Hi Gregg, I'll provide a fuller response later, but just to clarify: - A genealogical critique is not limited to developmental antecedents. - The primary concern is with justifications as cultural systems, with their own complex history (that may stretch back centuries). - Admittedly, a lesson in history may not be especially helpful to persons in states of extreme distress. - However, justifications can be reconsidered as relational constructs, emerging from dynamic interplay of person and culture. - As justifications are revealed as historically contingent, they are effectively disarmed. - To employ an example from your article: I might say “*It doesn’t matter what I do, the end result is always a failure*.” - This statement, considered as a thought, can certainly be analyzed. Moreover, it is possible to demonstrate that it is patently false, i.e., there *is* a relationship between behavior and consequence. As such, we are tempted to believe that our primary challenge is to help people *choose better thoughts. * e.g., "It seems I consistently don’t get the results I want. I wonder if I should learn a new approach.” - This approach meshes well with (and effectively reinforces) cultural justification systems that establish an autonomous, self-contained individual (cf. Sampson, 1988 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__psycnet.apa.org_record_1988-2D16899-2D001&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=QSa0RgPY3vXmOZIE9-AnZLnoXaJYkNgpCAcFCu8A1xA&s=wXMKjnCCfyXuUcDPitnVVq95jm6O9mGilNVwXAdrDyo&e= >) free to pass judgment on *this* or *that* belief system. - As I mentioned in a previous message, I understand that it may be appropriate to perpetuate this myth on occasion. - But we should recognize that justification systems *choose us* even as we subject a few token systems to critical scrutiny. So, in addition to analyzing *this* or *that* justification, we should be asking: *How did this justification system come to be in the first place*, and *why did it choose me*? - To return to the example, I might ask: *whose interests does it serve* for me to believe that there is no relationship between behavior and its consequences? - For some reason, I'm reminded of recent listserv discussions of the law of attraction, which seems to reflect the opposite belief: "I can have whatever I want if I put my mind to it." But this too should be subjected to a genealogical critique. It's not enough to demonstrate that it's false (and to encourage such magical thinkers to *choose better beliefs*). Rather, it needs to be shown for what it is: a "just world" ideology that serves certain interests. - My point here is not that we shouldn't subject justification systems to critical scrutiny. Rather, we need to view them holistically, as embedded in a constellation of other beliefs that themselves have a long history. Moreover, there is no archimedean perch from which we can view all the choices available to us, as if we were in a Justification grocery store. And, to continue with this shopping metaphor: We are as much the *product *of our justification systems as are the buyers. CBT, it seems to me, is a psychology of the (self-contained) consumer. And it promotes this mythology even as it helps people adopt less "rigid" justifications. ~ Steve Q. ############################ 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