Union Rally San Jose 8/08
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 02:31:49 -0800
To: ClientDiscussions@yahoogroups.com
From: "math_mad" <math_mad@...>
Subject: Re: [Client Discussions] defining lived experience
In
ClientDiscussions@yahoogroups.com, Cba wrote:I define lived experience as: a significant interruption in one's life due to severe social/emotional distress:
This is psychiatric in formulation; it does not speak to the "truth of the madness question" but only to prevailing 'medical model' type ("biopsychosocial") critique.
Clearly this is becoming an important issue with employment depending on it. Frankly, I had never imagined that so many people who carefully avoided admitting to any of these issues are now pouring forth when they can get a job due to such history.
I criticized Buffalo Alternatives - which was done with care and determination - because of the "labor competence" issue. Decades past, when you realized that the system is out of sorts, you were able to establish in a professional sense that it has "psychiatric deficiency." Or anyway that's how I say it. Good work.
Likewise in times past, I took the view (based on the history of the working class struggle for economic justice) that the system's approach to "the madness question" DIDN'T WORK. Then I applied the traditional "trade-union" approach with a 'medical model' critique
enhancement.You "never imagined" – but you probably also didn't absorb Vico's insight on the "imagination critique of the "scientific method."
<sigh!> Now, as the "labor competence" issue arises, the SURFACE of the attendant denial experience is now seen – I’d say – in the identification of the "carefully avoid admitting" and in the "now pouring forth."Our movement has an insufficient history with regard to the question of the 'medical model'. The issue is not as ApA Pres. Sharfstein posed it, 'bio-bio-bio' v. 'bio-psycho-social'. Rather it rises to the level of the "paradigm shift" in how we do social science.
Andrew Phelps
member, Psychologists for Social Responsibility