If Mort Divine ruled the world

[SentinelSlain]

Crappy fonts and graphics.

 

[Baroque]

I don't get why that's racist. Explain it to me.

Change the word black to white

 

[Dak]

Change the word black to white

Yeah, if a a conference on "White Psychology" were announced and flyers with a picture of a Scandinavian superimposed on a map of Europe and references to "reclaiming our power" were circulated, can you imagine the media and student body meltdowns?

 

[Einherjar86]

Change the word black to white

Yeah, if a a conference on "White Psychology" were announced and flyers with a picture of a Scandinavian superimposed on a map of Europe and references to "reclaiming our power" were circulated, can you imagine the media and student body meltdowns?

The first thing to point out is that you're assuming an equality between black and white. Now, before you turn this around and accuse me of racism for suggesting an inequality between black and white, I'll say that I don't mean that blacks and whites (i.e. black and white people) are unequal.

I mean that pretty every conference on psychology and mental habits, since psychology emerged as a practice, has been on "white psychology." It just wasn't necessary to specify, because "white" has been the de facto assumption since the Enlightenment (if not prior). A conference on "black psychology" isn't racist because it's simply focusing on an aspect of psychological study that most projects elide, either because they focus on psychology more generally or because they attempt to psychologize black mental health from the outside (that is, as primarily white people in a primarily white profession).

I would definitely be opposed to these kinds of conferences if they were promoting some kind of militant action or criminal behavior as the liberating power of black identity, or some such (which has been a tenet of black nationalism). But all this conference wants to do is try to observe the psychology of black subjects in a way that acknowledges the always-already white history of psychological practice.

 

[Dak]

The first thing to point out is that you're assuming an equality between black and white. Now, before you turn this around and accuse me of racism for suggesting an inequality between black and white, I'll say that I don't mean that blacks and whites (i.e. black and white people) are unequal.

I mean that pretty every conference on psychology and mental habits, since psychology emerged as a practice, has been on "white psychology." It just wasn't necessary to specify, because "white" has been the de facto assumption since the Enlightenment (if not prior). A conference on "black psychology" isn't racist because it's simply focusing on an aspect of psychological study that most projects elide, either because they focus on psychology more generally or because they attempt to psychologize black mental health from the outside (that is, as primarily white people in a primarily white profession).

I would definitely be opposed to these kinds of conferences if they were promoting some kind of militant action or criminal behavior as the liberating power of black identity, or some such (which has been a tenet of black nationalism). But all this conference wants to do is try to observe the psychology of black subjects in a way that acknowledges the always-already white history of psychological practice.

White was the default because those were the only people engaging the in activity. No one was stopping non-Europeans from asking questions about the mind. I think everyone within psychology is aware of disparate outcome/impact issues that minorities face to varying degree, and many understand the need for minority psychologists to work with their respective populations. It aids in rapport etc. From that perspective, the 2016 poster is completely unobjectionable. But that 2017 poster is problematic to say the least.

I also find it interesting that there's concern about "psychologizing from the outside" from many people as it refers to race, but few are raising the same fuss about the state of the social sciences now being overwhelmingly liberal and female. If I had a "Conservative Male Psychology" conference/flyer with similar sorts of styling and rhetoric it would also be considered protest worthy I'm sure.

 

[Einherjar86]

White was the default because those were the only people engaging the in activity. No one was stopping non-Europeans from asking questions about the mind.

Seriously?

One of the first major non-white psychological/sociological figures was probably Franz Fanon, and his entire project was an illumination of how Europeans were preventing or inhibiting non-Europeans from asking questions about the mind.

I think everyone within psychology is aware of disparate outcome/impact issues that minorities face to varying degree, and many understand the need for minority psychologists to work with their respective populations. It aids in rapport etc. From that perspective, the 2016 poster is completely unobjectionable. But that 2017 poster is problematic to say the least.

I think you can say it's political responsive, definitely; but to say it's racist is just sensationalist.

I also find it interesting that there's concern about "psychologizing from the outside" from many people as it refers to race, but few are raising the same fuss about the state of the social sciences now being overwhelmingly liberal and female. If I had a "Conservative Male Psychology" conference/flyer with similar sorts of styling and rhetoric it would also be considered protest worthy I'm sure.

You make a great point about the insular community of academia, which in part is a response to it being predominantly conservative and male until about the 1970s. It is, however, still predominantly white.

Is academia, especially the social sciences and humanities, aware of its insularity? You bet. Does it think it's a problem? You bet. Does that mean that every statement it makes testifies to this awareness? Definitely not.

Lastly, I'm skeptical that a flyer for a community of conservative psychologists would generate that much resistance at all. If it was "males only," yeah, sure, probably... but then, conferences on gender and women's studies aren't "women only," and you will find plenty of men at those conferences.

 

[Dak]

Seriously?

One of the first major non-white psychological/sociological figures was probably Franz Fanon, and his entire project was an illumination of how Europeans were preventing or inhibiting non-Europeans from asking questions about the mind.

Which he did in Europe by asking questions about the mind as a non-European. Seems like a unsuccessful enterprise if he were correct.

I think you can say it's political responsive, definitely; but to say it's racist is just sensationalist.

Lastly, I'm skeptical that a flyer for a community of conservative psychologists would generate that much resistance at all. If it was "males only," yeah, sure, probably... but then, conferences on gender and women's studies aren't "women only," and you will find plenty of men at those conferences.[

I'm just trying to evenly apply the rules of public criticism of certain words. A "Male Conservative Psychologist" conference might not attract all that much public attention, depending on how it were advertised. However, I can assure you that the odds of one occurring in the current sociopolitical environment are low due to career concerns and the relative paucity of numbers.

You make a great point about the insular community of academia, which in part is a response to it being predominantly conservative and male until about the 1970s. It is, however, still predominantly white.

Is academia, especially the social sciences and humanities, aware of its insularity? You bet. Does it think it's a problem? You bet. Does that mean that every statement it makes testifies to this awareness? Definitely not.

http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2011/01/cover-men.aspx

The APA notes the disparity:

The shift is reflected in the work force as well. Data from APA's Center for Workforce Studies show that women make up 76 percent of new psychology doctorates, 74 percent of early career psychologists and 53 percent of the psychology work force.

......but then the writeup closes with:

Despite their struggles, women have made inroads into psychology's leadership positions and are likely to continue to do so. APA's president, past-president and president-elect are all women, and women head three out of the association's four directorates. "Those are all positive signs that things are moving in the right direction," says Sheras.

I couldn't write better satire.

 

[rms]

aren't white males graduating less and less in higher ed for the humanities?

 

[Einherjar86]

Which he did in Europe by asking questions about the mind as a non-European. Seems like a unsuccessful enterprise if he were correct.

The point is he was aware of it and applied a reflexive attitude toward his observations. He was completely aware that he was operating from within the European tradition, but that doesn't mean you can't call attention to its limits and its exclusions.

I already suggested that this was possible, it's just often unacknowledged or willfully ignored.

I'm just trying to evenly apply the rules of public criticism of certain words. A "Male Conservative Psychologist" conference might not attract all that much public attention, depending on how it were advertised. However, I can assure you that the odds of one occurring in the current sociopolitical environment are low due to career concerns and the relative paucity of numbers.

I don't doubt that, but I also think there's absolutely no reason to have such a conference. The reason you find the words on a conference flyer for black psychology is because these are relevant contemporary issues, whereas conservative male psychology has been beaten to death.

Because "psychology" is "conservative male psychology." That's the point.

http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2011/01/cover-men.aspx

I never said there weren't more women in academia.

I couldn't write better satire.

Please don't try.

 

[Dak]

Because "psychology" is "conservative male psychology." That's the point.

At this point I don't think I can agree. Inertia might leave it as "male" psychology for the moment (debatable that that's what it is but I'll allow it), but social science has long been the domain of US liberals/"blank slaters". It is only recently that the evidence has become so overwhelming against it that the view is beginning to shift away. There's a reason Pinker had to write his famous book on the subject (and he is still fairly liberal).

I never said there weren't more women in academia.

I know. My point was that just because the disparity is noted doesn't mean that it's seriously considered to be a problem by organized psychology. In fact, by my quoted portion it is obvious that only total saturation by females is an acceptable telos to some.

 

[Einherjar86]

At this point I don't think I can agree. Inertia might leave it as "male" psychology for the moment (debatable that that's what it is but I'll allow it), but social science has long been the domain of US liberals/"blank slaters".

I won't keep pushing against this. My beef is with accusations of racism directed at that flyer, which I find to be disingenuous and sensationalist rather than critically acute.

I know. My point was that just because the disparity is noted doesn't mean that it's seriously considered to be a problem by organized psychology. In fact, by my quoted portion it is obvious that only total saturation by females is an acceptable telos to some.

I don't think a "total saturation" is obvious. The previous imbalance has been off-set by a new imbalance. That is probably desirable for some, if not for many, sure. You're teasing out one implication of the data and the response to it, but that doesn't make your observation obvious.

 

[Dak]

My beef is with accusations of racism directed at that flyer, which I find to be disingenuous and sensationalist rather than critically acute.

Well I would be inclined to agree with you. I'm just saying that such a response needs to be applied across the board.

I don't think a "total saturation" is obvious. The previous imbalance has been off-set by a new imbalance. That is probably desirable for some, if not for many, sure. You're teasing out one implication of the data and the response to it, but that doesn't make your observation obvious.

Well if I were quoting some random blog or op-ed sure, but this is right on the APAs website. If current/past control of the APA is over 75% female and this is "things going in the right direction", there's not much else left. The only thing keeping the faculty relatively balanced at the moment is very senior tenured professors. At the current rate of PhDs, it's going to be a 70/30 female/male split at the faculty/workplace level in the next 10-20 years. So far the primary concern I've seen voiced from official mouthpieces is that this may be a problem for combating "toxic masculinity". Because approaching male problems from that perspective certainly isn't a part of the problem.

 

[Baroque]

the flyer is not blatantly racist, but it certainly does not promote equality. it's counter-intuitive to equality i'd say.

 

[CiG]

Still pondering the implications of a white person not being able to accurately study the brain of someone else, because it's in a black body...

 

[Einherjar86]

The problem of other minds persists between any two subjects, not just white and black.

My point is that the history of psychological practice with regard to non-whites, as an institution and a discipline, is shaped and determined by histories of colonial and imperial intervention. Obviously psychology today has moved well beyond many of the archaic prejudices of the last century or earlier, but that doesn't mean that the state of the field today is always taking account of how its very existence plays a role in the minds it's attempting to observe (a limited example of this would be the transference of a subject's associations onto his or her doctor; or, more crudely, when patients want to fuck their psychologists).

Any field involving intersubjective observation (psychology, anthropology, sociology, et al) demands some internal acknowledgement of the limitations imposed by the space of observation - that is, the variable constituted by the very act of observing. In the case of psychology, part of its central goal has been to identify and effectively deal with instances of mental imbalance, but it hasn't always been successful in differentiating mental imbalance from social mistreatment (a major point in Foucault's History of Madness), and a significant part of the latter falls along racial demographics.

I'm sure that Dak will say that psychology's role is to provide all its subjects with the best tools possible to overcome their social position, if that is indeed contributing to poor mental health. Unfortunately, this fails to consider just how much our classifications of mental health are dictated not by actual processes in the brain, but by cultural values. When this happens, we tend to overemphasize psychological methods of treatment rather than large-scale approaches.

An example, off the top of my head, would be the Orlando nightclub shooter. As soon as that happened, news pundits and social media took to psychologizing him, pointing out his possibly latent homosexuality and his Islamism. While these may certainly have had some impact on his mental health, we make an implicit association between these character traits and mental instability when we focus solely or primarily on the psychology of the individual - in other words, homosexuality and Islamism become somewhat essentially entwined with poor mental health.

Now, before anyone objects and says they don't make these assumptions, that's fine - I'm not accusing anyone. All I'm saying is that if you read sociological or historical studies, you'll find that emphasis on individual psychology, with little or no regard for the effect that psychology has on its subjects, tends to result in cultural generalizations, many of which are still with us today.

And that's why I don't think there's a huge problem with emphasizing "black psychology" - because it's foregrounding the fact that psychological practice isn't neutral. It has an impact on its subjects and the evaluation of their mental health.

 

[CiG]

I can't refute any of that (and actually, it all seems correct to me anyway) but I'm more wondering if you're familiar with Dr. Wade Nobles?

I remember some of his views from a black friend I had on Facebook years back and a lot of it was weird woo-woo, African magic, white people aren't humans, Egyptian/Islamic mysticism-esque stuff.

So I'm wondering if this is what you described, black psychologists working to expand the field so that black minds are understood via the specific realities they live and history they're attached to, and just some weird pseudo-scientific racial snake oil salesman stuff.

He actually believes he is a reincarnation of another man named Wade Nobles from 1816 (his great grandfather), for example.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not familiar with him, so I can't speak to any of that except to say that I don't defend those views.

We read characteristics or beliefs like that, however, and tend to make assumptions that it precludes the possibility for intellectual thought. If we do raise such possibilities, then we also have to ask whether Christians or Jews who believe in God are qualified to be educators. I personally think that religious individuals can make distinctions between their private beliefs and their public presentation in the classroom.

But that said, what you say about Nobles isn't what I had in mind. The comment that "white people aren't humans" has a long history in black thought; Bigger Thomas makes this comment multiple times in Richard Wright's book Native Son, and Ellison picks up on it in Invisible Man (although to a much more complicated degree, I think). In both novels, however, the perception of white people as inhuman raises larger questions about how we, as human beings, identify with the classification of the human. Much has been written about the relation between black people and humanism, which is an overwhelmingly white intellectual and institutional tradition. So, in other words, when we make general appeals to "the human," are we including black individuals, or are we excluding them? Since the 1960s or so, I would say that blacks have been more sweepingly brought into the category of the human, but that doesn't mean that material consequences still persist today because of their long, long exclusion.

I can't speak to the context in which Dr. Nobles believes that "white people aren't human," but in a lot of black literature it's often broached as a way to interrogate the assumptions packed into the category of the human (in the most critical posthumanist sense, we would have to say that neither blacks nor whites are truly "human," although that raises problems of its own). Invisible Man is probably one of the best novels for exploring the black perspective on this issue.

 

[CiG]

If we do raise such possibilities, then we also have to ask whether Christians or Jews who believe in God are qualified to be educators.

It depends entirely upon whether they poison the well of education with their faith-based views.

Edit: I do agree with your overall point, that black people being included in the category of human is only a relatively recent thing. That obviously has all sorts of implications in scientific fields.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Outside Gavin McInnes' talk at NYU last night:

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

...ugh! Disgusting.