Madam, - John Waters (Opinion, November 13th) attacks the very idea that experts and professionals in the field of psychology might put forward an analysis of our social ills. He singles out my recent paper at the Céifin conference in Ennis for particular attention.
Apparently, according to Mr Waters, I am part of a "new industry in therapeutic analysis" about which he clearly feels uneasy and which he believes makes suggestions which "would have seemed comical to previous generations".
Bizarrely, and without any sense of irony or self-contradiction, he goes on to state that some of the "comical" ideas I put forward had been propounded by himself many times over the years!
He also admits that he did not attend the conference nor bother to read my paper in full, relying instead on a sketchy press report. On this basis he criticises me for failing to go beyond a mere "reprise of symptoms". This is quite inaccurate. My paper was designed to encourage psychological thinking and to engage with how the individual may be empowered to help solve social problems.
It is possible Mr Waters is exclusively in favour of the "amateur pundit"? Amateur punditry does not draw its ideas from direct clinical work or focused research. Indeed, it sometimes rejoices in having no claim to, or respect for, such mundane pursuits while nevertheless protecting its media privileges.
Unlike Mr Waters, I would like to see more professionals in fields like psychology engaging with difficult issues in the public domain. - Yours, etc,
JANET MURRAY, Psychotherapist, Tivoli Institute, Galway.