Erica writes "Sensible BPS members who are interested in  setting up a BPS Community Psychology Section will want to learn from others working in the field but they will not be bound by their views collectively or otherwise.".  She is concerned that making the BPS section accountable is starting on a path to ('possible'!) "confrontation which the Community list could not win", and goes on to ask that we post on this list what we would like the BPS section to achieve. 

Surely a BPS Community Psychology Section would seek to be 'accountable'?

It seems that CP is at a crossroads and there may be a risk that its agenda becomes appropriated by the very mechanisms it has effectively helped critique in the past.  I would like to see the BPS CP section become an antidote to the self-serving nature of professional associations, holding the BPS itself to account from within, focusing on ethics, critical thinking and diversity in psychology, and encouraging the BPS to serve communities before the interests of the elite group of powerful professional people which, on the whole, it represents.

I dont think the new BPS section will achieve anything substantive unless its priorities are to 

1: actively make ITSELF accountable to the communities it serves, seeking participation and involvement from as wide a range of stakeholders as is practical.

2: expose the hidden politics of oppression that underpin a great deal of psychology, in order to open the political implications of psychology practice to scrutiny, within the BPS itself and by the wider public.

It is ironic that while many of us are concerned with the way capitalism seperates and individualises us in order to undermine our social identities and depower communities, community psychology itself is at risk of fragmenting along class lines. The key strength of our flawed (but loved :-) 'Community Psychology List' is that (practically) anyone can join and express their views.  I support Paul's (and others) suggestions about forming a cooperative and would sign up if we can get organised. It is unlikely I will join the BPS, even with a community pschology section, as I worry the organisation does more harm than good....but maybe the new section will change that. I hope so. 

A CP Collective need not be frightened of 'political' activity, need not require all participants to think or want the same things, and can facilitate pluralism: a focus for community psychology activity that might be political, philosophical, practical, academic, theoretical, critical ....even 'personal'...and which might be able to critique the workings of the BPS, and psychology generally, more freely than can be achieved from within the BPS.  Importantly, it could have a rich and mutually beneficial/supportive relationship with a BPS section that was committed both to making itself accountable and to a community oriented agenda.  That kind of relationship may be just what is needed to make the BPS section credible.  

Perhaps it is the BPS section that has most to lose, and that ultimately cannot win, from confrontation.  The BPS must seek to be accountable.

Another tuppence worth :-))

Best wishes, Grant



________________________________________
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Erica Brostoff [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 24 August 2010 09:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] "Holding BPS Members to account"

Dear All,
I have sent an e-mail to the Manager of the BPS London office
requesting that he look into overflow facilities into a second room,
as a general issue, and mentioned the Community Psychology meeting on
October 8th, in case there are more people wishing to attend than
could be accommodated at present.  And so that in future it might be
possible to have joint meetings with those who are, and those who are
not BPS members.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, meetings in the
BPS offices are normally oversubscribed at present and the maximum
accommodation is 80.  As it happens, I also live, rather than work,
near the BPS offices, and have requested a ticket, as a BPS member.

However, David's suggestion that "the collective should hold the BPS
membership to account" seems to me unrealistic, either at this
meeting or in future.   David is a BPS member of long standing I
believe, and probably is aware that the idea of a collective
alongside a BPS Section is likely to be a novel one.   Apparently
2,700 approx. BPS members voted for this Section, and
any major issues regarding the Section are likely to be voted upon by
those who become members of the Community Section, who are also BPS
members.

"A dialogue between BPS members and non-members" is a realistic
option, but to start out thinking that the collective (not yet
formed) can hold the BPS Section to account is starting on a path to
possible confrontation which the Community list could not win.   This
would be arising out of style rather than substance, and I do think
that the language in which such a dialogue is proposed is crucial, as
are the expectations.   Sensible BPS members who are interested in
setting up a BPS Community Psychology Section will want to learn from
others working in the field but they will not be bound by their views
collectively or otherwise.    So, I think it would be sensible for
people to start posting on this list what they would like the BPS
Section to achieve,
so that the meeting on October 8th is a productive one and not
confrontational.   These would surely be in the form of
recommendations, keeping in mind that the collective will not "own"
the Section, nor, indeed, the other way around.

For one thing, to come back  to fees, which are essential to be set
if anyone is actually to join the Section,  I know now that the BPS
Board officials have set a fee which is the average of other
Sections, and I expect that they will be entitled to insist upon
this, in the absence of a vote from ALL the people who wish to join
who are BPS members,.  This would not occur until about a year hence
or longer.   It would not be proper or normal for non-BPS members to
set the fee for BPS members, if you think about it, in relation to
any other section.   I am just as interested in a harmonious outcome
as anyone else, but you might as well start trying to dictate to the
Department of Health, in my view, as assume you can do so to the BPS,
unless you are a member, and then it would be through proposals and
voting of all members and it would be a request or a recommendation
only.

How about proposing some mechanism whereby one non-BPS member could
have an advisory seat on the BPS Committee, by co-option, who would
represent the views of the collective, and see whether the BPS would
accept this idea.  In this case it might be a reasonable proposal,
since there might be benefits in both directions.

Erica

___________________________________
The Community Psychology List has a new website/blog at:
http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/
There is a threaded discussion forum:
http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi
There is a twitter feed:
http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK
To post on the website blog, forum or twitter feed, contact Grant or David at the email addresses below.
David Fryer ([log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])
To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
Edinburgh Napier University - one of the top 10 universities in the UK for graduate employability (HESA 2009) and proud winners of the Queen's Anniversary Prizes for Higher and Further Education 2009, awarded for innovative housing construction for environmental benefit and quality of life.

This message is intended for the addressee(s) only
and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender. It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. 
Edinburgh Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or
damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University. 

Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish
charity.
Registration number SC018373

___________________________________
The Community Psychology List has a new website/blog at:
http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/
There is a threaded discussion forum:
http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi
There is a twitter feed:
http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK
To post on the website blog, forum or twitter feed, contact Grant or David at the email addresses below.
David Fryer ([log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])
To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK