>I am not sure how much interest others will have in this topic, so I will
>try to keep it brief at this point. The recent accounts of how pervasive
>and accepted surveillance is in our time brings to mind an area of
>particular concern to me. I am a psychologist who practices psychotherapy,
>and the burgeoning of managed care has had a tremendous impact on how
>psychotherapists deliver their services. Reading Discipline and Punish, it
>seemed obvious to me how managed care, especially in the arena of mental
>health, functions as a disciplinary apparatus. Quite simply, managed care
>makes a case of each psychotherapist who contracts with the managed care
>company; data is collected on the all work delivered by that therapist,
>through telephonic and written reports; and this information is stored in
>computer data bases. This information provides a basis to examine each
>therapist to insure that they are functioning within the predetermined norm
>(e.g., prevalence of certain diagnoses, theoretical orientation, number of
>sessions per case, fees, etc.), and further education can be suggested, if a
>therapist is seen as falling outside of what is expected.
I find this interesting. I am not a psychologist but I am a sociologist
having done a study of redundancy and observed surveillance and
normalisation as it operated on the shop floor. What further education is
enforced or what procedures are put into place if a therapist should fall
outside of what is expected?
>
>What I find interesting and ironic in all this is how the very disciplinary
>processes that the human sciences grew up with are now being turned upon
>these fields, themselves (the disciplining of the mental health
>disciplines). I think this may have something to do with the curious
>ambivalence and uncertainty within the professions as to how to respond to
>managed care.
This is particularly relevant in the modern environment where there is a mad
scramble towards cost-cutting, efficiency, deregulation, restructuring and
so on. The disciplining of the mental health disciplines seems to reach
such an extreme at times that the humanity of the service seems to get
forgotten about. It is no wonder a tragic case gets brought before the
public attention every so often.
On some level, it seems all to familiar; thus, it is spoken
>of as if it is inevitable or perhaps something to be further regulated in
>its turn (supervisors perpetually supervised).
Exactly! What better way of maintaining discipline?
>
>
Do not ask me who I am and do not ask me to remain the same : leave it to
our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order
Ross James Swanston
breezey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>try to keep it brief at this point. The recent accounts of how pervasive
>and accepted surveillance is in our time brings to mind an area of
>particular concern to me. I am a psychologist who practices psychotherapy,
>and the burgeoning of managed care has had a tremendous impact on how
>psychotherapists deliver their services. Reading Discipline and Punish, it
>seemed obvious to me how managed care, especially in the arena of mental
>health, functions as a disciplinary apparatus. Quite simply, managed care
>makes a case of each psychotherapist who contracts with the managed care
>company; data is collected on the all work delivered by that therapist,
>through telephonic and written reports; and this information is stored in
>computer data bases. This information provides a basis to examine each
>therapist to insure that they are functioning within the predetermined norm
>(e.g., prevalence of certain diagnoses, theoretical orientation, number of
>sessions per case, fees, etc.), and further education can be suggested, if a
>therapist is seen as falling outside of what is expected.
I find this interesting. I am not a psychologist but I am a sociologist
having done a study of redundancy and observed surveillance and
normalisation as it operated on the shop floor. What further education is
enforced or what procedures are put into place if a therapist should fall
outside of what is expected?
>
>What I find interesting and ironic in all this is how the very disciplinary
>processes that the human sciences grew up with are now being turned upon
>these fields, themselves (the disciplining of the mental health
>disciplines). I think this may have something to do with the curious
>ambivalence and uncertainty within the professions as to how to respond to
>managed care.
This is particularly relevant in the modern environment where there is a mad
scramble towards cost-cutting, efficiency, deregulation, restructuring and
so on. The disciplining of the mental health disciplines seems to reach
such an extreme at times that the humanity of the service seems to get
forgotten about. It is no wonder a tragic case gets brought before the
public attention every so often.
On some level, it seems all to familiar; thus, it is spoken
>of as if it is inevitable or perhaps something to be further regulated in
>its turn (supervisors perpetually supervised).
Exactly! What better way of maintaining discipline?
>
>
Do not ask me who I am and do not ask me to remain the same : leave it to
our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order
Ross James Swanston
breezey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx