tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post2719465351465762170..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Couching LanguageDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-37640453709698906992009-04-07T22:25:00.000-07:002009-04-07T22:25:00.000-07:00Psychoanalysis is right next to nonsenses anyways....Psychoanalysis is right next to nonsenses anyways. Given that nothing resembling science is ever done to back up the claims of psychoanalysts I don't really see why we should distinguish their disempowering claims from those made by Joe activist who blows off your suggestion that he might be complicit in antisemitism.<BR/><BR/>If actual psychologists have reasons to make similar claims then take them more seriously but I've seen no evidence to think the psychoanalysis is of help to the cause of Jews or any oppressed people.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07617213327912889142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-56183349719299328202009-04-07T19:19:00.000-07:002009-04-07T19:19:00.000-07:00I think some of the motivation is a misplaced desi...I think some of the motivation is a misplaced desire to be "understanding," but it ends up being patronizing and ultimately dehumanizing. But David's right that it's also a tool and even a weapon (by both sides and sometimes in counterintuitive ways). Which we're talking about depends on both the sophistication and the power wielded by the speaker. <BR/><BR/>I certainly don't think psychology is irrelevant. I think it plays a role in our motivations, and it also plays a role in the way we project on to the other side. (As for Nussbaum, well, there are psychological analyses of American political phenomena that don't bother me in the least when they come from Americans, but do bug me when they come from Europeans.) But at the end of the day, people are responsible for their actions.chingonanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-39726337965370256042009-04-07T18:25:00.000-07:002009-04-07T18:25:00.000-07:00If everyone is just flailing about emotionally or ...<I>If everyone is just flailing about emotionally or lashing out or whatever, then how can you negotiate anything?</I><BR/><BR/>Very much agreed. While we should acknowledge people's emotions, we shouldn't use them to excuse bad or unhelpful actions. It's perfectly understandable that someone living under U.S. occupation in Iraq would want to assault President Bush; it's still assault and still not a good idea.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I think the annoyance at being put on the couch has a lot to do with some Hindus' animus toward Martha Nussbaum, because she analyzes the Hindu hard right in highly psychological terms, especially sexually psychological (which for some of these folks is just one more enraging thing, talking about Teh Sex). But she's doing her analysis based on the <A HREF="http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005691.html" REL="nofollow">explicit rhetoric and images</A> employed by the people she's talking about, so it's not like she's having to dig real deep here.<BR/><BR/>So I'm OK with using psychology as an explanation of <I>why</I> people may do such-and-such. But I don't think it should be used to excuse nor to assume away someone's agency. Nussbaum thinks that the saffronists can get beyond their angst regarding Mother India's need for her Hindu sons to engage in nuclear testing, and is very much in favor of doing so.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-46254152217855907372009-04-07T17:22:00.000-07:002009-04-07T17:22:00.000-07:00Part of me thinks that the argument is motivated p...Part of me thinks that the argument is motivated primarily by the speakers desire to assure everyone that she's read Freud and Lacan. But that's too pat: there is a political purpose behind this. Psychoanalytics can be used to diminish responsibility ("they're just lashing out") and try and negate one sides legitimate grievances, or it can be used to dehumanize ("they're damaged people -- rational arguments and ethics don't mean anything to them"). The indeterminancy makes it just another tool in the advocates toolbox.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-20608937408333822102009-04-07T16:52:00.000-07:002009-04-07T16:52:00.000-07:00I feel like similar types of language or similar w...I feel like similar types of language or similar ways of thinking get used against the Palestinians, even by their nominal supporters, mostly of the "beaten dog" variety. I think it's a really poisonous way to think about the conflict, both because it removes any agency from any of the actors and, perhaps ironically, removes any basis for an eventual political settlement. If everyone is just flailing about emotionally or lashing out or whatever, then how can you negotiate anything?chingonanoreply@blogger.com