Relational recovery: beyond individualism in the recovery approach

ABSTRACT

Objective: While the recovery approach in mental health currently enjoys immense support, it is not without its critics. The most persistent criticisms focus on the individualism underpinning many conceptualisations of recovery. In this paper, we outline the shortcomings of individualistic approaches to recovery, and explore the alternative notion of relational recovery.

Method: We begin this article by reviewing recent research and theory that critiques individualistic approaches to recovery. We then draw together disparate bodies of research that view recovery as an inherently social process.

Results: Our reading of the literature suggests that although many models of recovery recognise relationships or connectedness as a component of the recovery process, an overemphasis on the ‘inner’, subjective experiences of people with a lived experience of mental ill-health largely obscures the interpersonal contexts of recovery. Interpersonal relationships can more accurately be seen as suffusing all aspects of recovery, including experiences such as hope, identity and empowerment.

Discussion: We conclude by arguing that the way forward for mental health systems lies in developing, promoting and implementing approaches that properly acknowledge the irreducibly relational nature of recovery.

Video abstract

Read the transcript

Watch the video on Vimeo

KEYWORDS:

• Recovery
• family recovery
• individualism
• connectedness
• relational
• mental illness

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the generous collaborative contribution of members of the COPMI (Children of Parents with a Mental Illness) National Lived Experience Forum and Lived Experience Pool in the development of this article. These two bodies act as key sources of lived experience input that enhance the knowledge, information, resources and policy advice developed and produced by the COPMI national initiative. Members of these bodies come from diverse family constellations and backgrounds (e.g. Aboriginal, culturally and linguistically diverse, rural and regional, same sex and single parent) and include parents with mental ill-health, partners, young people, siblings, adult children, and extended family such as grandparents. Members identify as having multiple individual and shared lived experiences that do not necessarily fit with commonly accepted service system descriptions, such as ‘consumer’ or ‘carer’.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Within this article individuals experiencing the symptoms of mental ill-health will be referred to as “people with a lived experience” or, where ease of readability requires, as “consumers”. The term “consumer” equates to the international term “service user”, which is less common within the Australian context. Co-design is an important value position of the Emerging Minds and COPMI National Initiative and hence these definitions and terms are intentionally used to honour the principle of rejecting singular cohort membership for people with a lived experience.