On Sun, 4 May 1997, Juan Carlos Garelli wrote:

> In a message dated  4 May 97 at 14:07, Matthew Levy says:
>
>  >         There has been much discussion on  this list recently on
>  >         the
>  > related issues of political psychopathology and childcare.  Much of
>  > this seems to be prompted by Dr. Garelli's original comment that
>  > many of our political problems are attributable to the pathological
>  > character of politicians, and the suggestion that we can do away
>  > with such problems  by having mental health care professionals
>  > monitor our elected (or unelected) officials, and by introducing
>  > new methods of childrearing.
>
> I never said such a thing. Moreover, I asserted that current
> political sociopaths are irredeemable, and that nothing can be done
> to redress this situation.
>
> What I did say is that there are ways to early detection of
> psychopathic and sociopathic tendencies in infants and preschoolers
> and that psychiatric intervention in those cases might prevent
> anti-social developments.
>
> It couldn't be further from the truth to assert I ever mentioned
> introducing new methods of childrearing. I only talked about
> enhancing maternal care in a frivolous world where children are
> reared by maids and au pair girls.
>
> If this is the biased, foul way the work of Attachment Theorists is
> going to be construed, I will refrain from posting anything else on
> the issue in future.
>
> Juan Carlos Garelli, M.D., Ph.D.
> Department of Early Development
> Attachment Research Center
> University of Buenos Aires


Now hang on a second before you fly off the handle.  I may have made
mistakes in attributing certain comments to you which were made by others,
as the intricate weave of responses to responses  to responses can on
occasion become confusing with regards to who said what.  If so I
apologize, for such misattribution was unintentional.

        However, your response seems confusing to me in several respects.
You do not seem to actually dispute the substance of my remarks, rather
you seem to be annoyed by the "spin" or  tone which I gave to them.  Yes,
the way I have presented "attachment theory" is biased ... I am openly
hostile to much of the work that is done in this and
other post-psychoanalytic fields,  and never claimed not to be.  I have a
right to be critical, and I have a right to make postings to a list such
as this suggesting that such research and such theories are not the
end-all be-all of psychological investigation, and furthermore  to
suggest that they  are incompatible with what I see as the general moral
and  ethical framework  of Chomsky's psychology and politics.  If you
think I am wrong, then  it behooves you to tell me specifically WHY I am
wrong, rather  than simply calling my comments  "foul" and refusing to
have  a discussion.

        I  don't know  how  to construe the proposition that psychiatrists
can monitor and "intervene" in the anti-social development of children
other than as a call for monitoring of social norms by a  professional
elite, and I don't know how  to understand the general connection  you
have made between sociopathology and  political  corruption other than  as
the suggestion that the way  to  reform politics is through curing the
mental illness  of its  individual members.  Furthermore, I don't know
what exactly you mean by "enhancing maternal care",  other than a general
suggestion that you as a mental health expert have some special  insight
into childrearing that is not held by the general public.  I suppose it
was careless and sloppy of me to accuse  you of "introducing" new  ideas;
I now understand more  clearly that you want to simply "return" to
"natural" childrearing, where birth mothers (or fathers) take  care of
their  children instead of the current "frivolous" state of affairs which
is dominated by maids and au pair girls (though "in whose social class?"
would be a good  question to ask here).  I think your motives in such an
assertion are probably well-founded, but you should think about the larger
discursive context of what you say ... Rousseau, for instance, was a great
proponent,  for essentially admirable philosophical and psychological
reasons, of the idea that breastfeeding by one's biological mother would
cure many of the ills of society ... an idea which had a profound
influence on childrearing practices in France and elsewhere and led to a
variety of odious ideas about the "place" of women which can be found in
fascist propaganda  and  modern-day "family-values" rhetoric, among other
places.  Please understand that I am not making unfounded accusations
about the motivations of your statements ... I believe you are genuinely
good-hearted and really care about improving the health of our society.
What  I am asking you to consider is the possible effects of your
statements  ... I still maintain that if we  think through the
psychological position that you espouse, we will arrive at an essentially
(though subtlely) undemocratic attitude where reified social norms about
what is "healthy" and "unhealthy" are defended by an entrenched
professional elite which justifies itself through "science" and dismisses
outside criticism.  I eagerly and vociferously encourage you to prove me
wrong.

peace,
m@2