Paper short abstract:

Early psychosis is a new label for being mentally healthy and at the same time having a strong probability of developing psychosis.We explore the possibility for anthropologist to participate in the debates around this emerging liminal condition.

Paper long abstract:

Early psychosis is used today as a label for a condition of being mentally healthy and at the

same time having a strong probability of developing a severe mental illness. It represents a space of liminality or, as we call it, a "grey zone" between pathology and health, illness and non illness. We understand this grey zone of early psychosis as a constitutive third space which brings stability to dichotomies in contemporary psychiatric and social practices, while being itself fraught with practical uncertainties. This liminal condition seems a perfect place to bridge the clinical concearns of psychiatrists and the interpretative concearns of anthropologists.

This paper is based on ethnographic fieldwork in highly specialized psychiatry in France and Switzerland. It will explore the possibility for anthropologists to participate in debates between researchers, clinicains and patients in the debates around the enactment of this liminal condition.

Specifically, we explore the strength and weaknesses of the longstanding tradition of taking an "naive" or "idiotic" role during research compared to the affordances of explicitly engaging in full co-laboration with psychiatrists. The latter approach is more burdensome duing the inital steps of obtaining ethical approval and negotiaitons of the place of anthropology in the reseach project, moments when many projects fail already. The trust established during this phase may offer unique opportunities during later phases of reserach. Yet it also challenges the self-understanding and research ethics of the anthropologist.