The Connected Lives We Live: Autoethnographic Accounts of Disability, Mental Illness and Power

Abstract

In this article, we use a collaborative approach to autoethnography to explore experiences of power in relation to our identities as people with disabilities and/or mental illnesses. We draw on elements of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems framework to consider how we enact our own power or struggle against systemic power in making meaning of our lives. As a team of lived experience researchers we wrote, shared and thematically analysed a series of narratives about our personal (microsystem) and institutional (macrosystem) relationships. Through this research process we were able to identify common experiences of being resilient in the face of institutions that dehumanised and problematised us and tried to render us voiceless—exerting ‘power over’. In contrast, reflections on our personal relationships highlighted experiences of reciprocity, respect and autonomy that energised our efforts towards meaningful and powerful identities—‘power with’. We conclude that by generating strength through our own advocacy, perseverance and caring relationships, we engage dynamics (mesosystem) of empowerment and identity to resist oppressive power at structural levels. This exemplifies the importance of person-centred social work premised on self-determination, autonomy and dignity, and socially just social work that advocates for equitability and fights structural discrimination.

A collaborative autoethnographic journey of collective storying: Transitioning between the ‘I’, the ‘We’ and the ‘They’

“…We found that this enabled us to feel confident and safe. Indeed, we agree with Pryer et al (2023) and colleagues’ assertion that it is the willingness to share evocative, vulnerable and rich experiences, which makes the collaborative autoethnographic method ‘incredibly useful for other lived experience researchers’ (p. 1541).…”

“…Therefore, we concur with Pryer et al (2023) on the importance of a 'deep camaraderie and trust among [the] team' (Pryer et al, 2023(Pryer et al, : 1541. We found that this enabled us to feel confident and safe.…”

“…For example, we were concerned about what others outside of our group thought while observing a tentativeness with each other. In this pre-public space, as our trust and friendship developed, we began to share increasingly sensitive, intimate, and at times painful stories (Pryer et al, 2023) and yet our institutionally derived preexisting norms and expectations remained. Therefore, we were neither wholly free from the externally prescribed expectations, which we now realize we had internalized as our own, nor were we able to reach a state of completely ‘private’ relaxation.…”