 |
 |
I think it is important to be specific in criticisms about the content of list contributions/conference organisation via the UK Community Psychology network and not resort to a kind of name calling and competing about who has done and said what. There are undoubtedly enormous problems in the practice of psychology generally and clinical psychology in particular, which are extremely uncomfortable and damaging, and compounded by our roles conceding the privileges Paul describes. There are not many opportunities for critical discussion or safe places for debate about psychology in most work settings and there is the tendency for critical reflection to become dulled in the face of overt and covert oppressive features and our self interest. The Community Psychology network helps to prod complacency with some stimulation of thinking and some (albeit limited) action. It therefore provides a good and unique forum for information, challenge and support, and is valuable to many of us - certainly in the NHS. It is important that the UK Community Psychology network does not get overwhelmed or dominated by issues for clinical psychology and one of its strengths and a source of optimism is the opportunity for discussion with people who are from diverse backgrounds, (academic, community development, beyond the UK....) We could do more to encourage that and it would greatly enrich debate.
I hope that we can collaborate with Wendy and her colleagues to facilitate an open-minded, creative and reflective conference that is both collectively influenced and idiosyncratic. It seems to me that opportunities to expose and reflect upon how our values and practices are corrupt and oppressive, and how systems are pressurising even more social control in academic, education and health settings are important to preserve, painful as that may be.
The moves to pressure people into work (that may be highly aversive) via education opportunities and health services is a very worrying trend and I would support a response to recent proposals Annie and to discussing this at the conference with a view to acting on these collectively if this is timely.
Jan
essage Received: Nov 30 2005, 05:04 PM
> From: "Craig Newnes" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] Responding to Lord Layard of Highgate
>
>
___________________________________I have sat as an observer at the DCP committee for 18 years (barring a gap in ITU and beyond). In that time the committee has become dominated by academics who, in good faith, promote the expansion of CP, Their response to Layard and need to sit at the tables of power means they have missed the point. CBT is1) dead in the water2) cheaper when provided by computers or nursing staff3) perfect for the medicalization of distressIt seems likely that nursing and other services in mental health will soon be farmed out to Boots/GP commissioning teams etc. Who will want clinical psychology in such a context? The state will fund us as a cheaper alternative to psychiatrists for sectioning people and (er...) that's it.It is hard to see why the state would want community psychology at all if we are in the business of helping people in their collective efforts to gain some equality of power in their lives. After all, the government didn't do a lot for steel-workers, miners, the fishing industry etc so why would it want to pay comm psychs to help people speak out and act?Craig___________________________________> 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]