>Dear David,

As you quoted one of my comments here, let me explain where I was coming from
in what I said, and whose interests I (think) I was trying to serve. I said
(at least, I meant to say) I find you scary sometimes. Note, not that you ARE
scary, just that I find you so. I do - but that 's a comment about
relationship, not intended as an individualising critical ( in the common use
of the term) description of you, though I can of course see how it could be
read so). The reasons I said it include, partly, that it's true for me and
I think we might want to think about whether or not it is a useful/
productive process that I feel scared in this context sometimes - I suspect it
probably is, as long as I don't get so scared that I go away and start
rubbishing/hating community psychology or its practitioners ) . Also because I
suspect that some of the our list members ( and perhaps some of these are
also women like me) might feel heartened to hear that another person can feel
scared of someone but can nevertheless speak up and try to challenge - even
if what they say might be judged to be wrong or bad - I intended it ( as far
as I am aware) as a possible way of liberating others who feel less powerful
in our network to have more of a voice. I can't think that I've been very
successful in that, however, ( and indeed I can see that it might be judged as
pretty patronising) because the debate has continued at a fairly heavy level
since. I was imagining that if I had been the person who had started some of
this off with a thoughtful analysis of difference - which you commented that
you agreed with much of, but found other parts deeply flawed because, if my
memory serves me, of the person being a trainee clinical psychologist or at
least having a clinical psychology background, which would mean, you said,
that their analysis would be deeply flawed, I'd have been distressed and would
have felt reluctant to try again. And because I felt that there was value and
lessons for us all in what they said I'd like us to hear more from that
person.

Finally, I note that I am using quite a lot of feeling talk in what I say
here. I don't know if that's because I'm a woman, a northerner, a clinical
psychologist, because I'm having a hard time myself at present or what. But
you might be interested that when we had our southwest community network
meeting yesterday we spoke again about the message from our community members
at the Exeter conference that we (professionals) need to look after ourselves
more. And part of our discussion led on to acknowledging our pain and distress
. And we wondered if part of what underlies our reluctance to acknowledge and
appreciate the other ( not just here in our discussion list but in the larger
world) is because of our avoidance of our pain in doing so. And I feel/ think
that one bad outcome of a split betweeen clinical and community psychology
would be a continuing split between our feelings, our intellect and our
experiences of the operations of power - and a continuing neglect of what I
feel to be central in all of our concerns - relationship with "the other".

Love,

Annie



  ===== Original Message From The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
        <[log in to unmask]> =====
>Again let us not rush to agreement too soon lest we foreclose critical
>discussion too soon
>
>
>
>To me clarifying 'being critical' is not as simple as either of the
>following postings suggest. Firstly, shouldn't the notion of there being
>a 'right' or 'best' explication of what critical psychology is, and is
>not, be anathema to critical psychology?
>
>
>
>Secondly, isn't critical thinking reflexive so that any account of what
>constitutes critical psychology is immediately subject to further
>critical scrutiny?
>
>
>
>Third, isn't the explication of what criticality is in terms of 'schools
>of thought, who has Professorships and where' an institutionalised
>account of criticality in several senses and therefore not a critical
>one?
>
>
>
>Fourth, isn't the characterisation of critical thinking too narrow, too
>prescriptive and too proscriptive to be critical in any interesting way?
>Isn't most interesting contemporary critical thinking also informed by
>feminist standpoint, psychoanalytic and Foucauldian approaches to name
>but three others as well as often drawing upon the thinking of Marx one
>way or another (though usually so diluted it could hardly be called
>Marxist) and isn't the suggestion that critical thinking is
>intrinsically modernist (and that post modern ways of addressing issues
>cannot be critical) to ignore the massive international influence on
>community psychology of Foucault, some at least of whose work is usually
>regarded as postmodern?
>
>
>
>Fifth, isn't what is offered below just one account? It may be a useful
>account for some interest groups in some respects in some ways but isn't
>it still one of indefinitely many possible accounts of what critical
>psychology is? Isn't each account produced from a standpoint and isn't
>none neutral in relation to issues of the distribution of power. Isn't
>what is interesting and important not whether there is definitive
>account of what a term 'really' refers to (because it implies notions of
>'truth' and 'reality' problematic when one is talking about the social
>world) but what is accomplished for whom by deploying it?
>
>
>
>Sixth, isn't to suggest that to be critical (in a non 'lay' way whatever
>that is) you must be steeped in and familiar with the works of
>inaccessible continental intellectuals and/or perhaps even be a Marxist
>at heart excluding and elitist and isn't to suggest that the alternative
>is to be a lay, posturing, destructive, part of the consumerist
>capitalism patronizing? Can't anyone engage in critical thinking
>irrespective of their formal (institutionalised) educational trajectory
>or there place on it? Wasn't Mrs. Cathy McCormack - who spoke at the
>Newcastle meeting - the most critical thinker (and critical activist)
>who spoke at the conference and also the least educationally
>credentialed and amongst those who left school earliest. Wasn't Mrs
>McCormack's critical education was gained through collective action and
>popular education and rather lacking in the Frankfurt school department?
>
>
>
>At the Birmingham community psychology conference Rebekah Pratt, Paul
>Duckett and I tried to explain what the 'critical' in critical community
>psychology meant to us without disabling people by heavy references to
>intellectual oeuvres. It was published as Critical Community Psychology:
>What, Why and How? in Clinical Psychology, 38, 39-43, 2004. In that
>paper we stated "By 'critical' we do not just mean 'sceptical',
>'negative', 'faultfinding', 'derogatory' or 'disparaging'" and that "for
>us, critical refection is, essentially, about reflecting on whose
>interests are being served by what is thought, written and done, on what
>the ideological implications of various positions are and on where there
>is default to reproduction of problematic assumptions."
>
>
>
>In that paper we also described some of the hazards of engaging in
>critical debate: "Ideologically critical feedback is seldom welcome . .
>. . Our own critical reflection has usually been re-presented as:
>academic territorialism; ambition; arrogance; disloyalty; hostility;
>intellectual exhibitionism; Machiavellianism; rudeness;
>self-righteousness; social disruptiveness; social incompetence. At their
>most pernicious, these re-presentations have become internalized . . .
>. Note, the ironically double-edged nature of these re:presentations.
>Not only do they damage the critic but they also reinforce and maintain
>that which the critic was seeking to critique since they are themselves
>manifestations of psychologistic individualistic frames of reference:
>the critique is re:presented as a variety of personality or
>characterological dysfunctions and the moral nature of the concerns
>being voiced with regard to social justice is being re:presented as
>personal immorality." We wrote that long before this list discussion but
>it is interesting to note that critical reflection recently on this list
>has been dealt with by some fellow list members by: describing the
>critic as 'scary': by telling the critic to F . . . off; by trying to
>put a guillotine / cut off point on critical discussion; by implying the
>critic is either using the phrase 'critical' inappropriately in an
>unschooled fashion or naively; by implying the critic is self interested
>/ uncomradely etc.
>
>
>
>If anyone is interested in reading the full paper and cannot get access
>to The Clinical Psychologist I could send a prepublication near final
>draft.
>
>
>
>If anyone is interested in reading more about critical psychology I
>would strongly recommend Ian Parker's Qualitative Psychology:
>Introducing Radical Research (Open University Press / McGraw Hill) 2005
>which I regard as a quite superb example of sustained critical thinking
>in relation to methodology, though the word 'critical' does not even
>appear in the index. Critical Psychology: An Introduction Edited by
>Dennis Fox and Isaac Prilleltensky (1997) Sage is also very diverse and
>has some superb contributions (it also includes a section on the
>Frankfurt School!). A key classic text for critical psychology in the UK
>and elsewhere was Changing the Subject: Psychology, Social Regulation
>and Subjectivity by Julian Henriques, Wendy Hollway, Cathy Urwin, Couze
>Venn and Valerie Walkerdine (1984). Routledge (republished
>periodically).
>
>
>
>Let's get not be too concerned with the intellectual pedigree and get on
>with building a community psychology in the UK which is not only
>theoretically coherent, methodologically sophisticated but also
>ideologically progressive (using ideologically in the sense of Wendy
>Stainton Rogers i.e. constructing and using knowledge to promote the
>power of the least powerful and most oppressed) constantly reflecting on
>whose interests are being served by what is thought, written and done,
>on what the ideological implications of various positions are and on
>where there is default to reproduction of problematic assumptions. Let's
>assume that anyone is capable of doing critical psychology. Let's be
>open to the possibility that clinical psychology might be problematic
>when we think critically about it. And let's think critically about
>whose interests are served by organising our annual community psychology
>conferences as opportunities for (mostly) clinical psychologists to
>listen to presentations (mostly) by clinical psychologists about mostly
>(the failings of) clinical psychology. That seems to take us back to .
>. .. . On the subject of conferences...
>
>
>
>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 David Smail
> Sent: 02 December 2005 12:00 pm
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] on being critical
>
>
> Thanks for a helpful clarification. Rather embarrassingly, it
>hadn't occurred to me that 'critical' in relation to psychology had its
>origins in Frankfurt, if only indirectly.
>
> David
>
>________________________________
>
> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Burton
> Sent: 01 December 2005 21:43
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] on being critical
>
>
> Being critical?
>
> The term 'critical' as currently used to prefix various
>disciplines (including community psychology!) has multiple origins, but
>perhaps the most significant one is from its use in 'critical theory'.
>This itself refers to several things - in some contexts it was used as
>code for Marxism, or rather for historical materialist analysis. It
>became best known in referring to the Frankfurt School of Marxist
>intellectuals concerned with questions of culture and its relation to
>society - e.g. Adorno, Horkheimer, Fromm, Habermas. What is being meant
>by the term 'critical' is an approach that tries to understand a social
>reality through introduction of another, more penetrating frame of
>reference, one that has to do with a general theory of human society (or
>at least late capitalist society) understood in terms of contradictions
>between different social interests and economic processes of
>exploitation, capital accumulation, and so on. So these critical
>theorists apply a powerful set of practical-theoretical tools to social
>phenomena to try and get a more thorough understanding that can help
>foment progressive social change. Not very post-modern, and there are
>some rules implied.
>
> Another use of 'critical', however, seems to come from the lay
>notion of the 'critic'. At its worst (and most post- modern) that can
>mean 'say what you like', and 'pose around as the most critical voice of
>all'. There is no method, just individual opinion. The process is
>destructive not constructive. It is part of the 'society of the
>spectacle', of consumerism, of capitalism itself.
>
> Here I've set up two ideal types, with a clear bias as to the
>one that I'm more comfortable with, and why. The idea is to use the two
>models to evaluate contributions that march under the critical banner.
>
> So if you want to convince me that you are being critical in the
>best sense, I'll be asking
> "Is your analysis one that requires stepping outside the
>hegemonic frame of reference of this society and its dominant
>psychology?"
> "Where is your argument taking us and in whose interests are you
>doing it in?"
> "What's the action - and what's your action?"
> and
> "Are you doing this in a comradely way?"
>
> --
> 37 Chandos Rd South
> Manchester
> M21 0TH
> UK
> 0161 881 6887
> Local rate phone no: 0845 458 1165
> Fax no: 0870 751 5595
> [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]
>
>
>
>
>--
>The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by
>charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may
>be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated
>in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such
>person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone
>and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
>prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this
>message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise
>immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email
>for messages of this kind.
>
>
>___________________________________
>
>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
Clinical Director and Acting Programme Director,
Doctorate in Clinical and Community Psychology,
University of Exeter

01392264621

___________________________________

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]