Master Signifers, Aggression, and Truth.

Developments in linguistics and in anthropology brought this idea into use in the early parts of the last century. I shall not lecture you on it but invite you to cut to the chase.

There are words or phrases frequently uttered that have great power but very little meaning - they appear unattached to other elements either in a sentence or in the world. They point to nothing. The vagueness of this can raise anxiety, especially when uttered by people occupying positions of institutional and legal power. Lets call them 'master signifiers' - they have power 'because I or We say so'.

I should add that they are not always necessarily bad. They are a part of language and life and can be extremely useful and put to the good with care. They are a necessary feature of language, in fact, because when we speak we are usually trying to speak about something beyond speech, something that our speech aims to invoke. I think this might be particularly difficult for native English speakers to grasp, because we are so seldom required to face the foreigness of our mother tongue. If we forget this nature of language, however, we can easily forget how important it is to attend to the invention and deployment of master signifiers. Lets keep this practical.

Three of the major master signifiers that organise the discourse around the hpc are: Evidence, Public Protection, and Regulation. I have been trying to turn Public Protection into a meaningful phrase by attaching it to specific examples and paying particular attention to its use (which section of the public is being protected, from what particular harm, and on which specific occasion?). In this way the signifier is introduced to other signifiers with which it is revealed to have an otherwise hidden relation. The concealed relations leave them unquestionable, and we have seen in the case studies particularly, that this can be seriously unhelpful.

When the relations are left in the dark, the phrase can get wielded rather aggressively - intentionally or not - by someone who happens to be occupying a position of power. If used by someone not in any kind of position of power you can safely ignore them as a babbling fool. Unfortunately, these phrases are very often heard coming out of the mouths of people in positions of power - journalists, politicians, members of panels, committee members, for example. To call these people babbling fools might be true in that particular moment, and there have been times in this country when it has been perfectly acceptable to say so, even if you are no-one in particular yourself. But - and its a big but, and one that needs to be acknowledged and understood - at the moment because these people are supported by society and given positions of power, calling them such without great tact seems likely to provoke much more than their own personal wrath. It is as if the whole edifice will crumble away with them, as if they personally are the power. To speak out seems to risk bringing the power of the institution right down on your head.

So, master signifiers are instruments of power: they are cut off from meaning and draw attention to the power of the person that speaks; and they are used to cut off meaning in other conversations, to disempower other speakers - this is a double whammy.

Daniel Hogan's study: regulating psychotherapy in USA

This is taken from a paper written by AM
"Has the government has considered the use of the criminal law. Daniel Hogan's 4 volume study of regulation of psychotherapists in USA has the idea that -

"Where special dangers are identified in the psychotherapeutic process and where traditional avenues of dealing with them are ineffective, special laws should be enacted. Existing fraud and sexual harassment laws should be strengthened and used to prevent some of the abuses that currently occur in professional practice. This alone would obviate much of the need for licensing."
('Professional Regulation as Facilitation, not Control' in Ethically Challenged Professions...enabling innovation and diversity in psychotherapy and counselling - Bates and House - PCCS Books, 2003

Hogan devoted Volume III of his massive 4 volume study The Regulation of Psychotherapists to a description of malpractice law and a review of malpractice suits on professional practice in particular (Volume II provided a comprehensive analysis of all laws potentially regulating psychotherapists in the USA at the time of writing). Volume III involved analysing 300 decisions from the different legal systems of the different US states. In other words his recommendation that the criminal law is examined in this way arises out of a very detailed understanding of the ways the law can be used.

What have others said? And has there been any statement by Government that this path has been considered and rejected? AM

an informal opinion from someone in law

"From a legal perspective I am struck by various statements that the scale of the risk is exaggerated and there is insufficient evidence that therapists abuse clients on a scale that warrants the costs of state intervention. That could be an interesting area to focus on:

I haven't looked at the evidence but my guess is that it might be an uphill struggle to persuade a court that the evidence is so weak as to make a govt decision to introduce some form of state regulation irrational or unreasonable. That said however it might be worth really going into the evidence issues as part of the lobbying process and if their answers are insufficient they could form part of a later legal challenge. At this stage you could ask for more detail about what evidence has the government put forward and have they yet done a cost benefit analysis (which they should do for any legislative proposal)

- i.e. sending the Dept of Health a letter saying you would like to know what evidence they are relying upon, e.g. any independent studies as to the scale of the problem, and asking when /whether they have done a cost benefit analysis for the legislative proposals (my guess is that it is still early days and because the exact form of regulation for the different sectors hasn't been decided they haven't yet had to do that sort of analysis). Even worth considering a freedom of information request along those lines (perhaps at a later stage) if you don't get a decent response. And when it comes to deciding on costs for the purpose of the cost benefit analysis it would be interesting to see what they consider to be costs - are they taking into account both economic costs and potential cost to innovation etc. This could be a weak spot to look at and lobby on.

The debate around evidence and lack of sufficient evidence might also be used to help shape the form of the state regulation if it comes to that - there are lots of different sorts of regulation and, for example, the tick box approach, at least in the financial services field, has tended to be replaced by a principles based approach which is less reductive and is better at encouraging innovation. So don't assume that there is only one sort of regulation - it might be possible to have something much more light touch and more suited to innovation and all the different sorts of therapies available. Seems to me that in bringing in this regulation idea, the govt is probably concerned about (1) inflated claims that I can cure you and (2) the range of potential unethical practices. Although in theory the courts can deal with concerns like this the fact is that the courts are expensive and scary and the govt tends to want individual complaints of malpractice to be dealt with by the professional bodies. Perhaps the key is to try to shape the regulation that comes out so that it focuses on misrepresentation (arguably already covered by the common law anyway) and proper ethics (ditto), to keep encouraging something which is very light touch."