Talk by Dr Anup Dhar at NIMHANS - 'Psychology as a Human Science'

Dr. Anup Dhar is an Associate  Professor  at the School of Human Studies Ambedkar University, Delhi.

Date and venue - Date 24^th August 2011 National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bangalore. 

Abstract:

How to make four equilateral triangles with six match sticks? If one thinks of the

match sticks as lying flat the problem appears and actually is quite insoluble. But as

soon as one thinks of solving it in a three dimensional space, by forming a pyramid,

one finds the solution.

This talk takes off from my own experiences as a novice in the mental health clinic. It is shaped by my discomfort with what was happening in the clinic – the narrow localization impulse and the rather simple cause-effect analysis of the medical perspective, the absent connection with larger historico-cultural questions, the pathologisation of suffering, the bracketing of distress in diagnostic categories and the insensitivity of practice. It is necessitated by the felt need to rethink on my part, a rethinking that is still incomplete and hence ongoing. However, why do we need to rethink? What is wrong with existing mental health science that it needs rethinking? This talk will deploy the ‘context of non-waking states and dreams’ to locate ‘lack’ in the mental health sciences along a number of axes (namely lack in width, depth, imagination, dynamism, plasticity, complexity, empathy, care as also lack in an attention to detail/particularity leading in turn to an impoverished understanding of the human, the human mind and the ‘matter of the mind’) and then see what one needs to rethink and how one can go about it. The talk shall also argue for a self-description of psychology marked primarily by the ‘human science’ angle. This will be done keeping in mind the question of evolution from inanimate matter (the world of physics and chemistry) to life-worlds (the world of biology), from elementary life-worlds to human worlds (the world of anthropology), from primal human worlds to worlds with consciousness, language, sociality, reason, value and ethics (the world of the human sciences). The talk would ask: would a more inter-disciplinary perspective, where disciplinary methodologies interrupt, contradict, supplement and bleed into each other, be more enabling for psychology? In approaching the psyche, should explanations follow the format of the laws of natural science or is it necessary to couch understanding in terms typically employed in the human sciences?

The talk addressed issues encountered in following a particular kind of method or model. It challenged the complacency in believing in one paradigm and not challenging it. It looked at the artificial boundaries created in universities in terms of disciplines.

Some of the questions raised were of using a ‘kind of psychology’ that engaged itself with the client. An engagement not in the terms that we know of but in exploring the suffering of the client.

Here are the slides that accompanied the talk.

Here is an audio link to the talk.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/u1dqmo

A profile of rioters

 Since a week I have been following the story of the riots in UK. The scenes of violence don’t look good. What looks worse is the way it is almost necessary for every journalist, politician and ‘ expert’ to comment on what kind of people committed the acts of violence. Poverty, bad bringing up and even races were brought into question.

It has almost become essential to categorise the criminal. We have effectively created a criminal type. This idea has  an appeal to the those in power, it makes the crime and the criminal appear as a species in its own right and it provides an explanation or rather an excuse.

7 billion people on the planet some of them are bound to have something in common. What we have in way of reassuring the public is making criminals seem different. The larger the crime the more the aura of the criminal. Take Hitler for instance numerous books about his ancestry, childhood, and failed love affairs are cited as his reason for megalomania. Almost all of us have bad childhood experiences and failed love affairs, but finding evidence of criminality in alleged pathology colludes with the criminal.

Criminality has acquired the status of the ‘other’ in our discourse of normality. By creating a criminal profile we stop asking how we create criminality or how we define crime. We have come to excuse the criminal of their crime. The most recent example would be how the new DSM is choosing to medicalise rape and thereby giving the rapist  the sanction to rape. The rioters in UK were of all colours, religions or lack of them, communities, social strata and not all of them were young, all of them didn’t have neurochemical imbalances, which made them criminals.

Criminals are not born, criminals and crime are created spontaneously.

PS: Homosexuality was a crime too and homosexuals were also profiled to find what kind of social or personal inadequacies created homosexuality. The situation seems absurd now but it has taken the life of many homosexual individuals.

Art Therapy in Bangalore - a Conversation with Brother Mani. Part -2

What do a hands closed in prayer have in common with gothic Churches?

What do south Indian women have in common with Buddhists?

This is the second part of the interview with Brother Mani, an art therapist and Anil his assistant.  

This interview looks at how an art therapy session is conducted in a group or individually. Both Brother Mani and his assistant Anil talk about how they have used art therapy.    

Art therapy does not have a singular history but has multiple histories depending on when and where want to trace its history. Art has always been with us even in caves we had a need to decorate or use art to express ourselves. The history of art therapy is usually traced in the west during the early part of the 20^th century however art has always been with us and it is not something new.

I have attached some of the artwork that is referred to in the interview. 


Here is a link to the interview      http://www.sendspace.com/file/qsawez

Murals made by the participants being put up on the walls to form a large collage

Brother Mani and Anil

Art Therapy in Bangalore - a Conversation with Brother Mani. Part - 1

Is art for artists? Or can anyone paint?

Art isn’t about beautiful paintings or vases it is a personal expression.

You don’t have to be an artist to be an art therapist or to be a participant in art therapy.

The post modern idea that art need not be restricted to a canvas or have perfection is what drives art therapy.

I met Brother Mani a few months back when he was conducting a workshop on art therapy. Brother Mani is an art therapist

This is an interview where Brother Mani speaks about how art therapy can be transformative and therapeutic.

Here's as link to the interview

http://www.sendspace.com/file/4g5z5f

There is a second part of this interview, which is a bit longer which I will post in a day or two.

The pictures are made by the students who attended the program. 

Scientific therefore neutral

Does science = neutrality ? This is  an assumption we take for granted in the modern era(by modern I refer to the era during and post enlightenment). We have come to believe that science unlike religion is more informed and is rational. The term rational is quite problematic as it assumes there is something irrational. It creates a dichotomy between ancient and medieval and modern. Modern being a better state. The realm of the other 2 eras is relegated to being romanticised or being seen through biased eyes.

Our idea that science is rational when compared religion or belief is misleading, science is never neutral. The assumption that cutting something of from its natural environment and studying it will give us a neutral response. Psychology is one such discipline that desperately tries to use scientificity as a means to justify its end. At it heart lies the assumption that it can acquire the same status as the natural science if its methods are mimic those used in the natural sciences. Statics come to the rescue here; breaking something down into numbers will apparently make it more scientific.

This fallacy has often lead to disastrous results by scientists conducting scientific research. One of my favourite examples is intelligence and intelligence testing. Intelligence is a badly defined concept and one that most psychologists do not agree upon. On this shaky foundation intelligence tests were constructed using scientific means. The Nazis picked up on these ideas of inferiority and superiority as a basis for killing people. this of course is well documented history and an extreme example. There are a lot more horror stories but I will skip them. Today intelligence tests help separate students with difficulties from well functioning children. We set up special schools for such children. All of this can hide behind the guise of being helpful and science.

We have come to believe in science as something that will give us the right answers. I use the term ‘believe’ deliberately because we don’t question its authority and believe in its benign presence. We assume that if an idea has some scientific backing it is good and correct and neutral.

Science however is never neutral, and it can never be. By writing a certain way or by following certain methods and idea does not become neutral. Natural science isn’t neutral. It takes a certain amount of conjecture and intuition to prove something in the natural sciences. The natural sciences are learning to live with uncertainty. Psychology however needs to prove the existence of things that are merely constructed by it. By hiding behind the guise of pseudo neutrality psychology subtly pushes its own agenda.

Most scientific ideas are based in not so neutral ideas. Take for example eugenics, which sorted out good healthy people from the ones that were useless to society. This idea has taken the form of cultural differences or gender differences. Women are not unclean creatures (not a medieval idea as we like to assume) but they are trapped by their biology. PMS syndrome is presented as evidence for a woman’s weakness and her inability to be as competent as a man. The people behind such research are not consciously trying to suppress women nor are a part of a grand conspiracy; they are products of their environment in which women internalise passive roles.

Good science if there is such a thing isn’t about proving something it is more profound than that, it is about accepting that a problem may not have an answer or the answer isn’t what one hoped for or that the answer isn’t dependent on the method.

Science has come to take the place of religion. Lets not say but religion was false and look at how it oppressed people. This is a weak argument that goes nowhere. Lets not assume religion was universally bad and science is universally good and is helping us become rational beings. We can’t discard either. We need to question both. Lets not assume that a sterile lab can give us all the answers we are looking for and we can do things better.  The egocentricism that modernity has assumed towards other forms of thought are repressive.

I am attaching 2 links one to a program which is aired on BBC Horizon which starts with the question how long is a piece of string. This program challenges the idea of observation and measurement as an absolute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbodZKrAOGg

The second link if for a documentary by Adam Curtis- All Watched By Machines Of Loving Grace. This documentary looks at how we have come to believe that technology will set us free and how ideas of order and balance have been oppressive.  The documentary a lot of interpretations these are just two of them that I thought complimented the paper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxb3Vs9i7DU&feature=related

this link is for part one of four.