Beyond Freedom and Dignity

"The moral issue of our time has landed at our doorstep, and we cannot turn away." - Rebuttal to the Con Statement of APA Petition Resolution

I've been wanting to blog about this for some time. I'm not in the vortex of this particular issue, but the wording of it is such that all APA members would do well to read the entire resolution and the four statements that follow, and give them serious thought.

The resolution itself is this ... "Be it resolved that psychologists may not work in settings where persons are held outside of, or in violation of, either International Law (e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) or the US Constitution (where appropriate), unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights[7]."

It will take you awhile to work past your 'Torture is abhorrent! Of course we shouldn't work anywhere where torture is used!' reaction. This is valid, admirable reaction, but it oversimplifies the nature and ramifications of this resolution.

So that you'll understand my perspective, I'll share this story... I was once approached about becoming a behavioral profiler. For purely selfish reasons, I declined to pursue the opportunity. (I couldn't imagine spending my days unravelling the workings of deviant minds. Ick.) I imagine though that this occupation would not have been too different from that of the psychologists on the Behavioral Science Consultation Teams mentioned in the above resolution.

I don't know what prompted this resolution. Perhaps some of these psychologists appealed to the APA for protection because they were dismayed at what they were being asked to do. Perhaps the resolution was prompted by armchair moral indignation. Either way, it is not the first APA resolution to address psychologists' participation in torture.

If you are still having trouble visualizing what a psychologist might do in this capacity, or why, might I suggest that you find and watch this. Now remember that these were the images and ideas that we grew up with. It's hard to watch this particular episode when one has read and thought about this particular APA resolution or any of the recent allegations of CIA torture of detainees.

"We know, from decades of psychological research, that good people do bad things in bad situations. Psychologists are no less vulnerable to 'behavioral drift' than others, particularly when subject to the chain of command in the closed environment of a geographically isolated detention center." - Pro Statement

That statement sums up a valid concern, and perhaps the most valid point to be made in this entire argument. Yet, three unrelated paragraphs later, there is no clear statement of how the following goal - "This referendum would thus protect psychologists from the risk of future prosecutions." - will be achieved by this resolution. Indeed, the goal seems to have drifted from protecting psychologists psychologically to protecting them legally.

The rebuttal to the pro statement was equally vague, and focused on definition of 'permissible' work settings, rather than on the obviously unsupported argument that this resolution is protecting anyone, let alone psychologists. Perhaps it is my unfamiliarity with the previous resolutions, or how APA resolutions in general have been applied in a legal or disciplinary sense, that permits me to wonder why location of employment seems to be an debatable issue here...

The con statement makes it clear that "[w]hile APA is clear that the petition, if adopted, is not enforceable", it does not make clear a far more important point - One's behavior with respect to moral issues is not a question to be settled by referendum. If I let you tell me what I can and cannot do, and where I can and cannot work, then I let you think for me, and de facto, I encourage an external locus of control for my behavior. Do this make me more likely to act morally? Perhaps not.

'But psychologists should object! Torture is wrong!', you say. Yes, but when the "APA has stated emphatically: Following orders is never a defense to torture.", it seems slightly hypocritical to expect that an internally-generated resolution should serve as an overriding 'guideline' for a member's behavior. Psychologists would be better served with concrete facts about the nature of the employment they face, so that they can make informed decisions about their potential employment.

A more productive use of APA time might also be the follow-up that was suggest in the con statement to a previous resolution. “APA will explore ways to support psychologists who refuse to work in such settings or who refuse to obey orders that constitute torture.” I would suggest that further exploration of the issue of the 'behavioral drift' mentioned above would also be a more productive use of APA time and resources. Both of these issues deserve concrete suggestions and proposals by which they can be addressed, not additional ambiguous referendums whose actual efficacy I was unable to discern from six pages of statements.

I guess my soapbox is back in business again.