What are we for?

What are we for?

I recently read this article article by Jeffrey Tucker, if you don’t know who Jeffrey is he’s a libertarian intellectual and one of the founders of the new social network liberty.me. This article addressed a simple issue; the libertarian movement has a large contingent of individuals who are firmly against X. Where X means any particular issue that is corrosive to the general ideas of Libertarianism. Jeffrey Tucker likens this attitude to the Brutalist Movement in architecture that reared it’s ugly head in the 1950’s. In other words, he is pointing out that Libertarianism is quite firmly against anything that encroaches on freedom, and takes a certain glee in defending the supposedly undefendable (link).

My point here is not to talk about Libertarianism as such but to abstract out from the article the general principle that to be against something is simply not enough, you have to be for something.

As Jeffrey points out Libertarianism is actually pro- a lot of things, things like freedom, prosperity, love, etc... and that the overall message we should be transmitting to people is that we are for something wonderful, not just against something bad. So too do we have a similar problem in mainstream psychology. A number of wonderful charities operate in the mental health world, for example, they do amazing work bringing awareness to the public and to the government about mental health issues, reducing stigma, improving care and community access and generally doing their best to counteract the mainstream message that mental illness is an overwhelmingly bad experience for the individual and society. Indeed one only has to look back 50 years or so to see the shocking treatment perpetrated against people with mental illness; they were shunned, degraded, abused, locked away and generally excluded from a society that considered them sub-normal and beyond remediation.

As we now know, thanks in part to the work of these charities, people with mental illness are perfectly capable of interacting with society, sometimes with help, sometimes on their own, and that to have a mental illness is not a personal failing or a sign of weakness but something to be understood, in some cases treated and in others managed.

A similar example in a somewhat different vein is the recent explosion of behavioural economics literature. Books such as Nudge, Thinking Fast and Slow, Predictably Irrational and others all carry the same message. We aren’t as smart as we thought we were. In some cases the literature is valid, in others it’s hyperbole, but the overarching message is “hold up sunshine, you might need a hand with those pesky thoughts of yours”. By highlighting our lack of omniscience and faulty logic these books are referenced gleefully by the brutalist intellectuals in the economic and psychological world as proof - a fait accompli - that we are a dangerously irrational group of people and can’t be trusted even with the little freedom we are permitted.

Both of these examples provide a hint at the brutalist movement (as per Jeffrey Tucker’s analysis) that operates in the psychological and economics movement. The mental health issue highlights a focus on something that is generally considered a negative issue and tries to make it a positive (or at least normalise it), whereas the behavioural economics issue highlights the sometimes disturbingly gleeful attitude present in people happy to be vindicated in their less-than-rosy view of humankind.

Indeed, in both cases we know what we are against. We are against abuse of the mentally ill, and we are against the freedom typically afforded to people in western society (since we are so incapable of functioning rationally). But what are we for?

Broadly speaking both the above examples do offer things we should be for; the equal treatment of the mentally ill and a tighter restriction on the choices we can make respectively. One offers bringing people to the average level of acceptance, the other offers tearing people down a peg or two to make sure we don’t do something foolish. Whilst the first is a laudable goal (the second less so...) neither are particularly inspiring to me. To be sure some people derive a great deal of inspiration from both and good for them, but to me it doesn't suggest a grand goal, or a shining light on the horizon. I repeat my earlier question; what are we for?

The psychology movement lacks a defining goal, we aren’t working towards a common goal as such, excluding the broad remit to better understand human psychology. I don’t think we are ready, as a science, for some sort of grand end for which to work toward. Personally, however, I believe that there is a definite reason for psychology, and it’s the reason I put up with the rigors of academic life. I believe that Psychology should be for helping people achieve their utmost best. Not just broadly, as in society, but individually. I want each person to have the tools and the knowledge to be better. Better in the way they think, act, remember, love, pursue their dreams, approach their relationships, tackle their jobs and so on. What we should be for is the advancement of a persons ultimate potential.

We are a long way off a bright future of optimal humans. Society is awash in poor thinking (myself included) and we simply don’t know enough to make people better, yet. One day, though, perhaps in my lifetime, perhaps not, I hope that people are able to access psychology as a necessity, as a way of increasing their ability to pursue their own goals and improve their life in a way that would be impossible to imagine today.

That is what I am for. That is the goal I pursue. I try not to be against the things I see that are wrong in the world, I try and be for the things I want to see in the world. I suggest that you do the same and maybe tomorrow the world will be a better place for it.