The Anti-American Psychological Association
Psychology and the Declining Public Trust
This is a guest post by Edward E. Waldrep, Ph.D, M.S.C.P. Dr. Waldrep is a Veteran of the War in Iraq, Purple Heart recipient, and is currently a clinical psychologist for the Department of Veteran Affairs specializing in PTSD. Views expressed here are those of the author and are not the views of the Department of Veteran Affairs.
Our country, and indeed the world, has gone through a lot in the past couple of years. The COVID-19 pandemic, the murder of George Floyd by a police officer, a racial reckoning, rioting, and a tumultuous transition of presidential power that has marred our democratic institutions to name a few. With so much going on, the radical political changes within the American Psychological Association (APA) may have easily escaped the attention of many.
For example, the APA has been gradually changing the way race is approached. Officially, in 2017 it updated standards on multiculturalism to include embracing “intersectionality,” a conceptualization of the myriad ways in which one is oppressed via group identity. In 2019, a Task Force on Race and Ethnicity Guidelines in Psychology noted drawing upon Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a guide and in 2020 the definition of racism promoted by the APA was officially changed. The redefinition changed it from internal prejudicial beliefs and interpersonal discrimination to a “system of structuring opportunity.” What led to this change and why does it matter so much?
Social Justice versus Critical Social Justice
These changes came as a result of the changing focus of APA, and academia in general, from traditional social justice movements to Critical Social Justice (CSJ). Traditional social justice sought to end institutional oppression, discrimination based on immutable characteristics, focus on universal humanity of every individual, and for equality of opportunity for each to pursue their own self-directed goals. These are indicative of aspirational goals found in Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech. There are contemporary organizations promoting the same pro-human ideals such as the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) and many others. On the other hand, there is CSJ that has skyrocketed in the public sphere in recent years and is much more pernicious.
The boom of CSJ is not a mere phenomenon. It is the result of decades of planning referred to as “the long march through the institutions,” a neo-Marxist approach to establish the conditions for revolution. This built upon the work of Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci who developed the concept of “cultural hegemony.” Cultural hegemony was posited as an explanation for why the grand Marxist revolution and utopia had failed to manifest itself. Basically, if people were able to have a comfortable life in a free market society, then they lack the motivation to burn down western society to make way for the grand utopia.
Critical Critical Theory Theory
The hegemony is thought of as an invisible, largely undetectable, ubiquitous force that nobody intentionally directs but by which all are influenced. This is where the “fish in water” analogy stems from the that is commonly used to explain “white privilege.” In their book, Black Eye for America, Swain and Schorr (2021) note that the strategy to bring about communism is to dismantle or undermine western society by attacking five societal components that maintain the hegemonic “oppression”: educational establishments, media, the legal system, religion, and the family. Douglas Murray also noted this attack in his recent book, The War on the West.
CRT is just one iteration of the application of Critical Theory1 to different aspects of society (e.g., race, gender, sexuality, queer, colonialism, etc.) and often is presented as diversity, equity, and inclusion. CRT and intersectionality have been encouraged to be adopted in cultural competency training and stem from the same origin. Intersectionality, applied socially, is designed to get people to think of how they are constantly oppressed, in any variety of ways, in any given situation, to promote social divisiveness. The concept of intersectionality was popularized by Marxist lawyer and key developer of CRT, Kimberle Crenshaw. In her 1991 article for the Stanford Law Review, she argues that universal humanity ought to be rejected and focusing on race should be retained and be used for political power.
This is the exact opposite of Dr. King’s approach. She makes the distinction between “I am black” vs. “I am a person who happens to be black”. She is critical of the latter and states, “’I am a person who happens to be black,’ on the other hand achieves self-identification by straining for a certain universality (in effect, “I am first a person”) and for concomitant dismissal of the imposed category (“Black”) as contingent, circumstantial, nondeterminant” (pg. 1297). Hence, the CRT focus on “centering race” to achieve ideological and political goals associated with imposing Marxist ideology to “dismantle” western norms and practices centering individual human rights and liberties.
The Modern Echoes of the Ugly History of Collectivist Ideologies
This ideology has a horrendous track record for humanity. Simply relabeling the ideology does not change that fact. American Psychologist, the “flagship publication” of the APA, went so far as to dedicate an entire special issue promoting this ideology in 2021. The edition editors criticize the field of psychology for “failing” to focus on structural power dynamics and for not creating “lasting social change” (Eaton, Grzanka, Schlehofer, & Silka, 2021). These are references to postmodern philosophy, Marxist structural determinism and social engineering. The authors go on to state “articles in this special issue build the case for a public psychology that is more disruptive and challenging than simply aiming dominant, canonical, and mainstream psychological research and practice outward” (pg. 1211).
Flynn and colleagues, 2021, discuss civil disobedience and criticize nonviolence as the only acceptable form stating, “we encourage psychologists to think critically about the effects of privileging certain acts of civil disobedience over others on the basis of decontextualized tactics alone, such as the assertion that property destruction invariably denotes a protest tactic outside the bounds of civil disobedience” (pg. 1220). They go on to describe strategies to twist and manipulate APA Ethics to justify any means they appear to see fit to dismantle “systems of oppression”. For example, regarding Principle C: Integrity, they state, “we also read it as authorizing clandestine methods of civil disobedience to contest injustice (e.g., deception, evasion) when methods maximize benefits and minimize harm” (pg. 1224). This stretches the intent of the use of deception from research methods, a researcher pretending to be a student for example, to justifying outright dishonesty.
And of course, the special issue would not be complete without an article criticizing “good” psychology. Note, the use of “Critical” in this context is related to neo-Marxist “Critical Theory” and not critical thinking. Grzanka and Cole, 2021, make an argument for what they describe as “bad psychology”. They argue that “good psychology” (maintaining rigorous methodological, scientific, and objective standards) is a problem because it gets in the way of the radical political agenda of transforming society the way that they think is best. They state, “we contend that what is commonly thought of as ‘good’ psychology often gets in the way of transformative, socially engaged psychology. The radical, democratic ideals inspired by the social movements of the 20th century have found a voice in the loose network of practices that go by the term critical psychology and includes liberation psychology, African American psychology, feminist psychology, LGBTQ psychology, and intersectionality” (pg. 1335).
The authors do, conveniently, leave out the fact that the ideology underlying the radical social movements of the 20th century are attributed with mass murder on an unimaginable scale. Throughout the special edition, the argument is made, consistently, that this ideology, advocacy, and radical social transformation should be incorporated through all aspects of psychology: research, training, and delivery of clinical services.
How could the American people continue to trust the organization if this ideology is being actively promoted? What would psychotherapy look like within this ideological framework? I would argue that society would not and should not continue to trust APA if this continues. This is not sound, competent, professional, empirically informed psychology. This is Psychological Lysenkoism.
Critical Theory Ideas are Bad Psychology
APA has allowed, even endorsed, the miscommunication of psychological science that has the potential to negatively affect the mental health of individuals and society overall. Concepts such as implicit bias and microaggressions have questionable validity yet are so prominently displayed that they have the effect of gaslighting society. The net effect is to have people wondering if every interpersonal interaction is racist or bigoted and second guessing each encounter for intent and impact. These are reflective of the precepts and goals of CRT itself. The implicit idea is that almost everything is or can be racist is a central tenet of the ideology. From there, the goal is to then create the critical consciousness necessary to give rise to social unrest and revolution. The first paragraph of the intro to CRT, written for high school students, sets itself aside from traditional civil rights, and “questions” equality theory, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. Delgado and Stefancic (2017) state, “Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law” (pg. 3).
An additional tenet is that the voices and “lived experiences” of marginalized groups ought to be accepted unquestioned. However, the hypocrisy of the framework is laid bare when the “voices of color” dissent from the prevailing narrative. Prominent examples are those of John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Wilfred Reilly, Roland Fryer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Darryl Davis, Jason Hill, Coleman Hughes, Eric Smith, Ian Rowe, Thomas Sowell, and the list goes on and on. The same dissociation occurs with members of various marginalized communities when anyone of that community doesn’t toe to line with the ideological framework. The individual does not matter, only the prevailing ideological narrative and political agenda. Anything, or anybody, that interferes with that agenda is inherently loathsome. The most common response to any individual expressing skepticism or dissent is to label the individual (any applicable variation of -ist or -phobic) and should not even be allowed to have a voice!
APA Should Adopt a Pro-Human (All Humans) Orientation
In psychological practice, we should focus on the individual with inherent dignity, value, and careful consideration of how factors influence the individual. APA ought to return to a pro-human orientation. The “critical” movement denies the individual and views them as simply a representative of a superimposed group identity or combination of identities. This is antithetical to our field. The adoption of radical political ideology has even led to the resignation of at least one leadership role in protest. When we focus on our universal humanity, we can celebrate our differences. If not rejected as morally abhorrent as it is, then the American people would rightly lose trust in the organization and damage trust in our profession.
“Critical Theories” (Critical Race Theory, most varieties of postmodernism, fat studies, etc.) have taken that name because they endorse deep skepticism of liberal democratic norms and practices that pervade … liberal democratic societies. I (this is Lee writing here) sometimes have a bit of fun with this by referring to critiques of Critical Theories as Critical Critical Theory Theories — i.e., turning the lens of critique that includes revelations of implicit, empirically flawed or moral dubious claims & assumptions back on Critical Theories themselves, as Ed Waldrep has done here with respect to APA.
Great and timely essay, bearing in mind the current APA President's Ted Talk on decolonizing clinical psychology. Please also see 'Cynical Therapies' a recently published critique of Critical Social Justice in the therapeutic field. It comprises a series of essays by psychologists, psychotherapists and academics in the UK, US and Australia, including one specifically about the APA. https://criticaltherapyantidote.org/new-book-2/ Lee - please let me know if you would like a copy. I am one of the authors and a member of Critical Therapy Antidote. I would be happy to send you one.
Honestly, this is an extremely disappointing article.
I was expecting a critique of the woke positions of the APA from a scientific point of view, not a rerun of "The Great Communist Scheme" conspiracy theory. Surely it will be welcome by people who, in their anger and dismay, find it easier to believe in simplistic answers and the scapegoat of a familiar demon.
Unfortunately, Marxism is much more complex than imagined by those suffering from this peculiar form of paranoid delusion that sees Communist conspiracies in every anti-capitalist movement, in any theory critical of capitalism, and in any critique of the United States, their system and their actions.
Marxism is a philosophy, rooted in a specific time and situation, that offered tools for the interpretation of the world, some of them ridiculously inept (like many of those offered by a large number of the group of 19th century philosophies to which it belongs), some useful. Marxist thought has evolved through time and produced, alongside aberrations, excellent society models like the north European social democracies.
Communism is an ideology which I suspect every astute socio-psychologist can recognise as a form of lay religion (in the worst possible manifestation of the religious spirit, which is that of a cult).
Post-modernism is a philosophy that has drawn from a vast number of sources, including Marxism, to construct a hodgepodge that is singularly aimed to the achievement and perpetuation of positions of power within intellectual institutions (the history of Derrida, some of whose lessons I had the displeasure to attend, is emblematic -- the man was a complete hoax in a very unique French way that bedazzled academia).
Postmodernism is the parent of Critical <InsertName> Theories and what became the brew that generated the woke cult. One of the best known adversaries of Postmodernism is Professor Alan Sokal, who is a real and respected scientist (in a hard science, Physics), who originated the famous Sokal Affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair) and who happens to be a Socialist. Many hardcore Marxists, who care about the working class, do not very much stomach Postmodernism and its gimmicks.
Still this is all about philosophy. The reasons why this particular philosophy, in its cultish form, has today enthralled so much of academia and a vast number of people on social media -- this should be the subject of research by social psychologists (there are still some, as this substack daily proves, who have not drunk the kool-aid and believe in the objectivity of science, at least as an ideal goal).
I have my personal opinions, which include the tendency of academics to build citadels of power to maintain and increase their prestige, and the epochal transformation of mass communications in the last 30 years, especially through the advent of social media and smartphones, which have brought forms of social hysteria and group-think to entirely new levels.
I am always eager to read deeper and more learned takes on how this happened, how it develops and what can be done to defuse it.
And I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusions of the last paragraph of Dr. Waldrep's article.
But that the situation we have today is "the result of decades of planning" on the part of some behind-the-scene Communist conspiracy bent on destroying American values to bring about revolution, is a ridiculous explanation. I understand that it is a peculiar fixation of a subset of American conservatives (in the same way as the capitalist/imperialist plot is a peculiar fixation of a subset of progressives). But such fictional ideations do not help us with the search for truth, only confirm what we believe we already know: they casts the world in a theatrical light, in which there are SPECTRA villains working in the shadows with unimaginable shrewdness, and where things are divided neatly between the Good and the Bad -- which is the very same thing that attracts people to the woke gospel.
Postmodernism, deconstructionism as applied in this context, are the farthest from Marxist theory and even more so from Gramsci's "cultural hegemony", all of which refer to the struggle between the very specific values of two very clear classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat -- old dichotomies now mostly dead or changed to the point of being unrecognisable. Marxism (which is distinct from the Communist branch as much as Judaism is distinct from Christianity and Islam), still strives to offer answers to the terrible inequalities of wealth and opportunity that plague humanity -- answers with which you may disagree (and I certainly do for the greatest part) but many of which are far from revolutionary and none of which fit with postmodernism.
Postmodern thought, even in its literary manifestation -- which was the first -- does not offer answers, does not even seem to strive for them: it just endlessly puts in question, dissects things into endless layers, where truth does not exist except the one posed -- temporarily -- by the one who dissects.
All the brainchildren of deconstructionism (Critical Theories included) appear to be excellent instruments to acquire and maintain personal power in intellectual environments. It has gone on long in academia, especially in the Humanities, because it is the most fertile grounds for this kind of power ploys -- cool names for departments and far-fetched fields of research are the ornamental shrubbery of universities, from which some interesting and useful fruits have been produced despite the droll and outlandish. But in the last ten years has expanded well beyond that.
And in stark antithesis to revolutionary Marxism, Postmodern Critical Theories do not seek or offer solutions -- in fact seem to do the opposite, to have as their only purpose the permanent exposure of a status quo that never changes. That can never change, because if the conflict were to be resolved, the critics' function would cease to be and the critics' power would vanish.
A focus on the mechanics of this would be interesting. I am sure that social psychology and sociology have the tools to try to understand it. How a righteous cult feeds on the sense of guilt of people, on the need to be seen as good, on the deferral of personal responsibility, on the wallowing in victimhood and the simple vindictive instinct of the individual that feels slighted, on the desire of belonging and approval, on the dangerous self-transcendence of being part of a mob -- all things, after all, that most religions also provide.
Give me that, do not give me the "Communist plot" explanation, because it makes no sense. Worse, it makes for bad science.