Serious problems in discourse

We are 33 applied psychologists, including clinical, neuropsychology, counselling and educational, from across the UK. We are HCPC-registered senior staff including consultant and principal grade, departmental heads and specialist stream leads, and academic and professorial.

We have come together to express our significant concerns in relation to the letter in The Psychologist, 'Liberating' not 'oppressive' over Gaza' (June 2024). The authors say that the 'question of language organised through discourse, relating to psychology' is important – and we agree.

We question, however, the authors' use of discourse analysis to consider the political and military conflict of Gaza and Israel. The serious problems are obvious in their application.

Firstly, terms and narratives are frequently mentioned as 'disputed' or 'contested' but then stated as facts. For example, they refer to 'genocide' by Israel as a contested term but then say that it is accepted under the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – this is not the case (refer to BBC HARDTalk interview with Joan Donoghue, President of ICJ at the time of the ruling).

Secondly, they use 'context' or 'framing' to promote an understanding that delegitimises events such as those of 7 October. This is shown in the following sentence: 'To speak of 7 October only as an attack on Israeli civilians, for example, is to provide a particular context and frame the event in ways that are in line with the current Israeli state narrative about the nature of Hamas'. 'Context' is confined inappropriately to the 'Israeli state narrative', when the status of Hamas (such as whether it uses violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims) is decided at the international level.

Thirdly, though the authors talk about 'discourse' which is a dual conversational process, their perspective is a one-sided narrative which shows no self-reflexive critique.

This is problematic as a critical analysis.

As a window into complex power relationships, it is distorted by its reductionism. It begs the question of whether discourse analysis is useful at the macro-level of inter-cultural conflict and war. It can be asked whether this article is language propaganda rather than a systematic analysis of power influences?

The likelihood that it is language propaganda is the authors' demand for Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS), which is a political movement. Since many points in the article appear politically motivated, we question the appropriateness of this polemical article. It has caused a great deal of distress to some of your readers.

Names and addresses withheld

Managing Editor Dr Jon Sutton comments:

I do understand the concerns. We are seeking to navigate hugely complex and polarised areas, of the world and our discipline. The Psychologist publishes, and has always published, different perspectives on these contentious issues; these do not equate (as implied by other correspondents) to a BPS position.

Editorial decisions are made with consultation and, I firmly believe, in line with our stated aims, policies and procedures. Our whole operation is overseen by a body of British Psychological Society members, in the Psychologist and Digest Editorial Advisory Committee.