In mental health, Abraham Lincoln’s prescient observation that “A house divided cannot stand” remains incredibly relevant, especially among peer specialists. As members of this community, we’re committed to advocating for a system that’s historically marginalized and oppressed us. Yet, curiously, our community is not immune to creating its own hierarchies, favoring certain voices over others. The divide is palpable, and if left unaddressed, it risks weakening our collective impact on a system that sorely needs reform.
I’ve witnessed this hierarchy firsthand. While some peers in our field consistently find platforms to present their work, teach classes, and gain widespread recognition, others—myself included—are less visible. The work we produce, like journal articles, isn’t as widely circulated, read, or lauded. This isn’t just a matter of ego; it’s about the principles that should hold our community together—equity, diversity, and the idea that every lived experience has value.
Why do only certain voices gain traction while others are overlooked or disregarded? It’s crucial to question this dynamic. Is it simply the ‘popular’ doing more practical work? Or does it speak to deeper issues of favoritism, exclusivity, and perhaps even an underlying competition that has no place in a community founded on mutual support?
The unfortunate outcome of this dynamic is not just individual but collective. When we allow only certain voices to represent us, we present a limited picture of what it means to be a peer specialist. We also miss out on the richness of diverse perspectives and experiences. If we are to advocate for a mental health system that recognizes the nuanced and varied experiences of those it serves, we must first cultivate that diversity within our ranks.
This is a pivotal moment in mental health history. Our field is under scrutiny, and reforms are not just possible but necessary. If we’re splintered, focused on internal hierarchies and social cliques, we risk missing this opportunity to effect change. We’ll be relegated to the role of commentators rather than change-makers, articulating the problems without offering or implementing solutions.
It’s not about erasing past grievances or putting aside justified anger. It’s about leveraging those experiences and collective energy to create a better future. To do this, we must honor all contributions, whether from the well-known faces in our community or the quiet workers diligently putting pen to paper, research into practice, and words into action.
In this collective movement, it’s time for us to act as a cohesive body. Every one of us has a story, each narrative a testament to resilience, and all experiences contribute to a rich tapestry that should be the cornerstone of our advocacy. We must celebrate the quieter achievements as we do the louder ones and extend our platforms to voices that haven’t yet been heard but have just as much to say.
Let’s expand the definition of being a peer specialist by dismantling our internal hierarchies. Let’s be the community we advocate for—inclusive, respectful, and, most of all, united in its quest for reform. Only then can we fulfill our potential as a transformative force in mental health, turning our individual and collective pain into a blueprint for a more compassionate, effective system? This, then, would be our true legacy, never to be lived again but always to be remembered.
Author Info:
Max E. Guttman
Max E. Guttman is the owner of Mindful Living LCSW, PLLC, a private mental health practice in Yonkers, New York.
