Their conception of racist unconscious solidifies multiple forms of oppression

(Jon, Psychoanalyticstudies@Essex On whiteness, racial rhetoric, identity politics, and critical race theory A crucial moment in American psychoanalysis in Psychoanalysis at the Crossroads: An International Perspective ed Busch)

In my book The Ontology of Prejudice (Mills and Polanowski, 1997; also see Mills, 1998), I was one of the first contemporary psychologists to address the notion of universal racism based on unconscious predisposition, but provide ethical arguments for why we (as humanity) must transcend this primitive form of thinking based on a simple economy of identity and difference. It pains me to witness the growing split and social rupture I anticipated 25 years ago when I wrote that book. People should be called out when they violate a humanistic collective ethos, especially when it potentially justifies and leads to retaliatory racism, such as we are currently witnessing with the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Asian hate crimes, as it perpetuates more disdain and a perverse, distorted logic directed toward alterity as the evil Other (Mills, 2019a; b), when this type of mentality is under the sway of unconscious ideology looking for an emotional whipping boy to pillory regardless of what skin color, ethnicity, or (trans)gendered subject is pointing the finger. It is my understanding that Moss has received threats as well as the organizations he is affiliated with,6 which is most unfortunate, but not surprising. Given that JAPA published a racist piece under the guise of antiracist sensibility, no wonder people would get worked up and there would be counterattacks on social media. When racist sentiments are disseminated in professional public space, liberally minded people on the left as well as the conservative right get pissed off, especially those who take offense at being labelled white racists. Not only Moss, but the reputation of the journal, the Association, and the greater image of psychoanalysis is now under scrutiny. Given this scandal has gone viral, there is no use trying to cover it up or dress it up in new garb intended to dismiss or placate dissent. The worse possible thing to do is to try to deny the racist overtones of the paper through a pompous justification, patronizing excuse, or redirecting shift to focus blame on aggressive critics or threats from others as if the journal did nothing wrong. Nor should they try to conceal the deed by manipulating the APsaA’s presence on the web, and act like other “crazies” out there are attacking them—like the Tucker Carlsons and David Dukes of the world. This will only look like a public relations ploy in order to save face and redirect culpability. The editor made a faux pas and should not have allowed such an incendiary text to be published without undergoing a blind review process, as such gaffes and racist remarks would have been prevented from appearing in their current form. Because the paper cannot be retracted, JAPA should issue a public apology and allow open criticism, scholarly critique, debate on the Moss paper, and the greater social issues that are at stake, rather than trying to whitewash it, pun intended.