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

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.