Dear All
Many thanks David F, I agree that we should not aim for premature consensus.
Many thanks David S, I agree that the debate is probably a bit abstract.
Possibly because of the abstract nature of the debate we are in danger of
splitting into "postmodern, critical" and "modernist community" camps, which
will not reflect the range of positions that we are likely to represent as a
group. It also seems that we may be trying to "hang" the debate on
individual psychologists and their opinions, which is not likely to be
helpful.
I apologise for any part I have played in personalising the debate in an
unhelpful way.
I wonder whether we could do something that might help to clarify our
positions in a more accessible way. Would it be possible, for instance, to
contribute and share critiques of a particular piece of work with which we
could all become familiar (ie preferably something relevant)? Doing
something like that could help us see how our different perspectives
actually work in practice (praxis) and might produce a "useful" outcome.
If anybody is interested in seeing how our critiques operate, perhaps they
would like to suggest a focus (ie something to critique) for our joint
activity. This is not intended to close down debate, more to help anchor our
discussion in a less "personalising" way.
What do you reckon?
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: David Smail [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 20 December 2005 11:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] Escaping the Critique
Dear All
If this is coming down to a debate between 'modernists' and 'postmodernists'
(which looks like a re-run of the age-old realist/idealist debate), do we
need to sharpen up the issues a little? As someone firmly in the
social-materialist camp, I would find it helpful if the postmodernists (as
represented by David F. here) could be a bit more specific than simply
recite their credo, bemoan their discomfort and perplexity, and
excommunicate clinical psychologists, and others, who don't agree with them.
Aphorisms like 'you cannot dismantle the master's house using the master's
tools', however famous, are not exactly persuasive (my bet is the master's
got the best tools around). The 'postmodernist' side of the debate seems to
be taking place at a level of abstraction that actually makes critique of
any kind impossible (which comes back to Paul M's angels on pinheads).
Exactly in what way, for instance, are psychologists who work with
individuals to develop a critique of the conditions of their distress
transgressing ideological purity?
I actually do find it rather hard not to believe in an independently
existing world (more round than flat, probably), and a case could be (and
often enough has been) made for postmodernist, idealist challenges to such a
view, far from escaping dominant discourse, actually providing the ideal
philosophical basis for late consumer capitalism.
David
_____
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Fryer
Sent: 19 December 2005 21:43
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] Escaping the Critique
Dear Carl (and others),
You wrote "Paul D has produced a piece of dialogue that seems to clarify the
relative positions of community and critical psychologists at Manchester
Metropolitan University. Paul M has produced a statement of a social-realist
position in plain English. How is it going for people?"
Personally I don't find either of the accounts attributed to the two Pauls
persuasive.
To take the 'social realist position in plain English' position first: there
are so many claims here with which I disagree that I hardly know where to
start (or finish).
I certainly, myself, do not feel comfortable simply believing what "seems
pretty obvious", because I believe what seems pretty obvious to most people
is what is framed in terms of the dominant discourses and dominant
discourses tend to dominate because they serve the interests of the status
quo. It was at one time 'pretty obvious' that the world was flat and at
another that mental illness was caused by 'possession'. I am not happy
accepting as default that the only credible ontological assumptions are
realist ones i.e. that there is a 'real world' which exists independently of
me and that all I can do is describe it in "multiple ways". I certainly
don't agree that all 'honest' accounts will converge on the same conclusions
(if I did I would be obliged to position those who produce different
accounts as dishonest). I am very uncomfortable with over simple conceptions
of the 'environment' and believe that to think of discourse as 'just'
language is to miss the many points of a vast and important body of work. I
do not accept that everything can be explained using the familiar concepts
and words of dominant discourses: as feminists have famously said, you
cannot dismantle the master's house using the master's tools. I find the
apparent antipathy, frequently articulated on this list, towards ways of
thinking which are other than modernist perplexing. We can after all best
appreciate the limitations and failings of modernism if we take up a
standpoint outside it.
You say "Some of us earn a living by theraping individuals, others by
critiquing theories". I certainly do not see myself or other critical
community psychologists as making a living by critiquing theories, at least
that is not my intention, though I believe that in spheres where theories
are powerfully oppressive critiquing theory is also important and
valuable. To me the point of critical community psychology is to intervene
to reduce / prevent distress in a progressive i.e. socially just fashion. I
concluded long ago that clinical psychology was not only not part of an
effective solution but was also often part of the problem and am looking for
other ways.
I do not see being 'critical' as a new or different enterprise from being a
community psychologist but as a dimension of what I do and how I do it. If I
am doing research I aspire to it being conceptually coherent,
methodologically sophisticated, practically viable, ethically sound etc. but
I also require it to ideologically progressive (i.e. to survive critical
scrutiny). If I am engaged in practice I aspire to it being pragmatically
feasible, practically effective, culturally safe etc but also ideologically
progressive (i.e. capable of withstanding critical scrutiny). (In fact the
above is over simplified because I strive for both at once as praxis). I
only find it essential to distinguish critical community psychology from
acritical (ideologically reactionary) community psychology because so much
community psychology (and clinical psychology) is acritical in my view.
Whilst I certainly believe that inequality, poverty and (un)employment are
massively powerful and destructive of many people's health and well being, I
believe that the "social material" is inordinately complex and that
unemployment and poverty are discursively as well as materially constituted
(constructed and maintained). Environmental context is important but
crucially includes discursive as well as crude materialist context.
As for the suggestion that the other Paul (D) clarified the relative
positions of community and critical psychologists, I also disagree. Let's
leave aside, for here, the particular question of MMU, which personally I
think was ducked. The important distinction is surely not between critical
and community psychology since community psychology can be critical or
acritical but between critical and a critical psychology (whether community
or clinical or developmental or whatever . .) and is about far more than
diversity of positions and comprehensibility of language. There are major
ideological and political differences.
Carl, as you know, I think these issues are far to important to foreclose
discussion and debate in premature consensus. I have been trying to take a
back seat on the list after posting too much but your provocation tempted me
back!
David
_____
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of Harris Carl
(RQ3) BCH
Sent: Mon 19/12/2005 16:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] Escaping the Critique
Dear Paul, Sarah and everyone
Can I just add my thanks to Sarah's for your contribution, Paul.
Incidentally, if that was "tuppenyworth" it seemed like value for money.
I agree with your points that the dominant influence in people's lives is
their social-material existence. I agree that there is only so much that can
be reframed, no matter how expertly or imaginatively.
I can hear the points that Jan made recently,
"many people committed to community psychology in the UK are steeped in an
NHS and mental health upbringing that influences our every move and
utterance. Although we may be critical about mental health systems, we are
somewhat restricted in this focus and we are clearly not as critical or
imaginative as we could be about theoretical assumptions and methods of
working."
echoing, as I wonder whether our perspectives are a product of our own
material circumstances. Some of us earn a living by theraping individuals,
others by critiquing theories.
Can this debate be a productive one? Can it become a piece of community
psychology itself?
Paul D has produced a piece of dialogue that seems to clarify the relative
positions of community and critical psychologists at Manchester Metropolitan
University. Paul M has produced a statement of a social-realist position in
plain English.
How is it going for people?
Cheers
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: Sarah Ghani [ mailto:[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
Sent: 19 December 2005 14:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] Escaping the Critique
Dear Paul
I have been trying to follow much of the recent discussions, but sometimes
feel very ignorant that at times the language loses me. I am sure I miss
some excellent points due to this, which can leave me feeling frustrated.
Many thanks for this contribution, which I fully understood (and strongly
agree!). Thanks in particular for your use of "relatively ordinary words"
and your comment that theories need to be accessible.
Kind regards
Sarah
>>> [log in to unmask] 19/12/2005 13:47:50 >>>
Dear Carl and everyone,
I feel a little hesitant about putting my tuppenyworth in (again) at this
stage, mainly because of my probably not being fully up to speed with the
debate (the result of general time pressures which at the moment don't allow
me as much space to read and contribute to the Community Psych Net as I
would like).
Anyway, while i've enjoyed some of the discussions and humour(!) around post
modernism versus realism and the role of the community / clinical /
counselling psychologist, i have to say that much of this discussion has
left me feeling pretty cold - to the point where I think that I might be
coming down with a mild case of alienation.
I do wonder how a.) "ordinary people" - i.e. non psychologists; and b.)
historians one hundred years from now (if the human race still exists) would
look on these communications, which in some respects seem to resemble
previous disputes about angels and pin heads. At the risk of perhaps being
seen as naive or simplistic - it seems pretty obvious to me that we live in
a (real) social-material world, and while there might be multiple ways of
describing the latter, the ones that are most relevant from a clinical /
community perspective are those accounts that pay due regard to inequalities
of social power and to their (largely none-negotiable) embodied
consequences. Although there is certainly lots to think about and debate
here, experience nevertheless seems to suggest that an honest account of
clinical / community work will always converge around these themes. In other
words, when it comes to trying to help distressed people, there are only a
limited number of useful stories that we can tell about the world, and only
a limited number of strategies that we / they can use to try to improve
their "psychological" lot - starting of course with the environment that
causes the problems in the first place. By itself, language or "discourse"
probably has little or no power to shift people's position in relation to
the troublesome situations with which they have been struggling - unless,
that is, a shared language / understanding helps them to get together with
others in positive ways (but then again, they would still need the material
and social resources to be able to do this).
All of this can be said in relatively ordinary words, and I would imagine
that i'm far from unique in saying that i've learned more about the
relationship between social power and personal distress from conversations
with mental health service users - and indeed with my working class
grandmother,when she was alive - than from a shelf load of psychology or for
that matter "critical psychology" textbooks. None of this is to cock a snook
at the need to develop theories that reflect our experiences and those of
the people that we work with, it's just to say (however clumsily) that such
theories need to be accessible and to be genuinely grounded in those
experiences, even where this all too often points to the limitations in what
we can hope to achieve as clinicians or community psychologists.
Kind Regards
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
___________________________________
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]
|
