What we’ve been reading: More DSM, women leaders after Maggie and gun control

The Editors

The first of an occasional series where we ask departmental staff to give a shout out on what they’ve been reading recently.

Does your child sing, laugh, run around and imagine things? Perhaps she has ‘Youthful Tendency Disorder’. We hadn’t come across this before, but the knowledgeable folks at The Onion enlightened us. It might come as shock to realise that the piece linked above was written in the year 2000, affirming the truism that satire gets overtaken by reality. In this case reality is the vast expansion of psychiatric labelling that is likely to result from the new DSM. With the DSM’s forthcoming publication, coverage of diagnostic labels seems especially relevant and we also had a recommendation for this blog by Philip Thomas. It details his complaints to the BBC about their coverage of neuroscience and mental health.

Thinking about different responses to distress we’ve also been looking at the new psychology textbook by Cromby, Harper and Reavy. It aims to be the first undergrad text that ‘reconsiders the traditional emphasis on the biological and psychiatric models’ of mental health. Psychology lecturers please take note.

In the week in which we lost Mrs T much of the discussion of course has been about what Maggie did, and didn’t, mean for women. Our own Jan Burns reckons:

‘The glass ceiling may not be completely broken, but is at least visible and somewhat shattered. What we should be more worried about is the “glass cliff”. Michelle Ryan and Alex Haslam’s ground-breaking work at the University of Exeter has shown how women and other minority groups find themselves in leadership positions. Interestingly though these are more commonly those with attached potential risk and criticism. This goes some way to explain those apocryphal tales of “ah, look what happens when a [fill in your particular minority] is in charge”.’

While we’re on conservative values, we also had a ringing endorsement of ‘Why be happy when you could be normal?’  by Jeannette Winterson.  ‘Thought provoking and inspirational, addressing issues of nature and nurture, overcoming adversity, creativity. A unique perspective on mental distress.' is the judgement of Celia Heneage.

For those of you following some of our thoughts on suicide it’s worth drawing attention to the thoughts of the practical ethicists at Oxford talking about current legal cases on assisted suicide. As you may know we also keep an eye on developments in gun legislation in the US. A difficult week for proponents of greater gun control but we hope, if John Cassidy in the New Yorker is to be believed, that it’s not the end of the line. 

100 days after Sandy Hook and guns still protect you (apparently)

John McGowan

Even modest gun law reform in the USA is faltering. Despite there still being plenty of outrage around, and national support for change, not enough members of Congress in areas committed  to gun rights see the benefits of voting against the will of their constituents.

Looking less and less likely.
Image: Arthur Smart (Talk)

The pro and anti arguments are lined up very much in the way I described in January. President Obama, Michael Bloomberg, and the more progressive commentariat are leading the charge for increased restrictions with the idea that a large number of firearms in circulation is ultimately bad for public safety. This is compounded, they argue, by some of these weapons being automatic, high capacity guns, sold without thorough background checks on buyers. The opposing position, articulated by the National Rifle Association, values freedom, training people to use firearms and, crucially, a need for personal protection, if necessary by lethal force, in a world where criminals may be armed.

Do guns protect you?

John McGowan

Since the Newtown school shootings it’s hard to remember such an outpouring of antipathy towards guns in the United States. After Columbine maybe, but I’ve never heard a right-of-centre US politician be as forthright as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg after the killings at Sandy Hook:

“And it happens again and again… We kill people in schools. We kill them in hospitals. We kill them in religious organizations. We kill them when they’re young. We kill them when they’re old. And we've just got to stop this.”

It’s beginning to look like President Obama will produce a more concrete response than tears, and the fight for restrictions to gun ownership laws is likely to be one of the defining political battles of this coming year in America. 

It’s not clear that there is a straightforward link between outlawing gun ownership and a fall in gun-related fatalities. Changed laws in Australia have provoked impassioned debate over what the effects have been and why. What is clear is that firearms availability (legal or otherwise) is associated with high rates of death by shooting (see a useful summary here). The lesson from the Australian example is that legislation is not the only priority. If people still want guns, then gun-related death rates may remain very high, even in a situation where restrictions on availability are in place.  A more productive strategy is to change the law and seek to develop a different culture around firearms. Changing one may help to change the other and vice versa. In the case of America, to achieve both of these aims it would help to understand the attachment of many US residents to guns.  From the perspective of someone who lives in a society with highly restricted gun ownership this can be absolutely mystifying.  Why does the US love-affair with deadly weapons continue? After wading through coverage of the Newtown shootings I’d propose two main reasons.