stant drumbeat of support for the legalizationnof marijuana.nPT does see at least one real dangernin drug use: drugs, a contributornwarned in 1973, can serve to “soothenand eliminate tensions that otherwisenwould produce beneficial socialnchanges.” What kind of beneficial socialnchanges? A 1969 article with thenrevealing title “The Building of Nations”ngave away the game when itndenounced those family patterns “thatnlead to dogmatism, traditionalism, authoritarianism,nand dependence onnthe older generation. Child-rearingnpractices can . . . produce adults whonare fatalistic, willing to accept thenworld as it is. . . . Such personalityntraits . . . inhibit social change.”nThe obvious solution is an educationalnrevolution: schools that “compeln. . . judge . . . mandate . . . [or] discriminate”nmust be replaced withnschools that “promote creativity, egalitarianism,n[and] flexibility,” schoolsnthat largely ignore tradition and aren”oriented toward the future.” But innthe same year (1973) PT rejected thennotion that “schools … by themselvesn[can] close economic inequalities.”nWhat is needed is “political controlnover the economic institutions thatnshape our society” and “a comprehensivenincomes policy.” “Psychology andnpolities are converging.” suggested an1978 article. A 1985 PT essay arguesnthat because of an epidemic of “mentalnillness” affecting 40 million Ameri­nSuccessful Crimesn(continued from page 9)nafter experience and common sense had discredited muchnof their theoretical assumptions.nWhat does any or all of this have to do with compensatingnthe victims of violent crimes? Very simply this: we haventurned over our most ancient and fundamental humannprivilege—self-defense—to a loosely organized conspiracynof experts and professionals who refuse to make the commonndistinction between normal and abnormal, right andnwrong. Now that the “professionals” have demonstratedntheir utter incapacity to control the criminal classes, we arenready to surrender to them even more power, the power tonmake restitution. We do this, we say, out of compassion. Ifnwe really wanted to prevent lunatic killers like DavidnBerkowitz or Charles Manson from capitalizing on theirnbrutality, we would have done to them what any othernsociety in the history of the world would have done: executenthem. If we really cared about the sufferings of innocentncans (just how many registered Republicansnare there?), “prevention” is thenonly cure, achieved “through guaranteednemployment,” through “assertivenessntraining,” and through “socialnchange” to help “women and minoritiesnof all kinds.”nJust how far politics as psychologyncan go was illustrated in 1971 whennthe president of the American PsychologicalnAssociation proposed that psychologistsnbe permitted to administernbehavior modification drugs to the nation’snelected and military leaders tonreverse their “nonadaptive primitivenaggression impulses.” PT was worriednthat this might lead to “manipulationnof the masses” and thought that “perhapsnthe country is not ready” for thatnyet. Not to worry, though, look hownfar PT had advanced political discussionnin just five years of publication.nAnother slightly premature idea putnforward in PT in 1973 was the proposalnthat parents be licensed to have childrennonly upon demonstrating a soundnunderstanding of “behavior development,”n”principles of reinforcement,”n”stimulus-control generalization,” andnother truths dispensed by psychologists.nNonlicensed couples would bensubject to “mandatory birth-control”:n”We can no longer afford the luxury ofnallowing any two fools to add to ournnumbers whenever they please.”nIn 1984, PT reported that the dreamnof licensing parents has now beennpartly realized, with psychologistsngaining authority in some states to actnas “gatekeepers” in matters of artificialninsemination, “turning away peoplenwho might not be good parents.” Innthe late 1970’s, psychologists in Ontarionsought to forbid “the practice ofnpsychology” to anyone without anPh.D. in psychology—with specialnexemptions allowed for governmentnsocial workers, teachers, and clergymennof main-line denominations. AnCanadian philosopher quoted in PTninterpreted this as an attempt to gainn”the status of a ‘state church’ in mattersnof the mind.”nAt first glance, it might appear thatnpsychologists’ repudiation of all extantnsocial order and communal normsnstands in contradiction to their questnfor political and cultural power. Butnit’s a trick at least as old as Hobbesn(himself an important psychologicalntheorist): first, find or create a state ofnanarchy, confusion, or “mental illness”;nthen, set up the absolute monarchynneeded to establish order. Behindnall of PT’s heated attacks on “confidencenin the superiority of modernnWestern man” as “a translation of thenCold War spirit into psychologicalnterms,” there lurks an unacknowledgednattraction to the totalitarians ofnChina and the Soviet Union. And whynnot? Not only were Mao and Stalinnstaunch defenders of the completenplasticity of human nature, they werenpast masters of group therapy. (BC) ccnpeople in America, we would not for one moment considernturning loose the swarm of rapists, child molestors, andnarmed robbers who infest our city streets. There is a particlenof truth in the Marquis of Halifax’s observation that, “Mennare not hang’d for stealing horses, but that horses may notnbe stolen,” although it is dangerous to base execution solelynon deterrence—as opposed to punishment. But Halifaxnredeems his reputation for political wisdom by going on tonadd, “Whenever a knave is not punished, an honest man isnlaughed at.” For every murderer we execute, we save annestimated eight lives—the sum of his potential victims plusnmurders deterred by execution. The number would probablyngo much higher for rapists. Our continued refusal to donthe right thing can only be the result of cowardice and ancallous indifference to what happens to the victims ofncrime. By turning over the entire business to criminologists,nsocial workers, and psychologists, we think we have dischargednour responsibility, when all we have actually donenis wash our hands. No amount of restitution or professionalncounseling will be enough to purge our collective guilt.n—Thomas FlemingnnnMARCH 1986 / 51n