Repliek
<p><strong><em>Response </em></strong><br />In our response to the three reviews of our book we focus on five critical points that were made, namely: the presumed absence of a central question and overall explanatory framework; the argument that the work is not a...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
openjournals.nl
2009-01-01
|
| Series: | BMGN: Low Countries Historical Review |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.bmgn-lchr.nl/articles/6959 |
| Summary: | <p><strong><em>Response </em></strong><br />In our response to the three reviews of our book we focus on five critical points that were made, namely: the presumed absence of a central question and overall explanatory framework; the argument that the work is not a synthesis; the problem of the interplay between the supply of and demand for mental health care; the relation between the perspective of mental health experts and our interpretation of this in terms of cultural pessimism as well as social design; and the objection that our elaboration of the process of psychologisation is unclear.</p><p> </p><p>We would like to emphasise that we do indeed present a definition of a central problem in the introduction and that we discuss it extensively and systematically in our conclusion. We also explain what, in our view, a historical synthesis should aim for and that our approach is empirical-historical rather than theoreticalsociological. We believe that we maintain a considerable distance from the actor's perspective at that time and that the criticism of our description of psychologisation is based on a limited understanding of that term.</p><p> </p><p>This response is part of the <a href="/418/volume/124/issue/2/">discussion forum</a> 'Verward van geest en ander ongerief' (H. Oosterhuis, M. Gijswijt-Hofstra).<br /><br /></p> |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0165-0505 2211-2898 |