Voronka critically analyzes the risk of strategic essentialism while considering ‘lived experience’ as expert knowledge. Although strategic essentialism seems to be a useful category to create political solidarity among a marginalized group, it also holds the risk of essentializing experiences, and thus works against the same premises from where critical questions against dominant knowledge systems begin. While recognizing this risk, Voronka also discusses its contextual usage while dealing with a constituency—the survivors of the mental health system—that is fragile. In this (...) commentary, I bring a few points for further discussion. Does lived experience create ‘expert’ knowledge? Whose experiences are we... (shrink)

Pattadath and Rose, in their thoughtful responses, create room for textual dialogue by making connections and thinking about madness, lived experience, and research and knowledge production in other contexts. I am grateful for this engagement, and the opportunity to clarify my own thoughts, as well as generate new ones.Rose makes crucial points about the relative silence in many critical fields outside of Disability and Mad Studies and their “probably unknowing refusal to see madness as political”. This is often the (...) case, and can be extended to disability and chronic illness more broadly. At times, critical scholars in other fields show how the psy-disciplines are tools used to... (shrink)