CPMS: A Note on its Classification

I have spent the last few years studying what some mental health professionals name “Complex Primary Motor Stereotypies” (or some variation of that name).

Increasingly, I believe that parents and researchers should begin to move away from that classification. The classification has the benefit of serving as a rallying point (what Lacan named an “imaginary”) but this can also be a serious limitation. The imaginary that the classification offers could in fact be a continuation rather than a challenge to the prevailing discourse which has sustained the behaviour. Moreover, the classification problematically helps direct parents and care-givers toward:

(1) cognitive behavioural strategies designed to increasingly obsessionalize the child,
(2) market-based solutions which intend to sell therapeutic approaches via DVD and specialized institutional care arrangements,
(3) potential bio-/neurological and drug-based solutions,
(4) reaffirmation of the parent child relationship rather than an interrogation of it.

It is absolutely crucial that psychoanalytic discourse intervene into this debate since it relates quite fundamentally to (1) the so-called new symptoms, (2) ordinary psychosis, (3) capitalist discourse.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: