F
foret
Guest
not a parody padraig, meh
Critiques of psychoanalysis
- Thread starter tryptych
- Start date
conquering flesh
Member
Hi
I found these works especially illuminating for me - Questions to Freud, by Nicholas Rand & Maria Torok; 'Psychoanalysis as Anti-Hermeneutic', by Jean Laplanche; and I think J-A Miller has an essay on Lacanian Ink.com titled something like 'Pure Psychoanalysis, Applied Psychoanalysis, and Psychotherapy' (it's particularly interesting if you read it in the paradigm of Critiques of Pure/Practical Reasons/Judgment
; and Julia Kristeva's 'biography' on Melanie Klein...
I found these works especially illuminating for me - Questions to Freud, by Nicholas Rand & Maria Torok; 'Psychoanalysis as Anti-Hermeneutic', by Jean Laplanche; and I think J-A Miller has an essay on Lacanian Ink.com titled something like 'Pure Psychoanalysis, Applied Psychoanalysis, and Psychotherapy' (it's particularly interesting if you read it in the paradigm of Critiques of Pure/Practical Reasons/Judgment
; and Julia Kristeva's 'biography' on Melanie Klein...
Last edited:
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Audio recordings of the "Slavoj Zizek Master Class on Jacques Lacan: A Lateral Introduction" from May/June 2006 referred to below are now online here:
01.zizek.lacan.london.25-May-2006.wav
02.zizek.lacan.london.30-May-2006.wav
03.zizek.lacan.london.01-June-2006.wav
04.zizek.lacan.london.06-June-2006.wav
05.zizek.lacan.london.08-June-2006.wav
06.zizek.lacan.london.13-June-2006.wav
07.zizek.lacan.london.15-June-2006.wav
08.zizek.lacan.london.20-June-2006.wav
09.zizek.lacan.london.21-June-2006.wav (Q&A)
01.zizek.lacan.london.25-May-2006.wav
02.zizek.lacan.london.30-May-2006.wav
03.zizek.lacan.london.01-June-2006.wav
04.zizek.lacan.london.06-June-2006.wav
05.zizek.lacan.london.08-June-2006.wav
06.zizek.lacan.london.13-June-2006.wav
07.zizek.lacan.london.15-June-2006.wav
08.zizek.lacan.london.20-June-2006.wav
09.zizek.lacan.london.21-June-2006.wav (Q&A)
Padraig said:
Though this will likely be of no interest for the Logical Positivists, Reductivist Empiricists, and Reality Principle Pragmatists hereabouts, could any of the incredibly damn lucky libidinous buggers who will be attending this clearly unmissable course post their rudimentary impressions here at some point?
Slavoj Zizek Master Class on Jacques Lacan: A Lateral Introduction
A Free Four Week 8-lecture Course, May-June 2006, Birkbeck, University of London
Paul Hotflush
techno head
hundredmillionlifetimes said:
Unfortunately that's not quite the same thing.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Obscenity of Establishment Psychology
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.: Groucho Marx
Protecting Our Torturers
Bad Faith and Distortions From the American Psychological Association
By Stephen Soldz
"A torturing nation uses fear, persuasion, and propaganda to secure the assent to torture from society in general and from members of its legal, academic, journalistic, and medical professions." -- Steven Miles, M.D., Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity, and the War on Terror
Unlike the medical and psychiatric associations, the American Psychological Association, as I documented in my recent article, A Profession Struggles to Save Its Soul: Psychologists, Guantánamo and Torture, has steadfastly refused to condemn (mis)use of psychological techniques to break detainees at Guantánamo or elsewhere and has consistently refused to forbid members to participate in interrogations at these facilities. In fact, the Association leadership has worked persistently to protect the ability of psychologists to participate in "national security" interrogations, even, at times, claiming an ethical obligation to do so to prevent harm to society, presumably from the "terrorists" imprisoned there for the last four-and-a-half years. (See also Olivia Moorehead-Slaughter’s report on the Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) she chaired: "as experts in human behavior, psychologists contribute to effective interrogations.")
.........................
In recent months the opposition to Association policy from within has strengthened. However, these efforts have been limited in nature and opponents have, in every instance, been outmaneuvered by the Association leadership. In addition to the disturbing events reported in my previous article, more evidence on the smokescreen of manipulations, distortions and downright lies used by the Association raises additional questions as to what the Association leadership is up to.
The pattern of behaviors going back at least to 2002 – documented here and in my previous article – by the American Psychological Association leadership supportive of psychologist involvement in national security interrogations strongly suggests that sections of the leadership are working, probably intentionally, to avoid the development of any position, guideline, or ethics code statement that would unambiguously forbid members from engaging in national security interrogation, even though these interrogations frequently involve the kinds of psychological torture documented as occurring at Guantánamo and elsewhere by Physicians for Human Rights and condemned by numerous United States and international organizations. This effort appears to have begun before the issue became controversial among the membership or the public. Thus, the 2002 ethics code revision was pushed through before the controversy regarding health professionals’ roles in interrogation became a major issue, resulting in pressure for Association change. (For early works on these issues, see 2004’s New York Times article by Neil Lewis: Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantánamo; 2005’s Bloche & Marks: Doctors and Interrogators at Guantánamo Bay; and Susan Okie: Glimpses of Guantánamo — Medical Ethics and the War on Terror).
Let’s put together in one place what is known about Association protection of psychologist participation in torture and inhumane treatment:
Ø 2002 – Ethics code changed to allow government laws or orders to supersede psychological ethics
Ø 2005 – PENS task force formed with membership and deliberations kept secret. Turns out membership includes a majority of members from the military, including several involved in interrogations and with histories of consulting on interrogations at Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram Air Base.
Ø 2005, June – PENS Task Force issues final report concluding "It is consistent with the APA Ethics Code for psychologists to serve in consultative roles to interrogation and information-gathering processes for national security-related purposes." Also concludes that no changes are necessary to ethics code. Fails to even mention accusations of psychologist participation in torture at Guantánamo. In a highly unusual procedure, the report was immediately adopted by the Association's Board of Directors without the usual discussion and approval by the broader-based Council of Representatives.
Ø 2005, October – Association President Levant travels to Guantánamo. Praises contributions of psychology to national security investigations. Neglects to mention persistent reports of torture and abuse during these interrogations.
Ø 2006, February – Incoming Association President Koocher devotes monthly President’s Column in Association newsmagazine to defending Association against critics. Without a shred of evidence nastily attacks critics: "A number of opportunistic commentators masquerading as scholars have continued to report on alleged abuses by mental health professionals."
Ø 2006, June – Association Ethics Director writes article claiming there is little difference between the position of the Association and the AMA. In August, AMA President denies similarity.
Ø 2006, August – Association anti-torture resolution gets surreptitiously modified, substantially weakening its meaning.
..............
There is thus a long history of bad faith and active efforts to resist calls for the Association to take a clear, unequivocal stand against psychologists’ participation in coercive national security interrogations, to respond in any way to persistent reports of torture and abuse during those interrogations, or to strongly condemn psychological torture. The only reasonable conclusion is that the Association leadership is committed to doing everything they can to protect psychologists’ involvement in torture under the guise of national security interrogations. They are thus in the role of enablers of that torture.
The American Psychological Association still believes it is appropriate for psychologists to participate in interrogations at the institution where, less than a year ago, Mr. al-Dossari was tortured till he lost the will to live. Mr. al-Dossari made at least one more suicide attempt in 2006, his 12th. Does this constitute enough evidence of "prolonged mental harm" to move psychologists? Those psychologists and citizens of goodwill who don’t believe in torture as public policy should cry out with one voice at such indifference to human barbarity. If we fail to act we cannot claim, as did so many Germans, "We didn’t know!"
=========================================
American doctors at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere have undoubtedly been aware of their medical responsibility to document injuries and raise questions about their possible source in abuse. But those doctors and other medical personnel were part of a command structure that permitted, encouraged, and sometimes orchestrated torture to a degree that it became the norm — with which they were expected to comply — in the immediate prison environment.
The doctors thus brought a medical component to what I call an "atrocity-producing situation" — one so structured, psychologically and militarily, that ordinary people can readily engage in atrocities. Even without directly participating in atrocities. Even without directly participating in the abuse, doctors may have become socialized to an environment of torture and by virtue of their medical authority helped sustain it. In studying various forms of medical abuse, I have found that the participation of doctors can confer an aura of legitimacy and can even create an illusion of therapy and healing.
The Nazis provided the most extreme example of doctors' becoming socialized to atrocity. In addition to cruel medical experiments, many Nazi doctors, as part of military units, were directly involved in killing. To reach that point, they underwent a sequence of socialization: first to the medical profession, always a self-protective guild; then to the military, where they adapted to the requirements of command; and finally to camps such as Auschwitz, where adaptation included assuming leadership roles in the existing death factory. The great majority of these doctors were ordinary people who had killed no one before joining murderous Nazi institutions. They were corruptible and certainly responsible for what they did, but they became murderers mainly in atrocity-producing settings.
When I presented my work on Nazi doctors to U.S. medical groups, I received many thoughtful responses, including expressions of concern about much less extreme situations in which American doctors might be exposed to institutional pressures to violate their medical conscience. Frequently mentioned examples were prison doctors who administered or guided others in giving lethal injections to carry out the death penalty and military doctors in Vietnam who helped soldiers to become strong enough to resume their assignments in atrocity-producing situations.
More ...
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.: Groucho Marx
Protecting Our Torturers
Bad Faith and Distortions From the American Psychological Association
By Stephen Soldz
"A torturing nation uses fear, persuasion, and propaganda to secure the assent to torture from society in general and from members of its legal, academic, journalistic, and medical professions." -- Steven Miles, M.D., Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity, and the War on Terror
Unlike the medical and psychiatric associations, the American Psychological Association, as I documented in my recent article, A Profession Struggles to Save Its Soul: Psychologists, Guantánamo and Torture, has steadfastly refused to condemn (mis)use of psychological techniques to break detainees at Guantánamo or elsewhere and has consistently refused to forbid members to participate in interrogations at these facilities. In fact, the Association leadership has worked persistently to protect the ability of psychologists to participate in "national security" interrogations, even, at times, claiming an ethical obligation to do so to prevent harm to society, presumably from the "terrorists" imprisoned there for the last four-and-a-half years. (See also Olivia Moorehead-Slaughter’s report on the Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) she chaired: "as experts in human behavior, psychologists contribute to effective interrogations.")
.........................
In recent months the opposition to Association policy from within has strengthened. However, these efforts have been limited in nature and opponents have, in every instance, been outmaneuvered by the Association leadership. In addition to the disturbing events reported in my previous article, more evidence on the smokescreen of manipulations, distortions and downright lies used by the Association raises additional questions as to what the Association leadership is up to.
The pattern of behaviors going back at least to 2002 – documented here and in my previous article – by the American Psychological Association leadership supportive of psychologist involvement in national security interrogations strongly suggests that sections of the leadership are working, probably intentionally, to avoid the development of any position, guideline, or ethics code statement that would unambiguously forbid members from engaging in national security interrogation, even though these interrogations frequently involve the kinds of psychological torture documented as occurring at Guantánamo and elsewhere by Physicians for Human Rights and condemned by numerous United States and international organizations. This effort appears to have begun before the issue became controversial among the membership or the public. Thus, the 2002 ethics code revision was pushed through before the controversy regarding health professionals’ roles in interrogation became a major issue, resulting in pressure for Association change. (For early works on these issues, see 2004’s New York Times article by Neil Lewis: Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantánamo; 2005’s Bloche & Marks: Doctors and Interrogators at Guantánamo Bay; and Susan Okie: Glimpses of Guantánamo — Medical Ethics and the War on Terror).
Let’s put together in one place what is known about Association protection of psychologist participation in torture and inhumane treatment:
Ø 2002 – Ethics code changed to allow government laws or orders to supersede psychological ethics
Ø 2005 – PENS task force formed with membership and deliberations kept secret. Turns out membership includes a majority of members from the military, including several involved in interrogations and with histories of consulting on interrogations at Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram Air Base.
Ø 2005, June – PENS Task Force issues final report concluding "It is consistent with the APA Ethics Code for psychologists to serve in consultative roles to interrogation and information-gathering processes for national security-related purposes." Also concludes that no changes are necessary to ethics code. Fails to even mention accusations of psychologist participation in torture at Guantánamo. In a highly unusual procedure, the report was immediately adopted by the Association's Board of Directors without the usual discussion and approval by the broader-based Council of Representatives.
Ø 2005, October – Association President Levant travels to Guantánamo. Praises contributions of psychology to national security investigations. Neglects to mention persistent reports of torture and abuse during these interrogations.
Ø 2006, February – Incoming Association President Koocher devotes monthly President’s Column in Association newsmagazine to defending Association against critics. Without a shred of evidence nastily attacks critics: "A number of opportunistic commentators masquerading as scholars have continued to report on alleged abuses by mental health professionals."
Ø 2006, June – Association Ethics Director writes article claiming there is little difference between the position of the Association and the AMA. In August, AMA President denies similarity.
Ø 2006, August – Association anti-torture resolution gets surreptitiously modified, substantially weakening its meaning.
..............
There is thus a long history of bad faith and active efforts to resist calls for the Association to take a clear, unequivocal stand against psychologists’ participation in coercive national security interrogations, to respond in any way to persistent reports of torture and abuse during those interrogations, or to strongly condemn psychological torture. The only reasonable conclusion is that the Association leadership is committed to doing everything they can to protect psychologists’ involvement in torture under the guise of national security interrogations. They are thus in the role of enablers of that torture.
The American Psychological Association still believes it is appropriate for psychologists to participate in interrogations at the institution where, less than a year ago, Mr. al-Dossari was tortured till he lost the will to live. Mr. al-Dossari made at least one more suicide attempt in 2006, his 12th. Does this constitute enough evidence of "prolonged mental harm" to move psychologists? Those psychologists and citizens of goodwill who don’t believe in torture as public policy should cry out with one voice at such indifference to human barbarity. If we fail to act we cannot claim, as did so many Germans, "We didn’t know!"
=========================================
American doctors at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere have undoubtedly been aware of their medical responsibility to document injuries and raise questions about their possible source in abuse. But those doctors and other medical personnel were part of a command structure that permitted, encouraged, and sometimes orchestrated torture to a degree that it became the norm — with which they were expected to comply — in the immediate prison environment.
The doctors thus brought a medical component to what I call an "atrocity-producing situation" — one so structured, psychologically and militarily, that ordinary people can readily engage in atrocities. Even without directly participating in atrocities. Even without directly participating in the abuse, doctors may have become socialized to an environment of torture and by virtue of their medical authority helped sustain it. In studying various forms of medical abuse, I have found that the participation of doctors can confer an aura of legitimacy and can even create an illusion of therapy and healing.
The Nazis provided the most extreme example of doctors' becoming socialized to atrocity. In addition to cruel medical experiments, many Nazi doctors, as part of military units, were directly involved in killing. To reach that point, they underwent a sequence of socialization: first to the medical profession, always a self-protective guild; then to the military, where they adapted to the requirements of command; and finally to camps such as Auschwitz, where adaptation included assuming leadership roles in the existing death factory. The great majority of these doctors were ordinary people who had killed no one before joining murderous Nazi institutions. They were corruptible and certainly responsible for what they did, but they became murderers mainly in atrocity-producing settings.
When I presented my work on Nazi doctors to U.S. medical groups, I received many thoughtful responses, including expressions of concern about much less extreme situations in which American doctors might be exposed to institutional pressures to violate their medical conscience. Frequently mentioned examples were prison doctors who administered or guided others in giving lethal injections to carry out the death penalty and military doctors in Vietnam who helped soldiers to become strong enough to resume their assignments in atrocity-producing situations.
More ...