(Indent .5") As North America moves into the 21st century, the populace is increasingly aware of the social, fiscal, and familial problems that accompany chronic mental illness. At the same time, however, mental health professionals are persistently thwarted in their attempts to develop thoroughly effective remedies. In spite of, or perhaps as a reflection of, this several hundred approaches to psychotherapy exist (Corsini & Wedding, 2000), pharmacological and other medical interventions are increasing in number and popularity (Burns, Baldwin, Emsley, Kerwin, Steinberg, & Van Os, 1999; Keen, 2000), psychiatric hospitalization remains a highly utilized treatment avenue (e.g., Clarke, Herinckx, Kinney, et al., 2000; Conte, Ferrari, Guarneri et al., 1996; Haywood, Kravitz, Grossman, et al., 1995), and community mental health programs continue despite funding challenges and low visibility (Stroul, Pires, Armstrong, & Meyers, 1998). (Indent .5") Interestingly, when any of these approaches are scrutinized (by contemporary observers or historians), there is a tendency to examine either formative intent (e.g., the approach's goals, stated and unstated, general and particular), or the specifics of actual implementation (e.g., does the program work, is it administered correctly, what external and internal forces affect application and outcome?). An example of the former comes from the antipsychiatry movement of the 1960s and '70s. Encompassing a diverse group of scholars including Szasz, Laing, Cooper, and even Foucault, this 'group' questioned the intent of all psychiatric/psychological intervention, reframing the goals and activities of its practitioners as various forms of state (e.g., Szasz, 1961), social (e.g., Foucault, 1965), and familial control (e.g., Cooper, 1972; Laing, 1972). |