Hello Erica, and everyone,

Just a quick note, as I have to get back to work.

My first thoughts are that the BPS exists to promote and protect (however well it does so can be debated too) the interests of its members.. it's members who are already positioned as highly resourced and relatively well off in our society. There are serious questions about how it positions psychologists and itself in relation to others with fewer academic, professional and financial resources. Indeed how it positions itself in relation to abuse of people (including abuse by psychologists) in wider contexts outside of the consulting room, and beyond it's own shores.

The BPS code of conduct clearly positions psychologists as powerful and 'clients' as powerless. It does not focus on ways of working that undermine this system, but rather focuses on defending the weak against the occasional abuser within the ranks of the powerful. It does not recognise that the system itself engenders abuse that is potentially less visible, but nonetheless systematic and corrosive. A colleague and I led a co-ordinated response to the consultation on the code of conduct several years ago. We developed a collective critical response from the Community Psychology Network conference in Newcastle in 2005, and further discussion on this list. The code of conduct was introduced and maintained the same stance that does not challenge the way that 'user' and 'provider' are positioned. The idea that this code exists to protect the public can be critiqued on the basis that it perpetuates existing power relationships and does nothing to challenge them.

There are also questions for me about membership of the BPS as an exclusive society. I'm not sure what the requirements for entry are now, but for a long time I resisted joining a club that you had to get signatures from two existing members to enter. It smacked strongly of exclusion, and upholding the existing social order.

I'm not suggesting that the BPS is a bad organisation, filled with bad people. I don't honestly know about the motivations of people who run the Society. I think as psychologists we often do identify ourselves as holding a position beneath that of other professionals, particularly medics within the NHS, and we seek to develop our own interests, sometimes without stepping back to look at where we sit in relation to others around us. I think there are many reasons why an organisation may function in the way it does, and I'm sure we could debate this for some time!

There's a lot more to say, but unfortunately, I've run out of time on this occasion, and still have a mountain of work to get through today.

Of course, as I write, we await the details of the spending review. I hope this list will be a place where we can look outward, at the likely effects of the cuts across the board, instead of just inward at our own professional interests and squabbles. Perhaps there's some impetus here for collective action, whether we have a collective, a section, or whatever.

Best wishes,

Wendy

PS, I am a psychologist, a member of the BPS, and was elected to the interim committee of the CP section in absentia (and without filling in the form!). I have been, and still am deeply ambivalent about whether the Section is a good idea. I will do what I can, for as long as I can, from the inside, but not without compromises and costs, no doubt. I'm grateful for critical colleagues who can help from the outside. I'm aware of, and struggling with, the whole 'outside/inside' development too... is this really the best way of doing things?

From: Erica Brostoff <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, 20 October, 2010 9:24:14
Subject: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] BPS "conservatisim"

Dear All,
Following Paul Duckett and other correspondents' posts, it would be helpful to those of us who are not in a position to see the darker side of the BPS (if there is one) because we are inside it, a guide to the problems with it that non-members see.

There may be a gut reaction of being a "joiner" or a "non-joiner", as well as more objective positions. Generalisations without substance are not illuminating. So please do respond, someone, and it would be helpful to know whether you are a psychologist or not. Not all people with degrees in psychology join the BPS by a long way, but I think that is more because they do not see what it has to offer them more than a negative view of what it does.

Thank you, EB

___________________________________
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