Well I actually might be interested in the reference if you have it
handy. 

The reality for me is that I find the kind of certainties in this kind
of argument unconvincing as my own experiences is that the "procedure
through which psy-technicians create and reinforce ideologies of
Normality" sometimes actually works out quite well for all its faults. A
pros and cons argument if you like. People may be helped, their lives
may be improved, resources may become available (such as for some
children labelled with a something like Aspergers). Incidentally I feel
the same way about compulsory detention and treatment and even about
"big Pharma".  

My point is that these issues seem to me to often be ambigious and there
are useful aspects in all of the things which you have dismissed. I am
aware of many of the problems you suggest and of the way in which
individuals use and misuse labels, treratments without regard to the
complexities. The's just it really. It is a complex reality  My problem
with the argument initially put forward is that that It seems to me that
the desirability/morality/utility of any such processes seems (and
correct me if I'm wrong) deemed worthless for ideological reasons.

John


-----Original Message-----
From: David Fryer [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: 09 January 2008 15:28
To: [log in to unmask]; McGowan John (Sussex Partnership
Trust)
Subject: Re: Screening of children

Re "I can help feeling that banning screening (or diagnostic labelling)
is 
a rather unsophisticated response to a complex issue."

One objection to such screening (and its associated rag bag of normal 
distributions of psychological variables, norms etc) is that it is a 
procedure through which psy-technicians create and reinforce ideologies
of 
normality which then open the way for the 'ab'-normal to be constructed
as 
disability (and via dominant medical models) positioned as in need 
of 'treatment' through medication which creates bigger and bigger and
more 
lucrative markets of consumers for big pharma. Banning screening could
be 
argued to be a sophisticated resonse to the psy-complex issue. Nik Rose 
argues the important part of this more fully and coherently if you are 
interested (and also if you are not interested). 

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.

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.

 

___________________________________
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]