After 9/11 the U.S. government became involved in the widespread use of torture. The American Psychological Association (APA) begin to re-interpret their ethics so that psychologists could be involved at “national security sites” where torture was occurring. This brought a deep crisis of values within the discipline of psychology in the U.S. Despite evidence of psychologists’ involvement in torture, the APA for years neglected any kind of responsibility while activist psychologists showed more and more evidence of collusion between the military, the CIA, and the APA.
As community psychologists taking a systemic approach and due to the need for professional reflexivity, we became interested in collecting qualitative narratives about the topic. While the detainees who were being tortured in places like Guantanamo were out of reach, we were very interested in interviewing clinicians who do psychotherapy with torture survivors. Thirteen interviews were conducted, lasting approximately one hour each, covering a range of topics, including the ethics and strategies of working with torture survivors, and about the APA controversy as well. What clearly emerged across all of the interviews was the important psychological and ecological concept of “trust”. The importance of settings, particularly ones that were set up to do harm, was another important theme. This paper looks additionally at the ethical boundaries and paradoxes those settings impose in pursuing clinical and community practice and professional psychological associations having a social justice ethos of not just doing harm but of doing good.
The second paper will expand on the qualitative study and applying the themes of trust and boundaries to issues related to critical community psychology and human rights.
The third paper will dovetail some of the thematic elements of the previous talks, focusing on the consequences professionally and personally for those who speak out against human rights violations and social injustices. Psychologists, military members, intelligence professionals, and others spoke out against the torturous activities occurring at U.S. detention settings and the involvement of psychologists in unethical conduct. Individuals and groups within the APA, as well as interests outside of APA, often took great measures to try to silence and discredit these voices of dissent. Some examples of how individuals took action and the resulting attacks on their character and credibility will be explored. It is our hope that this conversation can lead to a better understanding of how to support those who would speak truth to power in any setting, and we invite audience members to give their input during the discussion afterwards.