Lucy Johnstone: The Power Threat Meaning Framework

This week, we interview Dr Lucy Johnstone. Lucy is a clinical psychologist, trainer, speaker and writer, and a long-standing critic of the biomedical model of psychiatry. She has worked in adult mental health settings for many years, alternating with academic posts.
Lucy has authored a number of books, including 'Users and Abusers of Psychiatry’(Routledge 2000), and ‘A Straight-talking Introduction to Psychiatric Diagnosis’ (PCCS Books 2014) as well as a number of articles and chapters on topics such as psychiatric diagnosis, formulation and the role of trauma in breakdown. She has a blog on Mad in America.
Lucy kindly took time out talk to me about the new Power Threat Meaning Framework, an ambitious attempt to outline a conceptual alternative to psychiatric diagnosis which was published on January 12th this year by the Division of Clinical Psychology of the British Psychological Society.
***
Thank you for being with us to listen to the podcast and read our articles this year. MIA is funded entirely by reader donations. If you value MIA, please help us continue to survive and grow. You can visit our donation page here: www.madinamerica.com/donate/
To find the Mad in America podcast on your preferred podcast player, click here: pod.link/1212789850

[@jenniferfinlayson8503]

Thanks very much! I will read your book.

[@juntan2338]

4 Main Qns:
1. What has happened to you? (How is power operating in your life? - Beneficial and Non-beneficial)
2. How did it affect you? (What kind of threats did it pose on you)
3. What sense did you make of it? (Not just personal meaning, but investigating social norms)
4. Did you have to do to survive? (Threat responses. Things people do, not things people have)
All 4 qns and answers feed into one another.
5. What are your strengths (What access to power do you have?)
6. What is your story?

[@thecentreformalepsychology8489]

This all sounds very nice and patient friendly... until you read pages 124-8 of the long version of the PTMF. Although you might expect the PTMF to be about helping the powerless to recover some sense of power, the PTMF assumes that men are by default more powerful and threatening than women. This ideological assumption is not supported by facts that have been around for years e.g. the meta-analysis of sex differences in domestic violence by Archer (2000), and this issue hints at the weakness of the evidence base for the PTMF. I dread to think what a male victim of domestic violence can expect if he visits a PTMF practitioner.
Here is an informative critique of the PTMF view of men malepsychology.org.uk/2018/10/03/the-power-threat-meaning-framework-ptmf-takes-a-dim-view-of-the-male-gender/

[@steverobertson6068]

LOL what planet do you live on? Men ARE 'by-default' more powerful and threatening than women. Jesus Christ man.

[@thecentreformalepsychology8489]

​@@steverobertson6068 I live on the planet where at least a third of domestic violence victims are men, most suicides are male, most homeless people are male etc etc. Sadly this planet is also inhabited by people who think this all just men's own fault.

[@steverobertson6068]

@@thecentreformalepsychology8489 I don't know about the third of domestic violence victims being men statistic (but seems possible if you include child abuse and gay relationships), but I agree with your point here. I am not a gender social justice warrior and I think this 'blame men' mentality does more harm than good. It is fully possible to recognize the unique harms faced by women without demonizing masculinity. In fact, as someone who read the entire PTMF, I would say that it has a lot to say about both the pathology of the reactionary nature of the 'identity-warrior liberal feminist' and the reaction to the reaction that your previous replies expressed. None of it is helpful.