English
Français
Deutsch
Español
;
Historicizing affect, psychoanalyzing history: pedophilia and the discourse of child sexuality;
Journal of Homosexuality;
46(Februari), 79 - 109
Within the last two decades in Australia, Britain, and the United States, we have seen a veritable explosion of cultural panic regarding the problem of pedophilia. Scarcely a day passes without some mention in the media of predatory pedophiles or organized pedophile networks. Many social constructionist historians and sociologists have described this incitement to discourse as indicative of a moral panic.
[...]
Here, I will suggest a repressed discourse of child sexuality is writ large. I will argue that the hegemonic discourse of pedophilia is contained largely within a neurotic structure and that many of our prevailing responses to pedophilia function as a way to avoid tackling crucial issues about the reality and trauma of childhood sexuality.
The question that concerns me in this article is: If this incitement to discourse is indicative of a moral panic, to what does the panic refer?
Within the last two decades in Australia, Britain, and the United States, we have seen a veritable explosion of cultural panic regarding the problem of pedophilia. Scarcely a day passes without some mention in the media of predatory pedophiles or organized pedophile networks. Many social constructionist historians and sociologists have described this incitement to discourse as indicative of a moral panic.
[...]
Here, I will suggest a repressed discourse of child sexuality is writ large. I will argue that the hegemonic discourse of pedophilia is contained largely within a neurotic structure and that many of our prevailing responses to pedophilia function as a way to avoid tackling crucial issues about the reality and trauma of childhood sexuality.
The question that concerns me in this article is: If this incitement to discourse is indicative of a moral panic, to what does the panic refer?
;
Ethical Treatment for All Youth (Website)
This site documents how children and teenagers are severely stigmatized by a label that allows adults to do things to them that would be considered abusive and unethical in any other context. This occurs with little knowledge by the general public. Parents of the youth involved are too embarrassed or fearful to discuss it with others. The purpose of this site is to inform the public of what is happening, and to advocate for a much more humane and ethical approach.
This site documents how children and teenagers are severely stigmatized by a label that allows adults to do things to them that would be considered abusive and unethical in any other context. This occurs with little knowledge by the general public. Parents of the youth involved are too embarrassed or fearful to discuss it with others. The purpose of this site is to inform the public of what is happening, and to advocate for a much more humane and ethical approach.
;
Child Abuse,
Oct 03 2003
Defining Abuse in Historical Context, Innocence and Abuse, Preventing and Prosecuting Child Abuse
Entry from Gale Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society
Child abuse, as a historical subject, is deeply problematic, since the concept of abuse is inevitably relative and can be only very tentatively applied across cultures and across centuries.
The watershed in the history of child abuse must be dated as recently as 1962, when child abuse received its modern formulation by the American medical establishment as the battered-child syndrome.
The attribution of innocence implied the possibility of violation, and the necessity of protection.
A full generation after "The Battered-Child Syndrome" was first published, there is general public recognition that various forms of child abuse are pervasive – but also an awareness that abuse may remain largely concealed within the domestic walls that protect family privacy.
Furthermore, just as treatment of children in the historical past may appear abusive by current standards, so there is also a divergence of perspectives within contemporary society about what exactly constitutes abuse.
For all these reasons, child abuse is a social problem that has been recognized but by no means resolved.
Defining Abuse in Historical Context, Innocence and Abuse, Preventing and Prosecuting Child Abuse
Entry from Gale Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society
Child abuse, as a historical subject, is deeply problematic, since the concept of abuse is inevitably relative and can be only very tentatively applied across cultures and across centuries.
The watershed in the history of child abuse must be dated as recently as 1962, when child abuse received its modern formulation by the American medical establishment as the battered-child syndrome.
The attribution of innocence implied the possibility of violation, and the necessity of protection.
A full generation after "The Battered-Child Syndrome" was first published, there is general public recognition that various forms of child abuse are pervasive – but also an awareness that abuse may remain largely concealed within the domestic walls that protect family privacy.
Furthermore, just as treatment of children in the historical past may appear abusive by current standards, so there is also a divergence of perspectives within contemporary society about what exactly constitutes abuse.
For all these reasons, child abuse is a social problem that has been recognized but by no means resolved.
;
Is the Pseudoscience Concept Useful for Clinical Psychology?;
The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice;
vol. 2, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2003), ,
Jan 01 2003
Abstract:Talented entrepreneurs have been developing and marketing novel therapeutic methods, some touted as veritable miracle cures for diverse complaints.
This phenomenon has caught the attention of scientist-practitioners in psychology, many of whom criticize these approaches as “pseudo-scientific.” The purpose of this essay is to sketch a simpler, alternative approach to debunking dubious methods in clinical psychology. When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudo-scientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?
Abstract:Talented entrepreneurs have been developing and marketing novel therapeutic methods, some touted as veritable miracle cures for diverse complaints.
This phenomenon has caught the attention of scientist-practitioners in psychology, many of whom criticize these approaches as “pseudo-scientific.” The purpose of this essay is to sketch a simpler, alternative approach to debunking dubious methods in clinical psychology. When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudo-scientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?