Posted by alexandra_k on October 1, 2006, at 21:27:35
In reply to This was what I thought of, posted by ElaineM on October 1, 2006, at 17:15:49
Sometimes different fields lable the same things differently, and label distinct things with the same term. I have been struggling with the notion of 'dualism' as it is used in psychiatry / psychology. It might well be that sociologists use the term 'intentional paradigm' differently from how this guy (psychiatrist) is using it. In philosophy the closest I've come to the term 'intentional paradigm' is Dennett's notion of the 'intentional stance' which is a very different notion...
> I don't know, I interpret the "Intentional Paradigm" differently, though I usually refer to it as the Socio-Cultural explanation for mental illness.
Okay. So I have gotten interested in philosophy of psychiatry. I do analytic philosophy rather than continental and there really isn't much analytic philosophy of psychiatry out there... I found one very recent, very good book on the topic and he said that to the best of his knowledge his was the only book written on the topic. I was a little surprised so I had a hunt in the library and I found this "The Philosophical Defence of Psychiatry". He talks about the following paradigms in psychiatry:
- The medical paradigm
- The psychodynamic paradigm
- The behavioural paradigm (though he lumps cognitive in there too on occasion)
- The intentional paradigm
- The sociological paradigm
He says that one might be concerned that these paradigms all compete and thus psychiatry is in a hopelessly fragmented state. What he aims to do, however, is to show how they are all different theories (that can compliment or conflict) within the over-arching medical paradigm. For the most part he tries to show the different theories are consistent. He also acknowledges conflict, however, (in case falsification is important).This is what he says about the sociological paradigm:
'The sociological paradigm also contradicts the medical paradigm by assuming that there are no mental illnesses. Instead, disturbed behaviour is seen as the consequence of social forces.
> The social model maintains that mental illness is related clearly to social factors and there is no difficulty in predicting that one will follow from the other. For example, it has been shown in many studies that people who live in poor deprived geographical areas, who are unemployed and in unsatisfactory housing and have no special occupational skills, are likely to suffer higher rates of mental illness than the rest of the population (Tyrer and Steinberg, 1987, p. 77)
> Abnormal behaviour is seen as a symptom of a disturbed society, and for this reason the individual is not consideed ill - if anything is ill, it is society. This paradigm makes a number of assumptions. First, that abnormal behaviour can be the result of labelling. And second, that abnormal behaviour can be the result of averse social circumstances. In this way, the sociological paradigm seeks an explanation for the patient's behaviour outside that individual in a sick social group' p. 142
___________________________________
> is it possible that "game played" was only being used synonimously with "strategy enacted" or "technique implimented", or something like that.Yes, I think so. But I could be wrong... I think the notion of playing a game isn't meant to convey glee or anything. More a strategic enactment, yeah.
> Okay, I'm kinda scared cause this is the first "something other than emotional support" post I've made.((((Elaine))))
I know some people don't like these kinds of discussions... But I guess there are enough threads and posts for people to pick and choose what interests them. I get a lot out of them. Thanks for putting yourself 'out there' to talk to me :-) I appreciate it a whole heap.> I've probably asked more questions in my post than argued anything but oh well.
Thats cool :-) I wasn't arguing anything either. Just presenting a theory as this guy wrote about it. I'm not sure if his is the most perspicuous statement of it. He has a chapter on it, but I don't think I'm going to read it... I started doing a lot of work on the book, but he makes some fairly dodgey philosophical claims. I think that is why... Other analytic philosophers have fairly much ignored him... But I wanted to write about different 'paradigms' and different levels of explanation and how they relate to one another. I don't think I'll write on the particular paradigms he has chosen, however. They don't seem to be a part of mainstream theorising anymore, best I can figure. I think I should focus on genetic / environmental. Genetic / neurobiological. Cognitive / neuropsychological. I don't know because I don't know enough about this as yet... But I think I need to find the current productive scientific research programs and worry about how they relate to one another. There is a whole heap of decent philosophy on the nature / nurture controversy too. And a whole heap of stuff on how the biologists and social constructionists views can be synthesised for a more complete picture. I think I need to worry about them.
> Sorry if I'm confusing, the thinking part of my brain is rusty.
I don't think you are confusing, I think you are very clear. If I haven't engaged more with what you have said its because... I think you are speaking a lot of good sense.
> If I'm crossing theories here let me know because I focused on Sociology during my studies.
Thats hard for anyone looking at stuff that has been done within another discipline. I struggle with that too...
> But I'm trying to argue that I agree with the beliefs of everyone who've posted, but am saying that I'm not sure that the Int.P. exists to contradict those beliefs.
Yeah. Thats what Reznek is trying to argue. I'm not sure his arguments succeed but... I agree with the general spirit.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:689710
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20060926/msgs/690955.html