Nate, Paul, Diane et al,
Sorry, the previous note was sent prematurely,
and I wanted to add to
Nate wrote:
>
>I guess I took your quote as stating the structural aspect was outdated or
>no longer pertinent, yet I feel its an issue far from being solved. It seems
>to me to be a central tenet of the earlier cultural-historical school.
Not at all! that was not where I was going with that (although a key issue
for chat where I believe we tend to agree actually)..
To clarify my take on the quote you noted,
1. As I re-read it, it is clear that I must reword it to express the actual
intent/point i was trying to make, ie. that chat attends to socio-genesis
and requires sociogenetic analyses in addition to, or better still, in
relation to, the analysis of the psyche (not to be confused as = to
psychoanalysis..)
This is a tangent here below
(So the content here may be the ADHd, anorexia and similar disorders that
may represent the chief complaint of the individual, the current cog.beh
intellectual orientation still considers primarily as individual in
nature, and treats them as such.....because it (The cog-beh intell
orientation) fits the current soc. conditions etc, is receptive to it....etc
When other indices of disrorders manifest a rapid increase in a
society..(e.g., suicide in some groups, (school) violence.., the CHAT
analyst would look at the genetic issue re. the disorder...
and the issue of who needs therapy, the individual or the soc. that is
socializing the minds of new generations......)
2. I should not have used "rather" because my intent was not to leave out
that part of chat that does focus on structure (Luria etc... another story
but not here).
I was dealing with the issue of the future role of CHAT in this
subdiscipline in the future. Earlier in that last paragraph, i was
musing/noting how CHAT may not be as easily debunked as behaviorism as an
intellectual orientation that was clearly utilitarian and very much at the
service of existing socio-economic structures (enacting roles within the
latter, including psychometrics..)
3. What is worrisome is that given the demise of capitalism's counterweight
in 1993, and the free hand of the current, globalizing socio-econ structure
that rules, the HMO/ corporate press on the mental health field is ever
more powerful, practitioners are being trained rather than educated with
only official histories of psych as a discipline....etc
so CHAT is likely to remain as alien to mainstream counseling/clinical
practices as ever (I think this explains part of the reason why it is so
today)
not only because it has not evolved sufficiently to take its place along
side other theories in Corsini types of textbooks),
not only because it lacks clear articulation of what a CHAT approach would
look like (there is evidence that depending on who you consult with about
this and many other related issues, one will get quite different
answers.....as a community, we may still be at the Chain complexes , or
collection stage #! who-is-at !#!!@%&^!# in how we put the legacy into practice.)
but mainly because CHAT is so reflective , dialectical,....that it is
unlikely that it will play a role or serve any particular socio-economic
structure, East or West, North or South...
and finally, perhaps because it threatens to deconstruct existing
practices, (Diagnoses, Rx goals, treatments, ....it will be kept out of
praxis, only to be entertained in the remaining ivory towers.
so,
Any suggestions?
&
How might such issues be presented to the mainstream APA journals, is it
even worth the effort?
pedro
Pedro R. Portes, Ph.D
Professor of Educational
& Counseling Psychology
(502 852-0630/ fax 0629)
http://www.louisville.edu/~prport01
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 01 2000 - 01:01:24 PDT