Dear John,

Community critical psychologists are trying to get away from acritical modernist approaches; so are not impressed by anything being 'more scientific' in the sense of the 'scientific enlightenment' and Popperian philosophy of science; and are trying to get away from individualistic psychologistic explanations in terms of clinicians' (or any one else's) incompetence etc.

From a community critical psychology standpoint, recent list discussion has not become more constructive but more ideologically problematic (because more collusive with oppression).

From a community critical psychology standpoint, discussion would preferably become more deconstructive and more sceptical as to whether 'integrated assessment frameworks' backed by the status quo in the form of civil services and agencies are anything other than more efficient means of govern-mentality to promote the interests of the status quo.

From a community critical psychology perspective, the point is not that diagnostic labelling / assessment is done inaccurately by incompetent malevolents and is never 'true' but that a set of practices, procedures, ways of thinking etc., with which psychologists and other psy-experts are apparently willingly and too effectively colluding, constitutes one of many possible realities in which labels and assessments become only too 'true' for those caught up in it . . . real in the sense of having real consequences for them, and moreover constituting a reality which is oppressive.

From a community critical psychology perspective, the concern is not whether a particular procedure within an oppressive system is or is not effective within the frame of reference of that system, or what the motivations or intentions or skills of those implementing the procedure, but with surfacing and contesting the oppression and, with others in critical solidarity, trying to think into possibility and then to make 'real' other less oppressive alternative i.e. community critical psychologies.

Paul, I invite you to consider whether you might be missing the point of Paul's and Craig's and other critical posts on this community psychology discussion list not because they are ill expressed or come from an immature position you left behind in your twenties or because our posts have not been adequately teased apart or refined with help from you as a teacher but because you insist on trying to interpret them from a frame of reference which is itself problematic from a community psychology perspective.

This is a community psychology discussion list so it is not surprising that members wish to discuss community psychology rather than clinical psychology, health psychology, educational psychology, psychiatry, or other mainstream approaches. Some members of this list believe that community psychology must be a version of critical psychology, if it is not to be part of the problem and it is not surprising that we wish to discuss critical community psychology issues.

You have every right to post from a whatever frame of reference you wish on this list but if and when you do so from a problematic, acritical, medical model frame of reference, I suggest you should not be surprised if people critique your posts and eventually - if you don't engage with critique seriously - ignore your posts. Imagine a discussion group set up by people who believed the world was round at a time when most people believed the world was flat and the sort of reaction there might be on that lost to posts by flat-earthers. I invite you to consider that critical psychology might be as different from mainstream psychology as round earthology is from flat earthology. Claims in round earthology may seem ill expressed or immature or inadequately taught or refined by teachers to flat earthologists but the solution may not be tuition of round earthers by flatearthers but flat earthers taking some time to understand the concepts and frame of references of round earthers. If you are interested in doing so I would suggest you read, think about and discuss classic work by Michel Foucault, Paulo Freire, Ignatio Martin-Baro, Karl Marx etc and more recent work by Nikolas Rose, Ian Parker, John Morss, Erica Burman, Tod Sloan, Valerie Walkerdine and of course Paul Duckett and Craig Newnes.

David

Yep, emphatically not Paul on this issue!

I think one of the main reasons I picked this up (other than feeling uncomfortable with the original point) was to see if a case could be made for the original assertion beyond this this kind of suggestion that its 'my way or the highway', (though in rather more melodramatic language). I sort of feel I left this kind of absolutism somewhere in my twenties and accept that others might flatly disagree with my most dearly held, morally urgent beleifs. I think that one of the things that interests me (particularly as a teacher) is to try and tease how people are arriving at their own view and to see if that view can be refined in discussion. Even if I disagree with them!I'm afraid I' sort of attatched to this sort of spineless moral relativism and I have actually been very interested how some contibutors have developed the point.

I found two recent copntributions very thought provoking. Mark Wilson's recent posting seems to me to capture some of the complexity of these kinds of decisions it a way that I feel more comfortable with. (Also contained some material which was interesting to me - I don't work with children). I take the point about science being humble. At its best is should provide a method of being extremely humble. I recommend a talk about how the values of the scientific enlightenment are debased by David Colquoun (the Pharmacologist who is spending his retirement slagging off quackery) which is on video the UCL website. He is not kind to many of his fellow labourers in the fields of science on the point of humility.I also found that Mark's post also made a point about going beyond medical veiws into other factors in a way which I found more compelling and urgent than simply dismissing those views (if I'v understood it correctly).

The other post which I found interesting was by Alison Smith. I found the injunction to think about what we say in this compelling and necessary and I also sense of being passionate about alternatives very resonant. I think I might begin to deviate when it comes to the simplest arguments in the face of complexity. I can't help feeling that this leads us to somewhere like the position occupied by Lord Layard, who offers arguments of insufficient complexity to meet difficult challenges. I can't halp feeling just stopping using medical language is actually simplistic rather than simple.

John

From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Newnes
Sent: 12 January 2008 18:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fw: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] Screening of children - oops

I meant type John, etc. But of course the same position applies to all of us prefering debate over death

Craig

----- Original Message -----

From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Craig Newnes

To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">The UK Community Psychology Discussion List

Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 6:13 PM

Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] Screening of children

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: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">McGowan John (Sussex Partnership Trust)

To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[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]

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