![]() It's interesting because from a CT perspective, how do we evaluate or problematize internalized oppression? Because "internalized oppression" is very much is popular and felt to be valid among liberals (e.g., elite, politically correct Democrats) as well as woke liberals, and conservatives reject it totally, whereas leftist critical theoretic might be more ambivalent about it as a concept (due to contentious debates about class reductionism). (E.g., assuming this is her formulation, then can we state where/how do the rest of her ideas go wrong? And obviously why Yale censored her talk, etc.) I would summarize her overall problem formulation as exactly that notion, the phenomena of internalized racism in an (post-)colonial American society. What you call "depraved racist", she does admit to in the interview as her "internalized oppression". Not going to go into whether it's because I'm also an Asian American with an academic background, so is that my racialized experience or just my classist indoctrination that I find myself agreeing with here, etc.! It is very important to follow the example given here and develop clear arguments within all the therapy schools in order to defend the whole field from being captured by Critical Social Justice.Not sure if you are actually asking me, or are simply expressing strong disagree with the interviewee, but while reading the piece I could empathize with her frustrations very well. But clinical experience demonstrates that simple binaries often belie much that lies beneath the surface, and psychoanalysis was designed to wrestle with ambiguity, contradictions and complexity in the individual psyche and society at large.’ The stark, Manichean simplicity of binaries like these afford people a false sense of moral clarity, multiple opportunities for virtue signaling and a sense of pride for being on what they imagine is “the right side of history”. Furthermore, it is unfortunate that psychoanalysts (like Donald Moss), who express their views in a more temperate fashion, still espouse a kind of racial essentialism to explain extremely complex social realities. Indeed, to many of them, it probably seems far more “authentic” or “real” than genuine scholarship, given their anti-intellectual biases. Khilanani spouted will probably have a strong appeal to many activists on both sides of the Atlantic. This point was summed-up in a recent interview of forensic psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, Dr. ![]() ‘Sadly, given our diminishing attention spans, our growing appetite for sound bites and slogans, and our collective anguish over the long-standing injustices faced by non-white citizens in the USA, the pernicious nonsense Dr. Here is a very recent article by Dr Daniel Burston, a prominent theorist and writer on psychoanalysis who is concerned that the ideas of Khilanani and Moss are closely aligned with a regressive overarching trend to resegregate society both in theory as well as in practice. It has also prompted more indepth critical examination of the way that psychoanalysis appears to be importing contested concepts from Whiteness Studies – see Professor Jon Mills talk. Both events prompted wide spread condemnation. In the second, the prestigious Journal of the American Psychoanal ytic Association published an article by the psychoanalyst, Dr Donald Moss, wherein he argued that ‘whiteness’ is a malignant parasitic condition. In the first, Dr Aruna Khilanani, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, gave a speech at the Yale Medical college in which she fantasised about shooting white people. Readers are probably familiar with two recent scandals in psychoanalysis.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |