There is of course Psychotherapists and Counsellors for Social
Responsibility (www.pcsr.org.uk) in the UK, but maybe this is a bit heavy on
the therapy perspective for some people on this list.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Burton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] methodology, conflict, splitting and war
A useful model is that of Psychologists for Social Responsibility. See
http://www.psysr.org/index.htm This is a North American organisation.
It would be useful to have a similar vehicle to denounce from a
knowledge based perspective (and yes I know that knowledge is
contestable and all that, but we know a cause of psychological trauma
and the destruction of social fabric when we see it) things like Israeli
aggression, US destabilisation, UK's craven support for US / own account
imperialist policies and so on.
Annie Mitchell wrote:
> Dear all,
> I have been uncomfortably aware that while our discussion list has been
> engaged internally in conflict and trying to process difference, desperate
> injustices and wars are raging around us; the escalation of violence in
> the middle east and the bombardment of Lebanon is surely in all our minds
> and hearts. Some while back Paul wrote a very effective piece challenging
> us as psychologists and arguing that our silence almost leaves us
> complicit in unjust actions. In our reflections on our recent experience
> of conflict are there any lessons we can transfer to our understandings
> and actions in our wider world?
>
> The current exchanges prompt me to question whether our tendency to
> split and separate at many levels, including minds and feelings, is part
> of the difficulty? I feel ambivalent about a person choosing to leave our
> list - I know some of us, myself included, took a tough line in the
> recent conflict ( and I don't think labelling helps make sense of the
> struggle unless perhaps it helps make us kinder) and while I am glad now
> that others feel that they can speak out more readily I also wish we could
> have resolved the conflict internally without splitting, and could have
> better created the conditions on the list for people to feel free to speak
> out. I regret that my own line, while trying to be honest , contributed
> to the splitting, perhaps in part because tough words unsoftened by actual
> human contact are particularly divisive? Or, perhaps it is the case that
> as a community we can be more effective ( begging the question of what
> effective means in this context) with a sense of shared identity created
> through actively negotiating who and what is in and out? If so, I prefer
> the widest possible inclusion of difference that is compatible with
> getting on with whatever we are trying to get on with here together..
>
> Annie
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of Michael
> Swindlehurst
> Sent: Fri 21/07/2006 23:46
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: methodology
> To all, Lovely to see you real Psychologists are human and not 'by the
> book' unfeeling academic robots. Perhaps one day with such sensitive
> insight and outsight, Psychology may be able to understand one of the most
> alien mental and emotional conditions ever known to mankind -womankind.
> The differences that divide us can also be the joy which constructively
> unite us. Expect I have pissed Penny off even more now but I see all list
> members, without exception, as expressing creative human thoughts and
> feelings to the same community end. Imagine what you can all do with your
> personal and collective knowledge when applied to any given community
> subject.
> Penny: Any chance of a date? Thought not.
> Mike S ----- Original Message -----
> From: Penny Priest To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday,
> July 21, 2006 9:24 PM
> Subject: Re: methodology
>
>
> Hi Ursula and List People
> There's bits I agree with you too, and others who came out and really
> said what they felt - Paul Duckett's contribution is the one I remember
> most. When I read his contribution, a big part of me thought, well done
> for being so honest. I like to think of myself as honest and outspoken
> too, but as I said earlier, I've been arguing with MYSELF about all this.
> When I am so valuing of honesty, I start to question why I should think
> it's such a good thing to be honest (and there have certainly been times
> when I've been deceptive and kept secrets...) Other times I question why
> people are being silent and when silence is a good thing, or when it might
> be an oppressive thing, and so on. And sometimes I get just plain
> irritated by people being what seems really right-on and I applaud people
> who buck the trend (maybe it's because I once had a boyfriend whose
> right-on-ness was really refreshing after the bastard I had just been
> with, but after a couple of years, it was just boring!)
> The thing I think I agreed with most about what Rebekah has said was
> about psychological problems. I don't think that in general a community
> psychology perspective ignores the subjective and focuses solely on the
> environment. To me it just seems to have a hard job of trying to redress
> the balance that you have called for, and therefore might appear to ignore
> subjective experience sometimes. But also, I feel really uncomfortable
> about getting into situations where the only conclusion seems to be to
> write people off because they're mad and a nuisance (although I'm not
> saying that this is what has happened necessarily). When I am at my
> maddest, I am at my least articulate, and therefore my most likely to piss
> people off and then to feel even madder, and even more desperate and
> lonely. And I suppose I don't want to contribute to someone feeling like
> that, however much they piss me off. Also, when I spend so much time with
> individuals, one-to-one in a little room, constantly thinking how
> understandable it is that they are distressed, and constantly being
> surprised at them being surprised that I don't think they're mad, then I
> begin to wonder what's going on when I start to lose that sort of
> understanding and become really irritated with someone and start thinking
> about describing them as mad. And where I often come back to is that it's
> environments that are sick and need diagnosing, not people. Just a final
> point about the tensions around being personal and methodology (as you
> have provided this new subject heading, Ursula); some thinking we should
> keep personal out, some thinking it's okay to keep in. I have been
> personal here. I don't think I can be anything other than personal. I try
> to be respectful, but wouldn't be able to guarentee it. But the way it is
> for me might be described a little by saying how I like ethnography as a
> methodology (and had the joy of doing a mini-ethnography for my clinpsyd).
> It felt like the most honest (yes, honesty again) way possible of doing
> research (although this probably isn't at all true of all ethnographies)
> because it was not only possible, but pretty much imperative, to reflect
> on how me as a person and all my various proclivities were affecting the
> research process, and how for me, it doesn't feel possible and doesn't
> even make sense to not be personal.
> Well, sorry to have rambled on, but if you got bored or irritated, you
> could have just deleted it and I would never have known...
> Penny
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ursula Troche To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday,
> July 21, 2006 7:18 PM
> Subject: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] methodology
>
>
> Dear Rebekah, Penny etc.
>
> yes, of course iīve been very frank - and frankness can sometimes be
> unsettling.
>
> In general of course i agree we have to respect each memberīs or
> ex-memberīs contribution. But also, where does personalism clash with
> honesty? As psychologists, community- and otherwise, we canīt ignore our
> feelings either, that is, somewhere the personal will come in. For the
> sake of honesty and even because itīs unavoidable. This is why everywhere
> in the social sciences the narrative has become more important, not
> because we are all individualists now but because researchers in general
> realise that we have to listen to the person as well as to the
> surrounding - and the person also includes listening to ourselves. We
> have to strike a balance.
> Of course mainstream psychology does not strike that balance but only
> looks at the person. But neither can we do the opposite by only looking
> at the environment. It is this constant interaction between the person
> (others but also ourselves) that we have to look for. If we donīt look at
> individuals at all, we will be just as disempowering as those who do not
> look at the society at all.
>
> Ursula
>
>
>
> Penny Priest <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Hello everyone
> I would just like to say that I agree with Rebekah. I have argued a
> lot with myself about recent exchanges on the list, but ultimately I think
> that what has been happening has brought up some really fundamental
> questions about how this list/community functions. I think we could use
> this.
> Penny
>
> --
> Message sent with Supanet E-mail
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rebekah Pratt To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] Sue's departure from the list.
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Sorry - this is my second post today! It is actually one I'm
> really
> > reluctant to make as I think it is just great when rare
> contributors post
> > and I don't mean to discourage by adding on a few points of
> difference - I'm
> > only hoping to speak to a few points I feel are important to add.
> > =20
> > I can understand the comments about Sue, but I guess I would just
> like to
> > say I am worried that we risk replicating what was so problematic
> about some
> > of Sue's postings by personalising and psychologising her input.
> Sue might
> > not be subscribed to the list any more, but it is a public list,
> our
> > archives are public , anyone can read them, anyone can subscribe
> and
> > resubscribe, and are welcome to do so. I worry that reducing the
> recent
> > list dynamic as being only about Sue misses an opportunity to
> think more
> > broadly about what this list is about. =20
> >
> > The reference to psychological problems in Ursula's email bothered
> me a
> > little and I wanted to offer why (and I don't think that I think
> Ursula
> > intended this effect but I feel compelled to offer this point). I
> agree
> > with Ursula that having what can be described as psychological
> problems and
> > needing help is a common experience but I am more interested in
> finding a
> > way that we can psychologise society rather than any
> individual/s - and
> > challenge dominant psychological discourses. I think it is really
> > important to be totally clear that having a label of a
> psychological problem
> > does not exclude anyone from this list, at all. In fact I would
> hope that
> > just by subscribing to the list we are participating in an act of
> having a
> > shared psychological problem - that problem being psychology
> itself, and
> > that this problem we all have might discourage us from
> psychologising
> > individuals.
> >
> > Rebekah
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ursula
> Troche
> > Sent: 20 July 2006 17:16
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] Sue's departure from the list.
> >
> >
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > i am also a very rare contributor. I havenīt forgotten you and am
> planning
> > to become more active again when time allows. Am currently on
> īconference
> > tourī, that is, speaking at a conference and attending two more.
> > After having enjoyed last yearīs comm psy conference with its very
> > important issues, i always felt i should stay in touch but usually
> did not
> > manage due to too many commitments.
> >
> > Interestign SM left the list. I too thought some of her points
> were
> > interesting but she was often too personal and too aggressive as
> well. I
> > canīt help thinking she has a psychological problem and needs
> help. Very
> > ridiculous of me to say this as it all relative (and at some point
> we are
> > all in the same boat), but to be honest, thatäīs what i thought.
> >
> > greetings, Ursula
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > 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]
>
>
> Signup to supanet at
> https://signup.supanet.com/cgi-bin/signup?_origin=sigwebmail
>
> ___________________________________
> 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]
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail -
> quick, easy and free. Do it now... ___________________________________
> 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]
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date:
> 21/07/2006
>
> ___________________________________
> 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]
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/394 - Release Date: 20/07/06
___________________________________
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]
|