Print

---

Thanks for all of these constructive comments. I would just add that some people who do have psychology credentials actively choose not to join BPS due to ethical concerns unrelated to CP and the issues previously discussed on this list. For example, I know multiple psychologists- in CP and other fields- who will not join BPS due to their failure to vocalise a clear and unequivocal condemnation of the participation of psychologists in torture interrogations violating the Geneva Convention. There are many who do not join APA for similar reasons. As it has been explained to me and discussed on various human rights web sites, some of which have been linked in previous posts on this list, the idea of joining an organisation that enforces 'ethical codes of conduct' while failing to live up to them in crucial ways is morally repugnant to some people within and outside of CP.

 

I bring this up NOT to hinder the constructive process of establishing a CP section in BPS, but to point out that even some very enfranchised members of this list may need to be considered in discussions about how to 'reduce even if not eliminate  any  social exclusion  from the BPS or from the section' (quoting Annie Mitchell's excellent post). In this case, the exclusion or disenfranchisement we would need to consider in our efforts toward inclusion would be of a political nature. I would like to echo the sentiments of those who stressed the importance of keeping voices and perspectives that might be considered 'radical' to a mainstream BPS audience (CP or not) in the figurative 'room'.

 

David Fryer's helpful and insightful post made me think that perhaps each group should have a few overlapping members as liaisons/representatives/ambassadors, but that this overlap should be structured to avoid dual members constituting the majority of the BPS section or the CP collective.

 

Gavi