In defense of stridency
Recently, on a psychological email list, someone criticized the stridency of some of us trying to change American Psychological association policy on psychologist involvement in abusive interrogations. The sender of that message emphasized, partially ciorrectly, that we should attempt to listen to each other. But I also perceived him as criticizing those of us who insisted upon the right to express our strong positions, even when these were contrary to the received wisdom. I tried to explain my “stridency” in the following message:
I think there’s a point here in that listening to each other is good. We should try and unite. But I think the issue of “polarizing” is more complicated.
Think of the major social movements that lead to increased social justice:
the unions, the antislavery movement, the civil rights movement, the Indian independence movement of Gandi, the feminist and gay liberation movements. All of them involved “polarizing”, refusing to compromise for long periods, and, above all, unpleasant confrontations. To only have civility in one’s toolbox is extremely limiting. It generally leads to quiescence and, ultimately, to acceptance of the status quo. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi both abandoned civility quite often. Civility is a value, but it is far from the only value.
At the same time, there is this need to not become the evils we fight against. Yes, there is a danger that “Protesting war, one gets into a new war.” Being able to perceive the complexity in each of us, the evil in ourselves and the good in our adversaies, is essential. MLK and Gandi appealed to the good in others, but they certainly did a lot more than listen. And they never stepped back from unmasking the unsavory, the unpleasant, simply in order to be civil.
How we view these issues in APA depends upon what we view these issues as being. For some, they are an unfortunate policy, that needs to be modified through reason and dialog. For some of us, or at least myself, we are dealing with an organization that is knowlingly “abetting Bush’s torture policy,” as Art Levine described it in the Washington Monthly. Somehow, abetting torture doesn’t bring out the side of me that wants friendly dialog, and believe me, I have such a side. Rather, it makes me want to do everything I can to stop that torture and to change the policies, in the APA and in the wider society, that facilitate or allow that torture to continue.
Several nights a week I wake up thinking of what’s going on in those torture cells at Guantanamo and elsewhere and feel haunted. Believing, as I do, that many in the APA leadership are knowingly abetting this torture in exchange for access for psychology to the powerful in the military and the White House, does not really induce a warm fuzzy feeling. It certainly doesn’t help me get back to sleep. And knowing that dialog has been going on for the five years in which this current torture regime has been in effect doesn’t make me feel like engaging in another five years of civil dialog.
So I may, at times be strident or uncivil. For me, at least, that’s a lesser risk than, when my son grows up and asks “Daddy, what did you do in those dark times when America renounced human rights and put the torturers in power?” that my only answer is: “I listened to them and had dialog with them.”
So, yes, we should try and be civil and listen to each other here. Democratic dialog is a wonderful thing. But democracy requires those who have strong, forceful opinions having a place and being heard. Perhaps those who value listening can hear the pain and the passion that drives some of us beyond the civil range at times.
1 comment April 2nd, 2007