A recent column by George Will is one more example of something we’re seeing aplenty: poor reasoning plus gross intellectual dishonesty, amounting to a ‘they went thataway’ diagnosis that drives our national conversation in harebrained directions.
In this case, Will helps sound the alarm on the “menace” of humanistic psychology.
Yes, that menace. I know how worried you were about that.
Will spends this column selling One Nation Under Therapy: How the Helping Culture Is Eroding Self-Reliance by Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel, both of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
This the same Christina Hoff Sommers, whose two prior books were soundly debunked by nonpartisan objective analysts as “deeply flawed”… ”distorting scholarly evidence to build up strawmen”… “inexcusably misleading.” As for this new book, Library Journal sums it up this way: “Despite 80 pages of notes, this book can only be recommended as an example of how not to present social science research.”
And Will had to recognize as much – the guy went to Oxford – and yet, he sells out his column inches as a bullhorn to this “suck-it-up polemic”, which he ennobles as
a summons to the sensible worry that national enfeeblement must result when therapism replaces the virtues on which the republic was founded - stoicism, self-reliance and courage.
And, oh yes, he offers oodles of proof:
The sensitivity police favor teaching what Sommers and Satel call "no-fault history." Hence California's Department of Education stipulating that when "ethnic or cultural groups are portrayed, portrayals must not depict differences in customs or lifestyles as undesirable" - slavery? segregation? anti-Semitism? cannibalism? - "and must not reflect adversely on such differences."
Well, I live in California, so I called the friendly folks at the California Department of Education and guess what: Not true. In fact, California standards are highly rated for pure accuracy.
More proof:
Because children are considered terribly vulnerable and fragile, playground games like dodge ball are being replaced by anxiety-reducing and self-esteem-enhancing games of tag where nobody is ever "out."
I remember dodge ball. My personal take on dodge ball: Not Fun. That ball can really sting, which – in case you’ve forgotten - brings out the worst in a fairly large subset of playground urchins. As for tag, well if you’re always in the game, that’s got to be better for your cardio-vascular system. And come on, if there were actually a significant movement afoot to keep kids from experiencing “out”, we wouldn’t have softball or baseball or spelling bees or…
Proof 3:
In 2001 the Girl Scouts, illustrating what Sommers and Satel say is the assumption that children are "combustible bundles of frayed nerves," introduced, for girls 8 to 11, a "Stress Less Badge" adorned with an embroidered hammock. It can be earned by practicing "focused breathing," keeping a "feelings diary," burning scented candles and exchanging foot massages.
Really? Then I suppose the “wave the flag” badge “illustrates the assumption” that Brownies are prone to anarchy. And the “cooking with sun” badge “illustrates the assumption” that little girls have had their power turned off. Badges are activity projects for mastering a huge range of skills. As an adult, which skill are you more likely to need: Managing your stress level? Or making a fire by rubbing two sticks together? For that matter, which of those skills do you want the person in the cubicle next to you to have?
I could go on and on and on. Because of eleven paragraphs in Will’s column, ten are marred by faulty argument, overstatement, misrepresentation, a skewed list of "virtues" central to our founding (After all, if he were to mention the pursuit of happiness, it might lend credence to the search for responsible self-knowledge at the heart of therapy), just plain bad faith, and excessive “scare quotes" around words – "caregiving"… "caring professionals" – that deserve better. As for the eleventh paragraph - it’s… wait for it… a swipe at Jane Fonda! Sadly, this “illustrates my assumption” that Mr. Will lacks the “reticence and suppression of feelings” that he calls “healthy.”
Now, here’s the thing: In and around this pile of AEI hooey, there are some distant cousins of truth. For instance, as a college teacher, I ran into many, many students who had no idea how ignorant and ill-adept they were because grade inflation had convinced them they were “B” students. A bunch of non-critical-thinking dummies waving their college degrees at us could, in fact, “enfeeble” our nation. Are distorted notions of self-esteem one aspect of what is surely a complicated set of pressures infecting grading standards? Is it true that a growing percentage of today’s parents are inclined to hyper-vigilance when it comes to their children? If so, why do they feel threatened? What can we do to bring this into balance? These are things worth talking about. But it has to be an honest exploration – not the kind of BS Sommers, Satel, and Will are peddling.
But there’s a bigger question: What makes all three of them stoop so low?
We’ve got a lot of serious fixing to do. This kind of garbage can’t get us there.
Mr. Will, here's a "sensible worry" for you: that national enfeeblement must result when propaganda replaces ethical analysis.
