Steve,
A quick note that I much appreciated your post and thoughtful reflection,
-Chance
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Steven Quackenbush <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Gregg,
>
> I'd like to offer a personal response to your blog series. As you are
> aware, (a) I'm not very familiar with Jordan Peterson's work, (b) I am on
> the left edge of the political spectrum. So, I may be a good "trial
> audience" for your account of Peterson's worldview.
>
> For starters, I can say that I found the blog series exceptionally clear
> and thought provoking. You present a strong case that his work should be
> taken seriously -- *especially by liberals* (inside and outside the
> Academy).
>
> Regarding the second installment ("Identity Politics"), I have a story to
> share. One day (about 10 years ago), I returned to my office after
> delivering a lecture in my course entitled "Adulthood & Aging." An hour
> or two later, I received a call from a colleague in another department.
> She reported that she had just talked to a student who was rather upset by
> the language I was using in class. I thought to myself: "Dear God! What
> did I say?!? Did I accidentally insult a religious or ethnic minority
> group? If so, I would certainly by willing to apologize."
>
> Well, it turns out that my offense was simply a failure to employ
> "person-first language" when discussing individuals with disabilities. "*Person-first
> language?*", I replied, "*What on earth is that*?" I was
> informed that person-first language is the practice of *putting the
> individual before the disability *[e.g., rather than label someone as an
> "autistic person", I should refer to them as a "*person* with autism". I
> replied: "Is this really a good idea? After all, I don't refer to
> psychology majors as 'persons with a psychology major'. And, if I label
> someone as an 'autistic person', I don't mean to imply that they could not
> be characterized in other ways (as sports fans, etc.)."
>
> After this conversation, I found myself pondering the ethics of
> person-first language. I discussed the issue with colleagues and perused
> the relevant literature. I can now offer the following comments (with the
> provision that my position may change at any moment):
>
> - To this day, I am unable to embrace the "person-first" ethos. In
> addition to the fact that it makes for awkward scholarly writing, I find it
> both dishonest and patronizing. If a condition truly *matters* then
> it *qualifies my very being*. My personhood does not *exist* first,
> only to be *qualified* second. I *am* my qualifiers: I'm a
> psychology professor, a Democrat, a science-fiction fan, etc. None of
> these attributes exhaust what can be said about me. Still, any of them may
> be appropriate in certain contexts, without the need to remind the world
> that "I'm a person first!"
> - cf. Jim Sinclair's critique of person-first language: http://
> autismmythbusters.com/general-public/autistic-vs-people-
> with-autism/jim-sinclair-why--i-dislike-person-first-language/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__autismmythbusters.com_general-2Dpublic_autistic-2Dvs-2Dpeople-2Dwith-2Dautism_jim-2Dsinclair-2Dwhy-2D-2Di-2Ddislike-2Dperson-2Dfirst-2Dlanguage_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=-6VmTSiZbW3QaHYxf-gxnl-tHJkPgbrQy362ks5Rq3Y&s=mRrEHRFYqi5DHtVXioTAOH3w4T4buhw-fs-a4GB0Z3Y&e=>
> - For a scholarly account of the relevant issues, see:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov_pubmed_25642702&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=HuBMg9mV4qB18mDLQdswTmCK5hRqPINK9I1TIv5knN4&s=0JW0Ebt9o1XoRZORt-7EPJ9hvmrhAliWD2H_NZlHsPM&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov_pubmed_25642702&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=-6VmTSiZbW3QaHYxf-gxnl-tHJkPgbrQy362ks5Rq3Y&s=JKatwBJcZOlQsdNwKV1_wsQTheae61FUlo2wLCg32sE&e=>
> - The episode described above wasn't my final encounter with
> person-first language advocates. As the years passed, I was occasionally
> chastised by colleagues and students for my failure to conscientiously
> employ person-first language. "*Its APA Style*!", one colleague
> reminded me. I replied: "Well then, so much the worse for APA Style!...and
> besides, since when does the APA have a right to police our language
> (outside of APA-Style manuscripts)?"
> - Person-first language is supposed to make the world a more accepting
> place for disabled individuals. I don't yet have reason to believe that
> this is true. Still, I'm wondering if there might not be ulterior motives
> for adopting this ethic.
> - Consider direct-care providers (of any sort) who work with
> disabled individuals. Here's an account of what might be going on in the
> hearts of a few of them:
> - "*There but for the grace of God go I."*
> - "But I'm not supposed to see myself as somehow better than my
> patients! They are *people*, just like me!"
> - "Still, I really am fortunate that I'm not in their
> predicament. I don't like to admit it, but there's a sense in which I feel
> as if I'm *much better off *than they are."
> - "Does this suggest a lack of respect? hmmm... If only I could
> find a way to *demonstrate -- *indeed,* to prove once and for
> all* -- that I see my clients as *psychosocial equals.*"
> - "My mentors insist on person-first language. This may be the
> magic wand I was looking for! Person-first language perpetually reminds me
> that *they are indeed equals."*
> - "My mission is clear: I will embrace person-first language,
> and demand that others do so as well."
> - What we have here may well be a case of Freudian reaction
> formation. This is testable. For those familiar with the Implicit
> Association Test, I offer the following hypothesis: Those direct-care
> providers who are most passionate about the need to employ person-first
> language will demonstrate higher levels of implicit bias against
> individuals with disabilities.
>
> I'm apprehensive about what I've just written. Perhaps someone will find
> it offensive. I think this is an important facet of Peterson's position
> (as I understand it from Gregg's blog series). I want to find ways to make
> our world better for individuals with disabilities. I certainly don't want
> to hurt anybody. But intellectual honesty requires that we critically
> evaluate every proposal, including claims regarding the substantive effects
> of word choice.
>
> I look forward to continued engagement with Peterson's work.
>
> Steve Q.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 3:05 PM, Chance McDermott <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Gregg,
>>
>> I experienced the blog as an even, engaging, and informative take on
>> Jordan Peterson and the relevant embedded contexts. The vantage points you
>> offer are powerful, particularly the perspective of one clinical psychology
>> professor about another.
>>
>> -Chance
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:42 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi List,
>>>
>>> I have completed an initial draft of a five part blog series on Jordan
>>> Peterson. It does not have all the links and references, but I am done
>>> working on it for the time being and thought I would share. I am going out
>>> of town next week, and will be likely posting it the week I get back, right
>>> now shooting for August 10.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If folks are interested, and read it and have reactions,
>>> recommendations, concerns or comments, I would, of course, welcome that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Warm regards,
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___________________________________________
>>>
>>> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
>>> Professor
>>> Department of Graduate Psychology
>>> 216 Johnston Hall
>>> MSC 7401
>>> James Madison University
>>> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
>>> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
>>> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
>>>
>>>
>>> *Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.*
>>>
>>> Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=HuBMg9mV4qB18mDLQdswTmCK5hRqPINK9I1TIv5knN4&s=-Y0QGM9TEbZewru83kVbViDQ6-2dCM9tjDqtLDblkWg&e=
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=90bbcOZFhaRnmZZRcsMYrdVT1jHM01IBI7MtghaD1ls&s=_Ym8813hI3GEubwzgJvy5bkOTeTJy1wTn5L7r_otAV8&e=>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Steven W. Quackenbush, Ph.D., Chair
> Division of Psychology & Human Development
> University of Maine, Farmington
> Farmington, ME 04938
> (207) 778-7518
> [log in to unmask]
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
> 1
>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
