George Floyd wasn't murdered. Let's start there. I've seen the entire video. The officers were professional and accommodating all things considered. Locking away white people to satisfy SJW blood lust represents the exact opposite of justice. A manslaughter charge against Daniel Penny is another injustice. And the police standing outside the door while a woman is being murdered in her NYC apartment -- just listening to her screams? Well they were "defunded" thanks to this insanity. The sooner we get rid of "social justice" the sooner we get justice back.
The profession has an integrity deficit, it seems the profession hasn't moved on since the Freuds dubiously unscientific and ethically unsound experiments. The use of applied psychology during the pandemic to instil fear in the population is an additional example of an abandonment of ethics. The traumatisation of entire societies by so called nudge units while the associations stood by and let it happen is a tell, that cannot be ignored by wider society.
It has been brought to my attention that APA changed the definition of racism since I started writing the essay. Here is a link with the definition at that time.
If anyone is interested, I wrote an essay analyzing some of the many problems with Intersectionality's theoretical claims, and showing that Crenshaw's original claims were based on a misrepresentation of the law, to put it very mildly:
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.
Thank you, I have the book and think it is excellent. I hope it gets in the hands of our students and trainees so that they can be armed with knowledge to challenge the ideology as it is presented to them!
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.
Thank you. I appreciate that feedback. I am continuing to work on trying to bring attention to this and find pathways to more sound scientific and sound methods and practices in the field. I agree with your comments and I appreciate you taking the time to offer the feedback!
Good article and articulation of what I was seeing as I went through school and how they changed the narrative to facilitate the change to cultural marxism,tenets in divisiveness and negative self view and victimizing. Accomplishing this through teaching intersectionality of oppressed identities in social work schools and higher education. How thilose were more important to focus on than positive strengths and accomplishments of the individual. How we were to bond as a community through our oppressed identities and work towards "social justice and change". I have seen this divide and cause more harm, than help a person, through its implementation. Too much focus causes us to lose ourselves in victimhood and differences rather than focusing on individual healing and humanity's needs.
Your first 4 paragraphs and your last paragraph were great, but you lost me with all the theory rhetoric in between. Stay focused on the APA and how exactly it is currently manifesting these harmful ideas. Give examples of the harm it is causing.
George Floyd wasn't murdered. Let's start there. I've seen the entire video. The officers were professional and accommodating all things considered. Locking away white people to satisfy SJW blood lust represents the exact opposite of justice. A manslaughter charge against Daniel Penny is another injustice. And the police standing outside the door while a woman is being murdered in her NYC apartment -- just listening to her screams? Well they were "defunded" thanks to this insanity. The sooner we get rid of "social justice" the sooner we get justice back.
The profession has an integrity deficit, it seems the profession hasn't moved on since the Freuds dubiously unscientific and ethically unsound experiments. The use of applied psychology during the pandemic to instil fear in the population is an additional example of an abandonment of ethics. The traumatisation of entire societies by so called nudge units while the associations stood by and let it happen is a tell, that cannot be ignored by wider society.
https://onscienceandacademia.org/t/apa-defines-racism-joins-the-csj-movement/1545
It has been brought to my attention that APA changed the definition of racism since I started writing the essay. Here is a link with the definition at that time.
*sigh*
It's really everywhere.
If anyone is interested, I wrote an essay analyzing some of the many problems with Intersectionality's theoretical claims, and showing that Crenshaw's original claims were based on a misrepresentation of the law, to put it very mildly:
https://open.substack.com/pub/ronadinur/p/the-legal-megalomania-of-intersectionality?r=q8wjx&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
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.
Thank you, I have the book and think it is excellent. I hope it gets in the hands of our students and trainees so that they can be armed with knowledge to challenge the ideology as it is presented to them!
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.
Thank you. I appreciate that feedback. I am continuing to work on trying to bring attention to this and find pathways to more sound scientific and sound methods and practices in the field. I agree with your comments and I appreciate you taking the time to offer the feedback!
Excellent essay. Let’s hope the APA can reverse course.
Good article and articulation of what I was seeing as I went through school and how they changed the narrative to facilitate the change to cultural marxism,tenets in divisiveness and negative self view and victimizing. Accomplishing this through teaching intersectionality of oppressed identities in social work schools and higher education. How thilose were more important to focus on than positive strengths and accomplishments of the individual. How we were to bond as a community through our oppressed identities and work towards "social justice and change". I have seen this divide and cause more harm, than help a person, through its implementation. Too much focus causes us to lose ourselves in victimhood and differences rather than focusing on individual healing and humanity's needs.
Your first 4 paragraphs and your last paragraph were great, but you lost me with all the theory rhetoric in between. Stay focused on the APA and how exactly it is currently manifesting these harmful ideas. Give examples of the harm it is causing.
Of related interest see my summary table:
Social Justice: Liberal or Critical?
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/social-justice-liberal-or-critical