We’ve talked about many similarities between what psychologists and writers do. There are also some important differences. Beyond the obvious that one is through writing and the other is verbal/nonverbal communication (although psychologists often write, too!).
Differences
Beneficence is a Core Value of Psychology
Psychologists have a responsibility in their work to do no harm to individuals or the community, and as possible, to ease suffering and bring vitality. This is more than just a basis for law (for licensed practitioners. Be cautious with anyone unlicensed, as they are not bound by the same regulations). It is also the very reason the profession exists. We are trusted by participants to know how to help them live richer, fuller lives. This is no easy task. There have been missteps as a field over the years. But the ethics code for each field, whether psychology, psychiatry, social work, or other related professions, highlights beneficence.
Psychology mis-stepped in the first decade of the 21st century when some psychologists advised on the treatment of people in Guantanamo Bay detention. When these events were investigated (see the Hoffman Report from 2015) and the ethics code updated, psychologists knew beneficence was a touchstone for how to do better.
Writers can decide for themselves
It is nice if writers also think about having a positive impact on their readers. However, they have no such obligation. Many writers do keep their impact in mind. Literature makes many positive contributions to the human condition. Books are play: they help us understand what it’s like to live in someone else’s shoes. Certain genres of books help us understand relationships better (Stern et al., 2019). Many books aim to provide enjoyment – which is important, too!
Many novels, however, have a different impact. Some novels idealize revenge. Others lazily use stereotypes about gender, ethnicity, and other factors and reinforce these narrow ideas. When it comes to literature, it is up to the reader to be aware of these ideas and choose wisely. Why not place the same ethical obligations on writers? While we may not like what a writer has created, restricting it would be censorship. This would be just as harmful, if not more so.
Direct vs. Indirect Influence
Thoreau in the woods, Salinger the recluse: we often have an image of writers off by themselves, delving into the creative juices of their minds to fashion stories. Likewise, there’s the image of a psychotherapy participant lying on a couch, locked into raw exploration with a therapist. Both of these are stereotypes, and in reality, psychology and literature each mix direct engagement with individual searching. Nevertheless, there is a core distinction. A writer must at some point separate from others to take pen to keyboard (apologies). While a psychologist must at some point engage with other people (or animals). Even if just with traces of them in chart records or social media posts.
This distinction has diminished. Modern writers, to be successful, regularly engage directly with readers. Writers give talks, go on publicity tours, teach, and have social media presences. Psychologists, meanwhile, have many solitary responsibilities. They write extensive chart notes, organize grant proposals and budgets, compose articles, and make blog posts and podcasts.
Both direct and indirect engagement are important. I intend no judgment of either. As the biblical precept states, saving a life is like saving all: direct impact resounds far and wide. At the same time, I would be a different me were it not for the writings of wise philosophers thousands of years ago. Every action we take or do not take is both light and heavy. The ripple of my words may vanish into the tides, or it may join other ripples and crash into a new wave. Since I do not have the wisdom to predict, I try my best with each action.