Disorder of intentionality:
Could it provide a global bio-psycho-social framework for psychopathology?From
Functional Semantics to speech acts in clinical practice and psychotherapy
Frédéric Advenier
Introduction
Firstly, I’d like to thank both you very much, Dr.
Bolton and Dr. Hill, for your book.***
Your work has helped me to discover the philosophy
of mind and to work on my project, with Pierre-Henri and his team.
I’m a psychiatrist and practice in an outpatient
clinic in the suburbs of Paris.***
My fundamental questions are simple, and reflect
my perplexities.
They are rooted in my everyday practice:
We usually account for our practices either by
covering general theory, or with “a-theorical” data.
But in my everyday life, I’ve seen that the work
of a psychiatrist is to listen and to respond, to open up a dialogue, to
converse with the patient. ***
These conversations can be concluded by
prescribing drugs, a hospitalisation, giving certificate or other things, but
for the most part, psychiatrists reflect and analyze what has happened during
the conversation.
Our questions are, for instance:
This leads me to ask these questions: ***
These questions seem to me very important to
clarify.
They are the first step of our Phd.
The second step will be an empirical work, an
analysis of videorecorded encounters between patients and psychiatrists, but we
have to be guided with clear ideas… and mine are not yet completely clear!
One of our main intuitions is that during a
psychiatric conversation, a mind takes care of another mind; a mind understands
and explains another mind.
It’s a “mind-talk”.***
We can clarify this intuition with concepts from
the philosophy of mind, pragmatics and sociology.
I’m trying to clarify them by applying some of the
concepts covered in your book.
But this leads us to 3 questions that I would like
to ask you, during my presentation.
The idea of Functional Semantics
With Functional Semantics (FS), can we account for
major “constraints” of the therapeutic conversation?
Let me first restate what appear to be your
positions on that topic: ***
With FS, I understand that we can correlate an action
with a concept or cognition.
It is a logical connection.
We could see FS as a regulator of intentional
activity or like fitness, in order to adapt and accord our action to another
human action.
What about Pragmatics?
The work of a psychiatrist is perhaps an
investigation of those informational contents and their links with a functional
system and plan of actions and interactions.
A psychiatrist achieves this investigation through
a dialogue with the patient.
The notion of speech acts can be useful to
describe our work.
We can assume that, during the dialogue,
informational content is mediated by speech acts.
This is the main problem.
Speech acts are complex and not primarily
informative.
They are not informative when analyzed in
isolation.
We can describe speech acts with a:
Speech acts are directed to someone.
They depend on the physical circumstances and the
semantic context.
We do not completely master the effects of our
speech acts.
Locution and illocution can be conventional but
not really the perlocutionary dimension. There is no rule to produce a specific
effect; for instance threatening somebody…
During a psychiatric conversation, the two
protagonists are not simply trading information.
With their words and attitudes, the patient, for
instance, is complaining to the psychiatrist of something.
He or She could be waiting for something from the
psychiatrist, who can be afraid, amused or distressed by this.
During the conversation, the psychiatrist tries to
be empathic with the patient, but they have to make a diagnosis and reached for
the right treatment.
They do this for instance by testing a response to
a question; by indirectly observing the modification of the patient’s discourse
after one of their remarks.
I don’t know what kind of speech acts it might be!
It is probably an important point to investigate.
A psychiatrist could pay attention to the
concordance and the discordance of those 3 dimensions of speech acts.
He or She could try to state them with the
patient, to correct them.
But, the information emerges during an
interaction; it can be isolated and idealised after that.
So, in the production of information in this
dialogue, we are in a tension between one point that is the objective,
cognitive, logical content, mediated by illocutory and locutory dimensions of
speech acts that could be regulated with convention. The second point is the
empathy, the perlocutory effects that we don’t master.
The perlocutory effect refers to the empathy.
My first question is: ***
1. In the FS hypothesis, how can we account for the
empathic dimension of a dialogue?
There is certainly room for an evolutionary
explanation, there is also room for your specific post-wittgensteinian version
of empathy/Gewissheit. But do we see some intuitive connection between the
pragmatics of emotions in the clinical interview and what you call empathy?
Sociology of Practice
We’re coming up against a second problem, which is
highlighted by sociological studies.***
The two protagonists are not entirely free to fix
the rules of the conversation.
There are external constraints.
The status in the institution of the patient and
the psychiatrist, the role that they should endorse, and the situation of the
encounter determines a priori way of attitudes and responses.
The type of information is partially defined by
these constraints.
The patient should complain of abnormal somatic
perceptions.
The psychiatrist should encode information in a
theorical knowledge in order to diagnose and to begin a suitable treatment.
My second question is: ***
2. In FS, informational contents should be
described only in reference to a cognitive regulation of intentional activity
or in link with the evolutionary theory (p.155), but why not with according to institutional
constraints?
For, what is needed by a coherent pragmatic
standpoint on patient/psychiatrist communication is rather, in my opinion, such
an institutional background, and not a remote control cognitive/evolutionary
background.
We’re coming up against a third problem: the
problem of the creation of a rule.
A therapeutic conversation could be seen as the
creation of new and specific rules of discussion, new informations. (For
instance…)
This does not necessarily implicate a recovery or
the creation of an establishment of a normal function.
How can we account for this situation with FS? My
third question is:***
3. How could we articulate the normative
distinction that undermines informational content and plan of actions and your
definition of the creation of the rule (p.167)?
“ The rule is made in practice, in the activity
itself, as opposed to being given in advance, in acts of minds, or in pictures,
formulae, tables and another expressions of rules” (p 167).
Conclusion
This resonates with my proposal that we should
actively pay attention to the pragmatic content of speech-acts in psychiatric
practices (be they clinical/descriptive or explicitly psychotherapeutic ones)
Did you have such possibility in mind?
So my questions are related to how to accounting for
a practice and how to integrate complex concepts in to an empirical work.
References
BOLTON D. & HILL J.,
Mind, meaning and mental disorder, Oxford University Press, 2005
OGIEN A., Le remède de Goffman ou comment se débarrasser
du Self, http://cesames.org/Textes%20et%20documents/goffman%27sself.pdf,
2005.
OGIEN
A., Le raisonnement psychiatrique, Réponses sociologiques, Méridiens
Klincksieck, 1985.
GRICE P., Logique et conversation, Communications 1979 ;
30 : 57-72.
LABOV W., Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy As Conversation, Academic
Press, 1977.
CICOUREL
A., le raisonnement médical, Seuil, 2002.
Thank you for your attention and your answers.
Extracts: Functional Semantics: meaning in terms
of systemic functions (§4)
“Given an intentional
specification of the function of a system, of what it (its response) is “meant
to achieve”, we can define what counts as success or failure, and hence define
other normative distinctions. If, on a particular occasion a system fails to
achieve its function, it has made an error somewhere along the line intentional
specification of systemic function can be derived from evolutionary theoric
considerations, or in the basis of intentional behavioural evidence alone”
(p.152)
“In summary, the proposed
account of correcteness or error in information content runs as follows: A
system S emits a certain response R, regulated by information carrying state Si
with particular content. The response (we assume) is meant to achieve a
particular result, typically some change in the environment to a condition Cr.
The response is appropriate to achieving Cr if the initial condition of the
environment is Ci. In this sense the response is appropriate to it being the
case that Ci. The informational state Si is then true if Ci is in fact the
case, and is otherwise false. Wether the state is true or false will then (tend
to) show up in the success or otherwise of the behaviour to which it gives
rise” (p.154)
“…two version of FS. One
defines content and the true/false distinction by reference to the role of
information-carrying states in the regulation of intentional activity; the
other by reference to a certain type of environmental cause of such states,
namely, their normal causes as defined by evolutionary theory” (p.155)
“Attribution of meaningful
content rests on behavioural criteria. The behaviour in question is essentially
interactive: it already has intentionality. Hence explanations that invoke
meaningful states are effective in the prediction of action. Such predictions
attribute propensities to follow rules: the behaviour which they predict is
essentially subject to normative descriptions: correct/incorrect,
appropriate/inappropriate, successful/unsuccessful” (p.156)
“Psychological
generalizations and their predictions in particular cases allow for the
possibility of system failure. They are typically qualified by provisos to the
effect “if all other things are equal”, by so-called ceteris paribus clauses,
which include particularly explicit or implicit reference to “normal’
functioning.” (p.158)
“The proposal is that
reason-giving explanation is causal: it is what causal explanation comes to
look like in the case of action of rational agents.” (p.161)
“Rather, meaningful
generalizations functions as expressions of norms of appropriateness
(rationality) for particular kinds of cognitive-affective states, their causes
and effects. They concern norms for specific cognitive sub-systems: trust,
fear, grief, anger, curiosity, rationality, and so on. In these contexts the
laws are “logical”- “psycho-logical”- rather than empirical.” (p.164-165)
“The rule is made in
practice, in activity itself, as opposed to being given in advance, in acts of
mind, or in pictures, formulae, tables, and other expression of rules” (p.167)
“[those generalizations]
assume the role more of methodological propositions for the investigation of
specifics, as opposed to being empirical, generalizations that summarize
individual instances.” (p.168)
Meeting with Dereck BOLTON
& Jonathan HILL, Pierre-Henri
CASTEL
4th of June 2008
Disorder of intentionality: Could it provide a
global bio-psycho-social framework for psychopathology?
From Functional Semantics to speech acts in
clinical practice and psychotherapy
Frédéric ADVENIER
What are the specificities of a psychiatric and
psychotherapeutic conversation? What are their norms or rules?
Functional Semantics (FS):
- Informational Contents could be mediated by
speech acts (locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary)
Questions:
1. In the FS, how could we account for the
empathic dimension of a dialogue?
2. In FS, informational contents should be
described only in reference to a cognitive regulation of intentional activity
or in link with the evolutionary theory (p.155), but why not with institutional
constraints?
3. How could we articulate the normative
distinction that undermines Functional Semantics and your definition of the
creation of the rule (p.167)?