The New Priests (part 1)
 
 

If you've been following me here, you'll know that in many respects I am a blazing liberal.  But I am also a very strange liberal in some ways, and today I'll give you one reason why.  When one listens to proponents of a conservative social agenda, it is not hard to discern a grounding in religious ideology.  (The easiest to spot are religious ethics hiding behind scientific terminology.   See my reasoning in the abortion debate)  But when one listens to proponents of a liberal agenda, one finds the same kind of grounding - distinctly religious in flavor - in the corpus of works and ideas which make up the field of psychology.  In other words, the questions are the same, and I think the answers are still given in metaphysical terms which are, like the conservative arguments, hiding behind a scientific facade.  (See for instance the war on us)

Obviously, I have deep reservations about the grounds and the methods of contemporary psychology.  There are a lot of reasons for this, and I'll tell you that I have some experience with the practice, people and grounding of psychology, from academic to pop.  But since these are columns, not essays, I'll give you something to chew on with two words: Parlor tricks.

Several years ago, some friends of mine were struggling with their marriage.  She was a practicing marriage counselor at the time, I believe.  One night, during some tough emotional episodes, I took the role of unassuming confidant, of interested bystander, and mediated a dialogue past the psychobabble each had used to justify themselves.  After a refreshingly honest conversation, she noted that, notwithstanding my views toward psychology, I had taken the role of therapist in a counseling session.

I was waiting for her to say that.  I knew quite well that unless her personal views were validated without being patronized, she would never be able to stop defending them and go behind them to get to the core issues involved.  The only way to validate without patronizing was to 'unintentionally' invoke a familiar tenant of her belief system.  This is a typical example of a parlor trick.  It is nothing of which to be proud, for it made me neither good nor superior.  It in fact made me dishonest.

The fact is, some people are more talented than others at predicting human behavior - not so difficult a task, really, since humans are pretty predictable in most cases.  Such skills are always a matter of degree, which means you'll always find some with more skill and some with less.  But leading people around, setting context with body language, attitude, tone of voice, etc., is no more than a cheap trick.  It is nothing more than any priest, nun, shamaan or other holy or spiritual leader has done for centuries.  It most certainly does not justify the grounds or the approach of psychology as a science.

Yet, from what I can tell, it is the 'uncanny' ability of these new priests (psychologists, counselors) to predict behavior, along with a 'sincere desire to help', which legitimizes the field of psychology to the predictable populace.  This is so just as the parlor tricks of the priests and the sincere good works of Sister Mary legitimized the Catholic church as a wise and benevolent entity, while the church itself was a driving force in making people poor.

It is easy to offer the appearance of sincerity, intellectual integrity and an open mind.  But since it is exceedingly clear to me that these believers posses none of these characteristics, I have to say that any psychologist - or priest - who takes this appearance is dishonest, whether or not they believe they are doing good with their skills.  The human being needs honesty, not manipulation.  The new priest may be a good person, but the enterprise which their goodness justifies is not.

That it is not remains to be shown.  For now, it is enough to suggest that at the very least, psychology is just another religion, one which has already scrambled the brains of many liberals in this country and others.  I think it stands poised to do great damage to a civilization which it professes to want to help.
 

December 27, 2000