Oftentimes
clinical psychologists and mental health counselors like myself shy away from
political issues and public advocacy. We
often define our work as a-political and even sometimes as morally non-judgmental
especially in relation to political controversy. Phillip Rieff, in his influential and
insightful work, The Triumph of the Therapeutic suggested that it was Freud
who introduced to the modern world the basic ideals of a therapeutic culture
that avoids moral judgment, is largely anti-institutional, and retreats from
public life. Rieff suggests that Freud’s
pessimism about social progress and his emphasis upon exploring the
intra-psychic life appeals to modern persons who seek to retreat from the larger
questions of social and political life and prefer to enjoy an expansion of
their personal freedom and private interests. The fact is, in addition to
functioning as therapists, psychologists are also citizens, parents, consumers
and some are even church-going believers.
To avoid the issues arising from these roles is quite impossible—to
remain silent and seek to remain merely private in one’s work and cultural life
is itself a political stance. Of course
many psychotherapists have recognized the social and cultural origins of the
mental health problems afflicting the client they see in their practice. However the largely individualistic approach
remains the dominant model for psychotherapy.
Public approaches to mental health do not focus on social or cultural
change. Mental health institutions manage
individuals largely through medication and confinement of persons who pose a
danger to themselves or others.
Due to
the widespread acceptance of the non-political, non judgmental, individualistic
focus of psychotherapy it is difficult and sometimes awkward for psychologists
and counselors to take public positions on social and political issues. It seems inappropriate to one’s professional
identity and doing so may be detrimental to one’s ability to attract clients. In
this post, I am crossing the threshold into the public domain at the risk of stirring
up a part of American culture that increasingly has taken on a religious
aura. I am talking about the sport of
tackle football. The Superbowl games of
recent years have taken on the character of a “holy day” or holiday for many
Americans. Football games in many
college and universities are festivals and grand events attended by hundreds of
thousands each year. Football is played
in high school and can begin as early as elementary school for some. Football has become America’s game displacing
baseball. While baseball may be
America’s pastime, football has become its passion.
Leaving
the religious elements of football aside, the dark side of the game in terms of
its dangers and long-term destructive effects upon the players has become a
growing public issue. Once just a quiet
whisper confined to training rooms, the players themselves have finally begun
to speak up and take action. In several
high-profile cases their voices has come from the barrel of a gun while others
have turned to the courts. Some 3,500
former NFL players are suing the league for damages resulting from football
injuries. It has taken suicides and lawsuits
for the public to begin to reflect on the nature of the game itself. What sport, other than boxing, is essentially
focused on aggressive contact with opponents? The sport is brutal and glorifies
violence. The New Orleans Saints were
recently punished by the NFL when it became apparent that players were being
encouraged and rewarded for intentionally injuring other players. While the “Saints” behavior was extreme it
exposed a mentality that has been part of the league and part of the culture of
football for many decades. Football
players “put the hurt” on their opponents and the more aggressive, the
better. If this approach merely
resulted in busted knees and broken ankles it would be perhaps tolerable, but
recent research has given clear evidence of significant short-term and long
term cognitive and emotional dysfunction resulting from playing tackle
football. The cognitive deficits appear
not only when concussive injuries occur, but increasingly evidence points
toward negative cognitive effects upon players from just one football season in
which no apparent concussive injuries were reported. The long-term effects are even more
devastating resulting in higher incidence of Parkinson’s disease, major
depression, dementia and Alzheimer’s among football players. These medical effects are often associated
with other psychological and interpersonal dysfunction—domestic violence,
alcoholism and other forms of violent behavior.
Efforts to respond these issues from the NFL all the way down to high
school football have included greater attention to concussions, lighter
practices, penalties for grossly intentional and dangerous tackling, etc. along
with well-funded public relations advertising highlighting how concerned the
football establishment is about protecting players. However,
the fact remains that the risks now evident from playing football are endemic
to the game itself and unavoidable given the nature of tackle football. It is what makes the game what it is--attractive
and exciting to play and to watch.
Because of this evidence I have begun to publically call for
a ban upon tackle football. Given what
we now know, I counsel any parent concerned about the health of their children
to boycott football for their kids and at their schools. Based
upon the research, I believe it to be a public responsibility for colleges and
universities to terminate their tackle football programs. And because I am a Christian psychologist I
especially call on Christian institutions of higher learning to cease
participation in a sport that poses such great risk to their students and
offers up a set of values so contrary to a life of peace and good
sportsmanship.
