Policy on Possible Ad Hominem Attacks

article

Abstract

This article sets out the editors’ policy on possible ad hominem attacks in the journal’s pages, prompted by the first such question since the journal’s founding in 1994. Richard Morrock, Vice President of the International Psychohistorical Association, responded by letter to George Victor’s “Playing God” in the March 2000 issue. Victor interpreted the letter as an ad hominem attack on himself and on Toland. The authors report that they set aside the letter’s merits and put six policy options, from publishing everything to rejecting any possible ad hominem attack, to the Editorial Board. The Board favored publication despite varied views, and the Board and both editors concluded that Morrock’s letter was not an ad hominem attack. The Board was less concerned than the editors that the exchange lacked psychohistorical content. Victor defines ad hominem as personal criticism of an author used to discredit the author’s data, giving conspiracy theorist and revisionist as current examples, and he favors answering data rather than the author. The authors disagree, stating their interest in authors’ motivation and concluding that each reference to an author be judged on its merits. Morrock’s letter and Victor’s reply follow in edited form.

Keywords:

ad hominem attacks, editorial board, George Victor, International Psychohistorical Association (IPhA), psychohistory, Richard Morrock

For the first time since our founding in 1994, we have had to face the issue of a possible ad hominem attack within our pages. Richard Morrock, Vice President of the International Psychohistorical Association (IPA) and a regular contributor to IPA psychohistorical panels and the Journal of Psychohistory, recently responded to George Victor’s “Playing God” which appeared in our last issue. (March, 2000, Vol. 6, No. 4). Upon receiving a copy of Morrock’s letter, Victor called, stating that he interpreted Morrock’s letter as an ad hominem attack on Toland and himself. We decided to temporarily put aside the merits of the particular letter, and ask our Editorial Board if we should publish possible ad hominem attacks. Six different policy options were raised, ranging from publishing everything to outright rejection of any possible ad hominem attack.

The Editorial Board responded quickly and enthusiastically. Though there were great variations in viewpoint, publication was favored, and all concluded that Morrock’s letter was not really an ad hominem attack. The latter concurred with the views of the Editor and Associate Editor. The Board of Editors was less concerned than were either the Editor or Associate Editor about the issue of the Morrock/Victor exchange not being psychohistorical in content.

Since both editors and the Editorial Board concluded that Morrock’s critique of Victor was not an ad hominem attack, and because it does not really assault or assassinate Victor’s character, we asked Dr. Victor what he considered to be such an attack. He wrote as follows:

To me, ad hominem means personal criticism of an author as an indirect means of

Page 46

questioning or rejecting the author’s data. The author is labeled as a fool, or worse, implying that his/her data are not worth considering. Current ad hominem labels are “conspiracy theorist” and “revisionist.”

Victor’s definition clarified his position. Furthermore, he indicated that he favors responding to the author’s data, but not the author himself. This is not a position with which we can agree. We are very much interested in the motivation of authors, and conclude that we must treat every case of references to an author on its merits or lack thereof.

Morrock’s letter and Victor’s response to it, which Morrock chose not to answer, appear below. The letters have been edited to save space and eliminate materials that are not completely relevant.

Page 47

About the authors

Paul H. Elovitz

Dr. Paul H. Elovitz, PhD, began organizing scholarly meetings when he started as a faculty member at Ramapo College and then as convener of the Institute for Psychohistory Saturday Workshops (1975-1982). In 1982, he founded the Psychohistory Forum to nurture psychohistorical research and continues to lead its Executive Council. In 1994, he created Clio’s Psyche (cliospsyche.org) to publish its scholarship, of which he is Editor-in-Chief. Prof. Elovitz is a historian, psychoanalytic researcher, and author of well over 400 publications, covering presidential psychobiography, teaching, documenting the field of psychohistory, and much more. After taking his doctoral degree in history, he trained and practiced as a psychoanalyst for three decades, and in 2019 was made the first Research Psychoanalyst by the New Jersey Institute for Psychoanalysis. Elovitz is the author of The Making of Psychohistory, editor of The Many Roads of the Builders of Psychohistory, and edited or wrote eight other books. He is a founding member and past president of the International Psychohistorical Association (1978-) who held all but one of its offices and continues to serve on its leadership council. He is the sole founder of the IPhA who has attended and presented at all of its annual meetings. In recent years, he has devoted himself to editing, publishing, and writing psychobiography. Prof. Elovitz was a founding faculty member at Ramapo College who previously taught at Temple, Rutgers, and Fairleigh Dickinson universities. Aside from teaching Western and World Civilizations, his focus on teaching was on American, English, and European history; childhood; gender; genocide; the Holocaust; identity; leadership; psychobiography; psychohistory; the psychology of creativity and innovation; and war and peace. Presently, he teaches post-graduate courses on creativity, psychoanalysis, psychobiography, and other aspects of psychohistory online at psychoanalytic institutes. A Festschrift honoring him is scheduled for publication in Clio’s Psyche in 2024. He may be contacted at .