Homosexuality & American Psychiatry by Ronald Bayer - Essay Example

Philosophy 3 December Homosexuality & American Psychiatry by Ronald Bayer Bayer’s book is one of the summaries of the public and scientific debate in America in 1970s about the clinical and social status of homosexuality. Nowadays, the statement that science is socially constructed does not even require reference; in Bayer’s time, however, even the proclamation of subjectivity of psychiatric science was comparatively new (Rosario and Pillard 143). According to Rosario and Pillard, the fact that some of the Yale University scholars saw “treatment” of homosexuality as a “punitive social policy” provoked a considerable debate (142). Exclusion was a common practice of academic environment and often remains such in contemporary media. Hence, this paper has to deal with both the texts in question and the social background, the context that affected the texts but did not happen to be documented in them. For this, additional textual evidence will be used. Charges Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) claims that the removal of homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) list is a political decision without any scientific foundation, no more than a victory of harmful “homosexual urban legends that have infiltrated every aspect of our culture” (TVC). The declaration does not oppose Bayer’s claims directly; rather, the author uses Bayer’s book as evidence. However, it does oppose Bayer’s stance on the changes in APA in 1972, cutting only the most dramatic passage out of the context. From the perspective of logic, this is an example of ambiguity created by quoting out of context (Gula 97). The declaration of TVC cites the passage in which Bayer really describes the behavior of homosexual activists as violent: they “attacked” APA in 1970 and “greeted the speaker” on the Association’s conference with exclamation about Auschwitz and the swearwords like “motherfucker” (Bayer 103). TVC’s article covers neither the pretext of such violent actions nor the aggressive behavior of some APA members described by Bayer. Furthermore, the article and the book are parts of the discourses that oppose each other, one claiming that homosexuality is a disease (TVC) and the other implying that this is a variation of normal sexual habit (Bayer). In the TVC article, the following claims about the issue are made: 1) Homosexuality was removed from the DSM list under the political pressure and without any significant scientific support. An instructive example is how both sides of the debate speculate about the lack of firsthand expert evidence from the APA members. To Bayer, Kent Robinson (who had never been an expert in homosexuality) is a disinterested scientist helping the fighters for human rights: “Since Robinson knew no homosexual psychiatrists, he somewhat reluctantly agreed to chair the gay panel” (104). However, to Socarides, one of the most active supporters of the TVC line, Spitzer’s lack of background in the studies of homosexuality is only the sign of professional incompetence of the APA member: “Spitzer, who to my knowledge had never previously published a single article on homosexuality or the sexual deviations, had composed a position paper on the meaning and content of homosexuality” (Socarides). 2) The imbalance of power was on the side of homosexual activists (who “threatened” APA) - hence the “Trojan Horse” metaphor: “For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social change in sexual customs and mores” (TVC). It follows that the change was not relevant to the needs of the society but was only the manipulation of a small group. 3) Diagnosing homosexuality as a mental disorder helps homosexuals. The Accuracy of the Review The accuracy of any review quoting only small part of the source is doubtful at best. The TVC’s review is accurate in citing facts; still, it is entirely misleading about the assessment of those facts. It misrepresents Bayer’s viewpoint and does not take into consideration the whole picture of social changes in the US in 1970s. First of all, Bayer’s standpoint is sharp criticism of the oppression of homosexuality. The historian presents an overview of the oppressive politics from the earliest evidence known (the “abomination” of homosexual practices) to the contemporary view of them as a “disease” (15). He sees the direct link between the described attitudes: in theocratic societies, homosexuality was prohibited by the sacred authority and associated with sin, while from the advent of positivism in 19th century this role of punitive authority was simply “delegated” to nature as an object of science (Bayer 18). In this light, it becomes evident that the changes of social norms required serious political struggle: To those who had so boldly challenged the professional authority of psychiatry it was clear that only the threat of disorder or even of violence had been able to create the conditions out of which such a dialogue could occur (Bayer 104). According to Bayer, when the first necessary shocking action was taken, the pro-homosexual movement started to behave more calmly: the APA convention in Dallas was marked with rather peaceful atmosphere, and even Frank Kameny, a leading gay activist (and quite aggressive at the first protests) called for mutual understanding (108-109). Thus, violence was not the only means in the campaign for the rights of homosexuals. From the point (1) of the summary of the TVC article readers might conclude that there were few scientific theories supporting the demand to take homosexuality out of the DSM list: He recounted (…) and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer's apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists placed high in the APA (…) this man-suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth (TVC). In reality, as Bayer and other sources report, the initiative came not only from “the gay activists placed high in the APA”. APA was not the only institution to express doubt about the practices of “cure”: The San Francisco Psychiatric Society and the National Association of Social Workers Golden Gate also arranged meetings and issued the resolutions that proclaimed homosexuality a variation of norm (Bayer 144-145). Also, Frank Kameny was not the only speaker who advocated gay rights before the APA representatives, as the TVC article tries to argue: such physicians as Robert Seidenberg, Judd Marmor, and Charles Silverstein (Bayer 115-119) also considered homosexuality a variation of normal behavior. In 1969, the report of the National Institute of Mental Health prepared by the commission of 15 (later 13) scientists was “unusually friendly” to homosexuality, which may be attributed to the influence of Evelyn Hooker (Rosario and Pillard 140). Such scholars as Edward Dreyfus and Martin Hoffman challenged Socarides’s views in early 1970s (Rosario and Pillard 151-152). In addition, several specialists in Anthropology and Social Sciences (namely, Henry W. Rieken, Clellan Ford, and Anthony F. C. Wallace) objected the dominant way of dealing with homosexuality on the ground that the former does not follow the principle of open scientific inquiry (Rosario and Pillard 149). One of Bayer’s particular concerns also misrepresented by TVC is the uneven status of homosexual psychiatrists. In the TVC declaration, this problem is mentioned only once with the reference to Jeffrey Satinover, a conversion therapist proclaiming that he knows one of the APA members who has quit the gay lifestyle and revealed some secret deal of APA homosexuals (TVC). The tone of Satinover’s remark suggests that (1) it is inconvenient (if not dangerous) to mention the names of homosexual psychiatrists – this terrifying information should be censored and (2) homosexuals were not numerous in the APA; even though there were few of them in the organization, they managed to be strangely influential. Bayer’s book and some other evidence present the evidence from an alternative viewpoint. By the time of the APA controversy, several autobiographic accounts of homosexuals, including the academicians, had been published. Short after the 1972 APA session, a response came from the lesbian couple (Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin) under the title Lesbian / Woman (Rosario and Pillard 157). Richard A. Isay, a 1960s Yale student that had been fascinated with psychoanalysis, encountered a deep personal disorder on the ground of incompatibility of his profession with his sexual orientation and the resulting conversion therapy: My depression, however, did not improve due to the difficulty I now experienced having any sexual feelings and impulses whatsoever. I also had a problem thinking clearly around my analyst… I was devoting most of my psychic energy to repressing my sexuality and anger and was consequently becoming more depressed” (Isay 57-58). In 1972 in Dallas, a homosexual psychiatrist “Dr. Anonymous” was present on the APA session; there was also a Gay-PA informal union inside the APA, but it was so silent (in other word, disempowered) that its only representative willing to speak was wearing a mask (Bayer 109). The feeling of uncertainty that was very likely to be experienced by homosexual colleagues of “Dr. Anonymous” is tangible in the autobiography of Martin Duberman, a homosexual historian that had been trying to hide or “cure” his sexual habits, experiencing harm to professional development: Burying myself in Princeton and in my work, I tried to steal myself to a life of isolation, tried to make the best of the “bad hand” dealt me, consoling myself for a lack of “legitimate” affective life with the notion that through scholarship and writing I would nonetheless manage to make some contribution to the general culture from which I was effectively barred… (Duberman 67-68). This passage is a mature specialist’s reaction to the article by Dr. Socarides, an influential conversion therapist that objected the APA reform. There is one factor essential for this argument that was not considered neither by Bayer (in the 4th chapter quoted in TRC’s article) nor by his opponents from the TRC. The academicians like Duberman or the APA members could have had (and indeed had) deep neurotic disorders connected with the social stigma of their sexual orientation, but this was incomparable with the experience of poorer visitors of American gay bars. They did not suppress their sexuality for institutional achievements and received physical violence in turn, beaten and tortured by the police (Rosario and Pillard 149) which resulted in the widely known Stonewall Inn controversy in 1969. This physical violence and the failure of earlier attempts of collaboration with psychiatry were the reasons for the increasing radicalization of American LGBT rights movement (Rosario and Pillard 149). For instance, the evidence collected by lesbian activists in 1960s was used in the studies hat treated homosexuality as a pathologic phenomenon (Rosario and Pillard 127). Frank Kameny was the representative of the new stream in LGBT rights movement, the radical one seeking equality instead of milder diagnoses and ready for violent political interventions. Bayer is aware of this, but the TVC article is not aimed to even touch the problem. The Counter-Argument If it is assumed that science is socially constructed and the dominant paradigm results from the discoursive “victory” of some social group, then the arguments of both sides should be considered. Bayer seems to argue that career interests were the decisive factor for the conservative part of APA (21). Those people, in particular Bieber and Socarides, were the practitioners of psychoanalysis, a trend of the time. Socarides’s psychoanalysis defines homosexuality as a childhood deviation: A typical family constellation is that in which there is a psychologically crushing mother (in extreme cases) and an absent or abdicating father who does not assume his appropriate masculine role in relation to his son that allows the son to identify with him. In the female homosexual there is a corresponding inability to identify with what is viewed by the girl as a malevolent, malicious mother and a father who does not respect the femininity of his daughter. The female homosexual seeks femininity in the body and personality of her female partner. (Socarides). Consequently, Socarides views homosexuality as a behavioral disorder resulting from an individual’s will to avoid anxiety. Healthy sexual life, he asserts, is connected with the mammalian heritage and heterosexual instincts. There is also an implicit view in his writing that female homosexuality is connected with masculine features and vice versa, a rather one-sided approach that has later been criticized by the lesbian community (Rosario and Pillard 158). Irving Bieber’s 1952 survey of 108 homosexual and 100 heterosexual males (all patients; no relation to socioeceonomic factors was made) was also grounded in psychoanalysis. Like Socarides, Bieber tended to view homosexuality as a deviant behavioral reaction that “served to ful?ll a range of irrational defensive and reparative needs” (qtd. in Rosario and Pillard 129). Bieber’s survey, as many other psychoanalytic works, was based on the responses of clinical patients (no homosexuals satisfied with their lives gave any accounts of the issue); it was not as anecdotal as previous psychoanalytic observations, but also not strict in selection (Rosario and Pillard 128-129). Later, in 1965, Thomas Szasz came up with the conclusion that adaptive behaviors might have resulted from the persecution by the society rather than sexual orientation of homosexual individuals (Rosario and Pillard 143). In any case, the conclusions of the later studies were not as self-evident in early 1970s as to provide the ground for suspicions that Socarides and Bieber had merely career pursuits in the homosexuality debate. Their views and methodology seemed justified at their time, and, according to Socarides, they still had the enthusiasm to “socialize” homosexuals “properly”. The only way in which the doctors might have violated the ethics of research was the moment when they refused to consider new arguments in favor for their old repressive theories: in 1973, on the APA meeting dedicated to the opposition to the reform (taking homosexuality out of the DSM list) Bieber and Socarides presented the same material as in their previous studies with no new evidence (Bayer 135-138). Unresolved Controversies One of the main problems remaining after the rather hasty exclusion of homosexuality from the DSM list was the status of homosexuals with the problems of acceptance of their gender (Bayer 133). In 1973, Spitzer coined the specific term “homodysphilia” that eventually came up under the scrutiny of LGBT community (Bayer 170). This controversy shows how painful was the issue of “normality” for the activists at the time: though the debate was stopped, the reason for this was rather apathy than satisfaction (Bayer 177). Another remarkable controversy testifies that search for some behavioral reference is persistent in most of the humans, especially in the ones in the state of uncertainty. The community of homosexuals and non-repressive psychiatrists provided valuable criticism of the very question whether love to the same sex is love; however, people (including LGBT people) continue to ask questions whether promiscuous behavior is appropriate. This question often arises in Martin Duberman’s autobiography, when he openly discusses promiscuity with his partners (Duberman 39). Elliot Tiber’s famous autobiographic book Taking Woodstock is also a memoir about American gay life in 1960s-1970s; throughout the book, Tiber reflects upon promiscuity as a practice that causes the loss of self-esteem. Sexual practices with nonhuman partners were also questioned for the same reason, namely, the search of moral standards. During the APA debate, Spitzer has given homosexuality a priority over other sexual behaviors listed in the DSM manual on the ground that a homosexual relationship involves two conscious human beings (Bayer 126). However, an essay by Bakke presents the political background of the charges against zoophilia, showing that those who morally disapprove of it fail to recognize the potential of sexuality and consciousness in animals. In these intricate ways, humanity continues its search for love standards. My Opinion The debate about the status of homosexuality is an example of dialectics of domination in the society. Using postcolonial terms, a subordinate must speak loudly to be heard, that is, sometimes violent and illegal actions are needed to introduce new opinions. Bayer’s book demonstrates that homosexuality has been an issue to deal with from the ancient times, but the way the authorities tended to deal with it has been oppressive and inhuman. Peaceful attempts of LGBT community to affirm their sexual practices as a positive value ended in vain, while riots, sadly, have proven themselves effective. As for the position of TVC and Socarides, it is remarkable how their struggle for truth gradually changes to the struggle for occupation and authority by any means. In my opinion, they are not to be blamed for this: after all, this is a common process of generation changes in science. The younger generation came up with the criticism of outdated methodologies (Bayer 150). The same process had taken place a generation before: Ironically, similar professional and generational conflicts had taken place in the postwar United States when young analysts had originally erected homosexuality and other neuroses as treatable diseases in their campaign to elevate the role of psychiatry in social hygiene (Rosario and Pillard 161-163). The APA confrontation is also the example of controversies surrounding the formation of norms in vital issues like love and death and proved that such issues tend to provoke the relations of domination and exclusion in the society. The debate about love “standards” now continue with regard to different issues. Works Cited Bakke, Monica. “The Predicament of Zoopleasures: Human-Nonhuman Libidinal Relations”. Animal Encounters. Eds. Tyler, T. and Manuela Rossini. Leiden: Brill, 2009. 221-242. Bayer, Ronald. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. Princeton and Chichester: Princeton University Press, 1987. Print. Duberman, Martin. Cures: A Gay Man’s Odyssey. 10th Ed. New York: Basic Books, 2002. Print. Gula, Robert J. Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men, and Sacred Cows. Mount Jackson: Axios Press, 2007. Print. Isay, Richard A. “Becoming Gay: A Personal Odyssey”. Sexual Conversion Therapy: Ethical, Clinical, and Research Perspectives. Eds. Shidlo, A., Schroeder, M., and Jack Drescher. New York: Haworth Medical Press, 2001. 51-68. Print. Rosario, Vernon and Richard Pillard. Homosexuality and Science: A Guide to the Debates. Santa-Barbara, Denver, and Oxford: ABC Clio, 2002. Print. Socarides, Charles. “Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: the Issue of Homosexuality”. The Journal of Psychohistory, 19(3), Winter 1992. Online. Retrieved November 3, 2012 from http://www.kidhistory.org/homopolo.html. Tiber, Elliott and Tom Monte. Taking Woodstock: A true Story of a Riot, a Concert, and a Life. New York: Square One Publishers, 2007. Print. Traditional Values Coalition. “Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal”. Traditional Values Coalition, 2011. Retrieved November 3, 2012 from http://traditionalvalues.org/content/article/30884/Exposed:%20The%20Myth%20That%20Psychiatry%20Has%20Proven%20That%20Homosexual%20Behavior%20Is%20Normal. Read More