Worldviews, meaning, language and colluding with the medical establishment

You scored as Postmodernist. Postmodernism is the belief in complete open interpretation. You see the universe as a collection of information with varying ways of putting it together. There is no absolute truth for you; even the most hardened facts are open to interpretation. Meaning relies on context and even the language you use to describe things should be subject to analysis. Postmodernist 88% Cultural Creative 75% Materialist 69% Idealist 69% Existentialist 63% Modernist 63% Romanticist 50% Fundamentalist 25% What is Your World View? (updated) created with QuizFarm.com

Yup, that sounds about right. I remember my first ever clinical interview with a psychologist. I was 19, in the second year of my psychology degree and trying to get some work experience. As I sat in his office - really rather niave about psychological concepts, postmodern philosophy and probably not having a great deal of self-awareness I found myself talking from what I think rather than from a psychology text book. He said something that rather freaked me out at the time. 'I can see that you're extremely postmodern in your approach'. Not being quite sure what that meant, I said, 'Er, yeah, absolutely, that's me'. Ho-hum.

Of course, I had been indoctrinated by church to believed that postmodernism with its moral relativism and the lack of absolute truth was causing the decline of Christianity and the moral decay of our society. To be told, by a psychologist no less, that I was quintessentially postmodern was something of a revelation, and as he gave me a job I decided he was a thoroughly decent psychologist and therefore probably had a point ;)!

Later, as I read more, studied more and talked to various people, I discovered that I really am heavily influenced (sometimes quite unconsciously) by the postmodern cultural revolution I have found myself in. In the final year of my degree I spent months analysing about 5 sentences spoken in a therapy session between mother and child - and I still had problems sticking to my 25 000 word limit. Language is very rich and works on so many levels - I find that whole system very very fascinating.

I then analysed an interview that I conducted with a man who has a learning disability. I should say, that on meeting this person, I found that he not only had a learning disability but a severe speech impairment so I spent 3 rather painful interviews trying to work out what he was saying. At the end of the series of interviews I went to my tutor and said, 'Look, there's nothing here, he barely said anything.' My tutor rather astutely pointed out that I had said quite a lot and suggested I analyse myself instead.

What followed was probably the most pivotal and intellectually stimulating time in my entire academic career (yes far more stimulating than anything I have done in my PhD). Maybe I'm just a narcissist and the idea of spending hours, days and weeks analysing myself was just too good an opportunity to waste. But actually, in grappling with my own use of language I gained so much awareness into my own assumptions about learning disabilities, about my role as a researcher and a psychologist....and in case you're wondering, I got a first-class mark for the project...;).

As I reflect back on my PhD I'm starting to see that I'm not working in those paradigms at the moment. I have accepted from the very beginning that medicating children is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Now don't get me wrong, I think it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do and indeed, will gladly explain to people why I think that to be the case. One of the biggest problem kids and parents face when they take medication is the stigma and prejudice associated with taking psychoactive medication, especially in childhood. No problem there, don't put my name down on the anti-meds campaigns just yet.

However, I've noticed that so much of what I do is focussed on reducing ADHD. I've been re-reading a lot of the research lately and noticing that so much of our intervention for ADHD is focussed on reducing hyperactivity and inattention. The fundamental assumption behind it all seems to scream, 'ADHD is not ok'. What's so bad about being hyperactive? I've yet to meet a kid with ADHD that I don't get on with - I click almost instantly with ADHD kids and generally our time together is something of a riot. Sometimes I find the older ones are a bit darker - perhaps its because they're constantly told they're 'not alright' - I'd be pretty fed up with life if I was always told there was something wrong with me too.

But I wonder how many teachers would say the same thing? Indeed, I've noticed that when I tell my teacher friends I work with ADHD kids they usually sigh and say, 'Oh no, those kids are so difficult....' Of course, when I'm with the kids they usually have me all to themselves and I don't have 29 other kids to contend with. I also don't mind running around the garden, putting the music on really loud and generally being very very lively.

I wonder how we can actually change or expand how we work with people so as to harness the positive aspects of their neurological/psychological make-up and support them in becoming themselves. Its not that I think medication prevents people from becoming themselves, lest I be misconstrued here. Kids with ADHD who take medication do considerably better than those who don't - they do better in work, in relationships and have less longer term problems - so like I said, I'm by no means anti-medication. However, I do wonder if this needs to be counter-balanced with recognising and encouraging kids with ADHD to be themselves, to be loud sometimes, to be energetic and to be the people they are. Just some thoughts - I know there are some people with ADHD who read my blog - if they have anything to say, I'd love to hear it.