California State University, Northridge
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE HOMOPHOBIA IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH: METHODOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, AND PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES A Thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Psychology by Preston Reese January, 1983 Copyright 1982 Preston Reese The Thesis of Preston Reese is approved: Lawrence E. Sneden II, PhD '1Hchard W. ·Smith-; Plib Karla Butler, PhD (Chair) California State University, Northridge ii "In an expanding universe, time is on the side of the outcast. Those who once inhabited the suburbs of human contempt find that without changing their address they eventually live in the metropolis." Quentin Crisp (1968) iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface iii List of Tables ...................................... v Abstract ............................................ vi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION........................... 1 CHAPTER TWO: HOMOSEXUALITY IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE . 8 CHAPTER THREE: THE SCHISM BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY . 36 CHAPTER FOUR: HOMOSEXUALITY AND PSYCHIATRY . .. ..... .. 44 CHAPTER FIVE: THE LANGUAGE OF HOMOPHOBIA............ 68 CHAPTER SIX: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL LITERATURE ON HOMOSEXUALITY POST-1974 76 CHAPTER SEVEN: METHODOLOGY, SUBJECTS, AND THE FUTURE OF GAY RESEARCH................. 94 CHAPTER EIGHT: EPILOGUE-- THE CRISIS IN PSYCHOLOGY .. 122 References . 135 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Focus of Study in Psychological Research on Homosexuality (1975-1980) ... .. .. .. •.. .... .. .. 82 2. Level of Analysis in Psychological Research on Homosexuality (1975-1980) .. ...•............• 33 3. Participants Used in Psychological Research on Homosexuality (1975-1980) . • . • . • . • . 84 4. Methods Utilized in Psychological Research on Homosexuality (1975-1980) . • . • . • . • 86 5. Sex of Researcher(s) in Psychological Research on Homosexuality (1975-1980) ...•.....•......... 87 6. Sex of Researcher x Homophobia in Psychological Research on Homosexuality (1975 1980) ......•••. 88 7. Homophobia x Geographical Area in Psychological Research on Homosexuality (1975-1980) ..•... .... 90 v ABSTRACT HOMOPHOBIA IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH: METHODOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, AND PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES by Preston Reese Master of Arts in Psychology In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declas sified homosexuality as an illness; the American Psycholog ical Association adopted a similar resolution in 1975. The post-decision psychological and psychiatric literatures on homosexuality were examined by means of an empirical study. A computer search elicited 214 journal articles published during the period 1975-1980; these were analyzed on various dimensions including level of homophobia (bias against ho- vi mosexual persons), place of origin, sex of researcher, and theoretical orientation. A chi-square test revealed that female researchers are less likely to hold prejudicial attitudes toward homosex uality, and a tentative conclusion was drawn that psycho analytic research conducted in the Eastern United States has the strongest anti-homosexuality bias. It was shown that, overall, the majority of the post-decision research on gay people is not anti-homosexual. The study of homosexuality was placed in broad and varying contexts, with emphases on cross-cultural data, historical antecedents of current prejudices, discussion of the functions of language, and an examination of under lying values and assumptions in the social sciences. The methodology of research into homosexuality came under close scrutiny, highlighting experimenter bias ef fects and the problems of obtaining representative samples. Guidelines and implications for future research were dis cussed. An epilogue raised larger issues surrounding the ef fectiveness of the entire hard-science model of psychology, with the suggestion that a paradigm shift may be occurring. vii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION The single greatest finding in the combined social sciences is that the variability of human behavior is far greater than its uniformity. Yet in current American psychology, as well as in the culture at large, a premium is placed upon the reduction, negation, or elimination of variabilities. Experimental methodologies, personality theories, and statistical tests all rely heavily on the concept and measurement of normative behavior, of averages, of minimization of deviation from the norm. Even the ubiq uitous Analysis of Variance, which purports at least in name to examine variability, uses means to represent all the individuals in a group. 1 2 Psychologist and physician William H. Sheldon spent years attempting to classify human physiques and their corollary personality traits within the confines of three somatotypes. After categorizing thousands of American males, Sheldon (1954) reflected on how inadequate the con cept of average can be: "When asked by a patient what the latter's correct weight should be, the doctor has been in a position to tell the patient only what the average hap pens to be for men of his same age and stature. This is like being told by a shoe salesman what the average shoe size is for men of your age and stature. That average shoe may miss fitting your foot by half the width of your foot, and the average weight of men your age and stature may miss your own optimal weight by seventy pounds" (p. 1). In abdicating the concept of average, Downs and Bleibtreu (1972) suggest, "It would be far more useful to attempt to define the limits of the range of variation in any human characteristic and then be able to place a particular person somewhere between these extremes, rather than to consider any deviation from the average as an exception, deviance, or pathology" (p. 295). For the most part, however, American psychology has typically rejected the paradigm of variability as normality in favor of a model which often views non-normative behav ior as pathological. The effects of such a choice have been manifold. Psy- 3 chiatry and clinical psychology have become, in this centu ry, the new arbiters of taste and judgment, and have gener ally reinforced existing middle-class cultural values as regards sex roles, marriage, work, and conformity. We are left with a cultural ideal unattainable by most, unap proachable by many. One group which has, until quite recently, been con sidered to lie far outside the boundaries of normalcy is comprised of the estimated twenty million homosexuals living in the United States (Bell & Weinberg, 1978). This group has a history of stigmatization sufficient to fill hundreds of volumes, but let us here touch upon the heart of the matter as regards the mental health professions. Until 1973, homosexuals were said to be 'mentally dis ordered' in the official nomenclature of the American Psychiatric Association. Then in December of 1973, the Trustees ruled, by a unanimous vote with two abstentions, that "homosexuality shall no longer be listed as a mental disorder" (American Psychiatric Association, 1973), thus effecting an overnight cure for some twenty million Amer icans. The diagnostic category of homosexuality was replaced by •sexual orientation disturbance,' a new category which describes "individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward people of the same sex and who are either disturbed by, in conflict with, or wish to change their 4 sexual orientation. This diagnostic category is distin guished from homosexuality, which by itself does not neces sarily constitute a psychiatric disorder" (American Psychi atric Association, 1973). In the same bulletin, the Trustees announced the adoption of the following resolution: "Whereas homosex uality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities, therefore, be it resolved that the American Psychiatric Association deplores all public and private discrimination against homosexuals in such areas as employment, housing, public accomodation, and licensing and declares that no burden of proof of such judgment, capacity, or reliability shall be placed upon homosexuals greater than that imposed on any other persons. Further the American Psychiatric Association supports and urges the enactment of civil rights legislation at the local, state, and federal level that would offer homosexual citizens the same protections now guaranteed to others on the basis of race, creed, color, etc. Further, the American Psychiatric Association supports and urges the repeal of all discriminatory legis lation singling out homosexual acts by consenting adults in private." With these strong words, the Association sought to invite one aspect of human variability into the circle of normality. 5 The American Psychological Association soon followed suit with a resolution which supported the action of the American Psychiatric Association, and which added the following paragraph to the original text: "Further, the American Psychological Association urges all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homo sexual orientations" (American Psychological Association, 1975). One might expect that with such clear statements of official position from the top, the message would have filtered down into the ranks to produce changes in thera peutic stances, curricula, and not least of all in the domain of research. After all, research ostensibly oper ates at the cutting edge of knowledge; surely the end was at hand of attempts to equate homosexuality with pathol ogy. But was this