Episkevology

The Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Intentions: How Psychology Chose Power Over People

I. Opening frame – The mislocated wound

Thesis:
Any profession that assimilates to serve power will eventually relocate the wound into the individual. Psychology is a case study in how that happens.
Key moves:
- Road to hell motif: most of this was done with “good intentions,” but within a power‑serving frame.
- Episkevic vs. psychological framing:
  - Psychology: “The problem is inside the person.”
  - Episkevology: “The wound is in the field.”
- Claim: Once a discipline accepts “the problem is inside the individual” as its base assumption, it becomes structurally aligned with control.

II. Before psychology – Controlling the “mad” body

A. Asylums and confinement

Early modern and 19th‑century asylums as tools of social order, not healing.
“Care” and “custody” fused: remove the disruptive person from the field instead of changing the field.
Good intentions: “protect them,” “protect society,” “provide care.”
Outcome: segregation, loss of rights, and the idea that distress = dangerous individual.

B. Moral treatment and discipline

“Moral treatment” as early behavioral control: order, routine, obedience framed as therapy.
The seed of later behaviorism: regulate the person to fit the institution.

Episkevic note:
The wound (industrialization, poverty, social upheaval) is in the field; the “solution” is to confine the person.

III. Psychology marries eugenics – Serving the racial state

A. Eugenics as “science of improvement”

Western psychology’s deep entanglement with eugenics as “science of racial betterment.”
Intelligence testing, personality measures, and early applied psychology built in eugenic logic.

B. IQ tests, immigration, and “feeblemindedness”

IQ tests used to classify immigrants, justify exclusion, and institutionalization.
“Feeblemindedness” as a catch‑all pathology for poverty, non‑whiteness, non‑conformity.

C. Sterilization and “mental defect”

Psychological assessment used to justify forced sterilization in multiple countries (esp. US, Europe) under eugenic laws.

Road to hell angle:
The intention: “improve society,” “reduce suffering,” “prevent degeneration.”
The effect: psychology becomes a tool of the racial state; pathology is placed in the body of the oppressed.

IV. Lobotomy, shock, and the medicalization of control

A. Lobotomy as “miracle cure”

António Egas Moniz (1930s) pioneers leucotomy; later popularized as lobotomy.
Framed as compassionate: “last resort,” “free them from torment.”
Deployed widely on institutionalized, poor, women, and non‑compliant patients.

B. Electroconvulsive therapy and other extreme interventions

Early ECT and other somatic treatments used with little consent, often to manage behavior rather than heal.

Episkevic reading:
The wound (underfunded institutions, social abandonment, lack of support) is in the field.
Psychology/psychiatry “treat” the person’s brain so the institution doesn’t have to change.

V. The DSM and the politics of normality

A. Building the manual of “disorders”

DSM as a catalog of individual pathologies; each revision reshapes what counts as “disorder.”
The frame: distress is located inside the person, not in their conditions.

B. Pathologizing homosexuality

Homosexuality listed as a mental disorder in early DSM editions; removed only in 1973 after activism and internal struggle.
Example of psychology serving prevailing moral/political norms, not neutral science.

C. “Adjustment” and “maladaptation”

Diagnostic language that implicitly defines “healthy” as “well‑adapted to existing conditions.”
If the field is unjust, “adjustment” becomes complicity.

Road to hell angle:
The intention: classify to help, standardize care, reduce stigma.
The effect: a powerful tool to label dissent, difference, and non‑conformity as illness.

VI. Psychology in service of industry, war, and productivity

A. Industrial/organizational psychology

Early 20th‑century psychology used for worker selection, efficiency, and compliance.
“Fit” becomes psychological; if you can’t tolerate the conditions, you’re the problem.

B. War, propaganda, and interrogation

Psychological expertise used in propaganda, morale management, and later in interrogation/“enhanced” techniques (you can allude without going graphic).
Again: the person is the site of adjustment; the system (war, state power) is unquestioned.

C. Corporate wellness and resilience culture (modern)

Contemporary forms: coaching, resilience training, CBT‑for‑productivity.
Message: “manage your stress,” “optimize your mindset,” while structural conditions remain unchanged.

Episkevic note:
The wound (exploitative labor, precarity, violence) is in the field.
Psychology teaches individuals to self‑regulate to remain functional within it.

VII. The mislocated wound mechanism – how control works

A. Step‑by‑step mechanism

Locate the problem inside the person.
- Diagnosis, label, trait, disorder.
Assign responsibility to the person.
- “Work on yourself,” “build coping skills,” “change your thinking.”
Leave the field untouched.
- Family, institution, culture, power structure remain unexamined.
Call this ‘help.’
- Good intentions cloak the control function.

B. Why this feels abusive

The person is told: “It’s not your fault, but it is your responsibility.”
If they don’t improve under unchanged conditions, they are blamed again.
This creates the second wound: being told the pain is yours while its source remains external.

VIII. Episkevology as counter‑frame – relocating the wound

A. Core episkevic principle

“The wound is in the field, not the person.”
Distress is a signal of field incoherence, not proof of personal defect.

B. What changes when you relocate the wound

The person’s reactions become intelligible, not pathological.
The focus shifts from “fix yourself” to “understand the field.”
Healing becomes: restoring coherence, not enforcing adaptation.

C. Not anti‑psychology, but anti‑assimilation

The critique is not “burn it all down,” but:
Any discipline that serves power first will always mislocate the wound.
Psychology could, in theory, choose differently — but historically, it has repeatedly aligned with control.

IX. The road to hell – good intentions, bad ontology

A. Summarize the pattern

Asylums: “protect and care” → confinement and erasure.
Eugenics: “improve society” → racial violence and sterilization.
Lobotomy: “relieve suffering” → permanent damage and control.
DSM: “standardize care” → pathologize difference.
Industry: “optimize work” → normalize exploitation.

B. The through‑line

The intentions are often sincere.
The ontology — “the problem is inside the individual” — is what makes the road lead to hell.

X. Closing – What we’re building instead

Re‑anchor in your work:
- Field‑first: the wound is in the field.
- Coherence‑first: healing as alignment, not obedience.
- Non‑assimilative: refusing to serve power at the cost of people.
Name the invitation:
- This isn’t about rejecting care.
- It’s about refusing frameworks that weaponize care to maintain control.
- Episkevology as a different road: one where good intentions are matched with a field‑accurate frame.