Psychotherapy in a neoliberal world

The neoliberal regime has significant consequences for the psychotherapies. In particular, the idea that individuals is deserving of support from society and government when they need it – for example in managing the inevitable stresses of the life cycle – is being displaced by an ideology of total individual responsibility. Psychotherapies framed around relational conceptions of the self find themselves particularly out of key with this dominant way of thinking. Governmental approaches to developmental needs become more instrumental, measurement-oriented and ‘disciplinary’ in this situation. Market incentives and disciplinary sanctions are introduced to ensure that institutions and their personnel conform to governmental directives. There is pressure on psychotherapists to adapt to this instrumentalised environment to survive. However, ‘expressive individualisation’ was also stimulated by the cultural liberation of the 1960s, and survives alongside the ‘possessive individualism’ of neoliberalism. This alternative culture has not been entirely suppressed, and therapies continue to be sought which offer the possibility of self-understanding and growth, although the pressure is for such therapies to become luxury goods. What is at risk under neoliberalism is the idea that society should support the self-development and self-understanding of all its citizens, as an aspect of a modern kind of democratic citizenship.

A critical analysis of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services policy in England, 2000‐2015

Policy in Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMH) in England has undergone radical changes in the last 15 years, with far reaching implications for funding models, access to services and service delivery. Using corpus analysis and critical discourse analysis, we explore how childhood, mental health, and CAMHS are constituted in 15 policy documents, 9 pre‐2010, and 6 post 2010. We trace how these constructions have changed over time, and consider the practice implications of these changes. We identify how children’s distress is individualised, through medicalising discourses and shifting understandings of the relationship between socioeconomic context and mental health. This is evidenced in a shift from seeing children’s mental health challenges as produced by social and economic inequities, to a view that children’s mental health must be addressed early to prevent future socio‐economic burden. We consider the implications CAMHS policies for the relationship between children, families, mental health services and the state. The paper concludes by exploring how concepts of ‘parity of esteem’ and ‘stigma reduction’ may inadvertently exacerbate the individualisation of children’s mental health.