Abstract
In this paper I question whether the plea for depathologisation and the regaining of our expropriated subjectivity from its psy and neuro-colonization is, in fact, not itself enmeshed with the notion of some real core of the human being, and thus amenable to some or another Academic discipline and praxis. Critics of mainstream (neuro)psychology could unwittingly, then, join the strong but unacknowledged undercurrent in today’s neuropsy-discourses to restore the subject as a fully fleshed-out agent; one who is situated beyond pathology, beyond abnormal and normal. I juxtapose this observation with critical readings of an artistic project looking to revalue subjectivity in the aftermath of a mining disaster, and the popular Theory of Mind-approach. In conclusion, I argue that an understanding of the subject as caught between subjectivation and de-subjectivation (where subjectivity becomes a social and a political issue) could allow us to rethink the terms of normality and pathology.
Highlights
In this paper I question whether the plea for depathologisation and the regaining of our expropriated subjectivity from its psy and neuro-colonization is, not itself enmeshed with the notion of some real core of the human being, and amenable to some or another Academic discipline and praxis
Psychology is on the streets and is made by the people: ran a slogan of Chilean psychology students during a protest in 2012 which expressed, both, their dissatisfaction with the actual reality of psychology in Chile and their hope for a better, dignified and just society
One can, express nothing but sympathy with this slogan and support for the students‘ cause, as it rightfully reacts against an academicised ivory-tower version of psychology that operates in ―blessed indifference‖ of the real world
Summary
Psychology is on the streets and is made by the people: ran a slogan of Chilean psychology students during a protest in 2012 which expressed, both, their dissatisfaction with the actual reality of psychology in Chile and their hope for a better, dignified and just society One is quite happy talking about some brain regions being more or less involved in certain circumstances, or pointing to the delicate balances at the chemical level: in other words, the difference between normal/abnormal is far from absolutely established This is why in the psy-sciences it is generally agreed upon that the divide is arbitrary. One could even argue that the inflation of DMSlabels –as they proliferate in everyday life, incorporating sadness, grief etcetera into the DSM-listings (Kinderman, Read, Moncrieff, & Bentall, 2013)— boils down to a gradual deconstruction of the split between normal and abnormal, healthy and pathological It is noteworthy, that the recent DSM V leaves the labelling behind and opts for a trait-wise description (scaling of traits which can be clustered or not). Today‘s neurosciences, for whom there is nothing wrong with the subject, represent the ultimate attempt to save subjectivity, as they are creating, unknowingly, a new version of the ego and the Cartesian cogito
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
