Final thoughts on mental illness

Just some final thoughts about the theme of mental illness:

1) Based on the evidence provided by empirical scientific observation of the human brain and nervous system, I cannot accept that notion that the concept of mental illness has no physical reflection in the material world
2) The term mentally ill is a term which can be marginalizing given the treatment of those who are mentally ill it is clear that this cultural group faces both social and political oppression in various forms
3) Without question given the relative newness of psychiatry and psychology, our understanding of mental illness is still met with difficulties in defining, identifying and properly treating mental health conditions
4) There exists a variety of factors which complicate the discourse on mental illness including the nature of pharamaceutical interests in the diagnosis of certain conditions, the social misconceptions of mental illness, and the power relationship that exists between doctors/counselors etc. and patients
5) While the social construction of mental illness has traditionally been discriminatory and oppressive towards those with the conditions, that is not to discount any progress and change that has occurred in our current definition of mental illness and how to treat and diagnosis it

On the spectrum

The link provided is to an article related to our several discussions about people being on the spectrum for autistic behaviors and personal characteristics:

http://nymag.com/news/features/autism-spectrum-2012-11/

Animal standpoint theory

For those of you interested I found an intriguing read about animal standpoint theory.
The link is posted below:


http://www.stateofnature.org/theRevolutionaryImplications.html

Q&A #9: Question two

My second question this week is whether there is anything notable contribution that is made by standpoint theory. As we discussed earlier there are a number of difficulties and questions raised by trying to approach a practical application of this concept. I do believe that if anything gained by standpoint theory is that it seems to encourage an empathetic approach to gathering knowledge. What I mean is that it seems to promote the idea of trying to understand the particular experience of a person or group of persons, to more fully comprehend why they arrive at the conclusions they do and what evidence is used. I am unsure if this is a necessary quality when trying to arrive at truth but it at least promotes a more open dialogue in which a persons unique experiences are given some appropriate attention. I will try and think this over more but I do believe an empathetic approach to understanding another person would be preferred than one in which the circumstances of one's life are considered trivial.

Q&A #9: Question One

My first question this week was one that I proposed to the class during our discussion today about whether there was any value in the various blanket terms we use to classify people and cultural groups by race, class, gender etc. From the discussion I gathered a few points it seems we all agreed on in principle:

1) There is value in the unique experience every individual faces
2) The terms we use often do not encompass the many persons within a cultural group, but rather generalizes the experience of these persons by labeling them with said terms
3) There is not often times not a unified belief or experience shared by all members in a group
4) By claiming that certain issues are specific to cultural groups, it isolates that group by reinforcing the differences between these social groups over their shared experiences and difficulties

Think I got most of it but feel free to add or clarify anything I posted here.

Intersections

Last year I read an article in which Kimberle Crenshaw who is a black feminist anthropologist in which she analyzed the culture of hip hop from the perspective of an African American woman. She uses a term called intersectionality which seems very similar to the idea of the situated knower mentioned in the Stanford reading for this week. Essentially the term means that every person is situated within several cultural categories, for example I am not only a male but a straight male who is also a student of particular ethnic background, social class etc. Crenshaw uses the term to explain how our perspectives from these several groups collectively influence how we perceive the world around us. While I believe this to be true what is important to remember is that we cannot reduce people to simply their gender, race, social class but look holistically at their circumstances as the various realms in which we occupy help us form our understanding of the human experience.

Q&A #8: Question Two

My second question this week is partially in response to two blog posts I saw related to the issue of when critical thinking. It seems that one must admit as Avery stated, that every degree of knowledge is based off of some basic assumptions. For example one cannot have a discussion analyzing the effects the bacteria on human organ tissue without admitting that the principles of cellular biology are accurate. In philosophical arguments many authors work from certain axiomatic points which provides a framework for the discussion at hand. This is the difference between being a critical thinker who is able to recognize inconsistencies in evidence provided in given circumstance, and being a radical skeptic who denies the validity of any claim. I also agree with Tommy that in some cases we need not be critical thinkers, in his example he uses the bible as an instructional piece for moral behavior. I agree that we can agree the bible is a flawed work when analyzed by contemporary global citizens, however a critical thinker I believe would be able to recognize the danger is using the Bible as justification for a given argument, but would still be able to disseminate the valuable lessons found within scripture.