Do we really need a consensus definition of CP? In particular, do we need it now for the purposes of this statement? I think the answer is 'no' in each case.

Is discussing issues involved in working towards a consensus definition something we could usefully do on this list over time? I think the answer is 'maybe yes'.

Does refusing to define community psychology "sound like we don't know and can't say what we are doing"? I don't think so but don't think that would be a bad thing if it did. After all, Foucault showed that asking an apparently simple question like "What is an author" reveals the many problematic assumptions which underlie the posing of such questions and the socio-cultural-ideological-specificity of any answers and what the answerers were using the answers to accomplish. The same applies for me to the apparently simple question like "what is community psychology?" 

Saying "Community psychology what CP practitioners do" does not answer the question "What is community psychology" but just makes one ask it in a different way.  (What is community psychology practice?) I certainly know of many people claiming to be doing community psychology practice which I would not regard as doing community psychology and I also know of many community activists whose work I would regard as doing community psychology (though they would not see it that way themselves).

The 'Reich' book (which I think of as "the Prilleltensky Vanderbilt book") does not solve the definitional problem so much as require it to be posed as it is yet another example of United Statesian community psychologists assuming the authority to decide which voices are and are not heard regarding (and therefore what is agreed as) what is defined as (in this case international / global) community psychology

I suggest we go without a definition of community psychology in a collective statement like this. 


David
  

-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Burton
Sent: 16 October 2007 13:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: definitions of CP

I'm torn three ways on this.
1)  We do need a consensus definition that simply states boradly what it is that we are about.  This needn't be all defining and should be couched in inclusive terms - but the refusal to make a statement just sounds like we don't know and can't say what we are doing and what cp is.  The various definitions Annie gathered could be a basis for this.
2)  In a real sense CP is what CP practitioners do.  That in itself could be a basis for preparing the definition implied in 1 above.  We are talking of family resemblances here rather than anything more precise.
3)  But there is also a place for making our own definitions that are programatic, that define intention and distinctiveness.
For these reasons you'll find we use both the third and the second approach in the chapter on CP in this country in the Reich et al book - staing what we think it is but also adopting definition 2 - it is what it is.

But I'm not much afraid of the power of words - let's use that power to conjure an alternative way of thinking and doing and deal with the contraditctions as they come up.  We could use tools like boundary critique and ideology critique in doing this, but we need to focus on action - enough already!



> a collection of definitions from different standpoints values  
> diversity - and also we need to critically question the whole idea of 
> definitions - whose interests do they serve etc.
>
>
>
> Here are the definitions generated in advance of the Exeter conference.
> You will notice some gaps: for example I donl;t think any of them 
> explicitly take a stance that considers race/ ethnicity / cultural 
> diversity..
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Fryer
> Sent: 16 October 2007 11:33
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: definitions of CP
>
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
>
>
> At the Exeter UK CP conference Annie pulled together about 8 different 
> definitions of CP by different UK groups and it was interesting to me 
> how very different they all were. Some were 'dynamically interesting' 
> e.g. Jim Orford's for Exeter was very different than the one in his book from '92.
>
>
>
> I spent used my presentation time at the UK CP conference at York 
> recently making an argument that any definition of cp is an assertion 
> of power power and that the definitions most asserted are the most 
> problematic. I think we can and should live with a variety of 
> definitions of CP without privileging any one of them - at least for the purposes of this statement.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of Mark 
> Burton
> Sent: Tue 16/10/2007 10:25
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The CBT announcement - who is going to tell them they've 
> been had? Penultimate version?
>
> I'm OK with most of this.
> Is there a less contestable definition of CP that we can all live with?
> To clarify, www.compsy.org.uk is not an MMU site.  In the absence of 
> the network gettign its act together to have a web presence it is the next
> best thing.   I'll be delighted when someone relieves me of the self
> imposed responsibility for maintaining it (hint...).     But so long as we
> have acontact point on the statement I think we can take it off since
> enquiries can then be routed that way.   Can I suggest that David and Mark
> R jointly field enquiries?
> Mark
>
>
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> a few points of clarification about the statement as I see it and my 
>> role in generating it:
>>
>>
>>
>> ·        Those who know me and my work might agree that I have quite
>> strong views of my own about the problematic nature of psychology, 
>> including most clinical psychology and much of what is presented by 
>> some as community psychology
>>
>> ·        However here I did not see it as my role in drafting this
>> collective statement to restate my own uncompromising position but, 
>> as I would not be prepared to add my name to a statement that 
>> included statements with which I profoundly disagree, I did not add 
>> in such statements.
>>
>> ·        I also did not see it as my role to check statements list
>> members
>> had made and some such statements I had to take on trust
>>
>> ·        Re Jan's point: we could develop this into an essay by adding
>> detail to develop each of the points but I think the point of this 
>> exercise if to find something we can agree enough on the send a 
>> collective statement. The more we introduce detail the more potential 
>> to disagree.
>> I
>> deliberately avoided referring to any named research though Wilkinson 
>> is in the re at the end, Durlak earlier etc.
>>
>> ·        There were painful compromises. For example I would rather the
>> govt. spend more on CBT than on medication as the side effects seem 
>> less destructive but I thought it was better not to open on too many fronts.
>>
>> ·        I would prefer the list to go as a collective statement but
>> don't
>> think we have mechanisms of accountability to make that safe for 
>> everyone or practicable to achieve. This is after all just a 
>> discussion list. Not all folks who are involved in the CP network in 
>> the UK are members of this list.
>>
>> ·        I am not personally committed to the inclusion of the phrase
>> "people who have shorter training than clinical psychologists?" but 
>> this was an attempt to include the suggestion Annie made on 14/10 
>> that "My understanding is that the new treasury money isn't exactly  
>> for CBT, but for what are now being called low intensity high volume interventions..
>> based on CBT concepts, but to be delivered by people who are very 
>> slightly trained" I thought that Annie was referring to the course 
>> now mushrooming like the 'psychological therapies' course at Stirling 
>> which effectively trains people to offer CBT in primary care. Whilst 
>> my view is that clinical psychology is critically (in the sense of 
>> Foucault, Althusser, Parker etc. . . . by the way 'critical' in this 
>> sense is NOT the opposite of positive') problematic, three years does 
>> allow more possibility of sustained critical reflection than a one 
>> year crammer in CBT. "by people who have some basic training" is fine 
>> by me
>>
>> ·        Re Annie's point that critics of our statement would say that
>> the
>> whole point of these low volume high intensity interventions are to 
>> deal with the very issue that there will never be enough people to go 
>> round
>> 1:1
>> for everyone who "needs help". I agree this needs dealing with.
>>
>> ·        I did not appear to be sniffy about 'plain speaking'. My
>> reservation is that everyday language is saturated with dominant 
>> psychologistic discourses and in using it we risk reinstating 
>> problematic ways of understanding. I think it is very hard to do 
>> without the notion of ideology but I accepted David (Smail) 's 
>> suggestion it should go (because understood problematically by so 
>> many people) but I do think vox pop also runs the risk of doing the 
>> status quo's work for it.
>>
>> ·        Re Dawn's point: as far as I am concerned I really welcome the
>> membership and contributions of members from outside the UK and do 
>> not think geographical location should determine whether one can be 
>> member or not of the UK list. Dawn's own contributions to debate are 
>> themselves a sign that critical voices are still being raised in 
>> Australia!  I would welcome international signatories personally ... 
>> but I am just a list member like anyone else who happened to take on 
>> a drafting task!
>>
>> ·        The corny title was an attempt at meeting Mark (Rapley)'s
>> suggestion that an 'attention grabbing' headline is 'essential'.
>>
>>
>>
>> Over to you Mark (Burton) . . . .
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the issue has raised a lot of further discussion points.
>>
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of Mark 
>> Burton
>> Sent: Tue 16/10/2007 08:25
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: The CBT announcement - who is going to tell them they've 
>> been had? Penultimate version?
>>
>>
>>
>> Just when you need it my email client seems to be malfunctioning so 
>> this message didn't go through an hour ago - apologies if you get it twice.
>> Further disorganisation is that I'm in this evening (thought I was 
>> out) so could finalise it early evening.
>> Will post a slightly revised and formatted version in a few minutes.
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> If it's OK I will make the final changes this morning using David's 
>> final version and adding/amending as suggested by the consensus in 
>> the subsequent posts - a) take out the reference to clin psy, b) 
>> acknowledge Annie's second point below, c) if possible point to 
>> preventative strategies more explicitly ( in the notes to editors bit 
>> after the statement).  I'll add the other names that came in later.
>> I need to get this done by 9.30 at the latest.  If this is too soon, 
>> then let me know - phone 0161 881 6887.
>> Finally - if anyone has suggestions on where to send it, newsdesk 
>> faxes, emails etc let me know.
>> Is there anyone who can act as contact person for enquiries - I'd 
>> rather not do this as my areas of expertise/affiliation would be seen 
>> as to specialised to be credible.
>> Mark
>>
>> Annie Mitchell wrote:
>>> Dear David, Thanks for this and for the chance to have a final
>> comment.It is looking good, and I  like the title and summary statement.
>> 2 points. . ( acknowledging I am maybe just being too picky now)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) I don;t want to be  make comparisons with  clinical  
>>> psychologists as
>> if to imply that  level of training is some sort of ideal ; I suggest 
>> change the wording at the end of sentence 1 under notes for editors  
>> to " by people who have some basic training" instead of " by people 
>> who have shorter training than clinical psychologists".
>>>
>>> 3) , my understanding is  that the planned low volume high intensity
>> interventions are to be based on what's called a stepped care model, 
>> starting with  guided self-help, using techniques drawn from cognitive
>> behaviour therapy , and   leading from low level interventions to more
>> complex interventions  for those whose anxiety/ depressions is not 
>> helped by the less intensive interventions.  Critics of our statement 
>> would say that the whole point of these low volume high intensity 
>> interventions are to deal with the very issue that there will never be
>> enough people to go round 1:1 for everyone who "needs help".   I don't
>> seem to be able to find the concise wording needed to capture the 
>> argument here, but am aware tht our statement as it stands, unless it 
>> acknowedges this, risks being seen as insufficiently  aware of what 
>> is actually intended. David, can you find a wording that would 
>> capture this.. sorry; too late at night now for my brain to work properly.
>>>
>>> Annie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of David 
>>> Fryer
>>> Sent: Mon 15/10/2007 21:52
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: The CBT announcement - who is going to tell them 
>>> they've
>> been had? Penultimate version?
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Below please find the revised penultimate version of the statement 
>>> as
>> promised. I have tried to incorporate all the suggestions made which 
>> are consistent with community critical psychology as I understand it. 
>> I apologise in advance for the points I have missed or garbled.
>>>
>>> 6 preliminary points
>>>
>>> 1.
>>>       I revised my draft statement in line with posts posted before 
>>> 1900
>> before looking at Mark's and Julie's suggested versions. I amended it 
>> again to accommodate some of Mark's points which had not already been 
>> amended (many had).
>>> 2.
>>>       I preferred to stick with the version which has been 
>>> considered on this
>> list rather than Julie's more popular version. It might seem just a 
>> matter of style but the version which has evolved below is a 
>> condensation oflots of quite carefully made points and I would 
>> personally prefer not tolose those.
>>> 3.
>>>       I think it has been important for this whole process to be 
>>> open and I
>> would prefer the final stages to done in public on the list too 
>> personally.
>>> 4.
>>>       I did not add in comments about 'self 
>>> actualisation/realisation of
>> human potential set in within the context of the communities and 
>> society we live in' or 'PSA 16 Agreement' because I see them both as 
>> critically problematic, think others might too and think we should 
>> stick with what has been generally agreed
>>> 5.
>>>       I have intended to append as signatories only and all the 
>>> names of
>> people who explicitly asked to have their names included. Some people 
>> may have thought that was implied. If your name is not there and you 
>> wish it tobe, please make that clear ASAP.
>>> 6.
>>>       Apologies if the snappy 'title' is not snappy enough for you
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> For immediate release
>>>
>>> Statement
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Changing politicians' minds about changing our minds
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Cognitive Behaviour Therapy and associated approaches are
>> comprehensively problematic. Primary prevention is only way to 
>> substantially reduce socially, economically and materially caused 
>> distress. To be effective primary prevention must involve social 
>> rather than cognitive change. Reducing income inequality in our 
>> society would be one of the most effective ways to reduce 
>> psychological distress and ill health" says the UK Community Psychology Network.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Notes for Editors:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The government has recently announced £170m is to be made available 
>>> by
>> 2010 to increase the availability of low intensity, high volume, 
>> interventions, of which Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) is 
>> currently the most favoured, to be delivered at primary care level to 
>> adults of working age by people who have shorter training than 
>> clinical psychologists.
>>>
>>> We welcome the recognition of widespread emotional distress and the 
>>> will
>> to spend public money on it but the scale of socially caused distress 
>> is so vast and growing so rapidly that it is impossible to 'treat it 
>> better' by training enough individuals to treat all individuals in 
>> distress one at a time with any therapeutic technique.
>>>
>>> Even if we could train enough of such practitioners, there is little
>> reason to think that the one to one talking treatments by 
>> professionals aremore than marginally effective in the hands of some 
>> practitioners for some people, especially those in the most difficult 
>> living circumstances
>>>
>>> Whilst classic community psychology research suggests that untrained
>> volunteers are usually more effective than professionals in 
>> delivering helpthrough talking and listening, the effectiveness CBT 
>> and kindred interventions in any hands is widely exaggerated and they 
>> are impossible to apply in many situations.
>>>
>>> Moreover these treatments individualise social problems, draw
>> attentionaway from the more important social economic and material 
>> causes of distress and position individual cognitive dysfunction as 
>> both the cause of the person's problem and the locus for intervention.
>>>
>>>  It is bad enough to be depressed because you have been unemployed 
>>> or to
>> be anxious because you are subjected to regular domestic violence 
>> without being told your depression or anxiety are caused by your own 
>> dysfunctional cognitions. Blaming the victim like this imposes 
>> irrelevant therapeutic rituals on top of societal oppression
>>>
>>> Besides, when those treated go back into the psychologically toxic
>> contexts which had made them distressed in the first place, to which 
>> many or most will have no alternative, they are subjected to the same 
>> social causes of distress all over again and if those treated do not 
>> go back into those psychological toxic contexts, there will still be 
>> an epidemic of newly damaged people coming on stream due others being 
>> subjected to the ignored social causes of distress.
>>>
>>> Cognitive Behaviour Therapy and associated approaches are
>> comprehensively problematic and primary prevention is only way to 
>> substantially reducesocially, economically and materially caused 
>> distress. To be effective primary prevention must involve social 
>> rather than cognitive change. Contemporary research shows that 
>> reducing income inequality in our society would be one of the most 
>> effective ways to reduce psychological distress andill health.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John Cromby
>>>
>>> Bob Diamond
>>>
>>> David Fryer
>>>
>>> Annie Mitchell
>>>
>>> Paul Moloney
>>>
>>> Penny Priest
>>>
>>> Mark Rapley
>>>
>>> David Smail
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> on behalf of the UK Community Psychology Network
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> 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]
>>
>>
>>
>
> ___________________________________
> 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]
>
>
> ___________________________________
> 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]

-- 
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]