From: Andrew Phelps <no-action@cwnet.com>

To: s-acc@yahoogroups.com

Subject: ABCD model

Date: Tue 01/25/11 08:26 AM

The rejection of version 18 of our PsySR proposal shows certain upgrades from the rejection of version 15 last September. There they proposed a "compromise" where two ad-hoc groups, one composed of "client/survivors" and one composed of "psychologist/clinicians," set themselves up and discussed "safety" (and its concomitant "vilification/attitude management"). This time, they have accepted our proposal but then "pulled the rug out" by saying this was to be the collaboration of two parallel membership organizations, in lieu of "coalition."

On reflection I see that their argument reflects the model based on the working relationship of the ABCD, a Boston poverty group that organizes client/survivors (among others) on the basis of a "dignity" advocacy for community empowerment purposes. They have a working "collaboration" with the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis, the same group that now engages the administration of PsySR itself. The five of us networked with this advocacy (myself, Lynne, Delphine, Allison, and Naomi) were upstaged by their plenary presentation of ABCD; we did however "have lunch" with them and the interaction was basically civil and respectful. [When Allison presented her Report on the Boston Conference at Disability Awareness Month at SJCC, she was able to speak with "micro" insight into the thinking of the ABCD presenters.]

The "New Social Roles" coalition arrangement would be different than the ABCD arrangement: They are a funded organization and they work within a "first wave" dynamic. We found (speaking overall) that we got our feelings hurt. We also ran into organizational difficulties such as the marginal participation of the "World Can't Wait" (RCP) group - which manipulates community psychology for the purposes of control and torture.

In general, the dynamical issues involved - classical "first wave" concerns - include (pick one) [i] funding or [ii] cult type dynamics. The Social Accountability Work Group emerged from an effort (from the 90s) to transcend those negative dynamics.

One good point is that Jancis, Delphine, Frank, and I got a "letter of acceptance" from the PsySR OpCom this time. [The previous time, in September, no direct response obtained except with Jancis (in her role as Program Coordinator).] I plan to post the suggested revision/response (version 19, I'd suppose) soon on the S-ACC.