Tuesday, November 15, 2016
To the PhD Program Community,
I write to you at the one-week anniversary of that fateful
day last Tuesday that revealed, simultaneously, so much and so little about our
country and its people. Emotions are high and tension abounds. Walking through
Union Square in NYC on Sunday and witnessing the outpouring of pain and anger,
I could not help but also think about the millions of others across the country
who feel the exact opposite – joy and relief.
The stunning election result has illuminated how polarized this country
is, and how much work there is to do. Although there is much to be said about
politics and our political system, I’d like to focus briefly on our role as
clinical psychologists and mental health providers.
Intense emotion, including an urge to act in an unthinking
manner, is a hallmark of conflict. Although
there may be an impulse to do something, acts of overt destruction and
bias – whether motivated by racial, sexual or nationalist beliefs – are
completely unacceptable. I believe most would agree with this, and most would
not take the President-elect’s campaign statements as permission to act
irresponsibly. Unfortunately, the few
who do feel permission to act create a toxic environment that fuels fear and
division. We must not allow this to happen.
As clinical psychologists we are in a delicate situation
when working with our clients, teaching, or speaking publicly about these
issues, in that we know that such intense emotion often reflects deep conflict.
Feelings of helplessness, apprehension, and fear -- felt now by those who
supported Clinton -- are arguably the same feelings that those who
supported Trump have had, in past years. The same feelings, but with figure and ground reversed.
In a recent meeting with a group of (mostly undocumented)
men in a clinical workshop, I heard several describe how they simply cannot
discuss politics with one group member whose views differ from theirs, because
things would get too heated. Instead, they simply try to avoid the hot topic
and keep conversation light. This attitude is quite common in families and among
friends, and can indeed help to keep a temporary peace, especially at the
dinner table.
Yet as psychologists and psychotherapists, we know that active
suppression has its limits. Eventually, what’s suppressed emerges into clear
view, sometimes quite vividly and destructively. Our challenge, then, is to find ways to
address conflict and to avoid using suppression as a way of coping. Can we help
ourselves -- and others -- enter into constructive and civil dialogue? Can we listen to another’s radically
different perspective without taking on an opposing, radical view? Intense emotion is not necessarily bad or
destructive – it depends on whether we can acknowledge the underlying conflict
and whether we can work through it peaceably, in a safe environment.
With hope for a constructive future,
Prof. Philip S. Wong
Director, PhD Program
