 |
 |
Yes, I think Mark is wise to introduce Habermas as a possible 'communicative' link between the two 'sides', and does so very lucidly, especially as I is keen to stress that the Habermas project for 'rescuing' modernity is not without its problems. I had thought about mentioning him myself earlier but there was match of the day on the telly. As I read the most recent posts before the football overtook all critucal faculties, it occurred to me that we were a) simply starting down the rerun of the Foucault-Lyotiard vs. Habermas argument of years ago, and not likely to resolve much soon b) providing first-hand evidence of the need for a bit of Habermasian commuincative action, which H defines as "thatform of social interaction in which the plans of action of different actors are co-ordinated through an exchange of communicative acts, that is, through a use of language orientated towards reaching understanding'. I like this link to a quick summary of stuff - http://sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx/modr.htm and bibliography. anyway, is this an agenda item for the Edinburgh conference? Should be fun............. Best Paul "The UK Community Psychology Discussion List" <[log in to unmask]> writes: >Thanks for this Mark - it's very useful. I've come across Habermas before >in the context of health psychology, looking at communications between >doctors and patients in primary care. I know a bit about his distinction >between 'system world' utterances which relate to the the concerns and >knowledges of professional systems, and 'lifeworld' utterances which >relate >to the lived experiences of the social actors involved. My understanding >is >that Habermas does have an optimistic (and I guess critical realist) >position that we can achieve ideal forms of communication when we are all >talking about the same 'things' that have some independent existence of >the >discourse itself (not so sure about that bit). > >If you have a reference for the part that you have so lucidly summarised >I'd >appreciate it. > >Happy new year by the way - hope it is not too late for that! >Deborah > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Mark Burton" <[log in to unmask]> >To: <[log in to unmask]> >Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:17 PM >Subject: Re: Screening of children > > >I shan't comment (much) on the substantive debate except to suggest that >Habermas's distinction between different 'knowledge interests' is >potentially helpful in understanding the nature of the disagreement (and >others that have cropped up on the list from time to time). >Habermas is a ‘critical modernist’ who rejects the relativism of post >structuralist / post modernist theory . Instead, like the critical >realists he tries to put knowledge claims on a secure basis while >rejecting the errors of positivism. >There are two versions of Habermas's thesis and I'll use the earlier one:- >He argues that there are three types of knowledge that relate to three >different knowledge constitutive interests:- > >1. the ‘technical’ interest, expressed through the natural sciences and >concerned with technical or instrumental knowledge and means-ends >rationality; >2. the ‘practical’ interest, expressed through the ‘historical / >hermeneutic’ disciplines, and concerned with the understanding of >meaning through the attainment of consensus; >and >3. the ‘emancipatory’ interest, expressed through the critical human and >social sciences, and concerned with release from arbitrary power, >initially through self-reflection. > >The protagonists in this debate on children and screening could be >talking about different kinds of knowledge -and thereby not really >communicating. Where it gets interestingly is when we try to tease out >the different elements - the pro-screeners might be right technically, >maybe practically (the term has a special meaning here). The >anti-screeners may be right in relation to emancipation but not in >relation to the other two. >But I doubt it. Rather than each camp mapping neatly on to one or other >of the knowledge constitutive interests, there are technical, practical >and emancipatory claims in each argument, but in different combinations. >What this break down of knowledges/interests does ask us to do, though >is to be precise about the nature of the claims being made in each case. > >Oh OK, I'll state my view: some times screening helps and sometimes it >doesn't - it depends on the nature of the thing screened for, the >interventions that follow, and the power relations that surround it. >Some things are worth screening for, some aren't and sometimes it leads >to worse problems - it depends. > >By the way - I don't suggest you take Habermas as your guide, any more >than Foucault (or Popper!) - both are significantly flawed, but they can >help us to read some aspects of what is going on in the complex mess >that we try to navigate. > > > > > >McGowan John (Sussex Partnership Trust) wrote: >> Dear David, >> Made the mistake of a late evening log on. Oh dear. Not sure we're going >> to have a meaningful exchange afterall. Lots of discussion as to how >> critical people are but not much time for dissenting views (which are >> readily dismissed as "acritical"). >> I'm sorry you find this a destructive discussion. I was actually finding >> Alison Smith's posts and some others quite thought provoking and >> challenging as it seemed to me they are wrestling with something that >has >> been important to me (and remimding me of a part of my own outlook that >I >> won't deny has become blunted over the years). >> Not sure where to start with this. Or even whether to start to tell the >> truth we are absolutely light years apart and there seems little chance >of >> any meeting within a frame where discussion can happen. In this case >that >> seems to mean that, as you disagree with me you're going to ignore me. >I'm >> not sure that this appears like questioning or critical thinking. More a >> sense of having a a fixed opinion and dismissing all disagreement. >> I'm interested that you align yourself with round earthers while being >so >> casual about the scientific enlightenment (having your cake and eating >> it?). I can't really dismiss it so easily myself. Also can't help >feeling >> that the scientific enlightenment emerged from a set of principles that >> are (when used well) inherently quite critical and more than a little >> humble. Incidentally I'd be quite interested in how the flat earther had >> come to their position and probably wouldn't really mind to much that >that >> was what their position was if I felt they could justify it. You're >point >> is taken though. I think some contributers such as yourself are coming >> from a completey different frame of reference where the power >> relationships, discourse and oppressive practices invalidate the whole >> medical paradigm. I'm not immune to the force of this argument (honestly >> I'm not) but my point is... well I've said what my point is so I won't >> repeat it again. In terms of being educated into a different frame of >> reference. This may be hard to beleive but I have actually read a number >> of the authors you mentioned. Here's the thing though: I didn't reach >the >> same conclusions as you from them. Amazing eh? >> I think what I find difficult about this discussion is the (in some >> quarters)absolute lack of tolerance for any disagreement. (I'll tell you >a >> secret. That's the other reason I picked this up. To see if there was). >I >> find it both difficult and pretty alienating to tell the truth. However, >I >> get the message. You don't want contrary views. >> John >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* The UK Community Psychology Discussion List >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *David Fryer >> *Sent:* 13 January 2008 17:46 >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Screening of children - oops >> >> 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 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* The UK Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of McGowan >> John (Sussex Partnership Trust) >> *Sent:* Sun 1/13/2008 16:10 >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Screening of children - oops >> >> 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:* Craig Newnes <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> *To:* The UK Community Psychology Discussion List >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> *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:* McGowan John (Sussex Partnership Trust) >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[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 >> >> ><http://www.sussexpartnership.nhs.uk/about-us/foundation-trust/consultation-document/membership-and-governance/> >> 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 >> ><http://www.sussexpartnership.nhs.uk/about-us/foundation-trust/consultation-document/membership-and-governance/> > >> 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] >> >> -- >> >> The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by >> charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may be >> contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in >this >> message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you >> may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action >> taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be >> unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly >notify >> the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your >> employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. >> >> ___________________________________ 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 >> ><http://www.sussexpartnership.nhs.uk/about-us/foundation-trust/consultation-document/membership-and-governance/> > >> 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] >> > >___________________________________ >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]