{"id":242483,"date":"2023-08-21T12:01:30","date_gmt":"2023-08-21T11:01:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=242483"},"modified":"2023-08-20T05:34:28","modified_gmt":"2023-08-20T04:34:28","slug":"the-american-psychological-association-takes-another-step-backward","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2023\/08\/the-american-psychological-association-takes-another-step-backward\/","title":{"rendered":"The American Psychological Association Takes Another Step\u2014Backward"},"content":{"rendered":"

17 Aug 2023 – <\/em>Having witnessed first-hand a crucial vote by the American Psychological Association\u2019s governing Council of Representatives earlier this month in Washington, DC, I couldn\u2019t decide whether to begin this commentary with a quote from Lewis Carroll or George Orwell. So here are both.<\/p>\n

Carroll\u2019s\u00a0Through the Looking Glass<\/em>\u00a0includes this memorable exchange between Humpty Dumpty and Alice:<\/p>\n

Humpty Dumpty (scornfully): \u201cWhen I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean\u2014neither more nor less.\u201d<\/p>\n

Alice: \u201cThe question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.\u201d<\/p>\n

Humpty Dumpty: \u201cThe question is which is to be master\u2014that\u2019s all.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And in\u00a0Politics and the English Language,<\/em>\u00a0Orwell wrote,<\/p>\n

\u201cThe great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one\u2019s real and one\u2019s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Both quotes seem painfully apt when trying to make sense of the Council\u2019s approval of a set of wholly inadequate\u00a0professional practice guidelines<\/a>\u00a0for\u00a0operational psychology<\/em>. If this domain is unfamiliar to you, operational psychologists are primarily involved in non-clinical activities linked to national security, national defense, and public safety. Their largest source of employment is the military-intelligence establishment, which includes the Department of Defense and the CIA. Of particular concern from the\u00a0standpoint<\/a>\u00a0of professional ethics, in some cases these psychologists are called upon to inflict harm, to dispense with informed consent, and to operate in a covert manner such that external oversight by professional boards becomes difficult or impossible. They\u2019re eager to have the APA\u2019s official blessing of this\u00a0weaponization<\/em>\u00a0of the profession because it\u2019s a step toward achieving greater recognition and legitimacy for this kind of work.<\/p>\n

In light of the manifest misalignment between key features of operational psychology and the profession\u2019s fundamental ethical principles, I believe the proposed guidelines should have been rejected outright, so as not to lend credence to these practices without sufficient discussion and debate about the profoundly consequential issues involved.\u00a0<\/strong>But it\u2019s worth pointing out that these guidelines deserved a flunking grade simply in comparison to other guidelines recently approved by the APA\u2019s Council for other professional practice areas. For instance, both the guidelines for working with\u00a0persons with disabilities<\/a>\u00a0(2022) and the guidelines for working with\u00a0sexual minority persons<\/a>\u00a0(2021) are each\u00a0over four-times the length\u00a0<\/em>of these vague, abstract, and bare-bones guidelines for operational psychology. Count me among those who find it hard to understand why appropriate guidelines for how to\u00a0ethically<\/em>\u00a0support military-intelligence operations are apparently so much\u00a0less<\/em>\u00a0complicated than guidance for psychologists engaged in other work.<\/p>\n

In part, the brevity of the operational psychology guidelines reflects the fact that the developers chose\u00a0not\u00a0<\/em>to include some essential information. For example, it\u2019s now thoroughly documented by a slew of credible reports\u2014including those from the\u00a0U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services<\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence<\/a>\u2014that some operational psychologists were involved in the abuse and torture of war-on-terror detainees at CIA black sites, Guantanamo Bay, and other detention facilities. This tragic stain on the profession and the harm done to detainees and their families and communities is critically important context for evaluating the practice of operational psychology going forward. But after a group of us reviewed a draft of the guidelines with the task force chair, he rejected our strong recommendation that this history be part of the document. Instead, the guidelines include only a passing reference to unspecified \u201ccontroversy\u201d associated with the practice domain. An obvious question arises: What is \u201ccontroversial\u201d about torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment?<\/p>\n

The task force chair also rejected another strong recommendation we made: that the guidelines specifically describe current\u00a0APA policies<\/a>\u00a0restricting the permissible activities of operational psychologists in the national security arena. For instance, these policies place clear prohibitions on psychologists\u2019 participation in national security interrogations. Psychologists at Guantanamo and similar sites\u2014determined to be in violation of the Geneva Conventions or the United Nations Convention Against Torture by appropriate U.N. bodies or rapporteurs\u2014are also limited to working only on the direct behalf of detainees or as healthcare providers for military personnel. So why was this information intentionally excluded from the guidelines? After all, it certainly seems to be something operational psychologists should want to know.<\/p>\n

These omissions from the guidelines are perhaps more readily understood when one recognizes that the most influential operational psychologists within the APA apparently still deny much of the historical evidence of wrongdoing and think these practice restrictions are unwarranted. Indeed, the task force chair himself has repeatedly sought to discredit those who criticize operational psychology for its ethical shortcomings. We need look no further than his recent\u00a0book<\/a>\u00a0for telling examples. The foreword includes this: \u201cWe must ensure we are able to dislodge the opposition to operational psychology from within our profession. The most vocal and frequent of this opposition is too often thinly veiled in theshadows of distorted, disingenuous, and discredited diatribes.\u201d The introductory chapter similarly states: \u201cDisinformation, lack of critical thinking, and unbridled innuendo have combined to confuse and distort the truth.\u201d And a later chapter accuses critics of \u201cFear mongering, innuendo, suspicion, and a well-resourced misinformation campaign.\u201d Honestly, I can\u2019t help but be reminded of the CIA\u2019s informal motto: \u201cAdmit nothing. Deny everything. Make counteraccusations.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s possible that the inadequacies in these operational psychology guidelines would have become evident much earlier in the development process if the 12-person task force weren\u2019t solely comprised of psychologists who\u2019ve worked for the Defense Department, the CIA, or in other forensic law enforcement settings. The guidelines document characterizes this group as \u201cdiverse in its experience, perspective, and background.\u201d Really? Human rights experts, ethicists, and representatives of those who\u2019ve suffered harm at the hands of operational psychologists are nowhere to be found. It\u2019s worth noting as well that, while professional practice guidelines approved by the APA\u2019s Council typically include the professional affiliations of the task force members, these guidelines do\u00a0not.<\/em>\u00a0Why might that be? I wonder whether greater awareness that some task force members are military-intelligence contractors would have raised concerns regarding their degree of independence from outside influences and career considerations.<\/p>\n

Returning to Carroll and Orwell,\u00a0language matters<\/em>\u2014especially when the stakes are so high. That\u2019s why abstract guidance like<\/p>\n

\u201cOperational psychologists strive to balance the demands of their organizational clients and societal needs with due regard for the autonomy, dignity, and well-being of affected parties\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

is unacceptably vague and worrisomely obscure. What does it actually mean, for instance, to \u201cbalance\u201d the government\u2019s urgent demand for actionable intelligence against the human dignity of those suspected of having that information? Let\u2019s remember too that the military-intelligence establishment has itself engaged in a lot of wordsmithing designed to disguise uncomfortable truths. Most obviously, the CIA used \u201cenhanced interrogation techniques\u201d as a substitute term for a much more familiar one: \u201ctorture.\u201d With a similar purpose, the\u00a0Pentagon<\/a>\u00a0reduced the number of reported detainee suicide attempts at Guantanamo by officially reclassifying them as cases of \u201cmanipulative self-injurious behavior.\u201d And the number of \u201cjuveniles\u201d imprisoned at Guantanamo was decreased by arbitrarily adopting\u00a0sixteen<\/em>\u00a0as the cut-off age\u2014even though a juvenile according to U.S. and international law is someone under\u00a0eighteen<\/em>\u00a0at the time of any alleged crime.<\/p>\n

For me, the low point in the Council\u2019s limited discussion of the operational psychology guidelines may have been when the APA\u2019s treasurer took to the microphone. His message was direct: the guidelines pose\u00a0no risk to the APA<\/em>,\u00a0<\/em>and the Board of Directors supports them. My immediate thought was this: Has protecting psychologists\u2014so-called\u00a0guild ethics<\/em>\u2014so fully displaced<\/a>\u00a0 professional ethics<\/em>\u00a0and the protection of those who may be harmed\u00a0by psychologists<\/em>? And have we so quickly forgotten how this misguided choice led to the APA\u2019s abysmal failure to forcefully oppose the Bush Administration\u2019s use of psychologists as crucial cogs in its brutal \u201cwar on terror\u201d? Apparently so.<\/p>\n

That this \u201cno risk\u201d endorsement from the Board may have been compelling to Council is troubling in its own right. The final vote was convincingly in favor of approving the operational psychology practice guidelines. To be fair, however, most Council members probably hadn\u2019t even had time to carefully review the guidelines before they voted, since the final version only became available a day before the meeting\u2014a day spent traveling to Washington, DC for many. The APA\u2019s carefully cultivated norms discouraging disagreement or any hint of incivility among Council members\u2014what one colleague calls \u201ctoxic positivity\u201d\u2014also may have played a role. And procedural rules were put in place that prevented critics of the guidelines from having the time they needed to correct misinformation and fully air their concerns. In short, praise for the task force\u2019s efforts and good intentions was seemingly the order of the day\u2014and even a shoddy work product wouldn\u2019t be sufficient grounds for applying the brakes. For those who did indeed step forward to express their reservations, reassurances were offered that the guidelines will be reviewed again\u00a0in just another five years<\/em>\u2014as if that\u2019s hardly long enough for any adverse consequences to arise.<\/p>\n

I mentioned earlier that a group of psychologists with significant concerns about the guidelines (myself included) accepted an invitation to discuss an earlier draft document with the task force chair and several of his allies. I\u2019ve also noted above that our primary revision recommendations were rejected. Nevertheless, the final version includes this unsolicited addition: \u201cOf note, these guidelines received extensive review and input from psychologists experienced in the areas of social justice and human rights advocacy and the TF is grateful for their thoughtful engagement and recommendations.\u201d Personally, I find the inclusion of this sentence deeply misleading,\u00a0perhaps intentionally so<\/em>, because it suggests that the critically important areas of disagreement were adequately resolved through the revision process. This is far from true, and the task force chair presumably knows this to be the case.<\/p>\n

For years, the community of \u201cdissident\u201d psychologists has\u00a0struggled<\/a>\u00a0to preserve our profession\u2019s fundamental commitments to \u201cDo No Harm\u201d and to similar ethical principles that protect the vulnerable. We\u2019ve had our successes and our setbacks. Unfortunately, the Council\u2019s approval of these operational psychology practice guidelines falls into the latter category. I suppose it\u2019s not really surprising. The U.S. military-intelligence establishment is immensely powerful, and the APA always aspires to be in its good graces. The forces pushing to further militarize the APA\u2014and psychology more broadly\u2014are not new and they aren\u2019t going away. But neither are we.<\/p>\n

_______________________________________________<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> Roy Eidelson is a member of the <\/em>TRANSCEND Network<\/em><\/a> and was a member of the American Psychological Association for over 25 years, prior to his resignation. He is a clinical psychologist and the president of <\/em>Eidelson Consulting<\/em><\/a>, where he studies, writes about, and consults on the role of psychological issues in political, organizational, and group conflict settings. He is a past president of <\/em>Psychologists for Social Responsibility<\/em><\/a>, former executive director of the University of Pennsylvania\u2019s Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict, and a member of the <\/em>Coalition for an Ethical Psychology<\/em><\/a>. Roy is the author of <\/em>Political Mind Games: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What\u2019s Happening, What\u2019s Right, and What\u2019s Possible<\/a> and can be reached at <\/em>reidelson@eidelsonconsulting.com<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

17 Aug 2023 – Operational psychologists are primarily involved in non-clinical activities linked to national security, national defense, and public safety. Their largest source of employment is the military-intelligence establishment, which includes the Department of Defense and the CIA.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":110813,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[2755,133,112],"class_list":["post-242483","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-transcend-members","tag-american-psychological-association-apa","tag-cia","tag-pentagon"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242483","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=242483"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242483\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":242485,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242483\/revisions\/242485"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/110813"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242483"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242483"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242483"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}