Another excellent discussion! The British criticals are some of the most uncritical people around (in the virtuous sense of the word critical). At this point, I cannot take anyone seriously who still maintains that real category = biological essence. This is basically a fringe view in philosophy of science and philosophy of medicine. A ton of work has been done on natural kinds without essence (e.g. homeostatic property clusters) and diagnoses as practical kinds in medicine, in addition to developments like enactivism and embodied cognition. [I had interviewed Timimi as part of my Conversations in Critical Psychiatry series as well.]
Thank you so much for this post - it came at just the right time for me as I have been struggling to articulate a lot of this stuff for a while and you really hit the nail on the head (and weirdly I have also recently been reading up about Kantian perspectives on what is 'real' so WOAH crazy coincidence!). It was particularly useful hearing how you parse all the various lenses through which you view your anxiety - my own thinking about ADHD has passed through so many different stages, many of which even directly contradict each other, that I'm often left feeling like I don't even know what I think (and then feeling really lost as a result, because we're all expected to have An Opinion™️ about everything and to never acknowledge any ambiguity or uncertainty). It's a good reminder that a lens is a tool, not a definite answer, and that different situations require different tools.
I appreciate your use of lenses and models to further understanding. The usual code-switching prevents communication and gets concretized. Polarization has made finding shared values and definitions background noise. Opposition to or defense of the status quo becomes everything. It may be cliche but I have seen the arts bring people together. There are stories of resilience that touch us all. Other stories are used to oppress us.
From Why Has Critical Psychiatry Run Out of Steam?:
"The creation of knowledge is a delicate, collective process. It requires avenues of criticism, uptake of criticism, public standards, and tempered equality. It requires a diversity of fallible standpoints. Let critique make room for the voices of patients, for the ambiguities of neuroscience, for the textures of culture, for the uncertainties of practice, and for the wisdom of clinicians."
Another excellent discussion! The British criticals are some of the most uncritical people around (in the virtuous sense of the word critical). At this point, I cannot take anyone seriously who still maintains that real category = biological essence. This is basically a fringe view in philosophy of science and philosophy of medicine. A ton of work has been done on natural kinds without essence (e.g. homeostatic property clusters) and diagnoses as practical kinds in medicine, in addition to developments like enactivism and embodied cognition. [I had interviewed Timimi as part of my Conversations in Critical Psychiatry series as well.]
P.S. Why Has Critical Psychiatry Run Out of Steam? https://www.psychiatrymargins.com/p/why-has-critical-psychiatry-run-out
I find you to be a genius
Thank you so much for this post - it came at just the right time for me as I have been struggling to articulate a lot of this stuff for a while and you really hit the nail on the head (and weirdly I have also recently been reading up about Kantian perspectives on what is 'real' so WOAH crazy coincidence!). It was particularly useful hearing how you parse all the various lenses through which you view your anxiety - my own thinking about ADHD has passed through so many different stages, many of which even directly contradict each other, that I'm often left feeling like I don't even know what I think (and then feeling really lost as a result, because we're all expected to have An Opinion™️ about everything and to never acknowledge any ambiguity or uncertainty). It's a good reminder that a lens is a tool, not a definite answer, and that different situations require different tools.
I appreciate your use of lenses and models to further understanding. The usual code-switching prevents communication and gets concretized. Polarization has made finding shared values and definitions background noise. Opposition to or defense of the status quo becomes everything. It may be cliche but I have seen the arts bring people together. There are stories of resilience that touch us all. Other stories are used to oppress us.
From Why Has Critical Psychiatry Run Out of Steam?:
"The creation of knowledge is a delicate, collective process. It requires avenues of criticism, uptake of criticism, public standards, and tempered equality. It requires a diversity of fallible standpoints. Let critique make room for the voices of patients, for the ambiguities of neuroscience, for the textures of culture, for the uncertainties of practice, and for the wisdom of clinicians."