CfP: Ethnicity, mental health and learning disability in an age of austerity
LIVING WITH SOCIAL CATEGORIES: ETHNICITY, MENTAL HEALTH, AND LEARNING DISABILITY IN AN AGE OF AUSTERITY
18 JUNE 2012 THE OPEN UNIVERSITY, MILTON KEYNES
KEY NOTE SPEAKER: PROFESSOR JAMES NAZROO (MANCHESTER)
CHAIR: PROFESSOR RICHARD JENKINS (SHEFFIELD)
This one day interdisciplinary conference seeks to re-ignite debates about the lived consequences of the category of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) in statutory services. Using mental health (MH) and Learning Disability (LD) as reference points the conference will explore fresh understandings and theorisations for how BME plays out within the care/control function of the state. Conference organisers acknowledge that ‘Learning Disability’ is contested by advocacy groups; however it is employed here to reflect its use in statutory services.
The conference is hosted by the Faculty of Health and Social Care (The Open University) and the Race and Ethnicity Study Group (British Sociological Association).
Background
Notwithstanding recent advancements, there remains a disjuncture between theory and praxis in the sociology literature on ethnicity. While it is now accepted that ethnicity is an ontologically unstable category (Alexander 2006), writers arguably over-emphasise ethnicity qua ethnicity at the expense of material and psychic consequences of ethnic categorisations (Carter and Fenton, 2011). However there is long-standing evidence that the category BME has consequences for lived experience in statutory services where the state’s care/control function is thrown into sharp focus. Consequently although less likely to receive welfare services, BMEs are over-represented in the coercive aspects of ‘caring’ services. In MH and LD for instance, some BME groups are less likely to access preventative services but more likely to be detained for involuntary treatment (Mir et al, 2001; Care Quality Commission and National Mental Health Development Unit, 2011). Thus ‘[p]aradoxically, they receive the MH services they don’t want, but not the ones they do or might want’ (Keating and Robertson, 2004, p446). While the applied literature has helpfully evidenced these inequalities, it struggles to satisfactorily operationalise ethnicity to reflect current substantive understandings of fluidity (Nazroo, 2011; Salway et al 2009, 2011). The present age of austerity is likely to exacerbate longstanding inequalities, hence the timely need to refocus on the sociological processes which lead to embodiment of social categories such as BME, MH, and LD.
We welcome papers that address the following themes:
• What sociological theories are useful in explaining/could explain the disproportionate representation of BME in MH and LD services?
• What are the possibilities, limitations and challenges of using ethnic categorisations to describe and explain inequalities in the provision of statutory services? Is an integrative (or intersectional) approach more useful?
• Interrogating the category of BME: Although widely used in applied studies, BME is rarely explored critically. What is the history of the category; whose interests does it serve?
• Spaces of care/control: ‘Space’ could be geographical, virtual, material, and mental - how is care/control operationalised; what are the mechanisms?
• How can the gap between theory and practice be reduced? Is it an issue of dissemination? If so, how can this be bridged?
Godfred Boahen
PhD student
Faculty of Health and Social Care
The Open University
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
Contact: g.f.boahen@open.ac.uk