introducing readers to writers since 1995
April 13, 2004
UK and US Centers of Lauren Slater Debate Converge
by Ron HoganAllen Esterson, one of Lauren Slater's most vocal online critics in the UK (and no stranger to debates over psychology; see his 1993 volume on Freud, Seductive Mirage), catches up to her comments here at Beatrice:
With reference to Lauren Slater's self-vindication on this site, how does she square her saying that she set the record straight about Skinner's alleged mistreatment of his daughter with her remarks in her concluding chapter hinting at a hidden secret about Deborah:"I began this book in search of Deborah Skinner, the elusive, mythologized daughter of the twentieth century's most radical neobehaviorist, and I never found her. I'm sure she is alive, but I did not come up with any data that would convince me of her mental status. After years as her father's experimental subject, did she fare well? Did she thrive? Is she dented or damaged in some way? I don't know."
Good question--one which I openly invite Slater to answer here, if she's still reading the site.
In the meantime, I'll give you my take: she simply figured "I don't know" was a good enough answer, under the false impression that it created a dramatic air of mystery, couldn't be bothered to dig any further into the matter, and for some reason actually believes the paragraph above doesn't give the impression Deborah Skinner might be crazy. (Keep in mind there's all sorts of "connective tissue" I haven't read yet, though.)
Although, now that I think of it, this does raise an interesting ethical question. Is this sort of casual, offhand assessment of someone's mental condition, even given the degree of ambiguity clumsily maintained, appropriate for a therapist to engage in towards somebody who not only has never been her patient, but whom that therapist has never met? Personally, I don't think so, but I may be more stringent in such matters than many actual psychiatrists. But then I start thinking, well, gee, you're trying to suss out authorial intent, which is sort of like making assumptions about her mental state, so what does that make you, and then my head starts to hurt from the possible contradictions.
I have read everything on your site and the complete book by Lauren Slater (which I loved) and can't help but think you are missing the point. Is Slater's book supposed to be an exposé of the world of psychology or merely a frame to reexamine some commonly held beliefs, thoughts and myths in psychology? I believe it is the second.
As someone who has no formal psychology education (but a degree in Marketing and a Masters in Management lest you quibble with my intellect) after reading the book, I was left with the impression that Deborah Skinner was alive and that the myths about her, distract historical views of psychology about the value of her father's work. I believe Slater spelled this out.
This book is a marvelous vehicle to question our behavior and what we consider known about the human psychological condition.
Slater's supposed sloppy style makes the book very easy to read for those of us without formal training in psychology. I found it extremely engaging and enlightening. Who was the book written for? The intellectuals of the English language or those of use merely trying to make sense of ourselves?
Slater's reference to Loftus' bra strap is hardly the main contention of that chapter, nor is the theorist hiding under the chair the main crux of that chapter. For the criticisms to have weight, surely they must attack the more weighty issues that Slater's focuses on in her book to be valid.
The only questions I had at the conclusion of the book was how could I contact Lauren Slater to let her know how fantastic I thought the book was, and looking back at each chapter asking myself how it could apply to myself. I can’t help but feel frustrated that these critiques seem to be missing the point.
I am looking forward to Slater's next book.
Posted by: Danielle at April 22, 2004 05:02 PM"Slater's reference to Loftus' bra strap is hardly the main contention of that chapter, nor is the theorist hiding under the chair the main crux of that chapter. For the criticisms to have weight, surely they must attack the more weighty issues that Slater's focuses on in her book to be valid."
"The intellectuals of the English language" have a term for such reasoning. They call it bullshit. Alleged fabrications, even of minor details, do matter because they call the author's credibility into question. (And, of course, this attack on allegedly minor criticisms evades discussing the "major" criticisms raised about Slater's alleged recreations of certain psychological experiments, which hold what even you would call a central place in the text.) Are they the only reason Slater's a bad, bad writer? Of course not--but nobody has ever suggested they were.
Books about science can be written for general audiences without resorting to false melodrama or contrived ambiguity, and without succumbing to hackneyed sentence constructions. Lots of other people manage it all the time; perhaps while you're waiting for Slater's next book, you could pick up John Horgan's Rational Mysticism to see an example of somebody who pulled it off much better.
By the way, if you've truly read every word on this topic here, you'll have figured out how to get in touch with Slater. If not, maybe she'll contact you; somebody from her ISP keeps checking back to the site and running a search on her name to see if anything new's come up...
Posted by: editor at April 22, 2004 05:56 PMyour PayPal donation
can contribute towards its ongoing publication.
