Hi:
Being retired, living on a very comfortable retirement annuity, etc., I can
speak from a perspective that might differ radically from that from which many
psychology department faculty members can speak.
I do not, in any way, intend to generate hostility between psychology and
psychiatry. If you will note, I suggested that we turn the promulgating of the
diagnostic narrative over to the biology departments. I would not deprive
anyone of the opportunity to try to use that framework.
I do say, however, that the diagnostic narrative should not be the
territory of psychologists as we attempt to explain unwanted behavior.
If the object of our effort [and I am not sure that this should be the
object of our effort] is to relieve those who behave in unwanted ways from
guilt and reproach, then we might begin by admitting that we have very few
constructions by which to explain how people develop and maintain self-defining
narratives.
Then, we should ask for all kinds of social support in order to come up
with useful ways of explaining the ways in which people develop their
self-defining narratives.
How can someone "experience guilt" about not doing something he doesn't
know anything about? How many people "experience guilt" about being unable to
make an apple pie as well as I can make an apple pie??? Case in point: how can
we frame whatever it is that happens when people talk about "experiencing
guilt?" How do people build and maintain the narratives used to frame what we
reference as emotional life?
If a society is willing to spend billions of dollars on the diagnostic
narrative, why should they decline to spend a few billion to develop a
different, psychologically base narrative?
A society never will take on such a responsibility so long as psychologists
are prepared to promulgage the diagnostic model. The old saying is,
"Shoemaker, tend to your last." Let's do it.......
======================
Bob Large wrote:
> Re: Jim Mancuso has certainly struck a chord!
> But..........
> This discussion is in danger of becoming polarised into yet another
> tiresome debate about the profession of psychology counterposed against the
> profession of psychiatry.
> As I see it the ascendance of the "diagnostic narrative" is not purely
> attributable to the machinations of psychiatry but to the facility with
> which notions of "disease" and "disorder" enter into social negotiations.
> Alcoholics Anonymous have used the disease model very successfully to
> provide a blame-free escape from alcoholism at a time/place in the world
> when alcoholism was something to be ashamed of. DSM III has proved a boon
> to trauma therapists who have used the diagnostic labels to legitimise the
> suffering of their clients/patients. DSM III has also won in the world of
> health funders - insurance companies and the rest. It seems society likes
> a neat pigeon hole for complex problems.
> What I find fascinating is how quickly American psychiatry moved from its
> roots in the Meyerian approach - which was a psychobiological,
> activity-oriented approach which framed "disease" as "reactions" - the
> defunct DSM II used the term "reaction" I think - or was that DSM I? So
> what we have seen in America is the rapid discarding by psychiatry of its
> holistic heritage, as well as psychoanalysis, in favour of a
> disease/disorder model - maybe in order to stay in league with bio-medicine
> - but it is also a victim of its own success. DSM III has proven a great
> bandwagon......and gravy train for psychiatrists and psychologists alike!
> So what is to be done? Whinging about psychiatrists is not going to get us
> very far. The thing to do is to get out there and articulate some
> alternative constructions of the world of psychological suffering and to
> present those constructions in general psychological, psychiatric and
> medical fora - we might be surprised to find that a lot of people are
> sceptical of simplistic diagnostic narratives!
>
> Anyway thats my view from the bottom end of the world!
>
> Cheers, Bob Large
>
> Robert G Large
> Associate Professor of Psychiatry
> Department of Psychiatry & Behavioural Science
> University of Auckland
> Private Bag 92019
> AUCKLAND; NEW ZEALAND
> Ph: #64-9-8118608/ Fax: #64-9-8118698
> email: <rg.large@auckland.ac.nz>
> <BobLarge@compuserve.com>
>
> 7:58 Friday, February 13, 1998
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/soi
A website related to Italian-American Affairs
--------------FA092FCCC29450660FEB1318
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi:
Being retired, living on a very comfortable retirement
annuity, etc., I can speak from a perspective that might differ radically
from that from which many psychology department faculty members can speak.
I do not, in any way, intend to generate hostility
between psychology and psychiatry. If you will note, I suggested that we
turn the promulgating of the diagnostic narrative over to the biology departments.
I would not deprive anyone of the opportunity to try to use that framework.
I do say, however, that the diagnostic narrative
should not be the territory of psychologists as we attempt to explain unwanted
behavior.
If the object of our effort [and I am not sure that
this should be the object of our effort] is to relieve those who behave
in unwanted ways from guilt and reproach, then we might begin by admitting
that we have very few constructions by which to explain how people develop
and maintain self-defining narratives.
Then, we should ask for all kinds of social support
in order to come up with useful ways of explaining the ways in which people
develop their self-defining narratives.
How can someone "experience guilt" about not doing
something he doesn't know anything about? How many people "experience
guilt" about being unable to make an apple pie as well as I can make an
apple pie??? Case in point: how can we frame whatever it is that
happens when people talk about "experiencing guilt?" How do people build
and maintain the narratives used to frame what we reference as emotional
life?
If a society is willing to spend billions of dollars
on the diagnostic narrative, why should they decline to spend a few billion
to develop a different, psychologically base narrative?
A society never will take on such a responsibility
so long as psychologists are prepared to promulgage the diagnostic model.
The old saying is, "Shoemaker, tend to your last." Let's do it.......
======================
Bob Large wrote:
Re: Jim Mancuso has certainly struck a chord!
But..........
This discussion is in danger of becoming polarised into yet another
tiresome debate about the profession of psychology counterposed against
the
profession of psychiatry.
As I see it the ascendance of the "diagnostic narrative" is not purely
attributable to the machinations of psychiatry but to the facility
with
which notions of "disease" and "disorder" enter into social negotiations.
Alcoholics Anonymous have used the disease model very successfully
to
provide a blame-free escape from alcoholism at a time/place in the
world
when alcoholism was something to be ashamed of. DSM III has proved
a boon
to trauma therapists who have used the diagnostic labels to legitimise
the
suffering of their clients/patients. DSM III has also won in
the world of
health funders - insurance companies and the rest. It seems society
likes
a neat pigeon hole for complex problems.
What I find fascinating is how quickly American psychiatry moved from
its
roots in the Meyerian approach - which was a psychobiological,
activity-oriented approach which framed "disease" as "reactions" -
the
defunct DSM II used the term "reaction" I think - or was that DSM I?
So
what we have seen in America is the rapid discarding by psychiatry
of its
holistic heritage, as well as psychoanalysis, in favour of a
disease/disorder model - maybe in order to stay in league with bio-medicine
- but it is also a victim of its own success. DSM III has proven
a great
bandwagon......and gravy train for psychiatrists and psychologists
alike!
So what is to be done? Whinging about psychiatrists is not going
to get us
very far. The thing to do is to get out there and articulate
some
alternative constructions of the world of psychological suffering and
to
present those constructions in general psychological, psychiatric and
medical fora - we might be surprised to find that a lot of people are
sceptical of simplistic diagnostic narratives!
Anyway thats my view from the bottom end of the world!
Cheers, Bob Large
Robert G Large
Associate Professor of Psychiatry
Department of Psychiatry & Behavioural Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
AUCKLAND; NEW ZEALAND
Ph: #64-9-8118608/ Fax: #64-9-8118698
email: <rg.large@auckland.ac.nz>
<BobLarge@compuserve.com>
7:58 Friday, February 13, 1998
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of
Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University
at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington
Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/soi
A website related to Italian-American Affairs
--------------FA092FCCC29450660FEB1318--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%