Recovered Memories
Feldman-Summers, S., & Pope, K. S. (1994). The experience of "forgetting" childhood abuse: A national survey of psychologists. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 636-639.
Abstract: "A national sample of psychologists were asked whether they had been abused as children and, if so, whether they had ever forgotten some or all of the abuse. Almost a quarter of the sample (23.9%) reported childhood abuse, and of those, approximately 40% reported a period of forgetting some or all of the abuse. The major findings were that (a) both sexual and nonsexual abuse were subject to periods of forgetting; (b) the most frequently reported factor related to recall was being in therapy; (c) approximately one half of those who reported forgetting also reported corroboration of the abuse; and (d) reported forgetting was not related to gender or age of the respondent but was related to severity of the abuse."
This passes for scientific research? It is taken from http://www.jimhopper.com/memory/#bc
A website dedicated to "proving" that memories of traumatic childhood experiences can be recovered. The above is an example of what the author calls "scientific" proof.
If you believe that there is scientific evidence in support of "recovered" memories, you ought to read this paragraph very, very carefully. This is what is passed off as "scientific" proof. A poll of psychologists asking them if they had been abused as children and then if they had repressed the memories of it. In other words, can you "remember" being abused as a child, and did you lose the memory of it. In other words:
Do you have faith in God above?
If the bible tells you so.
Now, the writers of this hoax are dimly aware of the issue here, so they ask how many of these psychologists who remember that they didn't remember they were sexually abused "recovered" their memories in therapy? And how many now claim that they can corroborate the abuse? This article doesn't detail the nature of "corroboration", but we can imagine. Well, we can, but we shouldn't, I suppose. By "corroboration", they could mean... well, what could they mean? Other than some kind of confirmation from a non-witness-- since the abuse is almost never witnessed-- or by someone else who was also abused by the same person. There is no record of anyone producing any kind of physical evidence in support of the recovered memories. They would argue that it's the nature of the crime-- there never is physical evidence. There are just these long-suppressed memories.
The fact that 56% of these people "recovered" their memories in therapy, of course, is highly suspect. First of all, we're dealing with psychologists here. These are people who already have faith, presumably, in psychology, and the various beliefs, structures, and assumptions common to the practise of psychology. In other words, that there is such a thing as an unconscious, and a location for things that are repressed, and such a thing as repression. It's like asking someone if they believe in angels. If they say yes, you proceed to ask them if they have ever met one. I'll bet 25% of that group have, in one form or another. An angel, for example, saved me from a serious car accident by waking up when I was falling asleep on the freeway. That may sound strange to you, but a lot of people out there believe that such things really happen.
So a lot of psychologists, in therapy-- with a psychologist, presumably-- are led to "recover" memories of abuse which, apparently, they had repressed. So how do they know these memories are valid?
The study looks at corroboration, which consists of:
people who knew about the abuse confirmed it
someone else reported abuse by the same perpetrator (if you know someone who was robbed, does that mean that the robber probably robbed you as well?)
The abusers acknowledged some or all of the abuse. (I'd like to hear that conversation.)
Not very scientific, of course.
Not very scientific, of course. You just have to have a lot of questions about a person who "knew" about the abuse confirming it. How did they know? What did they really know? What kind of conversation led to this disclosure?
On to another facet:
"Just as technology evolves, social consciousness and hence the definition of academic freedom is evolving. And this is coming about as people, particularly members of less powerful groups, speak. Dr. Jill Vickers, a Professor at Carlton, for example, recently "urged CAUT to come to grips with and to understand how the principles of academic freedom and institutional authority, ideas that legitimize the university, can also be used to perpetuate the status quo and sustain those who are more powerful and privileged - in most cases while males" (Riseborough, 1993). Along similar lines, UNESCO is currently reviewing an international proposal regarding academic freedom (International Conference of University Teachers' Organizations, 1993). The text of this proposal makes it clear that there can be no academic freedom without social responsibility"
by Connie M. Kristiansen, Carleton University, Newsletter of the Section on Women and Psychology, Vol 20, No 2, page 7-16.
Read that chilling line again: "There can be no academic freedom without social responsibility". Sound like an old communist plot? It's a feminist plot, however, aimed at those would deny "recovered".
It's idiotic, to be blunt. Free inquiry should be suppressed in the name of a greater social good, which is, to be able to expose the institutionalized oppression of women that is so pervasive and encompassing that women are justified in suppressing freedom of speech in order to fight it.
If I have to explain why that's a bad idea, I'd have to admit that our society is hopelessly ignorant about the fundamental basis of freedom, democracy, and human rights. It probably is.
And if radical feminists are so stupid as to believe that this very weapon, the suppression of free and open discussion and deliberation, is not sure to be turned and used against them in the future, as it has been in the past, then they are greater fools than even I imagined.
Copyright © 2001 Bill Van Dyk All rights reserved.
