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.

Topic for first meeting

At our first meeting we will be discussing 'what is psychology?'.

When we say that word what do we mean? When we say that we work within the discipline how does that shape the work that we do, the services we work within, and the people we work with?

To provide some sort of an anchor for our discussions we have picked a short chapter from Guy Holmes' book 'psychology in the real world'. Which, by the way is a great book! I'll bring along my copy to the meeting so that people can have a flick through it.

We have been given permission to reproduce the chapter (no. 2 'what is meant by psychology') and share it with those who are attending. I will email out a copy to everyone on the list two weeks beforehand.

So..... if you haven't done so already contact me on aidanjakelly[at]gmail.com and put your name on the email list.

Here are some possible topics for future discussions:

1. The use of academic/ professional language. How it can exclude or marginalise consumers and maintain professionals privileged positions.
2. ECT- good, bad or ugly?
3. Diagnosis, who wins and who losses by using the DSM and ICD?
4. Politics and mental health- can clinicians really be a-political? Do we not treat the symptoms of a sick society?
5. Symptom reduction as the goal. What are the pro's and con's of a system that is set up that way?
6. RCT's as the gold standard in research- what are the pitfalls? 
7. "The literature states that CBT is the best evidenced treatment for X disorder". What does that mean for all other modalities? How useful are things like the NICE guidelines? Are we evidence-based practitioners if we don't use CBT?
8. What is mental illness? Does it really mean that your mind is ill? How about dis-order? When do you stop being abnormal and become normal? Prevalence rates of certain disorders have sky-rocketed (e.g. ADHD). Are those behaviours still abnormal when so many children in the Australia now have the diagnosis? 
9. What's the role of psychiatric medication? How do professionals educate people about the meds they are taking and the rationale for taking them?

This is only a provisional list and we encourage people to suggest other topics (just email me). We hope that 2 or 3 people from the group will agree to facilitate each discussion. You don't need to be an expert in the area, you just need to pick a short article, video, or podcast that relates to the topic (for people to access beforehand), feel familiar enough with the issues to start off the discussion and guide us in case we get stuck.

Looking forward to starting our discussions on the 12th of March!!