Mary Pipher's Principled Nonconformity
[A short paper for my Social Psychology class: Psychologist, Author Mary Pipher Returns APA Award Over Interrogation Policy. What influenced her decision? Consider personal responsibility and conformity.]
At the 2007 American Psychological Association (APA) convention, "The APA’s Council of Representatives rejected, by an approximately 85% to 15% vote, the simple statement that: 'Be it resolved that the roles of psychologists in settings in which detainees are deprived of adequate protection of their human rights should be limited as health personnel to the provision of psychological treatment'" (Soldz 2007).
In its place, they adopted Substitute Motion Three: "Reaffirmation of the APA position against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment and its application to individuals defined in the United States Code as 'enemy combatants.'"
This alternative resolution rejects the clarity and concision of the original suggestion in favor of complex, equivocating language (including the use of the word "and" rather than "or" in this critical section: "Be it resolved that the unequivocal condemnation includes an absolute prohibition against psychologists’ knowingly planning, designing, and assisting in the use of torture and any form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" ("Reaffirmation of the APA Position Against Torture," 2007)) and repeated references to other sources (including the United States military) for definitions of terms used, rather than spelling them out directly.
This starkly contrasts other resolutions of public interest adopted by APA (viewable at http://www.apa.org/pi/resolutions.html), such as "Resolution on the Maltreatment of Children with Disabilities," "Death Penalty In The United States," "Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children," and "APA Resolution on Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination," which use plain language and clear definitions in the body of the resolutions themselves.
Instead, the adopted resolution "contained enough caveats and loopholes, many added at the last minute without discussion with moratorium supporters, that observers were uncertain whether it condemned the CIA’s 'enhanced interrogation' techniques" (Soldz, 2007).
In response to this action, on August 21, 2007, Dr. Mary Pipher returned her 2006 Presidential Citation from APA in protest against Substitute Motion Three, stating:The presence of psychologists has both educated the interrogation teams in more skillful methods of breaking people down and legitimized the process of torture . . . . Under this motion, psychologists will be allowed to continue working on interrogation teams that are not subject to the Geneva Conventions. This motion places our organization on the side of the CIA and Department of Defense and at odds with the United Nations, The Red Cross, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association. With this reaffirmation we have made a terrible mistake (as cited in Soldz, 2007).
In an interview with Democracy Now!, Dr. Pipher elaborates:I realized that if psychologists weren't in those sites, they could not exist, because we give those sites legitimacy. And the only thing that allows President Bush and the CIA to have a sort of veneer over what’s happening there and pretend as if they are different places than, say, the bowels of prisons in the Congo or Egypt, is that we supposedly have medical supervision. And psychologists are those medical overseers ("Psychologist, Author Mary Pipher Returns APA Award," 2007).
The social pressure for Dr. Pipher to accept Substitute Measure Three was significant. The measure had an overwhelming majority of support from the APA's Council of Representatives, a group which: consists of experts, contains members who are important to Dr. Pipher, and comprises people who are similar to her in many ways. She would be held accountable if she protested, and would have to justify her actions to many people.
Such conditions are powerfully conducive to producing conformity (Aronson, 2004, pp. 19-23). Yet Dr. Pipher chose to make her objections heard. She felt that remaining silent was tacit support of APA policies that were responsible for enabling torture to occur, and that this made her complicit.
Returning the award was difficult for her: "I was honored to receive this award and proud to be a member of APA. Over the years I have spoken at national conventions many times and had enjoyed an excellent relationship with the APA and its staff. With this letter, I feel as if I am ostracizing a good friend" (Soldz, 2007).
However, Pipher has worked with torture victims, and she has seen that "many of them are innocent of any wrongdoing" and that "there is always lasting harm" to them. Pipher's mother, a doctor, taught her through word and deed to "never do harm to someone for someone else’s benefit." Yet Piper saw that Substitute Measure Three "allows psychologists to continue" to oversee, plan, and supervise interrogations at Guantanamo and CIA black sites. She was aware that a "terrible mistake" was being made, and so felt it was "a moral imperative that [she] act" ("Psychologist, Author Mary Pipher Returns APA Award," 2007).
Dr. Pipher's commitment to her principles enabled her nonconformity.
After careful consideration, she chose to accept personal responsibility for her part in the situation. She returned her award with a letter explaining her reasoning, and she brought her actions to the attention of the media.
"I think that if enough people were interested in this, if enough psychologists stood up, it wouldn’t just be a matter of our organization passing a better vote, stopping our members from being involved in enhanced interrogations, it would be a matter of really having the whole structure fall. So that’s very much my hope, and I’ll be a small part of it" ("Psychologist, Author Mary Pipher Returns APA Award," 2007).
________________________________________
References
Aronson, E. (2004). The Social Animal (9th ed.). New York: Worth.
Psychologist, author Mary Pipher returns APA award over interrogation policy. (2007, August 29). Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.democracynow.org/2007/8/29/psychologist_author_mary_pipher_returns_apa
Reaffirmation of the American Psychological Association position against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment and its application to individuals defined in the United States Code as "enemy combatants". (2007, August 19). Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/governanc/resolutions/notorture0807.html
Soldz, Stephen. (2007, August 26). In protest of APA Torture Stance, author returns award. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/26/3414
At the 2007 American Psychological Association (APA) convention, "The APA’s Council of Representatives rejected, by an approximately 85% to 15% vote, the simple statement that: 'Be it resolved that the roles of psychologists in settings in which detainees are deprived of adequate protection of their human rights should be limited as health personnel to the provision of psychological treatment'" (Soldz 2007).
In its place, they adopted Substitute Motion Three: "Reaffirmation of the APA position against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment and its application to individuals defined in the United States Code as 'enemy combatants.'"
This alternative resolution rejects the clarity and concision of the original suggestion in favor of complex, equivocating language (including the use of the word "and" rather than "or" in this critical section: "Be it resolved that the unequivocal condemnation includes an absolute prohibition against psychologists’ knowingly planning, designing, and assisting in the use of torture and any form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" ("Reaffirmation of the APA Position Against Torture," 2007)) and repeated references to other sources (including the United States military) for definitions of terms used, rather than spelling them out directly.
This starkly contrasts other resolutions of public interest adopted by APA (viewable at http://www.apa.org/pi/resolutions.html), such as "Resolution on the Maltreatment of Children with Disabilities," "Death Penalty In The United States," "Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children," and "APA Resolution on Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination," which use plain language and clear definitions in the body of the resolutions themselves.
Instead, the adopted resolution "contained enough caveats and loopholes, many added at the last minute without discussion with moratorium supporters, that observers were uncertain whether it condemned the CIA’s 'enhanced interrogation' techniques" (Soldz, 2007).
In response to this action, on August 21, 2007, Dr. Mary Pipher returned her 2006 Presidential Citation from APA in protest against Substitute Motion Three, stating:The presence of psychologists has both educated the interrogation teams in more skillful methods of breaking people down and legitimized the process of torture . . . . Under this motion, psychologists will be allowed to continue working on interrogation teams that are not subject to the Geneva Conventions. This motion places our organization on the side of the CIA and Department of Defense and at odds with the United Nations, The Red Cross, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association. With this reaffirmation we have made a terrible mistake (as cited in Soldz, 2007).
In an interview with Democracy Now!, Dr. Pipher elaborates:I realized that if psychologists weren't in those sites, they could not exist, because we give those sites legitimacy. And the only thing that allows President Bush and the CIA to have a sort of veneer over what’s happening there and pretend as if they are different places than, say, the bowels of prisons in the Congo or Egypt, is that we supposedly have medical supervision. And psychologists are those medical overseers ("Psychologist, Author Mary Pipher Returns APA Award," 2007).
The social pressure for Dr. Pipher to accept Substitute Measure Three was significant. The measure had an overwhelming majority of support from the APA's Council of Representatives, a group which: consists of experts, contains members who are important to Dr. Pipher, and comprises people who are similar to her in many ways. She would be held accountable if she protested, and would have to justify her actions to many people.
Such conditions are powerfully conducive to producing conformity (Aronson, 2004, pp. 19-23). Yet Dr. Pipher chose to make her objections heard. She felt that remaining silent was tacit support of APA policies that were responsible for enabling torture to occur, and that this made her complicit.
Returning the award was difficult for her: "I was honored to receive this award and proud to be a member of APA. Over the years I have spoken at national conventions many times and had enjoyed an excellent relationship with the APA and its staff. With this letter, I feel as if I am ostracizing a good friend" (Soldz, 2007).
However, Pipher has worked with torture victims, and she has seen that "many of them are innocent of any wrongdoing" and that "there is always lasting harm" to them. Pipher's mother, a doctor, taught her through word and deed to "never do harm to someone for someone else’s benefit." Yet Piper saw that Substitute Measure Three "allows psychologists to continue" to oversee, plan, and supervise interrogations at Guantanamo and CIA black sites. She was aware that a "terrible mistake" was being made, and so felt it was "a moral imperative that [she] act" ("Psychologist, Author Mary Pipher Returns APA Award," 2007).
Dr. Pipher's commitment to her principles enabled her nonconformity.
After careful consideration, she chose to accept personal responsibility for her part in the situation. She returned her award with a letter explaining her reasoning, and she brought her actions to the attention of the media.
"I think that if enough people were interested in this, if enough psychologists stood up, it wouldn’t just be a matter of our organization passing a better vote, stopping our members from being involved in enhanced interrogations, it would be a matter of really having the whole structure fall. So that’s very much my hope, and I’ll be a small part of it" ("Psychologist, Author Mary Pipher Returns APA Award," 2007).
________________________________________
References
Aronson, E. (2004). The Social Animal (9th ed.). New York: Worth.
Psychologist, author Mary Pipher returns APA award over interrogation policy. (2007, August 29). Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.democracynow.org/2007/8/29/psychologist_author_mary_pipher_returns_apa
Reaffirmation of the American Psychological Association position against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment and its application to individuals defined in the United States Code as "enemy combatants". (2007, August 19). Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/governanc/resolutions/notorture0807.html
Soldz, Stephen. (2007, August 26). In protest of APA Torture Stance, author returns award. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/26/3414