Excellent. Gavriel, this suggests a way forward. Perhaps the collective
would have a critiera that prevents BPS members occupying any roles in
the 'management' of the collective as the BPS section will have criteria
that prevents Non-BPS and BPS affiliates from any role in the management
of the section. I like the idea of ambassadors in this regard, but also
because it might mean we might include some Ferrero Rocher chocolates in
the food sharing (Annie, I really loved that idea of having a picnic at
the BPS to circumvent some of the formality that might be created). I
think it's okay for us to have separation into two or three strands - it
won't result in factionalism if we maintain the mutual respect among
members that this list has so far been working to maintain.
Gavriel Ansara wrote:
> Thanks for all of these constructive comments. I would just add that
> some people who do have psychology credentials actively choose not to
> join BPS due to ethical concerns unrelated to CP and the issues
> previously discussed on this list. For example, I know multiple
> psychologists- in CP and other fields- who will not join BPS due to
> their failure to vocalise a clear and unequivocal condemnation of the
> participation of psychologists in torture interrogations violating the
> Geneva Convention. There are many who do not join APA for similar
> reasons. As it has been explained to me and discussed on various human
> rights web sites, some of which have been linked in previous posts on
> this list, the idea of joining an organisation that enforces 'ethical
> codes of conduct' while failing to live up to them in crucial ways is
> morally repugnant to some people within and outside of CP.
>
> I bring this up NOT to hinder the constructive process of establishing
> a CP section in BPS, but to point out that even some very enfranchised
> members of this list may need to be considered in discussions about
> how to 'reduce even if not eliminate any social exclusion from the
> BPS or from the section' (quoting Annie Mitchell's excellent post). In
> this case, the exclusion or disenfranchisement we would need to
> consider in our efforts toward inclusion would be of a political
> nature. I would like to echo the sentiments of those who stressed the
> importance of keeping voices and perspectives that might be considered
> 'radical' to a mainstream BPS audience (CP or not) in the figurative
> 'room'.
>
> David Fryer's helpful and insightful post made me think that perhaps
> each group should have a few overlapping members as
> liaisons/representatives/ambassadors, but that this overlap should be
> structured to avoid dual members constituting the majority of the BPS
> section or the CP collective.
>
> Gavi
> ___________________________________ 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]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>) or Grant Jeffrey
> ([log in to unmask] <mailto:[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
___________________________________
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
|