Hi Annie,
Thanks for letting me know. I'll look out for the letter in the
Guardian, Weds is still their health and social care day isn't it, so
maybe then? I agree that broad based concern at the proposal may be
likely to have a greater impact, than a few dissenting voices from
within the psychology professions. Although it was interesting to notice
the concerns raised in the piece that was in the clinical psychology
forum and which Wendy recently provided the web link too.
I don't imagine that many psychologists will be pleased that this is
looming likely over the profession of psychology, especially clinical
psychology (at present). However, as we know some clinical psychologists
love status and power and so might be quite keen, but I imagine a number
didn't sign up through the mauling process of assistant/clinical
trainee, to find that they are maybe going to be the mind control police
for the department of correctional employment!?! Some one will probably
have to design some new psychometrics to rule in/out the people who will
be targeted for these new 'services'?
I get the sense that, perhaps because of the economic argument set forth
by Lord Layard, that the powers that bear on this suggested development,
are pushing hard for this to happen sooner, rather than later. Does
anyone know more about how soon this might 'progress'?
Matt.
-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Annie Mitchell
Sent: 05 December 2005 14:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] " history" of the CPUK movement/Layards
briefing.
Hi matt,
4 of us from the list did put together a letter last week to the
Guardian
in response to the article there on the Layard proposals last Wednesday
,
and we sent off the letter late Friday ( it wasn't published today -
might
be worth checking again tomorrow and especially Wednesday which is their
society day.
I'd very much encourage/ support anyone who wanted to do further writing
about it - there is a big head of steam behind these proposals, both in
government and in clinical psychology and I think they are very
worrying,
for the sorts of reasons you say here, and which we outline in our
letter.
In my opinion it is by no means just matter for clinical psychology -
indeed we are the least likely people in some ways to challenge the
proposals since they involve vested interests for the clin psych
profession in expanding its numbers and role. The criticisms of the
proposal needs to be from a broad set of social/ community/ citizen
perspectives I think.
Annie
--On 05 December 2005 12:38 +0000 Horrocks Matthew
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Thanks David F for the timely reminder that "history" is often very
much
> constrcuted, with agendas or motives in mind. From your message, I
take
> the point that defining what is the CPUK movement is as hard as
> ascertaining the shared history of community psychology approaches in
> the UK - as there are different narratives, a point which Mark also
> raised.
>
> I don't know enough about the restrictions on the pedagogy of critical
> thinking in higher education settings, but I am finding plenty of
> thought provoking material here on the list! Thanks to all for the
> continuing inspiration.
>
> I'm still interested in the proposals to follow up Lord Layard's
> suggestions re employing more clinical psychologists (with money drawn
> from the welfare state?). I first thought that was a matter for
> 'clinical psychology' to think about and grapple with the likely
> ramifications of pursuing (or being pushed) into providing one to one
> (or group) 'therapies' for people who are quite possibly long term
> unemployed, not actively seeking work, and perhaps living in
> deprivation. ... but the more I ponder it I guess there is a wider
> community perspective here?
>
> I'm trying to pull my thoughts on this together into a more coherent
> stream of thougt, or perhaps article. One thing I do know, and believe
> that I can witness daily, as a resident of a fairly moderately
deprived
> council housing estate in the East midlands, UK, is that there are a
> number of people who for whatever reason, are unlikely to engage in
'CBT
> for unemployment', without a degree of co-ercion from the state/wider
> community. It prety well frightens me to find that there are allready
a
> number of 'therapists' (CBT trained therapists?) employed in job
centres
> to help and encourage (co-erce?) people back to work, (and thereby
'off'
> state benefits).
>
> It seems to me that Lord Layard's suggestions are potentially far
> reaching, for 1) proffesional psychology, 2) individuals who would be
> targeted by this newly evolving aspect of psychology as weapon in the
> arsenal of social control, and 3) the communities from which those
> individuals would be drawn. I think that Lord Layard's proposals
would
> quite possibly have a strong (and I speculate a mixture of helpful and
> uhelpful) impact on our most deprived communities. As list members
here
> are probably persons interested in the social causation of distress,
> such as members of housing estates, community groups, activists,
> psychologists (critical, clinical or community), marxists, or just
plain
> old fashioned citizens, I think this topic is not something to loose
> sight of?
>
> If fellow list members are still formulating some sort of response to
> the publicity that Layard's suggestions have generated, or Clinical
> Psychology's (DCP) and the DoH's professional position on the
> suggestions I would be keen to hear more.
>
> Best wishes, Matt.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Fryer
> Sent: 02 December 2005 17:34
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] past conferences & history of the CPUK
> movement.
>
> Dear Matt,
>
> Regarding your posting "I would be particularly keen to find out more
> about the history of the CPUK movement. Has anyone documented the
> origins, the ups and downs, the successes and perhaps failures of our
UK
> movement. Could anyone point me in the right direction for such
> information?"
>
> It is an interesting request because it allows us to remind ourselves
> just how essential critical thinking is in relation to so-called
> 'history'. In my view, any account (see my last posting) but
especially
> historical accounts require critical reflection about whose interests
> are being served by what is thought and written, what the ideological
> implications of positions taken are and on where there is default to
> reproduction of problematic assumptions.
>
> What would constitute a movement? Should we include the founding of
> journals and Chairs (institutional history) or everyday practice?
> Should we include community psychology done by those who don't call
> themselves and have never heard of community psychology? Should we
write
> histories which privilege the sort of community psychology with which
we
> identify and from which we benefit and which portray the sort of
> community psychology we do as the inevitable endpoint of historical
> processes?
>
> In my own accounts I trace European community psychology as far as the
> work of Marie Jahoda in the 1930s in Austria, Wales and England and
> contest the domination of community psychology history writing by
> colleagues in the USA, who usually trace community psychology back to
> Swampscott and domestic US events in the 1960s, particularly
> problematic.
>
> Ian Parker, in the book I recommended last posting, writes that
> (Foucault) "argued, for example, that historical accounts are always
> produced from the standpoint of present-day practices, usually with
the
> function of legitimating the way we have come to do things or think
> about ourselves" (Parker, 2005: 3).
>
> David
>
> David Fryer
> Community Psychology Group
> University of Stirling
> FK9 4LA
> Scotland
> +44 (0) 1786 467650 (tel)
> +44 (0) 1786 467641 (fax)
> [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Burton
> Sent: 02 December 2005 2:41 pm
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] past conferences & history of the CPUK
> movement.
>
> You can read a history at
>
http://www.compsy.org.uk/Community_Psychology_in_Britain_History_version
> %202_MB,CK.pdf
> This is a chapter by Stephanie Boyle, Carl Harris, Carolyn Kagan and
> myself - written for the forthcoming book editied by S Reich, M
Reimer,
> I prilleltenskky and M Montero on international community psy. It is
of
> course one of a number of possible histories, but it was based on
> interviews and contributions / correspondence with a variety of people
> in the field, many of whom are on the list. We have also tried to
> analyse the relative lack of CP development in UK in a paper cited
> within the book, and also avaialble on the www.compsy.org.uk site.
Mark
>
> Mark Burton
>
>> Hi all,
>
>> I have been reading with great interest the postings concerning the
>> liberated clinical psychology / community psychology debate, and the
>> explicit addressing of the notion of criticality. These discussions
>> are the reason that I subscribed to the CPUK list. Thanks to all for
>> the continuing richness of the food for thought.
>
>> I was sorry not to have been at the recent conference and I hope that
>> I will be able to come along to the next one! Yarmouth sounds good to
>> me. Sliding scales of fees sounds very useful and facilitative.
>
>> It feels to me that this is a particularly challenging period for
>> 'psychology', and (perhaps naively?) I think that there is scope to
>> counter some of the harm that is often done in the name of helping,
as
>
>> I sense a growing awareness of the actual roots and influences
inherit
> in institutionalised psychology ( health or university) settings.
>
>> I would be particularly keen to find out more about the history of
the
>
>> CPUK movement. Has anyone documented the origins, the ups and downs,
>> the successess and perhaps failures of our UK movement. Could anyone
>> point me in the right direction for such information?
>
>
>
>> Regards, Matt.
>
> ___________________________________
>
> COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the
UK.
> To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML
> For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator at
> [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
Annie Mitchell
Lecturer in Psychology,
Clinical Director, Doctorate in Clinical and Community Psychology,
School of Psychology,
Washington Singer Building,
University of Exeter,
Exeter,
EX4 4QG
Phone 01392 264621 or
Liz Mears, Programme Administrator 01392 403184
___________________________________
COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the
UK.
To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML
For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator at
[log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
___________________________________
COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML
For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator at [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
|
