letters

I WAS VERY PLEASED TO SEE the April article 'Psychology just north of the Arctic Circle.' Such articles are essential to broaden our horizons, expose us to different ways of life and help us examine our thinking, norms and habits. I commend the editors for this effort and encourage them to include more international features and reports in the future.

It has been my observation, as a Lebanese-American psychologist, that in most American societies there is a strong tendency for people to be independent, self-sufficient and completely autonomous. Though America enjoys great benefits and fine positive qualities, in my opinion, there is a disturbing phenomenon, rapidly growing, which I call 'the psychosocial epidemic of individualism.' It is manifested by the increasing emphasis on personal privacy, autonomy and boundaries. These notions are glorified to the degree that they are becoming well established as social norms and moral virtues and, consequently, are shaping our academic disciplines and psychotherapeutic approaches.

However, practicing in this country made me keenly aware of the degree of isolation, deprivation, alienation and discon-nectivity among people currently present. The United States is so large and so removed from other parts of the world that it may become easily self-absorbed or self-contained. Some of the American psychosocial patterns can, with time, be skewed and will need correction. Exposures to other psychologies and societies can help the American psychology compare patterns or phenomena, gain a clearer perspective on life and evaluate its own thinking, emphases and approaches.

Naji Abi-Hashem, PhD
Seattle

Children and sign language

THE FOLLOWING QUOTE appeared in the April article 'Sign language helping deaf children learn English': 'Some people think it?s tantamount to child abuse not to provide these children with ASL training.'

ASL is the only language to which deaf children have full and complete access. ASL is the natural language of deaf people. Forcing deaf children to use oralism, total communication or non-ASL signing to communicate deprives them of a full and complete language. Depriving deaf children of a full and complete language is not 'tantamount to child abuse.' Depriving deaf children of a full and complete language is child abuse.

You can learn more about the abuse of deaf children from my web page at: http://members.aol.com/scarter11/gdc.htm\cf1\ulnone.

Brice Alden
Simi Valley, Calif.

AS A RESEARCH PSYCHOLOGIST and the parent of a profoundly hearing-impaired child, I was saddened by the message conveyed in the April 1998 Monitor article on sign language. The conveyed message is that the sign of choice for learning English is American Sign Language (ASL). Put simply, the literature quoted in the article does not support that conclusion, and an entire body of literature on the impact of English-based sign for learning English was totally ignored.

Four sign language systems are actively used in the United States?ASL, Signed English, Pidgin Signed English and Signing Exact English (SEE). Although the other three languages all contain the word 'English,' only SEE is a grammatically correct, complete English language system. In SEE, signs are expressed in exact English word order and include all English syntax including verb tense and grammatical morphemes. The article?s early premise that 'Until recently, ideas about how best to teach language to deaf children were based more on strong feelings than science' totally ignores the seminal research of Luetke-Stahlman, Moeller and others that showed dramatic advantages in learning to converse in and read English among children taught SEE, compared to those taught other systems. Peter Paul, in his 1996 Volta Review, concluded that conversational English must be used and expected from children with severe to profound hearing impairments, if achieving English literacy is the goal. My deaf son?s first language was SEE and he is reading at the college level, winning spelling bees and writing and speaking grammatically correct English. He?s 10.

Larry D. Rosen, PhD
Orange, Calif.

Disapproving Starr

THE ?NEWSLINE? ARTICLE BY Scott Sleek (May Monitor) is a reminder that political implications are present in what may seem like pure research. Mr. Sleek reported that research by John J. Skowronski et al., may have uncovered a reason for the public scorn of independent counsel Kenneth Starr. His high disapproval rating is based upon 'spontaneous trait transference,' meaning the tendency of people like Mr. Starr, who is investigating wrongdoing in others, to be perceived as dishonest themselves. That is an interesting point. The research concludes with the questionable statement that such a perception of Starr is irrational, implying that those criticizing Starr are irrational. That study explains away, rather than explains, Mr. Starr?s disapproval. The negative reception of his work and procedures by the majority of people can be seen as an example of folk wisdom, and not necessarily irrational. After all, those who condemned Hitler and the Nazis were not themselves sadists. Coming closer to Mr. Starr, the independent counsels Archibald Cox and Leon Jawarski investigated President Nixon for wrongdoing. They were not seen as practicing wrongdoing themselves. The public may perceive that there is an underlying and not-so-unconscious agenda operating in independent counsel Starr, which he appears to deny or tries to conceal. I am heartened, therefore, at the possibility that the 'trait transference' (also known as projection and projective identification) is recognized for what it is by the American people.

Joseph Richman, PhD
City Island, N.Y.

Couples and violence

I WAS PLEASED TO SEE THE article 'Sorting out the reasons couples turn violent,' in the April Monitor. As a researcher in the politically charged field of domestic violence, I found the material presented both fair and comprehensive. Readers should be aware of the fact that three large-scale national surveys conducted in 1975, 1985 and 1992 have revealed that women are as likely as men to be physically aggressive in marital relationships. I myself have recently published an annotated bibliography (see Sexuality & Culture, 1997, Vol. 1, p. 273-286) that examines 85 scholarly investigations demonstrating equal rates of couple violence. What is of particular concern is the apparent trend indicating that physical assaults by men are decreasing while assaults by women are increasing. I also, along with my colleague, Denise Gonzalez, recently published a paper (see Psychological Report, 1997, 80, p. 583?590) which surveyed 978 college women and found that, within a five-year period, 29 percent admitted to initiating physical aggression toward their male partners. The most frequent reasons given for such action was the desire to engage their partners? emotional attention along with the belief that their male victims would not be injured and would not retaliate.

Martin S. Fiebert, PhD
Long Beach, Calif.

Feedback on the ?President?s column?

THANK YOU MOST SINCERELY for the April 'President?s column.' Dr. Seligman has identified one of the most pernicious influences undermining psychology?both as a science and as a field of practice?the narrow conception of human motivation as being only a deficit process.

Abraham Maslow, himself once APA president, tried to restore more balance in this dimension with his conception of 'being motivation and growth motivation.' While Maslow?s work is still widely praised, this very fundamental element of his view is too often ignored. It is time?and past?to reclaim this crucially important recognition.

The problem arises from our need to account for the activity of a subject (human or 'lower' animal). 'Why does he/she/it do what it/she/he does?' Deficit has been the chief fallback answer on which we have relied. Maslow demonstrated and urged that there is a function satisfaction or pleasure in the use of our capabilities, in other words a positive reward sufficient in itself to account for the observed 'behavior.'

A psychology captive to deficit explanations is a handicapped discipline. Opening our thinking and our studies to being motivation encourages fresh explorations?and ones that will bring new vigor to our work in all its forms.

I salute your courage and vision in reminding us of the limitation of vision that afflicts too much of our perspective.

James F.T. Bugental, PhD
Novato, Calif.

PRESIDENT SELIGMAN?S admirable column, 'Ethnopol-itical warfare,' calls for psychologists? involvement in the effort to understand and prevent such warfare and aid its victims. Especially noteworthy is that, going beyond declarations, he and Peter Suedfeld have acted to spur involvement.

I take issue, however, with their view that 'the warfare we?ll face in the next century will be ethnic.' To be sure, there will be ethnic warfare, but there are reasons to expect that the major violent conflicts will be class-based. True, there is a great overlap between ethnicity and class: In Northern Ireland and the Mid-East, the Catholics and the Palestinians are lower-income populations compared with their respective adversaries. However, in nations with more homogeneous populations (France, Germany), where unemployment is double-digit and global competition may lead to severe cuts in social supports, the strains between haves and have-nots are ominous. Let us recall the Germany of the 1920s.

Economic inequality in Latin America is considerable, in part because the IMF requires steep currency devaluations or cuts in assistance to the poor. In Mexico, between 1984 and 1994, household incomes of the lowest four deciles declined 15 percent while the top decile increased 20 percent. Chiapas, and South American guerrillas, are not accidents of history. Our own country is not immune. With weakened labor unions, industrial workers? wages remained almost static for 20 years as upper-income groups prospered.

While we appropriately attend to unanticipated ethnic warfare, it would be wise to prepare for, and perhaps help prevent, future social-class as well as ethnic wars.

Milton Schwebel
Professor Emeritus
Editor, Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

APA IS SO FORTUNATE TO have Martin E.P. Seligman as its president. The columns he has written for the last two issues of the Monitor are exemplary. I especially like his insistence that we psychologists reinforce a client?s strengths, not weaknesses. I tell my clients that on my wall, in invisible ink, are the words 'so what.' Instead of wallowing in victimology, the question always is, 'What do you want to do now?' A child abused at 3 and still suffering at 50 is not helped by joining a group of other victims. What else can they do? Let?s research it. I am so excited that Dr. Seligman encourages research of strength, not weakness.

Joan C. Barth
Doylestown, Pa.

MARTIN SELIGMAN?S COLUMN in the May Monitor provides as lucid and correct distinction between 'efficacy' and 'effectiveness' as I?ve ever encountered in my 25 years of involvement in program evaluation and evaluation research. Usually 'efficacy' is directed to laboratory studies and 'effectiveness' to field studies, but Seligman?s demarcation between the two terms is more elegant and targeted to the intrinsic difference between those two terms. In Martin Seligman we have a primus inter pares colleague who not only provides political leadership for APA, but who also enhances the profession and science of psychology substantively as well?not only psychology but, I believe strongly, most of the other behavioral and social sciences.

Robert Perloff
Pittsburgh

Overtures to psychiatrists

A COLUMN IN A RECENT issue was severely critical of the withdrawal of the American Psychiatric Association from a joint electronic journal project shared with our own APA.

The article conveys the impression the psychiatrists? action was arbitrary and mean-spirited. I think it most important to understand that action within the context of the prevailing health-care climate and accompanying politics of self-interest, which reside in both organizations.

We are lobbying for the right to prescribe and, at the same time, making overtures to psychiatrists to participate with us in an electronic journal. Yet when our medical brethren attempt to take on the Goliath of managed care, which is clearly in our interest, we do not support them.

It is time to realize that strong public action, including joining the New York class-action lawsuit, is mandatory if we are to survive as a profession.

If APA continues to avoid an organizational endorsement of the action brought by the psychiatrists and social workers, can we reasonably expect any protections for us to flow from a victory?

If they prevail, we will be left to contend with the MCOs on our own and will be completely at their mercy. Even a result less than a complete victory will alert managed-care that we are not to be taken lightly, and legislative efforts on behalf of mental health professions will receive a substantial boost. We have significant political and legal muscle. Let us utilize it or face inevitable professional atrophy.

Richard Tomanelli, PhD
Greenwich, Conn.

All letters to the editor must be 250 words or fewer. Mail them to APA Monitor, 750 First St., N.E., Washington, DC 20002-4242.

The Monitor regrets it cannot run all the letters we receive.