Dear Colleagues:
It's fun to reply to something written tomorrow! How current with the
literature can one get!
On Sat, 4 Jul 1998, David Seedhouse wrote:
> Dear Blake,
>
> I'm delighted you could join us!
>
And Blake had written:
> > * I think that David makes very valuable points about the need for
> > reflexivity in theory and practice of health promotion, and about the
> > potential for 'false consensus' when people choose not to be explicit about
> > their values, ethical stance, and world view.....
YES..and it is this process of learning and articulating one's stance that
many of us strive so hard for. Of course, as David mentions later, when we
are not clear, others who are not so friendly to our goals take advantage
and benefit from that...
And David quotes from his book....
> "....this is all to the good since it is necessary for each competing
> philosophical school to develop the very best justification for its
> account of the profession's purpose, and for its description of best
> practice....
> Moreover, where theoretical pluralism
> exists any researcher or policy-maker worth her salt should feel
> duty-bound to explain what basic kind of advance or change she is
> seeking. That is, she should feel obliged to indicate which
> theoretical tradition her practical proposal is built on.
> But at the moment this is not possible in health promotion."
This is one of the places where David and I disagree..but, maybe I can
take grand theory with a BIG GRAIN of salt. David, right now, today (or
yesterday from where you are!) anyone involved with health promotion can
articluate where they are IF they are allowed to think about it or are
given the time to think, read, reflect. In an earlier post you said that
HP didn't have theory, that it stole from the basic disciplines I had
mentioned. I think you are partly correct. But anyone who designs publlic
education camplaigns is tapping into a vast research literature in social
psychology and communications theory. Anyone who works with a community is
smack in the middle of another vast literature..etc, etc....I have found
in my teaching that many who are at the master's level have very little
patience for theory. It takes a while to really know you need it.
You also said that HP hadn't developed a strong response to
individulalism. Again, I think you are partly right. BUT, I think there is
enough in the socialist/feminist/communitarian/anarchist literatures to
counter individualism. But, those theories frighten people..regardless of
how powerful and profound the ideas are. For me, the theorizing is there,
we're just terrified of it.
David continues from his book:
>"There is much rhetoric, countless gestures to a
> healthier world for everyone, but scant attention to the bed-rock
> question 'what is the point of promoting health?' And unless this
> situation changes health promotion is surely heading for a mighty
> fall.
Well, ok..that's a good question...the point of promoting health depends
upon your value system and your vested interests...some people want
healthy workers so as to make more profit...some want healthy workers
because ?????
Earlier David criticized "declarations"..David are you referring to actual
documents such as the Jakarta Declaration, or do you mean to use the word
more generally? I see nothing wrong with declarations as long as you state
*why* you are declaring what you are declaring...
And, Blake wrote...
> > ...... I seriously doubt that consensus on the nature of
> > health promotion will make it an more palatable to those who oppose it; the
> > nature of their objections will simply change to allow for their continued
> > opposition, because in many cases their objections re scope, vagueness etc
> > mask a deeper-seated but rarely articulated discomfort with the ideological
> > stance embodied in the type of health promotion Rhonda is talking about
> > (more explicitly oriented towards social justice).
and David agreed....
> ... It is only by forcing the issue - by getting the different
> theories out in the open - that we will be able to move on.
> I envisage a time where health promoters will be able to say "I am a
> an 'egalitarian health promoter'", or "I am a 'conservative health
> promoter'") (or catchier labels than this!) etc. These labels will
> then mean something substantial - the differences will be clear - and
> people -both providers and receivers - will be able to decide what
> sort of health promotion they want.
WELL, I believe this could happen NOW. It takes time and effort, but it
could happen. I simply believe that most people are so busy, the cost of
honesty is so high, the repressive forces are so strong that the
identification of one's stance doesn't happen very often or in public.
I believe that the graduates of our programs should be able to tell you
their political stance, even if HP as "profession" (is it one?) has not
solved these issues...if they can't tell you that, we failed...(don't
anyone write to me and tell me we failed; I can't stand it!)
In response to comments by Blake, David wrote..
> I don't think health promotion practitioners are naive and
> uncritical, but I do think that we are misguided - by which I mean
> that we are guided not by theories (plural) of our own making but by
> forces and traditions that are often very happy to have us either
> work ineffectively or carry out projects of their choosing not ours.
Let's start naming these forces on this list. First, let's get clear about
corporations which make billions from illness, let's not take their money;
let's get clear about governments which pander to the corporations, let's
vote them out; let's get clear about...let's NAME it HERE. *Who* is happy
to have us work ineffectively, etc...the process of naming will help us
know our political stance...
David continues
> Powerful interests want and promote ambiguity in the less powerful -
> they prosper to the extent that they can manipulate us, and it is
> easier to manipulate people who are unclear about their basic
> purposes.
Again, I am going to argue that MANY of us are VERY CLEAR about our basic
purposes...all the clarity in the world doesn't mean you win the battle.
You likely won't win without it, but you won't necessarily win with it.
Rhonda
|
