I read the Pope & Gutheil article with both a heavy heart and
with a bit of hope.
It does not take much to identify one of the authors as having enough
of a love, and intimate knowledge of the discipline of psychology, to
illuminate so many of its missteps--and the reasons behind that
misdirection.
A discipline is somewhat like a person--it is made up of people--and
a caring psychologist can help bring out all the places where it might
have gone wrong.
Reading Pope & Gutheil's penetrating comparisons of the medical
and psychological professions, the histories and current norms of these
fields, one sees a broader theme develop:
Psychology, in comparison to medicine (and psychiatry), has always
been faced with a position of feeling 'second in line,' at least in its
own mind, as an area of research and practice.
There is often a connection between feeling "second"--experiencing a
sense of inferiority, and a desire to gain advantage--and making
unfortunate ethical decisions. As a famous psychotherapist, Rollo May,
once pointed out, "powerlessness corrupts." A sense of inferiority and the
absence of power, within a person or an organization, can often lead to
tragic moral positions. And it has with the APA.
For someone who cares about the discipline, that's the 'heavy heart'
part. The 'hope' part is that as long as there are those out there who
still care enough about the field--care enough to put a mirror up in front
of it, care enough to try and heal it--then there is the chance it can
eventually find its proper place in the world. That's what psychologists
do, and that's what they should be doing.
The torture issue has been the discipline's greatest challenge yet.
The first stage of healing is for the field to look at itself closely. The
issues brought up in Pope & Gutheil--the questions raised about the
field's history and personality--are a good place to start as it looks for
a path toward healing and redemption.
Rapid Response:
My Reaction to Pope & Gutheil
I read the Pope & Gutheil article with both a heavy heart and
with a bit of hope.
It does not take much to identify one of the authors as having enough
of a love, and intimate knowledge of the discipline of psychology, to
illuminate so many of its missteps--and the reasons behind that
misdirection.
A discipline is somewhat like a person--it is made up of people--and
a caring psychologist can help bring out all the places where it might
have gone wrong.
Reading Pope & Gutheil's penetrating comparisons of the medical
and psychological professions, the histories and current norms of these
fields, one sees a broader theme develop:
Psychology, in comparison to medicine (and psychiatry), has always
been faced with a position of feeling 'second in line,' at least in its
own mind, as an area of research and practice.
There is often a connection between feeling "second"--experiencing a
sense of inferiority, and a desire to gain advantage--and making
unfortunate ethical decisions. As a famous psychotherapist, Rollo May,
once pointed out, "powerlessness corrupts." A sense of inferiority and the
absence of power, within a person or an organization, can often lead to
tragic moral positions. And it has with the APA.
For someone who cares about the discipline, that's the 'heavy heart'
part. The 'hope' part is that as long as there are those out there who
still care enough about the field--care enough to put a mirror up in front
of it, care enough to try and heal it--then there is the chance it can
eventually find its proper place in the world. That's what psychologists
do, and that's what they should be doing.
The torture issue has been the discipline's greatest challenge yet.
The first stage of healing is for the field to look at itself closely. The
issues brought up in Pope & Gutheil--the questions raised about the
field's history and personality--are a good place to start as it looks for
a path toward healing and redemption.
Brad Olson, Ph.D.
Northwestern University
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests