>Dear David,

This exchange is helpful in that  it feels safer ( and more productive) to 
acknowledge fear and scariness here than in other settings which are  perhaps  
less critical in this sense of looking both inwards and outwards and 
questionning our assumptions and ideologies, yet more critical in the more 
ordinary sense of individualising blame.

Like you I'm most certainly not up for CBT to try to change our respective 
scariness and fear  -  would very much rather concentrate on looking at what 
are the conditions that lead to it - and how we can act productively  beyond 
the fear and pain. I share your experience of pretty unable to sit quiet when 
I see injustice in my work settings - and it can be pretty costly to speak up 
- in what seems like a world in which fascism and totalitarianism are creeping 
up. But worth it.  So many thanks for our discussion list.

Now time for me to shut up and leave the ether for others to join in.

Warm wishes,

Annie


  ===== Original Message From The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
        <[log in to unmask]> =====
>Dear Annie,
>
>Thanks for opening up debate about feelings. I would like to be a bit
>clearer about my position too.
>
>Regards whether or not I am scary. I would rather stick with it than
>explain it away (not that you are doing so but I want to resist any
>inclination I might have to do so because I find it uncomfortable). But
>I want to stick with it as a (critical) community psychologist (again
>not because critical community psychology has all the answers and other
>psychologies have none of them but because I want to see how much we can
>explain and how we can intervene within what is for me a community
>psychology frame of reference).
>
>I certainly do not deny that some people find me scary. You are not the
>only person to have said exactly that and it was also said to me in
>person at the Newcastle conference so I do not think it is just a
>phenomenon which emerges from my email style. I agree there is a
>consensus that I am - or at least can be on occasions - scary.
>
>I don't want you to resolve matters prematurely by you accepting
>ownership of the emotion (what is it about you that you are scared)
>because that would be a sort of victim blaming and because I believe in
>social causes of psychological states or at least, less simplistically,
>that psychological states emerge out of an interaction between social
>causes and human agency.
>
>Personally I do not feel scary. Rather I feel diffident, timid and
>ineffectual most of the time and my interior commentary on my own
>positions is so very critical that my more public critical commentary
>often seems to me so very restrained and anodyne by comparison. However
>I do feel that we are immersed in problematic ideologies we take for
>granted or as some put it become enchanted by and that 'surfacing',
>critiquing and contesting them is for me an obligation. I am unable to
>stay quiet at staff meetings, public meetings and in all sorts of
>contexts, even if feeling timid, if what I see seems unjust. That does
>not make for an easy life. To refer to one of Mark's question I see
>critical scholarship as a form of activism.
>
>So, am I scary? I don't have a sense that there is an external social
>reality about this to which we can appeal to find out. I would say there
>are a variety of accounts which serve different interests in different
>ways.  In some I am scary. In some I am not.
>
>However whilst I think there are all sorts of interesting and useful
>accounts we give of this as phenomenologists, counsellors, clinical
>psychologists, magistrates, friends etc and indeed from countless other
>perspectives, I am primarily interested (on a community psychology list
>or at a community psychology conference or in a community psychology
>publication or in community psychology practice / praxis) in what else I
>can bring to the debate as a critical community psychologist.
>
>In that connection, I am interested in what functions are served for
>whom in what ways by deploying an account of me as scary and what
>avenues for change they open up. One way that I have observed that
>people use to discount critical commentary is individualise and
>pathologise. I think that deploying the account that a person is scary,
>aggressive, arrogant, dominating etc., especially habitually so, is a
>way of closing them down and thus not having to attend to what is being
>said. Also it positions the needed change as a change in that person.
>Maybe CBT could help me be less scary?
>
>Note that I am still not denying that there are important accounts which
>in which I am scary and am not trying to explain my scariness away.
>
>Some of what you say later in your message is very valuable in taking us
>further in my critical community psychology view. I believe it is useful
>to regard power as being structured in the contemporary societies we
>know about through wealth, class, gender, dominant ethnic group
>membership, dominant norms about sexuality etc. One very real concern
>for me as a critical community psychologist is to what extent power
>structures in the wider world are and have been reproduced and
>maintained within our list group. The work of feminists has made clear
>that dominant groups are often unable to see their own privilege but
>that subordinate groups are much more able to see them. Thus the very
>valuable work on male privilege, white privilege and so on. It seems to
>me that discussion of intellectual matters on our list has tended to be
>dominated - not universally of course -  by older, relatively high
>academic status, white men and that those marginalised in this within
>the group tended - not universally of course -  to be younger lower
>status women. There are implications of this for the discussion of
>feelings and emotions, of course, as the dominant group tend to discuss
>such things less.
>
>There are all sorts of points one could draw from this account if one
>went along with it but the one that I want to make here and now is that
>accounts which position someone as 'scary' because they individualise
>and psychologies also close down the likelihood of our addressing the
>social structuring of power. My scariness may in part be explained by
>the ways power structures in the wider world are being reproduced and
>maintained - by us - within our list group? Also, in passing, this CCP
>account of the issues has the merit, I think, of also reducing the
>tendency to issue accounts in which those who are 'scared' need to
>become more think skinned or assertive or . . . whatever, again an
>individualising and psychologising account, which implies a need for
>individuals to change rather than us collectively to change the system.
>
>I apologise for such a long email but hope it has been of interest and
>is not seen as an answer but as a stepping stone to further exploration
>of the issues by yourself and others and perhaps one more stimulus to
>consider critical community psychology accounts as ways of opening up
>new ways to conceptualise and intervene
>
>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 amitchel
>Sent: 03 December 2005 8:03 pm
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] on being critical
>
>
>>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]
>
>--
>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]