Reviews for Is public capital provision efficient?

The average rating for Is public capital provision efficient? based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2019-06-15 00:00:00 Troy Hicks [Note: I gave up reading at page 130, which is 8 essays out of 12 and so the review is of those] This book is a real mixed bag of quality. Take for example the essay on Derrida which endlessly refrains deconstruction without appropriate applicability or reference other than speculated intent. A critique of power, ethics and justice is a form of deconstruction according to Derrida, but critically it wasn't his only method for doing this. Deconstruction was one of those practices that caught on which was one of many tools that were critical to the understanding of his work and so it's almost dishonest for social theory to be so ambitious in throwing the word around implying more than it actually says due to this methodological disconnection mentioned. It's also unfaithful to Derrida's actual work since he was adamant that it wasn't a method or a mechanical operation for a thinker with a specific operational construct has already decided how to proceed. This goes against the point of the essay for it is declared that a deconstruction of psychotherapy is practice. It's not for it doesn't address issues of power or ethics in the clinical setting at all, it rather presents us with a way of interpreting and associating these relationships without fully giving analysis or definitive clarity. To 'deconstruct' the clinical would merely be a practice of rethinking the power relationships inherent in such a profession, which if we are being honest is hardly reactionary or revolutionary considering the PCP movement had very similar ideas. Furthermore it's also intellectually dishonest to assume the theory of deconstruction is without a particular social construct in the sense that Derrida was writing at a time of prevalent structuralism and so the concept can really be understood properly within this framework, as an antistrucutral gesture, which is a continuing theme of sociology and philosophy. Structures are still requiring the appropriate antistrucutral gesture to subdue and rewire assumptions. This means therefore that Derrida is not attempting a post-structuralism at all because he recognizes the continuation of a structural presence and deconstruction is not inherently devoted to discarding or disavowing structure as this is another assumption, it's main critique is in how we think about them. So to mesh both is misleading and is a common mistake in postmodern writing alongside the assumption that one can take a deconstructive method. Ian Law's essay on approaching therapy with men has some blatant assumptions which certainly are not congenial with reality but rather with ideological discourse. So, in the beginning it is stated without real critical analysis that it's challenging to attempt a therapy which addresses the key issues of male privilege in ways which do not inherently reproduce it due to him being a man. These are assumptions and presents a view of therapy using a patriarchal framework which is more regressive than reactionary for it merely re-establishes flawed conceptualized meta narratives that don't hold up to scrutiny. The entire research project thus is hampered by this theoretical position and the conformational bias which results from it. Ironically this is what Derrida was basically warning against in his deconstructive idea. We are invited to take responsibility for the apparent abusive practices of the male gender. This therefore instills a pathology into the genders, assuming that men are inherently, innately predisposed to power monopolization and therefore destructive. Is this not merely presuming and taxonomizing your clients before you even meet them? Did Law for example just assume that all his male patients would be this regressive due to the ideological construct he imposes? This is one of the key problems with therapy and it is very ironic that a book which attempts to critically analyze and 'deconstruct' all these problems ends up pandering to the feminist left and in doing so creates a new form of privilege and power in the feminine! Despite this endless and ultimately fatal list of problems, his analysis is useful in outlining a discursive approach which if other researchers are reading, could be used in a way which emphasizes not inferiority or power dichotomies but rather equality and understanding. Something truly revolutionary if implemented but I suspect that it won't be as the fundamental assumption inherent in his thesis would have to be dropped and he would have to reconsider his own methodology. Roger Lowe begins his piece by weaving a very well known narrative about postmodernism. It is apparently elusive and impossible to define and is ephemeral in its construction, to define it would be misleading and unwise. This is bullshit and is certainly not remedying the blatant obscurantism which is often thrown in response to such patronizing nonsense. I understand that doing such a definition would be tantamount to creating a meta-narrative and that creating a univocal base which prescribes theory would be tantamount to conflationism. I understand these points but isn't every single social theory catchment the same? I guarantee that many 'Marxists' resent being labelled as such due to their disassociation with other people catched under the same umbrella. However why is it impossible to merely disband the term 'postmodernism' and the prevailing social narrative and group ethos it implies and look at individuals and their differing ideas which would present partial understanding other than merely stating that you are not going to give me one. Why would anyone read a book which blatantly is so anti pedagogical? If the theorists in the book believe this is deconstructionism then they again are misled by their own misunderstanding. Ian Parker's introduction however is very good as it outlines the key problems and paradoxes that psychotherapists face in their practice and discussing the ways in which power, ethics and truth has been challenged. Furthermore John Kaye's essay despite having many of the problems mentioned above in relation to the deconstruction issue, presents us with some interesting analysis on collaborative methods.

Review # 2 was written on 2017-01-07 00:00:00 Michael Vaughn An interesting read about the clinical diagnoses. I hated it at first but the more I'm "in the field" the more I am tending to agree somewhat with what the authors have said.