Introduction

The European Network of (ex)-Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (ENUSP) is the place where the two of us met. An independent, grassroots organisation, ENUSP is run by and for people who have experienced psychiatric treatment. It connects regional, national and local organisations and individuals across 39 European countries. We joined the network at different points in time and from different places. Like other participants, we brought in our personal experiences of madness and psychiatric treatment together with our own expectations and visions of political organising. What profoundly connects us is our interest in each other's experiences and opinions, a deep sense of solidarity, and also a desire to learn about and from other users/survivors.

Our joint work on this text is an expression of this attitude. Rather than starting off with any imperative to resolve the dilemma – distress or disability? – we want to bring our views into dialogue and explore where that leads us. We do not argue for one particular political strategy; our suggested way forward for organisations and networks of users/survivors is this very commitment to allowing the free communication of our convictions and also our doubts. Yet, we know from our experiences of international activism that achieving an atmosphere of respect for all our differences is not as easy and self-evident as it may seem.

Hoping to enlarge the space for freedom of thought in our movement, we will share our evolving personal perspectives about the controversial concept of disability. We will use our knowledge of key discussions and developments around disability within ENUSP as a frame of reference and explore how we can move from thinking as individuals or single organisations to taking international action. Our initial search of the network's records suggests three distinct levels on which users and survivors in Europe discuss the concept of disability. First, there is a personal level connected with the use of ‘disabled’ as a possible identity for people with psychiatric histories. Second, there is a socio-economic level, related to the fact that many users and survivors who receive state welfare support are classified as disabled. Finally, there is an organisational dimension concerning the adoption of a disability framework as a strategy for our political organising and advocacy. Problematically, these three levels are often blurred in heated discussions about disability in our movement.