Amy Goodman speaks in Palo Alto
From: Andrew Phelps <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [PsySR-humanrights] Anti Coalition Letter
Date: Saturday, October 27, 2012, 8:46 PM
On Sat, 10/27/12, Baz wrote:
The more I think about this letter, the more disturbed and shocked I am .. Less at the specific content, than at the overall tone .. whether the angry tone is is one of narcisissistic rage at the powerful having its assumptions questioned or whether it's a threatening type of anger, rooted perhaps in fear of eventual exposure .. I don't know .. but I sense now an underlying malevolence and destructive toxicity here that I'd not really identified upon first reading.
To put it differently, the overall thrust against the ethical stance of the Coalition is unprincipled. Still as you point out Baz there is an underlying "psychology of denial" which is reflected in the advocacy of Division 42.
The "clinical gaze critique" of Foucault speaks to the mentality which you characterize above. Behavioral management of the "treatment object" replaces an authentic social interaction. Habituation to that framework gets reflected in "denial" as regards the social impact of the ritual of administration of help.
The resolution to that "helping dilemma" is in deconstruction of the conventional attitude towards behavior management. In fairness to the advocacy of Division 42, the Coalition has not yet fully embraced the logic of that deconstruction, as far as I can see. Nonetheless, whether it's "fear of eventual exposure," whatever, the Div. 42 attitude cannot be justified just because it "feels good" or meets the standard of Kant's "cognitive" moral ideation.
It would be nice to see more of the psychology that underlies the outrageous behavior/advocacy that can be identified in the Anti-Coalition letter.
ABO "Andrew Behavior Object"