Chris Green wrote (April 12): > Given the earlier discussions of Slater's book on this list, I > thought it would interest many of you to know that the NYT > is carrying an article about the controversy: > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/12/books/12SLAT.html
The headline to this NYT article is: �Book�s Critique of Pychology Ignites a Torrent of Criticism�. This is misleading and liable to lend support to a misrepresentation of the criticisms of Slater�s book, namely, that the ostensible reasons for the criticisms conceal that what the critics actually object to is Slater�s critique of psychological concepts and experimentation. This line is being taken by some reviews on the Amazon website, and by Amy Banks, medical director for mental health at the Fenway Community Health Center in Boston, who is reported by the NYT as arguing that the hubbub shows the vulnerability many mental health professionals feel when faced with questions about the subjectivity of mental health diagnosis. This is a tactic familiar to those of us who have written critiques of Freud�s writings. Our *real* agenda, according to some critics (e.g., Jonathan Lear) is to deny the supposedly disturbing notion that there are unconscious ideas and processes in the mind of which we are largely unaware (or even to covertly promote a right-wing socio-political position!). In the same way, evolutionary psychologists have been accused of having the hidden agenda of promoting free market economics and right-wing social policies. (Never mind that many of the most forthright proponents of evolutionary psychology hold views well to the left of centre, e.g., Richard Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, Melvin Konner.) The effect of such tactics is to divert attention away from the specific criticisms being made, and the merits and demerits of the writings in question. That is why the headline to the London Times article on Slater�s book (April 2) gets closer to the real issue: �Great tale, but is it true?�, which can be taken as shorthand for questioning the accuracy of some of the material in the book, no more and no less. Beth Benoit wrote: > I received the following email from Lauren Slater this > morning. I thought her defense of reiterating a myth "for > the purpose of dismantling it" was exactly the closure > we needed for the Skinner chapter. > From: "lauren slater" > Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:16:27 -0700 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Slater's book in hand >> I�ve been following the tips on line discussion group of my >> book, OPENING SKINNER�S BOX, and I want to thank you >> for supporting it, but more importantly for understanding that >> the Skinner chapter contains the reiteration of a myth for the >> purposes of dismantling it. >> So, thanks again. >>Lauren Slater I think things are a little more complicated than that. It is true that Slater wrote towards the end of the chapter on Skinner that �The baby box, it turns out, was really no more than an upgraded playpen in which young Deborah spent a few hours a day. It all seems, without a doubt, good intentioned, if not noble, and sets Skinner firmly in humane waters.� On the other hand, Slater promotes a tone of mystery, implying in her concluding chapter that there are hidden secrets that indicate that all was not well with Deborah, and that she may have been harmed by Skinner�s treatment of her when she was an infant: "I began this book in search of Deborah Skinner, the elusive, mythologized daughter of the twentieth century's most radical neobehaviorist, and I never found her. I'm sure she is alive, but I did not come up with any data that would convince me of her mental status. After years as her father's experimental subject, did she fare well? Did she thrive? Is she dented or damaged in some way? I don't know." Well, it would not have been difficult to set readers� minds at rest. All she had to do was contact Deborah directly through her sister Julie. She chose not to do this, thereby leaving it an open question whether Deborah was damaged by experiences at the hands of her father. This insinuation that all was not well with Deborah had earlier been floated by Slater�s tendentious interpolations into a dialogue she had with the psychologist Bryan Porter: > �Is she [Deborah] dead� I ask. > Porter misses just the slightest beat, or do I imagine it? > > �No,� he finally says. He clears his throat. �Deborah Skinner > is alive.� His voice drops. �And she�s doing fine, really.� > > But there is something in the way he delivers the pronouncement > that makes me doubt him. There�s a suspicious sympathy in his > voice, as though she�s just survived some sort of horrid surgery. Given the tone of this reported exchange (and in the London Times article, Bryan Porter is reported as objecting to the misleading impressions of what he said given by Slater�s presentation), and Slater�s later writing �After years as her father's experimental subject, did she fare well? Did she thrive? Is she dented or damaged in some way? I don't know�, it is little wonder that Skinner�s daughters are deeply concerned that the notion most likely to remain in readers� minds is the insinuation that their father may have mistreated Deborah. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
