I agree Tim
I tried to address this in December 2005 and am reproducing that post now.
Of course it led to debate, and I might alter one or two of the
statements (a little less critical of some poststructuralist/postmodern
approaches) but the thrust of it is , I hope still relevant. I'd
particularly draw attention to the injunction to be comradely in debate.
Much of the material posted of late does indeed meet the criteria
suggested here, but some is on the verge of rudeness. The old injunction
is helpful - delay and consider before posting!
Mark
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?"
> Just come across this e-mail
>
> Is this common practise on this discussion group - to tell people their
> thinking is irrelevant, and to stop discussing?
>
> Sounds like an attempt to supress discussion?
>
> I'm confused - why would community psychologists - especially critical
> ones - want to do that?
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> Craig Newnes <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Paul, your thinking is irrelevant. People who are prepared to
> kill people rule the world - these include those in the
> Psy-complex supporting those making mega-bucks out of misery
> through drugs etc. Stop discussing - it makes no odds at all.
> Craig
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: McGowan John (Sussex Partnership Trust)
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] Screening of children
>
>
> As this debate goes on I increasingly feel like someone eating a steak
> in a room full of people who think meat is murder.
>
> After Craig Newnes initial message my intention was to suggest that a
> complete damning of diagnostic labelling might be a, how shall I put it,
> simplistic perspective. Since this position has been characterised in
> several different ways (apologies if I've missed or misrepresented any).
> I'll leave out the stuff on detention, ECT and those evil folks in "big
> Pharma" (who I wont dispute are very often venal in the extreme) as I
> think Paul Duckett is right that they muddy the waters. So in no
> particular order:
>
> -Diagnosis is the thing that is unsophisticated- (Wouldn't for a second
> deny that this is often true. Also one of my most treasured critiques of
> Lord Layard. However, not actually connected to my point which was about
> the crudeness of simply dismissing it).
>
> -I'm a paid up vested interest so my opinion doesn't count- (Manages to
> be both personal and lame at the same time. Neat. Best to draw a veil
> over it).
>
> -Diagnosis is a construct bourne out of power and oppression-
> (Undeniable. But again not really my point).
>
> -Psychiatry has been involved in some terrible things- (Absolutely. But
> once again not really my argument. Remember Popper and looking for the
> black swans).
>
> -Because of this it has no redeeming features and is completely wrong-
> (OK this is connected to my point. A matter of opinion and the nub of
> the matter but an opposing opinion might actually be sincerely held and
> bourne out of experience of black swans. I don't really see any
> consideration of these).
>
> -Diagnosis is there to serve the interests of multinational
> pharmaceutical companies- (Once again often true but perhaps not the
> whole picture).
>
> -Diagnosis being used to access resources just reinforces the power
> structure and oppression- (Well I guess I was being pragmatic but I
> can't deny that you've got me there. Bang to rights. No place for weak
> pragmatic issues as they are a poor pro-diagnosis argument. Can't help
> feeling that they occasionally make quite a substantial difference to
> the people I see, but I accept the point).
>
> -Diagnosis can only be employed fraudulently as it is part of a power
> imbalance- (Maybe so. However, the way it is employed remains hugely
> important to me as does looking beyond it wherever possible).
>
> -Critiques of diagnosis are more scientific than diagnosis- (I'm afraid
> they are coming across to me as being more about predjudice in this
> discussion. I do concede that Psychiatry has not always been a shining
> example of embracing the values of the scientific enlightenment but it
> does have its moments of effort).
>
> -Clinicians always diagnose out of incompetence, carelessness or
> self-interest- (Well they sometimes do I grant you but always sems less
> than justified. I refer back to my previous point about predjudice).
>
> -I am asked (respectfully) not to express this opinion on this list
> because anti-diagnosis views regularly get criticised elsewhere- (Sorry
> to upset you. I'm afraid I sometimes have this inclination to make
> comments on views and ask for elaboration about that I think are poorly
> expressed and argued. Particularly when they are about important
> matters. I'm funny like that. Sorry I don't agree with you Paul but I
> really don't. I'm also sorry that you meet with a negative or
> predjudiced reation outside of forums like this but I'm afraid it the
> kind of statements that initiated this discussion are the way the
> argument is put forward I'm not really surprised. PArt of the reason I
> took up this one was to see it others could make the case to completely
> move away from diagnosis in that I found more convincing).
> .
> -My thinking has been disabled by the dominant medical power structure-
> (Another serious and substantive issue. Could be true. Who knows. I'd
> never rule it out. I've been working in acute psychiatric wards for 6
> years and am certainly not the critical voice I once was. On the other
> hand I often comfort myself with the beleif that my understanding is
> than it was 6 years ago and I have a clearer idea of what I think is
> important. A lot of that is about moving on from diagnosis when this
> seems valuable and using it when it seems of value. Perhaps I'm kidding
> myself though and I've been had. I have to say though that I do find
> suggesting that the person who disagrees with one has been more or less
> brainwashed could be considered a slightly dubious argumentative
> strategy in some company.)
>
> I find myself curious about some elements missing (to me at any rate) in
> all these contributions. One is the complete absence of the idea that
> there might ever actually be good or valid or worthy reasons for
> actually thinking that diagnostic labelling (including in children) has
> its uses and benefits. Another is the absence of any curiosity as to the
> possibility that someone such as myself who holds such a view might
> actually have (from my own perspective) worthwhile and sincere reasons
> for doing so. Am I alone in finding a lack of any sense that this can
> actually be viewed as a complex or morally ambigious issue slightly
> weird in a group of who are apparently critical thinkers? Evidently so.
>
> I guess though that instead I might be seen as either a slave holder or
> hapless dupe of a medical conspiracy.
>
> John
> -
> Help us to be the best we can be ...
> Become a member of Sussex Partnership and help us to fight stigma and
> raise the profile of mental wellbeing.
> Please visit our Foundation Trust membership web page for more information
> and a membership application form.
> *************************************************************************
> This message and any attachments contain confidential and privileged
> information. If you are not the intended recipient please accept our
> apologies and delete the email after advising the sender of the error.
> Please do not disclose copy or distribute information in this e-mail or
> take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly
> prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
> The information contained within it may be subject to public disclosure
> under the Freedom of Information Act (2000), unless it is legally exempt
> from disclosure.
>
> P Save the environment - think before you print
> ___________________________________ 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 Rebekah Pratt on
> [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask]
> ---------------------------------
>
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.10/1159 - Release Date:
> 29/11/2007 11:10
> ___________________________________ 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 Rebekah Pratt on
> [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [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 Rebekah Pratt on
> [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [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 Rebekah Pratt on [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask]
|
