{"id":3086,"date":"2013-05-10T17:38:00","date_gmt":"2013-05-11T00:38:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.janhenderson.com\/self\/?p=3086"},"modified":"2013-06-06T17:53:30","modified_gmt":"2013-06-07T00:53:30","slug":"and-in-conclusion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.janhenderson.com\/self\/and-in-conclusion\/","title":{"rendered":"And in conclusion \u2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

When I decided to write some introductory posts<\/a> that explained my personal interest in the subject matter of this blog, I didn\u2019t anticipate that I would write 24 of them and not post them until I\u2019d finished the last one. But once I started down that path, I decided to follow it to the end. This is the end. <\/p>\n

\"damaged-lives\"<\/a><\/p>\n

So now I ask: What have I learned by writing these posts?<\/p>\n

One thing I was a bit surprised to find was that, when I reread what I\u2019d written<\/a> over 30 years ago, I still identified strongly with that author. I still have the same questions, the same aspirations, the same intellectual and emotional responses to a certain set of ideas. Given that I lack a \u2018motive force\u2019<\/a> that tells me what to do next — which means I find myself moving on from one thing to the next without any obvious theme or reason — I would have expected more change in my life than continuity. It seems I\u2019m still attracted to what the sociology of knowledge\/social construction can tell me about everyday life and the taken-for-granted, which may mean I\u2019m still trying to understand whay they can tell me about my own life.<\/p>\n

Critical psychology and the social determinants of health<\/h3>\n

I also hadn\u2019t anticipated that I would find a strong connection between the social determinants of health \u2013 which I\u2019d been writing about at The Health Culture<\/a> — and critical psychology<\/a>. Why is it so difficult to get the medical profession and public policy makers to acknowledge the importance of the social determinants of health and take appropriate action? I know that fundamentally there\u2019s an economic explanation, but I don\u2019t find that sufficient to explain why we care so little about inequality and social disparities.<\/p>\n

Psychology has had an enormous influence on individuals, government policy, and society, especially in the mid- to late twentieth century. Critical psychology asks: Why does mainstream psychology maintain and reinforce the status quo, that is, support and promote theories and actions that are in the interests of those who currently hold power? Again, some of this simply comes down to economics. If psychology failed to supply what governments and consumer markets needed, its contributions would be ignored and its practitioners unemployed. <\/p>\n

When describing how twentieth century psychology created an \u2018empty\u2019 self (the ideal self for a consumer economy), Philip Cushman repeatedly uses<\/a> the word \u2018unknowingly\u2019: Psychology acted unknowingly, not intentionally. Critical psychology holds psychology to a higher standard. Psychologists should be insightful enough to realize that their work is not \u2013 as they assume \u2013 apolitical. A parallel criticism from Cushman: Psychological theorists in the late 20th century have been consistently unwilling to consider the historical context in which they theorize.<\/p>\n

Given how fundamental psychological theories are to contemporary Western societies, it strikes me that critical psychology\u2019s explanation of what\u2019s wrong with mainstream psychology would also contribute to an explanation of why there is insufficient interest in addressing the social determinants of health. Another basic connection between the two is that both critical psychologists and those interested in the social determinants of health advocate changes that would create a more equitable society. There\u2019s also a parallel with social construction. My particular slant on social construction is that it can provide relief to individuals suffering from the normalization of society (that is, this is the way you should be, and if you\u2019re not, you\u2019re not only abnormal, but it\u2019s your own fault). Critical psychology aspires to provide relief, not just for individuals, but for society itself.<\/p>\n

My blog is my biome<\/h3>\n

Finally, I ask myself, did I really need to start a new blog or could I simply have continued posting at The Health Culture<\/em>? While it\u2019s true that I\u2019m the same person I was 30 years ago, I\u2019m also different from the person I was when I started that blog in 2008. By 2013 I felt a need to break out of what I saw as the limitations of what had become<\/a> my subject matter; to write more in the first person and feel a bit looser about my subject matter; to post photos, artwork, fiction, poetry if I wanted to; to let my new subject matter take me in unknown and unforeseeable directions; to let my blog be the ecological equivalent of a biome of myself and my world.<\/p>\n

Quick story: In the tenth grade I had a wonderful biology teacher (Mr. Whipple) who gave his students the assignment to make daily observations of a square foot of ground (which we called a biome) and to record any changes. Technically, a biome<\/a> is an ecosystem. Given my high school experience, however, I associate the word biome more with the practice of observing something that appears relatively homogeneous and static, but that, on closer inspection, is rich with diversity and change. <\/p>\n

In this blog I hope to observe myself, my life, the ideas I read about, my physical environment, and the triumphs and travails of contemporary global civilization as it is mediated to me. My blog is a place where I can notice and record all this. My blog is my biome. <\/p>\n

Damaged goods, damaged life<\/h3>\n

And finally finally, a quotation for inspiration. It\u2019s from Tod Sloan\u2019s Damaged Life: The crisis of the modern psyche<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Faced with the world’s complexity, it is tempting to throw up one’s hands and claim that it is all beyond human comprehension, let alone human control. Cynicism about the possibility of social transformation is rampant today, especially in academia. Rather than despair, however, we can develop forms of understanding that orient individuals and communities as they work to reduce human suffering and reverse the processes that produce what Theodor Adorno (1951) called<\/a> ‘damaged life’. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n