Deconstructing child and adolescent mental health: questioning the‘taken‐for‐granted’…

Abstract

Deconstructing child and adolescent mental health: questioning the 'taken-for-granted'… We present a critical deconstructive reading, seeking to problematise 'taken-for-granted' assumptions in child and adolescent mental health (CAMH). The start point for this critical reading is conventional 'history-telling' within CAMH. The aim is not to take issue with the detail in such histories but to critically examine the texts, so as to highlight constructions that structure the presentation of conventional histories and possible purposes that such constructions may serve. The argument is that such conventional histories leave key questions not just unanswered, but unconsidered - a tendency that can be seen throughout the CAMH literature more generally. Therefore, we then pursue critical discussion of how 'taken-for-granted' constructions of CAMH enabled psychiatry to successfully expand its power and influence to establish hegemony over 'problem children'. We do not claim any closure to this critical reading; that is, we do not claim that our critical deconstructive reading is the only reading possible. Similarly, it is not presented in any sense as 'final word'. Rather our hope for this work is that it might stimulate readers to question the 'taken-for-granteds' that we present, and indeed others that they might identify themselves. In so doing, it is our hope that creative dialogue might ensue.

Reconstructing normality: Characteristics of staff interactions with forensic mental health inpatients

“…In agreement with the research literature, listening is linked to security behaviour, since it functions as a valve for patients, and at the same time, allows potential conflict management (Beech & Norman 1995;Breeze & Repper 1998;Brunt & Rask 2007;Cleary 2003;Crowe et al 2001;Hem & Heggen 2004;Meehan et al 2006). The interaction is characterized in the same way in the above themes, by an unspoken set of taken-for-granted double standards that refer to normality and common human togetherness, as well as involve a pathological observation and an intention to prevent conflict (Bradley and Carter 2011).…”

“…2006). The interaction is characterized in the same way in the above themes, by an unspoken set of taken‐for‐granted double standards that refer to normality and common human togetherness, as well as involve a pathological observation and an intention to prevent conflict (Bradley and Carter 2011).…”

Practical compassions: repertoires of practice and compassion talk in acute mental healthcare

“…In this framework the intimations of participants of how they attempt to foster egalitarian relationships and their framing of compassionate work in terms of acting as a guide through abstruse and confusing systems might be welcomed. Yet at the same time, the taken‐for‐grantedness of mental healthcare can serve to expand the power inherent in mental healthcare (Bradley and Carter ). Therefore it is important to consider what the construct of compassion, as it is understood in the psychotherapeutic disciplines and in the accounts of practitioners presented here, leaves unsaid, and the kinds of world views to which it predisposes.…”

“Attention seeker”, “drama queen”: the power of talk in constructing identities for young people with mental health difficulties

“…This powerful and privileged positioning holds those with knowledge of diagnostic "truths" as experts (Bradley and Carter, 2011;Conor-Greene, 2006;Reicher, 2004). Psychiatry uses labels to categorise behaviours considered to deviate from the current sociocultural norm, thereby normalising the act of pathologising (Brady, 2014;LeFrancois and Diamond, 2014).…”

“…Historically and culturally, psychiatry has been positioned as superior, with the power of published empirical evidence "proving" the legitimacy of "disorders" (Conor-Greene, 2006;Morrow and Weisser, 2012). This powerful and privileged positioning holds those with knowledge of diagnostic "truths" as experts (Bradley and Carter, 2011;Conor-Greene, 2006;Reicher, 2004). Psychiatry uses labels to categorise behaviours considered to deviate from the current sociocultural norm, thereby normalising the act of pathologising (Brady, 2014;LeFrancois and Diamond, 2014).…”