Critical approaches

What does critical mean anyway?

On this blog and at our meetings we will often talk about being critical or using critical approaches. Whether it’s in relation to psychology, psychiatry or another related field, we will be using the word in much the same way. But there may be some of you who are unsure what it really means and whether it’s something you want to get involved with.

So, in an effort things a bit clearer I thought it would be useful to offer a brief explanation.

To do so I have read the introductory chapter from Kagan, C., Burton, M., Duckett, P., Lawthom, R., & Siddiquee, A. (2011). Critical Community Psychology (1st ed.).

The word ‘critical’ is often used in common language to express opposition to or disapproval of a topic. A person who is a critic opposes and takes an ‘anti’ stance against all topics. As Kagan and colleagues write there is no method to this, just an individual voice saying whatever they like. This is largely destructive and not very productive.

Rather, the ‘critical’ we want to engage with is similar to the word critique and comes from the school of thought called critical theory. This group of scholars would critique a social phenomenon by applying a more general theory of human society, as it’s frame of reference. The purpose of this is to understand the phenomenon in terms of the contradictions that are inherent in society. For example you might apply a feminist theory of patriarchal practices to a local labour relations issue. By applying this broad, more general theory, you will understand the phenomenon differently to how you would otherwise have if you read it simply at face value. This may add to your level of overall understanding of that phenomenon and the critique will reveal the assumptions behind the phenomenon that would otherwise remain as unspoken rationalised truths. Some of these may be contradictory and not in the interests in a certain group in society and so social change may take place.

Critical approaches to psychology (and psychiatry) could therefore critique the cornerstones of the discipline such as the scientist-practitioner model, evidence based practice, psychiatric diagnosis, talking therapy, psychiatric medications etc. Really the list is endless. By critiquing these areas we do not necessarily oppose them, although we reserve the right to, but rather we hope to reveal the parts of the phenomenon that are excluded from or minimised by the dominant narrative.

If you are interested in watching critique in action then check out this Slavoj Zizek clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxrqzNpuf94 -the first 3 or 4 min in particular are great.