Final - Childhood and Conclusions

Question 1

Youth Within Psy-Gaze (4)

Answer 1

1. Psy-disc. important to creation/ emergence of childhood itself
2. Emergence of childhood MI can be related to functioning of state
3. Rapid increase in rates of childhood diagnosis should be understood within context of neolib.
4. Tension exists when it comes to childhood diagnosis, as it is basis for exclusion and inclusion

Question 2

Emergence of childhood MI I (3)

Answer 2

1. W/ exception of intellect. deficits, early psychiatry rarely discussed children
2. Late 19th C concerns around child welfare (& threat of working class youth) promoted med. interest in childhood “delinquency”
3. Theorists premised on heredity but offered little hope

Question 3

Emergence of childhood MI II (3)

Answer 3

1. Psychoanalysis focus on family, emphasis on childhood as central period of devel. of MH probs, yet also saw treatment as path to improve.
2. “Bad kids” ⇨ “problem child” ⇨ “MI child”
3. 20th C saw emergence of new forms of MD spec. to childhood; hyperkinetic impulse disorder, autism, etc. (helped form beliefs abt “proper” behav.)

Question 4

MH in School System I: w/ state funded mass education normalized, increased attention to… (+4) & King & Taylor

Answer 4

… standards of attainment & behav.
1. Intelligence testing, standard. forms of assess., etc. worked to classify
2. Structure of school itself as indicat. of abnorm.
K&T: “lining up, walking (some might say marching) single file, working in silence, sitting in rows, and raising a hand to speak: all designed to create order, but they encouraged an environment where the child who could not conform stood out from their peers”
3. Exclusion of “unedu.” & common practices
4. Division btwn (non)reformable

Question 5

MH in School System II: Evans (+4)

Answer 5

E: school system itself, w emphasis on mass testing & surveil., paved way for devel. of standards of (ab)normality
2. Child. diagnoses thus worked to rational. function. of edu. system & wider state machinery, creating manageable categories of being
3. While sum favoured exclusion, others *eg. mental hygiene) belief that at least sum childhood MI prevented/ bettered
4. Schools as key intervention site

Question 6

MH in School System III (5)

Answer 6

1. 60s moves to identify “pre-delinquent” children (eg. new staff, training for teachers, etc.) (increased identif. & intervention)
2. Distinct. btwn (un)healthy children hardened, as med., binary approach displaced spectrum/ continuum
3. Bcuz prblms understood as med in nature, blame/ respons. shifted from parents/ child to brain
4. Led to pushback against segregationist policies, push for equal access/ rights w/in edu. enviro.
5. Over time, used to justify intervention, accomm., assist., etc.

Question 7

Childhood, Psy, & Society (Evans) +3

Answer 7

E: concerns abt childhood MH reflected changing ideas abt child as autonomous being, w own rights
1. Reflected also how notion of improve. has taken hold, where “imperfect” children can be transformed
3. Emergence of guidance, clinics, psychology, etc.

Question 8

Family change (4)

Answer 8

1. Parents more likely than physicians to identify behav. as meeting criteria for DMDD
2. Parents busier, more stretched, less tolerant of behav.
3. Combined w changes to family structure
4. Parents either conditioning children to have MI OR becoming more likely to conceptualize children as MI

Question 9

Impact of youth diagnosis (5)

Answer 9

1. Access to care, accomm., benefits
2. Impacts identity
3. Changes how others treat
4. Changes how parents perceive
5. May result in treatment

Question 10

Typical efforts to improve MH reflect broader ideological drift towards individualization & personal responsibility: how? (4)

Answer 10

1. Awareness-raising campaigns encourage ppl to “recognize signs of MI” & “seek out prof. help”
2. Mindfulness, yoga, running, diet, as non-med. treat.
3. Prof. & med. solutions highly indiv., prioritizing research to “find cures” & dev. new treats.
4. Rise of pos. psych similarly indivs., assuming key to improving MH w/in indiv’s cognitive framework (all pay little attention to structural issues of MI)

Question 11

De-psychiatrization: loosen the psy-grip (5)

Answer 11

1. Abandon categorial ideas abt MI & embrace notion that all MH falls on a continuum
2. Rediscover de-medicalized language & concepts to describe struggle
3. Recognize suffering as intrinsically worth attention
4. Moving past monopoly of psy-complex on explaining human behav.
5. Diagnosis DOES NOT EQUAL validity