Philosophy of Disability as Critical Diversity Studies

Tremain, Shelley

doi:10.13169/intecritdivestud.1.1.0030

Cited by 23 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These papers, which also drew significantly on the work of certain psychiatrists with a particular interest in what they refer to as 'chronic fatigue syndrome' (Sharpe et al, 1997;Wessely, 1997), lay the foundation for the UK welfare reforms (Rutherford, 2007b) journals have been reported to decline redaction of BPS-inspired MUS research widely considered to be ethically and methodologically flawed (Tuller, 2018;Tuller, 2019), arguably represent a lack of reflexivity and a form of institutional complicity (or collusion, depending on degree of intent) in othering people labelled with MUS. In these respects, the BPS model of MUS, associated discourse and power relations that (re)produce such discourse could be considered a socio-structural phenomenon -perhaps something akin to Foucault's dispositif or apparatus (Foucault, 1975(Foucault, /1995; see also Tremain, 2018) -that should be acknowledged in a truly holistic BPS (or bio-psycho-social-structural) framework of MUS. In order to redress lack of reflexivity on an individual, institutional and structural level, the psychological underpinnings of such must be examined further.…”

Section: Non-reflexive Mus Practice Discourse and Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the psychology of practitioners, institutions and structures:

Hunt

2022

Outlines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

‘Medically unexplained symptoms’ (MUS), through the lens of the biopsychosocial model, are understood in mainstream psy disciplines and related literature as a primarily psychosocial phenomenon perpetuated by ‘dysfunctional’ psychology on the part of people labelled with such. Biopsychosocial discourse and practice in this field, underpinned by little empirical foundation and lacking theoretical coherency, are associated with harms sustained by people labelled with MUS. Yet, little attention is paid to the psychology of social actors and institutions whose practice and policy derives from biopsychosocial theorising, or whose vested interests (re)produce such theorising. This article contends that lack of reflexivity among psy practitioners and other social actors on individual, institutional and structural levels furthers biopsychosocial hegemony and contributes to harms. Non-reflexive behaviour on the part of practitioners within clinical and ‘therapeutic’ encounters and on the part of social actors within institutions and broader power structures is examined, and possible psychological underpinnings of non-reflexivity are explored. Notably, the concept of gain, drawn from dominant discourse around MUS, is applied broadly to explore what might be gained from eschewing reflexivity and from adhering to biopsychosocial narratives. Implications for practice, supervision, training and research are discussed, notably highlighting a need for critical reflexivity in all domains.

show abstract

Section: Non-reflexive Mus Practice Discourse and Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the psychology of practitioners, institutions and structures:

Hunt

2022

Outlines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A CDS approach allows the clear identification of "severe mental illness" as a marked category of social difference which leads to multiple forms of social oppression (Thomas, 2014) and can support the analysis of disability as an apparatus of power relations (Tremain, 2018). While there is a great deal of overlap between CDS and the other academic disciplines discussed above, there nevertheless remains substantial fragmentation and division in academia that impedes both fully multidisciplinary work and social and academic solidarity.…”

Section: Madness As Otherness Still and Againmentioning

confidence: 99%

Involuntary Psychiatric Commitment in the Era of COVID-19: Systemic Social Oppression and Discourses of Risk in Public Health and Bioethics

Bergstresser¹

2021

International Journal of Critical Diversity Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper considers the continuation of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a focus on the United States of America. Situating psychiatric diagnosis and hospitalization within the broader context of decades of social and historical research, as well as emergent fields such as feminist philosophy of disability, critical diversity studies (CDS), and mad studies, I argue that a socially mediated process which is legitimated with appeals to “health” and “safety” should not be maintained during a pandemic of a readily communicable virus that is especially dangerous for individuals clustered in inpatient settings. A CDS approach allows the clear identification of “severe mental illness” as a marked category of social difference which leads to multiple forms of social oppression. In this paper, I show how involuntary psychiatric hospitalization is a social process through which marked individuals are dehumanized and confined. Furthermore, I consider why the maintenance of the status quo, even under pandemic conditions, demonstrates that involuntary treatment is primarily a political, rather than a medical, process. Finally, I outline why the politics of involuntary treatment should concern longstanding disciplines such as public health and bioethics, as well as emergent disciplines like CDS.

show abstract

Positive Freedom

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Freedom is widely regarded as a basic social and political value that is deeply connected to the ideals of democracy, equality, liberation, and social recognition. Many insist that freedom must include conditions that go beyond simple “negative” liberty understood as the absence of constraints; only if freedom includes other conditions such as the capability to act, mental and physical control of oneself, and social recognition by others will it deserve its place in the pantheon of basic social values. Positive Freedom is the first volume to examine the idea of positive liberty in detail and from multiple perspectives. With contributions from leading scholars in ethics and political theory, this collection includes both historical studies of the idea of positive freedom and discussions of its connection to important contemporary issues in social and political philosophy.

show abstract

Philosophy of Disability as Critical Diversity Studies

Abstract: holds a PhD in philosophy, has taught in Canada, the United States, and Australia, and publishes on a range of topics, including philosophy of disability, Foucault, ableism in feminist philosophy, and genetic technologies.

Cited by 23 publications

References 16 publications

Examining the psychology of practitioners, institutions and structures:

Examining the psychology of practitioners, institutions and structures:

Involuntary Psychiatric Commitment in the Era of COVID-19: Systemic Social Oppression and Discourses of Risk in Public Health and Bioethics

Positive Freedom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About