Class Summary

Class of Tuesday, the 24th of November

This class began with a recap of the Nature of Clinical Psychology which had been discussed the class before. It was agreed that the following are the major descriptive characteristics of the field of clinical psychology:
1) Scientificity/scientific approach
2) Idiograpihc approach
3) Focus on abnormality/pathology
4) Designed to answer the question, "How can I help?"
5) Diversity, and
6) More focus on assessment and diagnosis than on intervention (as per today's state of affairs).
Although these are the "generally agreed upon" characteristics of clinical psychology, some experts in the field feel differently about one or more of these points. For instance, sir highlighted, with reference to 2 books (namely, Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology by Lilienfeld, Lynn and Lohr and Introduction to Clinical Psychology by Hecker and Thorpe), how some parts of clinical practice may border on pseudoscience. What do clinical psychologists have against graphology, for example, which seems to work on the same principles as projective tests?
This is where further discussion on the merits and pit-falls of sticking to evidence based practice began. On the one hand, using EBP gives one the confidence of a tried and tested method, with sufficient scientific proof of its efficiency. On the other hand, what does one do if validation by empirical evidence is not possible for a certain practice? As DC sir said, "Do we then throw psychoanalysis out of the window, provided we have a large enough window?" Also, if one never tries new methods, how is the science of clinical psychology ever to grow? This is the age-old problem of Professional development vs. Creativity that Carl Rogers (1950) also alludes to, in his article "Where Are We Going In Clinical Psychology?"
Proceeding on to the development of clinical psychology in India, the question was raised: "Has it been exactly as in the West? Or has the Indian history of clinical psychology varied in some way?" Summarizing the lively debate that followed is a challenging task; but in essence, some of us felt that insofar as India has been using the "photocopy approach" in the words of Ramalingaswamy (a historian of Indian psychology), yes: The development of Indian clinical psychology may have been the same- but only to an extent. Things may soon change, as awareness of an Indian psychology is on the rise. But others in class were of the opinion that one cannot say the development has been exactly the same, because, after all, India is no stranger to psychology. Ancient seers and sages of India have long since contemplated on human nature, and that the difference lies in our not having enough written records of what they had discovered, albeit cloaked in philosophy and mysticism. Other factors such as the focus on the family, and the ever-present element of religiousness cannot, too, be ignored.
Traces of Indian psychology and psychotherapy has undeniably been found in the Vedas, in Siddha and Ayurveda, in the writings of Charaka and Sushruta. And although the Mughals later brought with them a different cultural tinge, it is nevertheless considered Indian. The British brought with them, along with allopathy, a whole new psychology that was influenced by what was initiated in the West by those like Tuke, Pinel and so on. The first asylum (for the British, not yet for the Indians) was established in 1787 in Calcutta: but not much in the way of treatment was offered to the unfortunate "madmen" (and alleged adultresses!). They were just waiting to be shipped away to Britain. Later, on being questioned, the British started admitting Indians as well into these asylums. Gradually, asylums were opened in Bangalore, Agra and an important one in Ranchi, all of which are now called hospitals.
On the academic side of things, as we know, the first University that taught psychology was Calcutta University, around 1916, facilitated by Sri Brajendra Nath Seal (who taught Psychology as part of Philosophy masters course way back in 1905 in CU). Mysore University soon followed (1924). The articles written by Sanjeev Jain and by G.G.Prabhu (GGP, as he seems to be fondly known) shed much light on the development of Mental Health Services/ clinical psychology in India, Specifically around NIMHANS in Bangalore. According to GGP, the 3 Gs responsible for bringing this feat about were Dr. Girindrasekhar Bose (psychologist/psychiatrist), Prof. M.V. Gopalaswamy (psychologist) and Dr. Govindaswamy (psychiatrist/psychologist, student of Gopalaswamy). It is GGP's opinion that when Gopalaswamy and Govindaswamy together started clinical psychology in NIMHANS, their conceptualization of clinical psychology was very different from what it has turned out to be today, and that if at all there was a Golden Era for Indian clinical psychology, it was till 1960 (this is debatable!).
Other courses in clinical psychology soon cropped up in CIP (estbd in Ranchi by Berkeley Hill), BHU (Varanasi), Ahmedabad, and so on. The path of development of CP in India has not by any means been smooth. The courses at Varanasi and Ahmendabad were not popular for long. The name of the course at NIMHANS has changed nearly half a dozen times, recently because of their disagreements with the RCI: Diploma in Medical Psychology -> Diploma in Medical and Social Psychology -> MPhil in Medical and Social Psychology -> MPhil in Clinical Psychology -> MPhil in Mental Health and Social Psychology->->??.
The class was wound down with one provocative question for those who wished to write an integration paper: WHY has there been no truce declared between NIMHANS and the RCI? Is a truce forthcoming at all?


Major Reading Resources:
• A bunch of 4 articles on Clin Psych in India- (Janak Pandeys entry on ‘India’ in Encyclopedia of Psychology, S K Verma’s article in CCP, GGP’s book Ch in Mental Health: An Indian Perspective(1946-2003), GGP’s article in NACIACP-06 Souvenir- ESSENTAIL READING)
• Plus some other articles on the same topic (Clin Psych in India) mainly published in IJCP from time to time, available with DC (Supplementary reading)
• Hecker & Thorpe (Ch 1- Characteristics of Clin Psych)
• Other regularly referred textbooks for general overview (Trull & Phares, Pomerantz, Plante, etc)
• Lilienfeld’s book (see the text above)