 |
 |
Julia ta for these thoughts we're taling Uk really, tho i did get agreement that the review needs to look at possible funding internationally take your ponit about not limiting to charitable groups - my own experience is that those most on the raduical edge are those least likley to engage with chairty commission bollox the CP network is - as you suggest it shoudl be only one of my areas of exploration round here, and i'm doing my best to enage with the' radical groups' i know about (and sometimes do stuff with). As i've noted a couple of times on this site, interesting to see that "psychologists" appears to be a term/training/upbringing you want to 'beat yoursefl up about'. as i noted as enthusistically as i could the only time on ever met any of you in person (great yao rmouth in 2006), from an outside perspective you appear to be so busy denying your own validity of thnking that you may never get round to optimsing your skills in the interests of others you want work with............you've got a lot to offer, but I'm not going to get into a motivational speech, not least as i know that's not really where oyu were oing with that thought julia - it's just my typing fingers getting carried away again p "The UK Community Psychology Discussion List" <[log in to unmask]> writes: >paul, > >often any groups with a 'political/radical' agenda have to bid for funding >from pots of money that are gathered by means they may object to, it's a >familiar 'struggle' and bone of contention ... comic relief in the uk is >one that comes to mind.... however, comic relief ironically has also >funded many 'user lead' and more radical groups... so i agree with annie's >point about looking at who runs/leads the groups that apply for money, >making the process very straightforward, not limiting it to charitable >groups, as many more radical groups choose not to be a 'charity' because >of how this limits the work they can do... . Maybe you could ask some >radical community groups that you may know, rather than 'psychologists'... >what might make the process easier for them to apply? >sorry if i'm getting confused but is this also for funding for groups in >the usa, where issues might be a little different in relation to community >groups??? not sure i'm helping or just rambling... > >julia > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:48:00 +0000 >From: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: money and what to do with it >To: [log in to unmask] > > annie > > thanks for this initial response > >yes, thoughts on how 'concientization' might be built in to the whole >would be welcome > >i'm not looking for wholly thought out solutions etc, as i acknowledge >that for many members of the network this 'funding mullarkie' might be a >very different world, just thoughts for me to build into my thinking > > i forgot to mention that one reason for stikcing it the networks;'s way >was my attendance at a 'funding and how it failed us' workshop at the >great yarmouth conference. i would have come to york as well but could't >afford it (hint, hint) > >the other thing i forgot was that it was agreed that not only should the >reivew cover how the investment income is spent, but also how the >considerable investrments (around £150 million) are managed in ther first >place. At the moment investment in in the usual range of equities, bonds >and property. In addition to the obvious 'socialyl resonsible investment' >route, is there a way to link altnerative investment to conscientization, >or is that really just a very large square peg in a tiny round hole? > >p > >"The UK Community Psychology Discussion List" <[ >mailto:[log in to unmask] ][log in to unmask]> >writes: >Paul, > >Thanks; I think it would be great if we could take up this opportunity. >I’d be interested in looking at this though it would be stretching my >usual sphere of activity a lot. as you say: the mission, objectives and >how the money is applied for and monitored ( so often, as david pointed >out to the joseph rowntree chief exec at York, the application process >itself puts off the grass roots people one would hope such funds could >liberate/ enable). > >I wonder whether a process with some sort of conscientization process >built in would be radical: ie that funding would go to projects aiming for >radical culture change lead by “ the oppressed majority” where they were >working with others operating as external catalysts.. > >Annie > > > > > > > >.. > > > > > >Annie Mitchell > > > >Clinical Director, > >Doctorate in Clinical Psychology, > >School of Applied Psychosocial Studies, > >Faculty of Health and Social Work, > >University of Plymouth, > >Peninsula Allied Health Collaboration, > >Derriford Road, > >Plymouth, > >Devon > >PL6 8BH > > > > > >Phone Programme Administrators: >Jane Murch, Emma Hellingsworth > >01752 233786 > > > >Please note I work 3 days per week: > > > > >usually Monday, Tuesday & either Wednesday or Thursday. > > > >From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [[ >mailto:[log in to unmask] >]mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Cotterill >Sent: 01 November 2007 13:33 >To: [ mailto:[log in to unmask] >][log in to unmask] >Subject: money and what to do with it > > > > > > >Dear all > >More or less by mistake - you know the way these things happen - I am a >trustee of a medium-sized grant making trust, which I think should remain >nameless for the time being at least, and which gives out grants of about >£5 million per year from the income on its (considerable) investments - >investments that come as a result of the continued hegemony of capital and >all that. Just by way of quick comparison, Northern Rock Foundation gave >out £30 million last year, though the near collapse of capitalism in >August means that this will be down to £20 million this year - so mine is >not a big Trust, but then £5 million a year is maybe not to be sniffed >at. Yes, of course it can (and should) be argued that a philanthropic >foundation which necessarily has its roots in capitalist exploitation is a >symptom of the overall structural injustice of society, and therefore >cannot logically also tackle/resolve that injustice, but there is the >counterargument of subversion from the inside etc etc, and as that >argument-in-my-head gets me very nice lunches at board meetings, that's >the one I've gone for. CPN commentators will no doubt tell me if I'm >wrong. > >Getting to the point, at yesterday's board meeting, alongside the large >lunch, there was a discussion about the review of the trust's 'programme >priorities' (i.e. what it will spend its money on and how it will decide >who to give it to) which will take place in the course of 2008. The first >thing that came up or discussion was whether we needed to review our >'mission' which currently refers to meeting social need and disadvantage >and at first sight kind of looks ok. However, I (took a deep breath and) >challenged this and suggested that the review needs to explore what we >really mean by all this, and to examine the relationship between social >need and social justice, in the context of alternative conceptions of >social power (at least I think that's what I said). I referred to The >Joseph Rowntree Founation's Power Inquiry (JRF being part of the >Foundation world and therefore a recognizable entity for other trustees) >and said that it was quite possible to challenge the (neo-liberal) >conception of power inherent in that Inquiry. From there I argued that >we should perhaps, as a board, explore whether a more overtly radical >conception of power, and therefore our role in challenging existing social >structures which maintain the status quo (with our dosh in support) might >now be the thing to do. > >Somewhat to my surprise, there was support for my view that a radical >approach to our 'mission' might be appropriate, and it was agreed that I >should go away and write up a paper on how it all might look and what >might be the implications of such a new mission and set of objectives >might be e.g. we might end up funding causes and interventions which are >themselves more radical, rather than the projects we currently fund which >are, within the existing social paradigm, ;'worthy' in terms of meeting >social need and disadvantage rather than tackling their roots. > >So, what am I asking of you lot? Since starting to engage albeit >peripherally with the network I have been impressed by the quality of >analysis of social systems/structures/barriers that you provide, and not >least your capacity to meld clearly Marxist analysis with post-Marxist, >discourse-theoretic stuff in a way that even I can grapple with. Given >this, it seemed sensible as I sat on the train home form the board to ask >you as a network what you might like the Trust's future 'objectives' to >look like, and perhaps more practically what it should give its money to, >and how it might restructure the route to getting that money so that >radical causes in support of a more radical mission might better be >identified and then financially supported. > >Equally, I accept that you may want to tell me I'm wrong to seek to engage >with the whole thing at this level/angle in the first place, though >obviously given the niceness of the lunches I retain the right to >completely ignore you. > >Best > > >Paul > > > > > >___________________________________ 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 >]http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any problems or >queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on [ >mailto:[log in to unmask] ][log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on >[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ][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 >]http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any problems or >queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on [ >mailto:[log in to unmask] ][log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on >[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ][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] > > > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------Play >Movie Mash-up and win [ https://www.moviemashup.co.uk ]BIG prizes! >___________________________________ 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]