I'm a psychiatrist and I agree completely. As mental health professionals, we are trying to help the individual in front of us. Anything that focuses on societal or "structural" factors -- even if it is true--is disempowering and takes agency away from the individual. This trend of training psychologists (and doctors and teachers) to be political activists is sinister beyond belief. What ever happened to "do no harm?"
Great piece. We need every single black person in the US who is tired of black people being treated as infantile academic failures, to voice this sentiment. This is the narrative we need from "Black America." This strength, mental and physical, got black people out of slavery, past it, through reconstruction, up to the deprivations of 1950s white supremacy, and then in concord with white liberals, through the struggles of the 1960s.
Its ironic this pampered generation of super cool young black people, with all the privilege culture could ever bestow, and woke academics living off the race industry, are obsessed with petty complaints and ahistorical claims. (Its ironic they somehow support Palestine, if they can locate it that is, but thats another story). Its doubly ironic that the most materialistic and psychologically pampered black people that ever lived are the ones claiming they need help and can't get through school.
Its a pity you have to put the picture of your lovely family, but alas, how else is a white man to make a comment anymore without the obvious retort, "you don't understand."
Psychology as a field is not a science. Its a practice. My daughter is a psychologist. We talk about these issues all the time.
The challenge with the practice is that their is not a clear treatment plan. There also isn't a clear end-state "cured" measure. Its really up to the person being counseled. That's why its so hard for insurance companies to insure counseling.
Many psychologist are not interested in making it so patients don't need to come back. Its a guaranteed form of income. Make the patient dependent on the psychologist.
The challenge is that patients need to have a clear objective on what they are trying to achieve by going to a psychologist. Many patients want the psychologist to tell them whether they are "good".
It was more straightforward when people used their pastors/priests for counseling.
Bottom line, the psychology world has very little ability to measure or monitor whether the counseling is ethical. If you're looking for a counselor, choose wisely.
Rather than get drawn into a fruitless debate over the role of Marxism in "contemporary American cultural ideology", I would refer anyone interested to Dr. Waldrep's May 16, 2023 article The Anti-American Psychological Association. I am not interested in winning debating points, but mourn the demise of APA, that has been taken over by political activists and ideologues (whatever one may wish to label their ideology). I am active in my psychological associations only to the extent that is necessary to maintain my license to practice. I understand it is even worse in Canada.
Thanks for having the fortitude to share this. Unfortunately, our field is increasingly training political activists, who will not tolerate opinions with whom they differ.
Insightful and well presented. My only quarrel is the insistence that things like this have anything to do with Marxism. I find American fixation on Marxism as a cause of what are clearly issues with American culture very fascinating and a tad odd.
Yes but that loose connection is just as weak as most CRT/DEI simplicity. Sure, Marx framed thinking in that way, but Charles is right, it was 1848 and it was perfectly reasonable to do so.
Most of these wokers are just payback addicts with an anti-white agenda who want to sound impressive at work and hopefully get a paycheck one way or another. We should make that clear, and leave the Marxist label for Reagan and all those on the Right who have used it for decades inanely.
I would characterize said ideology as contemporary American cultural idealogy.
Marx was right in his framing of oppressor Vs oppressed, that was the reality in Marx's time. That was not a narrative, it was a description of reality.
If you say what's happening in America today is a Marxist narrative, then you are admitting to there being "oppressors Vs oppressed" in America today. Are there?
There will always be oppressors and oppressed to varying degrees, but I believe that what he was saying was that a quasi-Marxist (race struggle replacing class struggle) narrative is being promoted, not that it's necessarily a realistic and nuanced depiction of "what's happening in America today."
Marxism is always invoked in a derogatory and dismissive manner. If Marxism is about class struggle (which is by your admittance exists because there would always be oppressors and oppressed to a degree) then Marxism or quasi Marxism is wholly inappropriate to describe what's happening in America.
Just because things have similar features doesn't mean they derive from each and besides the US actually has a history of race based oppressor Vs oppressed, it is more like such narratives are rooted in such a history rather than in Marxism
I've known many people who invoked Marxism in anything but a derogatory and dismissive manner: in fact, there still seem to be plenty (maybe just because I live in S.F. Bay Area) who regard it as an easy explanation for any and everything, which probably explains at least some of the derogatory and dismissive attitude that others have when they encounter such dogmatic attachment.
The oppressed and oppressors in the present day U.S. does not neatly follow the "labor"/'owner of means of production" divide that Marx proposed (and is taken by some as an inevitable constant, even though the line between workers and owners of the means of production itself can be rather hazy).
Something need not be derived from something else to be "quasi" that something.
Again, there will always be some who can be considered "oppressors" and some who can be considered "oppressed," but the essential qualities of the members of each group are mutable according to the standards one wishes to apply (which will also determine who fits neither category).
Those who invoke Marxism as an explanation and those who invoke it to dismiss points are equally wrong.
"The oppressed and oppressors in the present day U.S. does not neatly follow the "labor"/'owner of means of production" divide that Marx proposed (and is taken by some as an inevitable constant, even though the line between workers and owners of the means of production itself can be rather hazy)."
The above quote from you is evidence of why describing what's happening in the US is certainly not Marxism. Marx was more concerned with the critique of capitalism--and I dare say an accurate critique of capitalism--and not so much with things like race. I fear it's a lack of creativity that's making Americans slap the label of Marxism on these things
So much of the behaviors labeled white, patriarchal, etc. are just basic societal norms to avoid despair. Work hard, stay in school, get a full time job, wait until married to have kids, etc. These aren't exclusive or privileged approaches to production, they are like the law of gravity for functioning societies.
Such a well-written piece! This ideology affecting the medical and mental health world is particularly disturbing to me. It really does seem ubiquitous these days, so voices like yours are so important.
I'm a psychiatrist and I agree completely. As mental health professionals, we are trying to help the individual in front of us. Anything that focuses on societal or "structural" factors -- even if it is true--is disempowering and takes agency away from the individual. This trend of training psychologists (and doctors and teachers) to be political activists is sinister beyond belief. What ever happened to "do no harm?"
Great piece. We need every single black person in the US who is tired of black people being treated as infantile academic failures, to voice this sentiment. This is the narrative we need from "Black America." This strength, mental and physical, got black people out of slavery, past it, through reconstruction, up to the deprivations of 1950s white supremacy, and then in concord with white liberals, through the struggles of the 1960s.
Its ironic this pampered generation of super cool young black people, with all the privilege culture could ever bestow, and woke academics living off the race industry, are obsessed with petty complaints and ahistorical claims. (Its ironic they somehow support Palestine, if they can locate it that is, but thats another story). Its doubly ironic that the most materialistic and psychologically pampered black people that ever lived are the ones claiming they need help and can't get through school.
Its a pity you have to put the picture of your lovely family, but alas, how else is a white man to make a comment anymore without the obvious retort, "you don't understand."
Psychology as a field is not a science. Its a practice. My daughter is a psychologist. We talk about these issues all the time.
The challenge with the practice is that their is not a clear treatment plan. There also isn't a clear end-state "cured" measure. Its really up to the person being counseled. That's why its so hard for insurance companies to insure counseling.
Many psychologist are not interested in making it so patients don't need to come back. Its a guaranteed form of income. Make the patient dependent on the psychologist.
The challenge is that patients need to have a clear objective on what they are trying to achieve by going to a psychologist. Many patients want the psychologist to tell them whether they are "good".
It was more straightforward when people used their pastors/priests for counseling.
Bottom line, the psychology world has very little ability to measure or monitor whether the counseling is ethical. If you're looking for a counselor, choose wisely.
Rather than get drawn into a fruitless debate over the role of Marxism in "contemporary American cultural ideology", I would refer anyone interested to Dr. Waldrep's May 16, 2023 article The Anti-American Psychological Association. I am not interested in winning debating points, but mourn the demise of APA, that has been taken over by political activists and ideologues (whatever one may wish to label their ideology). I am active in my psychological associations only to the extent that is necessary to maintain my license to practice. I understand it is even worse in Canada.
Thanks for having the fortitude to share this. Unfortunately, our field is increasingly training political activists, who will not tolerate opinions with whom they differ.
Insightful and well presented. My only quarrel is the insistence that things like this have anything to do with Marxism. I find American fixation on Marxism as a cause of what are clearly issues with American culture very fascinating and a tad odd.
How would you characterize “oppressor v oppressed” ideology?
Yes but that loose connection is just as weak as most CRT/DEI simplicity. Sure, Marx framed thinking in that way, but Charles is right, it was 1848 and it was perfectly reasonable to do so.
Most of these wokers are just payback addicts with an anti-white agenda who want to sound impressive at work and hopefully get a paycheck one way or another. We should make that clear, and leave the Marxist label for Reagan and all those on the Right who have used it for decades inanely.
I'll reword: "quaisi-Marxists". although if you look at the founders of BLM (for example) they are self-proclaimed Marxists.
Some of them. The most vocal, but they are fools. They have done more harm to the black cause than any white person born since Malcom X died....
We are in complete agreement
I would characterize said ideology as contemporary American cultural idealogy.
Marx was right in his framing of oppressor Vs oppressed, that was the reality in Marx's time. That was not a narrative, it was a description of reality.
If you say what's happening in America today is a Marxist narrative, then you are admitting to there being "oppressors Vs oppressed" in America today. Are there?
There will always be oppressors and oppressed to varying degrees, but I believe that what he was saying was that a quasi-Marxist (race struggle replacing class struggle) narrative is being promoted, not that it's necessarily a realistic and nuanced depiction of "what's happening in America today."
Marxism is always invoked in a derogatory and dismissive manner. If Marxism is about class struggle (which is by your admittance exists because there would always be oppressors and oppressed to a degree) then Marxism or quasi Marxism is wholly inappropriate to describe what's happening in America.
Just because things have similar features doesn't mean they derive from each and besides the US actually has a history of race based oppressor Vs oppressed, it is more like such narratives are rooted in such a history rather than in Marxism
I've known many people who invoked Marxism in anything but a derogatory and dismissive manner: in fact, there still seem to be plenty (maybe just because I live in S.F. Bay Area) who regard it as an easy explanation for any and everything, which probably explains at least some of the derogatory and dismissive attitude that others have when they encounter such dogmatic attachment.
The oppressed and oppressors in the present day U.S. does not neatly follow the "labor"/'owner of means of production" divide that Marx proposed (and is taken by some as an inevitable constant, even though the line between workers and owners of the means of production itself can be rather hazy).
Something need not be derived from something else to be "quasi" that something.
Again, there will always be some who can be considered "oppressors" and some who can be considered "oppressed," but the essential qualities of the members of each group are mutable according to the standards one wishes to apply (which will also determine who fits neither category).
Those who invoke Marxism as an explanation and those who invoke it to dismiss points are equally wrong.
"The oppressed and oppressors in the present day U.S. does not neatly follow the "labor"/'owner of means of production" divide that Marx proposed (and is taken by some as an inevitable constant, even though the line between workers and owners of the means of production itself can be rather hazy)."
The above quote from you is evidence of why describing what's happening in the US is certainly not Marxism. Marx was more concerned with the critique of capitalism--and I dare say an accurate critique of capitalism--and not so much with things like race. I fear it's a lack of creativity that's making Americans slap the label of Marxism on these things
So much of the behaviors labeled white, patriarchal, etc. are just basic societal norms to avoid despair. Work hard, stay in school, get a full time job, wait until married to have kids, etc. These aren't exclusive or privileged approaches to production, they are like the law of gravity for functioning societies.
Great article
Thanks
Such a well-written piece! This ideology affecting the medical and mental health world is particularly disturbing to me. It really does seem ubiquitous these days, so voices like yours are so important.
Well said.