands of the organized survivors and expand the psychiatric system of administration of long-acting drugs. So the scandal of tardive dyskinesia, tardive psychosis and of suicidal' chromosome-damaging, receptor-altering and (in the mammary glands) tumour-building effects of neuroleptics (Lehmann, 1990) has not caused the government 10 rethink its politics. What is more, the inmates of "clinics" have no protection from being forced 10 have electric shocks or insulin-induced coma, causing great harm. People outside the psychiatric institutions who want to get emotional help, run the risk of being diagnosed, registered and committed when they get in touch with community psychiatry. Once they become the targets of this district psychiatry, the treatment, especially the treatment with long-acting psychiatric drugs (depot-neuroleptics) will be continued over years, perhaps for a lifetime (Lehmann, 1989). The medical model (of madness) is taught in all psychiatric and psychological university departments, so it is logical that many psychiatrists cannot meet people with emotional problems (or who make emotional problems for others), they can only confront them with their psychiatric diagnosis and treatment, as the German social scientist Kerstin Kempker has pointed out (Kempker, 1991).

In Berlin there is sufficient money for the psychiatric department, but the government, with approval from community psychiatry, gives almost no money 10 organizations of "patients", compared with the millions of DM which psychiatrists receive. In particular the scandal of the Berlin runaway-house project, which doesn't get any support from the government, demonstrates that in Germany the development of psychiatry since 1945 hasn't made great progress. On the one hand a private person in Berlin made a DM 1,000,000 gift to buy a runaway-house for the 'Union for Defence from Psychiatric Violence' (a Union of so-called normal people and former inmates) and many internationally respected people: Peter R. Breggin, Judi Chamberlin, David Hill, Lars Martensson, Thomas Szasz and other lawyers, physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists supported the project publicly. On the other hand, in "modern" Berlin the government and the psychiatrists want to strangle this aid project for people who have escaped from neuroleptic treatment (Wehde, 1991).

Another ray of hope could be the effective world-wide practice of the "Psychiatric Will", created by Walter Bock and Szasz and elaborated by the "patients" movement and lawyer Hubertus Rolshoven (Berlin) as a legal protection against involuntary psychiatric treatment. People can write down, in a state of undoubted normality, their wishes about psychiatric treatment or non-treatment in the event that they are later brought into psychiatric "clinics", called "mentally ill" and "in need of" neuroleptic or other treatment (Szasz, 1987). In the last three years, if the psychiatric will has been written correctly the lawyer and the assigned persons of trust have been active to enforce the written will of the inmate, no psychiatrist has risked violating the psychiatric will. In 1990 the first leader of a large psychiatric institution (mad house) promised publicly that in his institution psychiatric wills would he accepted without any discussion. Judges explained that they would not and could not impose any treatment-guardianships upon inmates, if these resist treatment but have a psychiatric will written well before commitment; the will of psychotic inmates, during the state of psychosis, will not be taken seriously, but where the will is clear, i.e. written down, it would be an offence to install a treatment-guardianship and infer a different "will" of the psychotic subject.

Nevertheless, in Berlin only organized people and people with psychiatric wills are protected and may get some help, if wanted, by friends or non-psychiatric services. The majority of normal "patients" are without legal protection against forced psychiatric treatment, without information about the risks and damage of neuroleptic and other psychiatric drugs and shock methods, without real human help in situations in which they really want social and emotional support. There is no night to drug-free help in Berlin. The expansion of community psychiatry, particularly the widening of the periods of chemical treatment, the widening of the circle of "users" and the widening of treatment upon ("nervous") children, the ("disturbed") elderly and ("aggressive") normal and mad prisoners will exacerbate the situation of psychiatryafflicted people more and more. The incorporation of gene-technological methods into the psychiatric system could be the ultimate catastrophe.

The runaway-house was due to start in September 1992; the campaign for the Psychiatrie Will continues: its legal safeguarding is one of the central tasks of the 1991 - launched European Network of 'Users' of Psychiatry.

References

§ KEMPKER, K. (1991) Teure Verständnislosigkeit - Die Sprache der Verrücktheit und die Entgegnung der Psychiatrie. Epilogue by Thilo von Trotha. Berlin: Peter Lehmann Antipsychiatrieverlag

§ LEHMANN, P. (1989) Demokratische Psychiatrie oder Antipsychiatrie. In: Widerspruch (Zurich), 9(18), 81-99

§ LEHMANN, P. (1990) Der chemische Knebel - Warum Psychiater Neuroleptika verabreichen. Preface by Jeffrey Masson, 2., corrected and actualized edition. Berlin: Peter Lehmann Antipsychiatrieverlag

§ STÖCKLE, T. (1983) Die Irren-Offensive. Erfahrungen einer Selbsthilfe-Organisation von Psychiatrieopfern. Frankfurt/Main: Extrabuchverlag

§ SZASZ, T. S. (1987) Das Psychiatrische Testament. With directions by lawyer Hubertus Rolshoven. Berlin: Peter Lehmann Antipsychiatrieverlag. (English version: The psychiatric will. A new mechanism for protection of persons against "psychosis" and psychiatry. The American Psychologist, 37,7, (1982) 762-769

WEHDE, U. (1991) Das Weglaufhaus - Zufluchtsort für Psychiatrie-Betroffene. Erfahrungen, Konzeptionen, Probleme. Preface by Jeffrey Masson. Berlin: Peter Lehmann Antipsychiatrieverlag

The Runaway-House in Berlin

2008-05-04T16:57:00.000-07:00

Kerstin Kempker

The Runaway-House in Berlin

We opened the Runaway-House "Weglaufhaus" on the first of January in 1996. We that are the "Association for Protection against Psychiatric Violence" founded seven years earlier by a small group of survivors and other antipsychiatric activists. (In Germany we don't speak of survivors, but of "Psychiatrie-Betroffene". A term, that can't be translated into English. It means people who are afflicted by or confronted with psychiatry. It is a less radical and more neutral term than survivor, but it is far away from the term user.)

What is the Runaway-House?

The Runaway-House is an antipsychiatric crisis-centre for homeless survivors of Psychiatry, for people who mostly spent a long time in psychiatric wards and who want to live without psychiatry, without its diagnosis and without its drugs. This decision for self-determination and for self-responsibility doesn't mean that it can be achieved by decision. It is a first and a necessary step. But after years far away from one's own wishes, possibilities, even from the own body, you need more than a decision.

You need

§ support by day and by night

§ people who listen, who are interested, who trust in one's words and who believe in one's future

§ an intensive exchange with other residents about their experiences

§ a few rules: No violence (especially physical violence against others), mutual respect, no alcohol or illegal drugs in the house

§ a place, where the everyday life can be tried once again or for the first time.

After about ten years of struggle the Runaway-House is the first German institution of this kind that gets official funding. According to § 72 of the "Federal Social Welfare Law", called "Help in special social difficulties", only homeless people can get the day-rate of 200 Deutschmark (about 103 €) for up to six months. But they don't get it easily. In Berlin we have 23 different Social Welfare offices with 23 different ways of decision-making, and every resident has to visit one of them and to fulfil all of its—sometimes incredible—wishes. For people with enormous problems, without a home, mostly without friends and with a lot of drug-caused physical problems this situation is very distressing, even if they are accompanied to the office.

What is antipsychiatric in the Runaway-House?

§ The residents are responsible for themselves. They are not mentally ill, even if they partially live in other realities or fall in deep crises.

§ No diagnosis, no drugs (except the psychiatric drugs people take, who prefer a slow withdrawal step by step), no coercion and no psychiatrists

§ All documents we have to write about them are open to the residents. They can comment and even correct them

§ At least half of the team members are survivors of psychiatry. (At the moment we are 12 workers—7 women, 5 men—7 are survivors)

§ The professional qualification of the workers is less significant than human qualities (tolerance, sensitivity, a sense of humour), experiences in dealing with conflicts and a clear antipsychiatric attitude

§ The decision-making bodies all are survivor-controlled. Decisions are made transparently. The house meeting of all residents and two workers twice a week is the highest authority in the house. The team meets once a week. If there are contradictory decisions or basic questions, a "general assembly" of all residents and the team takes place. The very final decision stays with the Association.

Who lives in the house?

The residents mostly come from Berlin, but some come from other parts of Germany or from Switzerland. They all were inmates in psychiatric institutions and are homeless or threatened to lose their accommodation. One third of them comes directly out of a psychiatric institution, 20% are homeless and living in the streets, 23% come from other social or social psychiatric institutions or women's shelters, and the rest come from their families, friends or—seldom—out of their own apartments, where they cannot stay anymore. In the first three years 132 persons lived in the house, 63 women and 69 men. The majority have long histories of psychiatric treatment; most have been institutionalised various times, have been forcibly treated and heavily drugged. And most have not only experienced psychiatric violence, but also sexual, physical or psychic violence during their childhood. Most do not have professional qualifications and live on Social Welfare aid. Often the residents have guardians for specific tasks.

What happens in the house?

The Runaway-House is no therapeutic institution. It deals with the daily life and problems. And there are enough of them. Up to thirteen residents share the old and not very huge villa and organize the household.

The task of the workers is to make it function, to support and to clarify conflicts. There is no timetable, no program, but there are a lot of individual, social, legal and financial problems that have to be solved. The main task is planning a future with each of the residents, a future work, living, relationships, a future of life beyond psychiatry.

Especially in the evening and the night residents often re-experience traumatic situations, they can't sleep and have a hard time, they don't trust in their own future, even hurt themselves. We share the sleepiness nights, propose a walk on the nearby fields, go together in the sports' room, where one can cry, box or throw things against the wall. Or we listen and speak about similar experiences.

As long as some form of communication and a rest ot self-responsibility exist, crisis and madness are possible in the Runaway-House. If contact or agreements become completely impossible for a longer time and the atmosphere in the house is heavily disturbed, a resident may have to leave the house.

Are there any problems?

Of course there are a lot of problems. I give you some key words:

§ The time: 6 months are a very short time to solve fundamental problems

§ The enemies of the house: neighbours, who carefully observe us; political enemies, who try to close the house; enemies in the administration, who don't pay; and our best and oldest enemy, psychiatry

§ The lack of other antipsychiatric institutions

§ Little tolerance among the residents (sometimes), a wish of an antipsychiatric nursing

§ We are not enough workers, sometimes we get tired or (rarely) even mad

So it is not easy to live or to work in the house, very often it is loud and chaotic, the fridge is empty, you don't find any spoon or coffee-pot, thick clouds of cigarette-smoke hang in the air and nobody wants to do anything.

I like this place, but I can't work there forever. And our residents have the best chances in life, when they were able to spend a long time in this particular house.

The Berlin Runaway-House – Three Years of Antipsychiatric Practice

2008-05-04T16:54:00.000-07:00

Iris Hölling

The Berlin Runaway-House – Three Years of Antipsychiatric Practice

The Berlin Runaway-house "Weglaufhaus" was finally opened on January 1, 1996, after ten years of struggle for its realization. It is the first anti-psychiatric institution that managed to get official funding as crisis centre for homeless survivors of psychiatry. [The German term Psychiatrie-Betroffene (persons afflicted by / confronted with psychiatry) does not really translate into English. Since most of the members of the Association for Protection against Psychiatric Violence identify as survivors rather than (ex-)users of psychiatry, I chose the term survivors of psychiatry, although it is more radical and critical than Psychiatrie-Betroffene. To my mind, however, Psychiatrie-Betroffene accentuates the violence of getting into psychiatry compared to the nowadays popular term of Psychiatrie-Erfahrene (persons who have experienced psychiatry) which is used by the German national association of (ex-)users and survivors of psychiatry Bundesverband Psychiatrie-Erfahrener.] The Runaway-house is a place for people who want to get out of revolving-door psychiatry and have decided that they want to live without psychiatric diagnoses and psychiatric drugs. It opens up a space outside or beyond the (social)psychiatric net that keeps people dependent, a space in which the residents can try to regain control over their lives. Here they can recover, regain their strength, talk about their experiences and develop plans for the future without psychiatric views of illness blocking access to their feelings and their personal and social difficulties. Refusing any diagnoses opens new perspectives on people's lives which for years have been categorized and reduced to symptoms to be combatted or reduced. Responsibility returns to the residents themselves.

It took ten years of fighting

The Runaway-house originates from the survivor movement in Germany. [Some of the basic ideas behind the Runaway-house in its early stages can be found in Uta Wehde's article ""the runaway-house: human support instead of inhuman psychiatric treatment" in: Changes, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1992, pp. 154-160.] After being a project group within the Lunatics' Offensive (Irren-Offensive), a self-help group for survivors, the Association for Protection against Psychiatric Violence (Verein zum Schutz vor Psychiatrischer Gewalt e.V.) was founded in 1989 as a mixed group of survivors and other antipsychiatric activists. In 1990 a private donator whose son killed himself in a psychiatric institution bought the villa which was turned into the Runaway-house. The house being the only prerequisite for the Berlin Senate to assure the financing of its running turned out not to be sufficient any more after political majorities had changed. It took another six years of intensive fighting with contradictory demands of the various authorities involved until finally a day rate remuneration for people's stay in the house was agreed upon according to §72 BSHG (Federal Social Welfare Law) "Help in special social difficulties". This also meant a limitation of the target group to clients who are homeless or in danger of losing their homes.
Being an openly antipsychiatric project the Runaway-house continues to challenge psychiatry and to be perceived as provocation for a lot of different social actors. The neighbours went into court in order to prevent the house from opening but did not succeed. However, they are still carefully observing the house, although so far nothing extraordinarily dangerous has happened. The Runaway-house also has a lot of political enemies, but we hope that the longer we prove that we are working successfully, the weaker their position gets.

Daily life in the Runaway-house

The concept consists of not having a concept. Instead of being a therapeutic institution, the Runaway-house focusses on everyday life. Up to thirteen residents share the old villa in a Northern part of Berlin and organize the household, i.e. cooking, cleaning, shopping, working in the garden or shape the house by themselves. The workers have a different role, but play a part in it and serve as facilitators or supporters and add the perspective of holding the house together, ensuring its functioning.

The team consists of 10 part-time permanent workers and two who work on a honorary basis. More important than formal professional qualifications are qualities such as attentiveness, tolerance, sensitivity, openness, personal experience, the ability to deal with conflicts and a clear antipsychiatric attitude. This means considering the residents without prejudice, being direct, honest and upfront with them, not to think of them in terms of mental illness but to regard them as responsible human beings, who decide about their lives themselves. At least half of the team members are survivors of psychiatry. Having been an inmate of a psychiatric institution does not in itself qualify people for working in the Runaway-house, but having had the experience oneself and reflected upon it and gotten out of it and having found other ways to come to terms with extraordinary emotions, experiences, perceptions, madness [The German word for mad or crazy "verrückt" contains the notion of being distant from normality, if you take it literally. This means madness can be considered as a relationship rather than a quality or defect attributed to the crazy person. According to those connotations I consider madness or craziness as descriptive and not pejorative terms.] than psychiatry's violence against them is a particular knowledge that is part of the foundations of the Runaway-house. However, it is important to note that not every inmate of a psychiatric institution has been crazy. The less significant professional qualifications of team members (of both, survivors and non-survivors) include social workers, pedagogues, philosophers, psychologists, mecanics. There are no medical professionals and especially no psychiatrists working in the house.

Who lives in the house?

The residents who can live in the Runaway-house for up to six months have all been inmates in psychiatric institutions and are homeless or threatened to lose their accommodation. 34% of the residents (statistics referring to 1996-98) came directly out of a psychiatric hospital, 20% were homeless and living in the streets, 23% came from other social(psychiatric) institutions or women's shelters, 13% came from their families, friends or acquaintances and 8% out of their own appartments where they could not stay anymore.

In the first three years 132 persons lived in the house, 63 women and 69 men, the average stay in the house was 62 days. In the first two years women stayed a lot longer than men, 98 compared to 38 days, in 1998 the average stay of women and men was almost identical. The majority of those who seek advice and support in the Runaway-house have long histories of psychiatric treatment, most have been institutionalized various times, have been forcibly treated and heavily drugged. They have been labelled with all kinds of psychiatric diagnoses during their stays in psychiatric institutions. These diagnostic labels are completely irrelevant in the Runaway-house. If they are 33 years old which is the average age of the residents, although the scope is from 18-68 years of age, psychiatry has mostly determined their lives for more than ten years.

It is decisive to note that hardly anybody gets referred to the Runaway-house by other institutions. We insist on people interested in staying in the house to contact us by themselves. Residents can only be in the house voluntarily and they are free to leave at any time. In the introductory talk where we try to find out whether the Runaway-house is the right place for a person we only rely on the information given to us by the potential resident. We trust his/her self-description and do not demand any authority's opinion. In my eyes, this starting point of taking a person and his/her self-presentation seriously and trusting their own words makes an enormous difference to their former experience due to institutionalization, since almost all the residents have experienced stigmatization and prejudice because of their psychiatric labels.

To my mind, one of the most important characteristics of the Runaway-house is that it offers a choice and a new perspective to those who are dissatisfied with psychiatric services' treatment. Thus, the explicit offer that people can withdraw from psychiatric drugs (neuroleptics, antidepressants, tranquillizers, lithium, carbamazepine etc.) in the supported environment the Runaway-house provides makes it a unique place. Since there are no doctors in the house, the residents are consulting general practitioners or other supportive doctors outside the house that are not easy to find. We mostly advise those residents who have taken their decision to get off psychiatric drugs gradually, especially if they have taken them for a long time. We also talk about questions like: What helps you, if you get crazy? Which kind of support do you want or need? Which experiences do you have with withdrawal? Most residents are amazed when asked about their wishes and experiences because nobody has asked them such questions before. Often they do not know what they would want or need because they never had the possibility to experience it. We then try to find out about helpful strategies together.

What happens in the house? – Forms of support

There is no therapeutic concept behind the work in the Runaway-house. Residents get support in everything they want. They choose two team members as persons of confidence, i.e. workers who feel especially responsible for them, who keep an eye on the things to do or to sort out. The residents can and will discuss and do things with every team member available, but there are sympathies and you get on more easily with some people. This system of special attention or responsibilities also enables the residents to choose with whom they want to talk more intensively.

Besides the important possibility of living through crisis, madness or extreme situations in a supported environment without being numbed by psychiatric drugs, the support is directed mainly to daily life. Planning a future: How do the residents want to live after their time in the Runaway-house: by themselves in an appartment of their own? Together with others in a shared appartment? In some kind of sheltered or supported living? It is often difficult to find some kind of sheltered appartment where the residents' critical attitude towards psychiatry and psychiatric drugs is respected, since we are the only antipsychiatric institution in Berlin. But we sometimes negotiate and succeed in finding solutions.

Most of the residents do not have professional qualification or training, some have not even finished school. Here we talk about their ideas: Do they want to go back to school? Are they interested in an apprenticeship or training? Which kind of professional future do they imagine for themselves? What are their talents? How could they realize their ideas on a long term basis? Dealing with the employment office and training centres, doing applications, filling in forms are practical helps in this field.

On a lower level, spare time activities and interests are relevant. Depending on the interests of the residents art or gardening activities might take place within the house. Excursions outside the house, swimming, going to parties, dancing, sport courses, going to the cinema ..., trying new things. Workers or interns might make suggestions or bring in their own interests, but it is always the residents' choice which activities might happen or not.

Clarifying the financial situation of the residents is also a task. Most of the residents live on Social Welfare aid, some get pensions or unemployment benefits. To find out which benefits they are entitled to, which authorities are responsible and to make the claims correctly are also part of our offer. If residents have debts we advise them in making arrangements with creditors.

Moreover, the juridical situation of the residents can be an issue. Often the residents have guardians for specific tasks. If the want to change their guardian because they cannot trust him/her or feel patronized and not supported, they are helped to change the guardian or to even get rid of him/her at all. We also refer residents to competent lawyers for specific questions.
Another important means to protect yourself, if you end up in psychiatry again is the "Psychiatric Will", i.e. advanced directives where you declare how you want to be treated and what you refuse, which drugs you might agree to take, who are persons of confidence to be consulted, what you need in crisis... It is important to make such a Psychiatric Will in a state of "undoubted normality", i.e. when outside a psychiatric institution. This means has some juridical validity in Germany and it enables people to get sooner out of hospitals and also to sue psychiatrists if they do not respect their wills. [The German version of the Psychiatric Will is published in: Kerstin Kempker, Peter Lehmann (ed.), Statt Psychiatrie, Berlin: Peter Lehmann Antipsychiatrieverlag 1993, p. 253-298. The German version refers to Thomas Szasz, "The psychiatric will – A new mechanism for protecting persons against ›psychosis‹ and psychiatry", in: American Psychologist, 1982, Vol. 37, No. 78, p. 762-770, and "The psychiatric will: II. Whose will is it anyway?", in: American Psychologist, 1983, Vol. 38, No. 3, p. 344-346. Cf. also: Kerstin Kempker, Peter Lehmann, "Unconventional approaches to Psychiatry" in: Clinical Psychology Forum, Jan. 1993, p. 28-29.]

Most of the residents are very isolated when they come to the Runaway-house. Thus, reflecting upon relationships with (former) friends and family members plays an important role. Sometimes this means to try to reactivate contacts or friendships, sometimes it also means to end destructive relationships. In the house the residents are confronted with a community of survivors who have had similar experiences. To encourage the self-help potential in the residents is an important basis for the events in the house. Some residents get on well with each other, support each other and even develop friendships or contacts that last after their stay in the house. But there are also a lot of conflicts among the residents. Sometimes residents think that others persecute them or want to harm them. If there are conflicts, we first encourage the residents to solve them on their own, but if they do not succeed, a worker would serve as mediator and be there as a third person. It sometimes takes a lot of work and ongoing discussion and confrontation to clarify that different perceptions of the same reality are equally valid. A feeling of persecution might be real, although the other person does not have any intention or interest to do so. Finding a shared reality is an ongoing struggle.

Every resident has his/her own story. Most residents have not only experienced psychiatric violence, but also sexual, physical or psychic violence during their childhood. Talking about their lives and being believed in the traumatic experiences is an important part in the Runaway-house reality. Residents are empowered to shed a different light on their personal history that goes beyond the psychiatric view, to make sense of their experiences, to reappropriate their past. This is a decisive aspect of the space the Runaway-house opens.

Structures

User-control is assured in the Runaway-house on various levels. In the Association for Protection against Psychiatric Violence the survivor members who currently hold the majority of the members have a right to veto on all matters. In the team we have established a quota which assures that at least 50% of the workers are survivors of psychiatry. Half of the team members have to be women – in fact, there were always more women than men working in the house.

Decision making bodies are the weekly team meeting and the house meeting twice a week with all the residents and the two workers present. From time to time, especially when basic decisions are to be discussed, a "general assembly" of the team and all residents takes place.

As transparency is a key issue for people who have experienced being decided upon without their knowledge or being denied access to their psychiatric files, all official documents and internal notes are written in cooperation with the residents and always accessible to them. They have the possibility to attend the team meeting when we talk about them. We also document what we said about them and tell them afterwards. They always can comment on anything team members write on their behalf. Initially, we did not want to have any files or documentation, but this became indispensable because of official funding through the Social Welfare authorities. However, we do not write anything about residents without their agreement and we try to communicate as few personal details as possible, in order to respect their privacy.

The house meeting is the highest authority in the house. Organisational and everyday life issues are discussed there, common activities are planned, conflicts among the residents can be thematized and all decisions concerning life in the house are made there. This also includes votes on visitors, new residents' stays after a two weeks trial period and on future interns or workers after they have trial worked for a day. The team also has a vote and would take the final decision, if the votes were completely opposite, but we have not had a situation of a team decision completely against the residents' vote. The very final decision, however, lies with the Association. The team members only serve as facilitators at the house meetings.

Finances

The stay in the Runaway-house is financed on grounds of § 72 BSHG (Federal Social Welfare Law). With the day-rate-remuneration which is part of "help in special life situations" guaranteed by the law only the very basic needs are covered. The coverage of the costs has to be granted for each resident individually by one of the 23 different Social Welfare offices in Berlin. This leads to an enormous bureaucracy and distressing situations for the residents, since a lot of the responsible offices raise difficulties for the coverage of the costs, take a long time to decide, grant the aid only for a very short time or demand an enormous amount of documents and justifications. To characterize this type of "official madness", I invented the new diagnosis "folia officialis" which describes the production of floods of papers, a denial of responsibility, a lack of accessibility etc. [For further details on this topic cf. my article "Ämterwahn" in the book about the Runaway-house: Flucht in die Wirklichkeit, ed. by Kerstin Kempker, Berlin: Peter Lehmann Antipsychiatrieverlag 1998, p.149-158. The book gives an excellent and colourful practical view of the life in the Runaway-house and includes articles by residents, workers, interns and members of the association.]

In times of scarce ressources and cuts on budgets, some of the official representatives consider the Runaway-house with a day-rate of 200 DM per day as expensive, but this depends on the object of comparison. Compared to other institutions for homeless people that are not crisis centres but so-called "lice pensions" of very low standards with very little support, the Runaway-house might seem relatively expensive, but compared to psychiatric wards (300-700 DM per day) it is extraordinarily cheap. It is a short-sighted and very limited perspective to just consider your own restricted domain. This narrow perspective combined with the arrogant attitude towards the residents as expensive burden instead of persons in need who claim their rights leads to very humiliating experiences for the residents and often causes fear and anger towards the authorities. In these situations, the support of the residents in the fight for their legitimate demands becomes vital. However, among the 23 different offices in Berlin we also encounter representatives that are very supportive and ready to help who are happy that a place for the doubly discriminated group of homeless survivors of psychiatry exists.

The financial situation of the Runaway-house remains precarious, although we have survived the first three years, but only by means of radical economies, temporary worsening of working conditions and a great deal of self-exploitation of the workers.

The existence of the house is also still in danger. The actual financing agreement (which states the day-rate-remuneration the different Social Welfare authorities are supposed to pay for a resident's stay in the house) comes to an end in December 1999. The change in the §93 BSHG (Federal Social Welfare Law) which sets the juridical grounds for the remuneration of social services now demands a new general agreement for the land of Berlin. However, as negotiations could not be agreed, as planned for the 1.1.1999, a transitory agreement was necessary. It took a lot of public and international support and intensive lobby work to finally persuade the Berlin Senator for Health and Social Services who at first refused to continue the financial basis for the Runaway-house. Probably, the juridical impossibility of cancelling the agreement at that point was the major reason for her to finally give in. Negotiations between the Berlin Senate and the Welfare Associations are continuing for a permanent agreement after 2000. As we still have influential political enemies, we cannot be sure that once again purely political reasons and unfounded prejudice alongside ideologically motivated opposition might lead to arbitrary denial of funding. This is why the Runaway-house still needs moral and financial support.

Success

It is difficult to conclude success from statistics or to describe it in abstract terms. Moreover, only the residents themselves can evaluate the importance of their time in the Runaway-house.

20% of the residents moved into their own appartments (sometimes with an individual support worker for some hours a week). 25% moved into other institutions such as sheltered accommodation, supported living, women's places. 17% went to stay with friends or their families. 13% went into a psychiatric or psycho-somatic hospital. As for this group it is important to note that e.g. in 1998, four out of eight residents who went into psychiatry stayed only four 4 days in the Runaway-house, the other four less than a month. 7% left for the street or shelters for homeless people and 5% are unknown to us.

Statistically, it is evident that the longer the stay in the Runaway-house the higher the number of those who move into their own appartment or into a considerably less intensive form of supported accommodation.

In my eyes, the ideal of someone moving into her own flat, being socially integrated, having found a job, living an autonomous life free of psychiatric drugs and without ending up in psychiatry again is a very ambitious measure which only a small part of the residents come close to. However, a lot of quality lies in the details of small changes and success cannot be defined in absolute terms.

To me, it is a success, if vivid mimics return back to a face of a person who has suffered from the so-called Parkinson side-effects of neuroleptics, when she gradually withdraws from them during her stay in the house. 60% of the residents did not take psychiatric drugs before moving to the Runaway-house or immediately stopped taking them. All the others gradually withdrew from them supported by general practitioners outside the Runaway-house.

I consider it a big development to start to think differently about oneself than in psychiatric categories of mental illness. This implies not to declare one's (crazy or extraordinary) experiences an illness, but to make sense of them (which I believe every individual can only do for him/herself) and to take responsibility for them. Assuming responsibility can be a heavy task after having been cared for by institutions for years, but it is also a challenge and can lead to completely new perspectives and to step by step realizing possibilities one has dreamed of for ages. Going mad is to a certain extent possible in the Runaway-house, as long as there is some kind of contact to the others around. Contact does not necessarily mean straight verbal communication, but can have various forms. Our form of crisis support consists primarily of "being with" as it was named in the Soteria in California.

Some women e.g. even managed to relive situations of extreme sexual violence they had suffered from as baby or as child. They became the child that was abused, they fought with their rapist. We were just there, prevented them from hurting themselves, talked to them, told them where they are, who we are, that no harm is done to them any more. They did not hear it, but at some point came back to their adult reality. Then it was very important to tell them in detail what had happened because they could not remember it. In psychiatry those women had been violently tied to a bed by several men and forcibly treated with neuroleptics which just meant a repetition of the original traumatic experience. Sexual violence as a child that very often leads to institutionalization in later life for women but also for men is an important topic in the Runaway-house. This connection is still widely ignored in psychiatry.

Not all forms of crisis or craziness can be supported in the Runaway-house: If contact or mutual agreements become completely impossible or if people several times break the house rules (no violence, mutual respect, no consumption of alcohol or illegal drugs in the house) and do not assume responsibility for it afterwards or if people need permanent presence of a worker for a long period of time, it gets difficult and residents might have to leave the house. This is always very painful because there are hardly any alternatives. Sometimes, however, it helps the residents to get back to the ground, if we clearly point out to our limits and their risking to have to leave the house.

Another aspect of success consists in the residents starting to develop and try out new strategies how to deal with the voices they are hearing or to find alternatives to self harming. Finding different ways to come to terms with phenomena like fear, anger, aggression, persecution, using the sports and raving room, throwing things to the wall with someone else present, walking in the fields, writing, listening to music or playing it, working in the garden, etc. can be helpful actions. All these small steps can favour the residents' self-confidence that mostly has been severly disturbed due to institutionalization. It is not easy to regain trust in one's own perceptions, if one has been attributed a distorted view of reality or a mental illness for such a long time. The survivor members of the team are important partners for discourse on these issues as well as for the experiences with withdrawal from psychiatric drugs, as they have been in a similar situation. They somehow serve as role models, but the exchange with the other residents is at least as essential.

All in all, the three and a half year's practical experience of work in the Runaway-house has shown that psychic crises can be managed without psychoactive drugs and without means of coercion. It is also evident that more survivor-controlled spaces with less restrictions on access need to be created. [The Runaway-house can be reached: Weglaufhaus "Villa Stöckle", Postfach 280 427, D-13444 Berlin, Germany, Phone: +49-(0)30-40632146 or fax: +49-(0)30-40632147. See the website www.weglaufhaus.de]

Copyright by Iris Hölling

About the author

Iris Hölling has studied Philosophy (M.A.), is working in the Runaway-house since its opening, is member of the Association against Psychiatric Violence since 1994 and has been board member of the European Network of (ex-)Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (ENUSP) from 1997 – 99 and a member of the international panel of the World Network of (ex-)Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (WNUSP) since 1997.