Fool's Paradise: The Unreal World of Pop Psychology

by Stewart Justman

Through the channels of the mass media, celebrity psychologists urge us to realize that society has robbed us of our authentic selves. That every moral standard or prohibition imposes on our selfhoods. That what we have inherited from the past is false. That we ourselves are the only truth in a world of lies. That we must challenge "virtually everything." That we must "wipe the slate clean and start over." Each of these "principles" is a commonplace of pop psychology, and each has almost unimaginably radical implications. Where did pop psychology come from, and what are its promises―and fallacies? How is it that we have elevated people like Phil McGraw, Theodore Rubin, Wayne Dyer, M. Scott Peck, Thomas Harris, John Gray, and many other self-help gurus to priestly status in American culture? In Fool's Paradise , the award-winning essayist Stewart Justman traces the inspiration of the pop psychology movement to the utopianism of the 1960s and argues that it consistently misuses the rhetoric that grew out of the civil rights movement. Speaking as it does in the name of our right to happiness, pop psychology promises liberation from all that interferes with our power to create the selves we want. In so doing, Mr. Justman writes, it not only defies reality but corrodes the traditions and attachments that give depth and richness to human life. His witty and astringent appraisal of the world of pop psychology, which quotes liberally from the most popular sources of advice, is an essential social corrective as well as a vastly entertaining and stimulating book.

Genres: Psychology

276 pages, Hardcover

First published July 7, 2005

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

AN ENGLISH PROFESSOR ANALYZES AND CRITIQUES THE BOOKS AND CULTURE OF "SELF-HELP"

Stewart Justman is a professor of English at the University of Montana; he has also written books such as 'Artificial Epidemics: How Medical Activism Has Inflated the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer and Depression,' 'The Jewish Holocaust for Beginners,' 'To Feel What Others Feel: Social Sources of the Placebo Effect,' etc.

He wrote in the Preface of this 2005 book, "This book traces the inspiration of the pop psychology movement to the utopianism of the 1960s and argues that it consistently misuses the rhetoric of civil rights. Speaking as it does in the name of my right to happiness, pop psychology promises liberation from all that interferes with my power to create the self I want. In so doing it not only defies reality but corrodes the traditions and attachments that give depth and richness to human life." (Pg. vii)

He goes on, "The influence of pop psychology now extends from the preschool to the university, from the clinic to the church. Such is the fashion for therapy that it is now offered not only in the psychologist's office---the modern confessional---but on television and radio and... in print. It is the print genre of pop psychology that I explore in this book... Some might ask, Why bother investigating something as vacuous as pop psychology? Its influence is reason enough... It seems to own a share of the best-seller lists and speaks a language all know by heart. An institution of such magnitude calls for scrutiny." (Pg. 4)

He suggests, "In the eyes of pop psychology blame is destructive, the most concentrated form of blame, and thus the nemesis of human life, is self-blame: guilt... No matter what differences tint their pages, practically all works of pop psychology agree that guilt is a poison injected into our minds to make us feel bad about ourselves." (Pg. 68)

He observes, "The message of self-help is that you the reader are so undervalued, not only by others but even by yourself, that henceforth your mission must be the rebuilding of your psyche and the reclamation of your well-being. Indeed, the only duty recognized by the genre is this one... pop psychology concentrates all obligations into the supreme imperative to realize one's right to happiness, quite as if all other concerns of human life will look after themselves if only we ignore them in favor of this paramount interest." (Pg. 83-84)

He concludes, "Clearly, psychology is a growth market; and it was pop psychology that first seized the market's possibilities... Freudianism was ... ill adapted to American soil... Behaviorism... was further disqualified in the 1960s by its now Orwellian implications. Neither addressed people interested in self-help---that is, interested in curing their ills by themselves. Pop psychology does... [it] delivers a message appealing enough to have become a commercial force. It would not be so appealing if it did not borrow from, and dissolve the differences between conflicting sources... The pursuit of the authentic self, the self uncontaminated by the falsity of the world, is a quest without a grail... pop psychology makes for an ironic gloss on the principle that what supplies our wants has no bounds." (Pg. 220-221)

This is a thought-provoking analysis of some of the excesses of popular psychology.

[The Angry Lawn Gnome · Rating 3 out of 5]

There were certainly some interesting tidbits in this book, but if it had any particular central thesis that eluded me. Which is a problem for me: without really understanding what the author's point is, my mind begins to wander, I start to skim, etc., etc. The author also seemed to emphasize the oddest elements of this "movement"...a line from Marcuse to McGraw is probably not one I'd have personally drawn, and perhaps I missed the connection in my skimming but, honestly I don't think so.

The author seemed fixated on the "self-help" movement as some sort of American version of the Red Guard at its worst under Mao, several mentions were made along that line. Again, just didn't strike me as all that probable.

I'd also be curious why he chose to highlight one guru over another. Phil McFraud (errr, McGraw) is practically an obsession, Wayne Dyer gets quite a few mentions and an old chestnut like The Aquarian Conspiracy is even dragged out one or two times. But there's no Deepak Chopra, no Tony Robbins, an Andrew Weil in a contemporary vein and no Napoleon Hill, no Og Mandino, no Maxwell Maltz as historic figures. To just pick a few names off the top of my head.

Finally, I kept hoping that, somewhere or other, he'd at least touch upon why these cranks and crooks seem to have an eternal appeal to Americans. But that's nowhere to be found. And far too much about how so-and-so misquotes Shakespeare or does so out of context. How surprised exactly am I supposed to be? Or perhaps Justman thinks it is only self-help gooruuus that abuse Shakespeare?

As a counterpoint to this one I'd suggest Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America by Barbara Ehrenreich. Does everything this book does, does it far more entertainingly and also takes a look at what their (da guuurooos) eternal appeal is.

Hmph, hate it when reviews come out more critical than I mean them to be. In all honesty, this was a decent read, but also had quite a few flaws. But other books call, so this will stand as written.

[Leah · Rating 1 out of 5]

I don't read pop psychology. I read pop neuroscience! This book is a condemnation of pop psych that embodies the reasons I don't read it: Where is the science?!? Show me the peer reviewed journal articles (in, like, JAMA, not New Monterey est Review, thank you very much) or I'm outta here.

I agree with Justman (based on the 70 pages I read) but the guy majored in Liberal Studies. I like other people to trace neuron activity in primate prefrontal cortexes (corteces? whatever. Pop neuro means never having to spell correctly), but I am English major enough to make my own comparisons of Dr. Phil McGraw and Dostoyevsky. If I had ever read Dr. Phil McGraw or Dostoyevsky. Only one of those is on my list.

[Megan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Good idea, bad book. Repetitive and I really didn't like they way he cited his sources.