I can’t remember how I found this 2020 article in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association; I think it came from a reader but have no record. (If you sent it to me, thanks–I think!). Here Donald Moss, a member of the faculty at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute, and—at least when this was published—Chair of the Program Committee, American Psychoanalytic Institute, seems to have discovered white racism, which he calls “Whiteness” with a capital “W”. He also sees it as parasitic (on the objects of racism) and chronic—persisitent and nearly impossible to get rid of. He gives no convincing evidence for the impossibility of eradicating it within people, but draws that conclusion case studies of two of his patients. (Freud, of course, used his interpretation of his cases to buttress his phony “science.”)
Psychoanalysis is, of course, pretty much quackery, and the closer it is to the Freudian version, the more quackish it is. I’m not sure if we can pin the obscurantism of Dr. Moss on Freud, who is cited twice, but the Viennese quack surely contributed. The whole article is an exercise in showing off, signaling virtue (Moss is white), and trying to couch a real phenomenon, describable in simple English wors, in psychoanalytic jargon, which makes Moss look professional but obscures his point to those lacking the argot.
Click on the screenshot to read it (I believe it’s free), or get the pdf here or through judicious inquiry. The reference is at the bottom.
But I don’t recommend that you read it unless you need some amusement (or horror). It will at least teach you what passes for “thought” among psychoanalists.
The paper’s abstract, which I’ve put below the title, pretty much sums up the thesis.
Moss gives two of his case studies of angry/neurotic racist patients from which he concludes that racism can never be eliminated in anyone. But the use of the term “Whiteness”, instead of “racism” (he doesn’t consider “Blackness” or “Hispanicness”), is designed to divide and anger people. For Moss distinguishes “Whiteness’ from being ethnically white itself (which Moss doesn’t see as a social construct). His distinction is below. Check out the second paragraph, which is only the beginning of a long and obscure screed, perhaps comprehensible only to his fellow quacks (remember, psychoanalysts are also M.D.s).
In what follows, I will capitalize Whiteness to signify Parasitic Whiteness— an acquired multidimensional condition: (1) a way of being, (2) a mode of identity, (3) a way of knowing and sorting the objects constituting one’s human surround. Whiteness should not be confused with lowercase whiteness, a commonly used signifier of racial identity.
Parasitic Whiteness infiltrates our drives early on. The infiltrated drive binds id-ego-superego into a singular entity, empowered to dismiss and override all forms of resistance. The drive apparatus of Whiteness divides the object world into two distinct zones. In one, the Whiteness infiltrated drive works in familiar ways—inhibited, checked, distorted, transformed—susceptible, that is, to standard neurotic deformations. In the other, however, none of this holds true. There the liberated drive goes rogue, unchecked and unlimited, inhibited by neither the protests of its objects nor the counterforces of its internal structures.
Here are a few quotes to give you the tenor of Moss’s theory, which is his. Like the rest of the article, it’s postmodern-ish twaddle:
Our merely unruly sexualities may exert a constant pressure to erotize the bodies and beings of strangers, transgressively aiming to defy the wall, to integrate those bodies and beings, to take them in. But the rogue sexualities of Parasitic Whiteness add to that. They negatively erotize nonwhite bodies and beings. These objects, now marked, are wanted still, but wanted not to be taken in but simply to be taken, not to be loved but to be hated. Holding these objects in place, inflicting pain on them—this sadism becomes the exquisite and economical solution to any apparent conflict between wanting and hating. Parasitic Whiteness further demeans its nonwhite bodies and beings by way of a naturalizing system of naming and classification. Once it has mapped and transformed its nonwhite objects into such a fixed taxonomical category, the rogue sexuality of Parasitic Whiteness can expand its aim. It permanently maps them as external/away, and from there, wherever that is, these objects are available for limitless use—limitless labor, of limitless kind.
What is the sweating analyst trying to say? That racism is a love/hate relationship based on “othering”. Well, I’m not sure how much love is in it, but hey, he’s a psychoanalyst!
Moss also seems to have discovered the notion of “verticality”, a complicated descriptor for “a hierarchy of worth”, as with white people feeling superior to blacks and blacks being made to feel inferior to whites. All it really means is “bigotry”, but this “verticality” meme, which sounds scholarly, appears over and over again, making the article look more original than it is. Below he also drags in Freud, making Moss Freud-adjacent and quackish:
When targeting individuals, Whiteness opportunistically attaches to any psychic structure that maps self and object vertically. These vertical planes are ubiquitous and as such provide an abundance of potential host receptors for Parasitic Whiteness. Six separate, yet intersecting, such planes should be kept in mind here. (1) The ego’s foundation in a vertical split—pleasure inside, pain outside; good subject here, bad object there. The original object, then, is the bad object, the demeaned one, below and threatening, of whom Freud writes: “the ego hates, abhors and pursues with intent to destroy” (1915, p. 138). (2) The subject-object world of the paranoid/schizoid position. The emerging subject here is in constant struggle to maintain itself against threats emerging from bad objects, to withstand them, and, finally, to fix and locate them elsewhere enough, below enough, to settle in, to keep going.2 (3) The subject-object world of narcissism, of grandiosity and diminishment, of the Master and the Slave, of the all and the nothing, the highest and the lowest. (4) The subject object world of perversion: of the user and the used, the person and the thing, the whole and the part, the owner and the owned, the dominator and the dominated. (5) The subject-object world of the oedipal triangle. . .
But I can’t go on. If you want to read it, go to the link or make a judicious inquiry for a pdf. One more obfuscation of the obvious: racism is a form of tribalism, so that you can find confidence and comfort in the bigotry of others: Here’s how he describes the tribalism of racism:
Along each of these vertical planes, subject-object relations are defined by power and grounded in the fantasy of sovereignty. And along each of these vertical planes, safety, satisfaction, and pleasure are necessarily fragile and contingent. Everything I have, everything I am, can be lost: my strength turned to abjection, my inclusion to exile, my calm to terror.
This vertical fragility makes us all susceptible to Parasitic Whiteness. Whiteness promises to turn anxious singularity into confident plurality; isolated frailty into collective might. Whiteness caresses its hosts with reassurances; never again, it can seem to murmur, will you have to be alone. An always strained and always jeopardized “I am” will necessarily be susceptible to this preformed dream of an always empowered “We are.”
At the end, Moss gives two (yes, just two) of his case studies tha—to him—demonstrate that racism cannot be eradicated from a person’s mind. (He of course concludes that from only one form of treatment: psychoanalysis.) If you want some fun, read the case about the “pink monkey.” And note that this is the totality of his clinical “evidence” (only four papers are cited, one by Freud).
After you hack your way through the logorrhea, do you find anything new here? I didn’t, but I’m not an adept in this quackery. (There are, by the way, horizontal planes, too, which house your confrères.) Below a picture of Moss, who is apparently white but not White.
There are of course racists in groups other than whites—though some would deny it. Had Moss written a similar article about them, it would not have been publishable, and he would have been attacked and then fired for racism.
The only popular media I could find about this execrable article was, of course, in the New York Post, which mistook Moss’s concept of “Whiteness” for ethnic whiteness, thereby implying that Moss is denigrating all white people. (In fact, he doesn’t say what fraction of white people are White.) But the paper does cite some pushback from other quacks. Click to read:
A few words from the Post:
The article sparked outrage online, including among other academics in the same field.
“How do my colleagues consider this scholarship? Anyone actuality take this seriously?” tweeted Pennsylvania-based clinical psychologist Dr. Philip Pellegrino. [JAC: that tweet no longer exists.]
Many others even doubted it was a real study until they confirmed that it was officially published.
“I was skeptical so I looked it up, and yeah this is real and now I want to throw my Psychology degree in the garbage,” one person tweeted. [JAC: that tweet no longer exists.]
“This racist vomit should be called out for what it is,” someone else wrote, saying, “This is the lowest and most dangerous form of racism masquerading as academic discourse. Shameful.”
I haven’t looked to see whether other psychoanalysts have criticized Moss’s article in journals, but it might be fun to watch all these loons squabbling with each other like cats in a laundry bag.
Moss, D. 2021. On having whiteness. J. Am. Psychoanalytic Assoc. 69:355-371.
23 thoughts on “Psychoanalysist + wokeness = lunacy + logorrhea”
You’ve probably forgotten (I know the feeling), but you previously discussed the Moss article in a post on June 11, 2021. But, the article is lunacy and worth taking a second look at.
Yes, I did forget; otherwise I wouldn’t have posted it again. So be it. I blame insomnia.
Hmm, interesting. Has Dr. Moss written any papers in English?
I found it hard to completely read his stuff, as it was so bat-shit made up. Sure, it is “postmodern-ish twaddle”, but somehow it also reads like the wordy proclamations of long-dead quack doctors from centuries ago, writing about the causes of psychiatric disorders.
I even commented on this before. Last time I said: “Genocidal thinking.” I think that’s still about sums it up. I will add, though, that the damning, demamatory description of “Whiteness” hardly seems clinical or scientific. Just more fodder for Two Minutes of Hate.
I can’t take it! How can someone believe this nonsense, and how can a journal editor publish it? One can only hope that it was a hoax (but it surely wasn’t). If not a hoax, let’s hope that the article fades quickly to obscurity, which it surely will—or has.
Bad news Prof. Coyne. Insomnia is absolutely incurable. My wife and I each tried coffee therapy and it failed.
In 1931 Nabokov wrote a satirical essay (“What Should Everybody Know?”) in which he pokes fun at the much-overrated man (still far too influential in certain circles) whom he mocks as the “Viennese Quack”.
He probably knows, but shouldn’t it bother him to no end that Freud was rather racist?
I don’t know what things were like when this guy got his MD at U of M back in the early 70’s (if it’s the right guy on the NY licensing site), but in the 90’s, everyone in medicine knew that psychoanalysis, in the Freudian sense, is not even pseudoscience, but full-on mystic snake oil (not to be mistaken for psychiatry or psychology or legitimate psychotherapy).
It’s quite telling (to me) that one of his only “credits” or references that I noted was the report of the standing ovation he received after some talk. I believe to the APSAA. It’s a bit like a preacher giving his credentials in the form of the fact that his congregation regularly calls “Amen” back when he preaches.
I had to look up “logorrhea.” I guessed it was something like “word diarrhea” – not far off.
I did too, and I was struck because as a kid, when I’d talk incessantly, my mother would say I had “diarrhea of the mouth”.
“In what follows, I will capitalize Whiteness to signify Parasitic Whiteness…. Whiteness should not be confused with lowercase whiteness, a commonly used signifier of racial identity.”
The author is being totally disingenuous. If he sincerely didn’t want Whiteness–which is indistinguishable from Racism–to be confused with whiteness–meaning white people–then why CALL it Whiteness? Why not just call it racism, and call it a day? The question is rhetorical, of course.
Another irony or note on this for me is that from what I’ve read online Donald Moss is Jewish. For a Jewish man to compare his political opponents/outgroup to vermin just shows how demented politics and political crusades can make people, and also how the Social Justice cult (and its malevolent and obviously hateful Whitness Studies wing) has warped people’s brains and souls and is transforming them into the exact kind of monster they claim to be fighting.
Exactly. Reminds me of nothing so much than early twentieth century tractates on the parasitic moral character of the Jewish “race” that still lurks deep down in you even if you are an assimilated and ethically outstanding Jew. Even if you are okay, the racial tendency might show itself again in your children (like ethnic whites are prone to Whiteness, a pathology that is incurable), so it’s really, really better for all other races/people if there are no Jews or their Mischling offspring around who carry this unfortunate tendency to exploit others.
So if Whiteness is a psychological disorder just as my Oedipus Complex is, I’m a victim, and can’t be held responsible for it, right? So I may as well just continue being racist, but with a clear conscience.
Methinks this perfesser of Egonomics mistook Whiteness for Orangeness.
Precisely this! And in an age where people are complaining that geographic nomenclature for non-human pests and parasites (Chinese beetle, etc. See more here.) stigmatizes human cultures, I am shocked that someone would propose new nomenclature that clearly references human geography. We no longer use terms like “Mongoloid” as a reference to a person living with Down syndrome.
(Okay, not entirely shocked. That is how the new PC movement works. I need new emotional terms now…)
So deeply bonkers. So self beclowning. People saying this woke shit is running out of steam aren’t taking into account the huge amount of money behind it in the form of DIE/DEI industrial complex.
“My name was misidentified as author of an article in Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association about the “malignant, parasitic-like” condition of “Whiteness.” I did not author this article and am pleased to see that the publication has issued a correction and an apology.”
“Thank you Dr. Fortune, for spreading the word that Donald Moss at Saybrook University, an educator/author in integrative medicine and lifestyle medicine, is not the Donald Moss who wrote an article on parasitic whiteness. [Don Moss, Dean, Integrative Medicine & Health Sciences]”
Hahaha, this is from another Dr. Donald Moss!!! He has the same name as the whiteness dude and wanted to clear his name! Poor guy!!
“Jobs for the boys” as we used to say, but now it’s for the girls as well, and those in between. Large amounts of funding are poured into organisations that do not go towards their ostensible purpose. Administrators, managers, lawyers, HR departments and DEI departments cost a lot of money. In my field they now cost more than patient care in the healthcare systems I have worked in (UK and Canada). Soon we shall see the old joke come true, a hospital that works with supreme efficiency because it admits no patients whatsoever. I’m sure it is the same in education and other areas of endeavour.