I Can’t Keep Calm because of Sociology!

Abstract

On April, 19, 2020, Peter Philippson posted Umair Haque’s (2020) article, “Dead and Free: The New American Dream,” on the Association for the Advancement of Gestalt Therapy (AAGT) listserv. I followed this heavily discussed thread, which has inspired this reflection. I argue that AAGT membership and the Gestalt community generally could learn much from this extended discussion. For over a week, AAGT membership debated a sociocultural phenomenon of “America under Trumpism.” Their comments and responses say much about individual and collective process.In this reflection, I offer my perspectives as both an individual and a sociologist regarding this issue. I cannot separate my humanity from my sociology training; they are unavoidably intertwined, especially on this topic. Here are excerpts from the listserve thread:At first, I got “caught up” in the content of the discussion rather than in Haque’s article itself. Then I did what I usually do: I easily turned on my sociological eye so as to withdraw and not to be in the process I intended to critique. I remembered the highly emotional book, The Rage and the Pride, written by Oriana Fallaci (2002) after September 11th; and what I had then considered a counterbalance to it, Orientalism, which Edward Said (1979) had written two decades earlier. Speaking from two different voices, these books represent a discourse of racism (The Rage and the Pride) and anti-racism (Orientalism). However different they may seem at first blush, both books have racist undertones. That which is explicit in Fallaci is implicit in Said. The process of deconstruction and demystification in Orientalism bears the same trace as racist language in The Rage and the Pride. These books make clear-cut distinctions between people: in the former, they consider themselves those who enlighten others about how the world really operates; they literally exclude the mad and ignorant, as they call the racists. There is no tolerance for diversity here either; the dictates of truth and reason rule. Overall, the bifurcation at the discursive level of argumentation of the racist and anti-racist persists (Taguieff 2001).Having built upon that, I was aware as a sociologist that there are conversation mechanisms that play a role in public discourse (Czyżewski, Kowalski, and Piotrowski 1997). Different sides may aim at dialogue, but what is present is either ceremony (a fake agreement) or ritual chaos (a fake conflict). And such “ceremony” or “ritual chaos” is disguised through rhetoric and style.I was, for the above reasons, angry that people were too focused on content (defending the country) as opposed to process (evaluating and understanding the discourse/argument/rhetoric); I was angry that they did not engage in what constitutes a sociocultural argument. I began slowly understanding that I myself fell prey to the described mechanisms.Within the next days my approach changed, and I actually started to respect the discomfort some people felt, honoring their resistance. Here in Europe in the leftist academic circles, we do nothing but deconstruct and tend to see things from a wider perspective—up to the point where it becomes exhaustive and unproductive. No one would risk making it personal by expressing one's own emotions, as such emotionality might contradict intellectual reflection.I can’t keep calm because of sociology; at the same time though, I realize how important is to balance between critical thinking (from a Gestalt perspective: withdrawing) and responding to a situation (Parlett 2016). There needs to be room for both, analytic and emotional response, and the idea that this process of creative adjustment never ends.