American Psychology:
The Political Science
Ray W. Johnson
Source: Collected Papers from the NARTH Annual Conference, Saturday, 29 July 1995.
Ray W. Johnson, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist and founding member of the
University of North Texas Psychology Department, as well as Training Director of the
school's APA-accredited Counseling Psychology program. He is the co-author of a book on
individual assessment and has published papers on personality, marital and family issues.
In 1991 he founded Psychologists for a Free A.P.A. for the purpose of ending A.P.A. advocacy
on social-moral issues.
It will be recognized immediately that this title is an exaggeration. There are large numbers of psychologists, uncontaminated by doctrinaire politics, who continue to search for the basic processes which constitute our psychological lives. They also seek to determine the most effective interventions to change the activity of those processes to better the lives of others.
The title refers to organized psychology: the American Psychological Association. APA, like many groups involved in human service delivery, has been seized by political activists who have little regard for science or the democratic process. Since the seventies, the American Psychological Association has lobbied the government, filed court briefs, and engaged in and promoted boycotts on behalf of a host of social-moral causes. These causes have included ERA, unrestricted abortion (including abortion for children without parental notification and consent), sex and racial-ethnic discrimination, and homosexual politics.
Recently, homosexual politics have taken the forefront. APA council voted to threaten with boycotts states whose citizens passed APA disapproved laws regarding homosexuality. It has supported efforts to introduce programs into the public schools to reduce prejudice aimed at so-called "gay, lesbian and bisexual youth" or "prehomosexual" children. APA has refused military advertising in the APA Monitor because of the military's position regarding gays in the military. It has entered court to support Political Science homosexual parenting. Most recently, NARTH tasted the censors boot when the APA Monitor refused to print a notice of its meetings. The reason? "NARTH"s position on homosexuality is in direct conflict with APA's position on the issue, and is also in conflict with current research findings on sexual orientation" (Farberman, 1995). In short, APA has employed coercion to enforce its politics and restricted the flow of information so necessary for science to function objectively. Sadly, APA does all this with no scientific basis for predicting the effect on society of adopting APA's approved programs. It was because APA engaged in these grossly unscientific and partisan activities that Psychologists for a Free APA was organized. Free APA takes no position on any social-moral-political issue. Its major purpose is to stop the American Psychological Association from taking advocacy positions on those issues.
It is hoped that all sides of these issues are represented in the organization. We support:
- The publication and dissemination of scientific research for the purpose of the advancement of science and the understanding of social-psychological processes. The most appropriate vehicles for the professional dissemination of scientific research are the scientific-professional journals of the social sciences.
- The right of psychologists as individuals and as groups of individuals to advocate and promote any social-moral-political issues in which they believe. Such individuals and Political Science groups, however, should not speak for The American Psychological Association.
The fundamental concern is that psychologists present themselves as professionals who are scientists or at least who base their practice on their science. Science is an enterprise which requires openness and questioning. When a scientific organization takes up politics and advocates for one side of a scientific issue, it declares the theoretical and scientific dialogue closed. It smothers science. It assumes that it not only knows what is, but also how things should be.
The reality is that APA doesn't have the answers. In science there is always another question. Advocacy politics, on the other hand, require an assumption that truth has been found and therefore, it is time to spread it through the law, public policy, intimidation and propaganda.
In order to maintain the pretense of science, the American Psychological Association presents the results of research projects which support its politics. However, the limitations of the research are not emphasized which results in (a) overgeneralizing of data; (b) ignoring or misrepresenting research results contrary to its politics; and (c) using poorly conceived research to support its positions. To courts, legislatures, lay people, and professionals unschooled in research, this looks like science. This "appearance of science" approach to advocacy is evidenced in all the major areas for which APA has taken an advocacy stance. It tends to turn meanings upside down. For example, the statement "There is no evidence that...no longer means that we don't know, it now means that we should move ahead with what we are promoting.
A paper recently published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology ( Haldeman, 1994) was entitled "The Practice and Ethics of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy." In the abstract, the author states, "The literature in psychotherapeutic and religious conversion therapies is reviewed, showing no evidence indicating that such treatments are effective in their intended purpose." He also called for research on the potential harmful effects of such treatments. Note the scientific attitude. He did not call for research to determine if there was a potentially harmful effect. Or if therapy for this purpose is more harmful than therapy for other purposes. Essentially, the article serves to discredit efforts of therapists to help unhappy homosexuals to change their sexual orientation.
Assuming that Haldeman represents the current thinking of APA and homosexual advocates, it can be shown by using quotations from the writings of advocates, that APA, in it's advocacy for homosexual causes, has no scientific basis for doing so and is operating in the dark. This opinion is based on the following interrelated notions (1) there is no generally accepted scientific definition of homosexuality; (2) APA's efforts to gain protected minority status for homosexuals are not based on any scientific evidence that homosexuality is of the same order as, for example, sex and race; (3) there is no solid body of research based homosexuals; (4) there is evidence that conversion therapy works for some people called homosexual; and (5) there is no convincing evidence that efforts to provide conversion therapy should be considered unethical. I will address each of these points. In the quotations which follow the emphases are mine.
The Definition
If homosexuality is to be studied scientifically it must be clearly defined. "Such a definition seems necessary before one can describe how sexual orientation is changed" (Haldeman, 1994). In another context, De Cecco (1981) says "Philosophers of science warn social scientists (and they should include clinicians) about formulating theories of etiology to account for phenomena that were never adequately defined or described in the first place" (p. 61). Haldeman (1994) says "Psychology can only combat stigma with a vigorous avowal of empirical truth" (p. 226), but he offers no definition to guide research. In fact, his discussion of sexual orientation makes it appear unlikely that any definition could be formed which would enhance research efforts. As examples,
"Our understanding of human sexuality is entering a new era, one in which formerly sacrosanct assumptions and classifications are no longer applicable. A new generation of individuals, no longer self-identified as gay or lesbian but as 'queer' is developing a perspective of sexual orientation more complex and fluid than what has historically been viewed along rigid lines. This new construction of sexuality, combined with the antiquated, unscientific hypotheses on which conversion therapy has been based, render traditional reorientation therapy anachronistic." (Haldeman, 1994, p. 226)
"The categories homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual conceived by many researchers as fixed and dichotomous, are in reality very fluid for many. (Haldeman, 1994, p. 222) "For many individuals, sexual orientation is a variable construct subject to changes in social values and political Philosophy that may ebb and flow through life. (Haldeman, 1994, p. 222)
The closest to a definition Haldeman (1994) comes is:
Any definition of sexuality based solely on behavior is bound to be deficient and misleading. Sense of identity, internalized sociocultural expectations, and importance of social and political affiliations all help define an individuals sexual orientation and these variables may change over time. (p.221)
Gonsiorek & Wenrich (1991) writes as follows:
"Perhaps the most dramatic limitation of current conceptualizations is change over time. There is essentially no research on the longitudinal stability of sexual orientation over the adult life span. In other words, even if one could satisfactorily measure the complex components of sexual orientation as differentiated from other aspects of sexual identity at one time, it is still an unanswered question whether this measure will predict future behavior or orientation. (p. 8)
It should noted that these statements declare that definitions are changing, that sexual orientation changes, and that the changes may occur as the result of many social influences.
Others have pointed to the changeable nature of sexual orientation. De Cecco (1981) in describing some of Kinsey's work noted "... that sexual orientation fluctuates, surely over a lifetime and, for some people, as often as the weather" (p. 57).
Very obviously, there is nothing in these quotations which defines homosexuality in a way which would allow us to study it. The belief that there is a lack of a satisfactory definition of homosexuality is not limited to those quoted. At the 16th National Lesbian and Gay Health Conference sponsored by APA's Division 44 (Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian and Gay Issues) the Monitor reported that the need for "... workable definitions of gay, lesbian and bisexual" were discussed (De Angelis, 1994).
So, APA without a definition to guide its activity is blindly trying to impose its will on society by attacking citizens who oppose its view. There is no scientific procedure which would enable APA to predict the future for such a fluid condition in a changing context.
APA and Homosexuality as a Protected Minority
The above quotations point to the second reason APA advocacy is political. On what basis does APA seek to have what it calls homosexuals declared a protected minority? There is no satisfactory scientific definition for the construct. The condition is variable and subject to change through a number of influences. Has any other group been granted this status under the same conditions? These laws have been previously applied to conditions (e.g., sex or race) which were clearly outside the control of the persons involved and were not changeable. Our quotations indicate that these conditions do not apply to homosexuals. With no science, and questionable legal grounds, APA's advocacy for homosexuals to attain the status of a protected minority is merely twisted, political activity.
Lack of Research
The problem of definition points to the third reason APA advocacy is politically motivated. APA asserts that its advocacy is driven by research (Tomes, H.,1993). Haldeman (1994) claims that "It is, ..., well within psychology's purview to disseminate accurate information from our considerable database about homosexuality" (p. 226). However, since there has been no adequate delineation of the construct and since the condition is variable, how could APA develop such a pool of scientific research? According to Gonsiorek (1991) "Research on homosexuality has been characterized by poor and biased sampling procedures and vague, erroneous, or simplistic assumptions about the definition of homosexuality" (p. 123). Is there a considerable database? The answer is embedded in criticisms of conversion research.
Conversion Therapy
APA is opposed to conversion therapy. It is said that there is no scientific evidence that it works. If you reread quotation above, you will note that homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual are fluid categories, that sexual orientation may be changed as a result of social values and political philosophy, that sexual orientation may be as changeable as the weather and that the components of sexual orientation may change over time. Haldeman (1994) then asks, "How then, are spontaneously occurring shifts in sexual orientation over the life span to be differentiated from behavior resulting from the interventions of a conversion therapist" (p. 222)? How is it possible that APA could believe that virtually every force in society may bring about change in sexual orientation except planned interventions involving collaboration between a therapist and a client?
A major criticism of conversion therapy is the sample of homosexual subjects used in reports of therapeutic success. Gonsiorek (1981) in a review of Masters and Johnson's (1979) book raises a number of methodological issues with the study. Perhaps one of the most significant is the composition of the sample itself. "Of their entire sample of male homosexual dissatisfaction (B=54). only 9 men (17%) were homosexual (Kinsey 5-6) [exclusively homosexual?] and 45 (83%) were bisexual.... "(p.83).This criticism of Masters and Johnson was echoed by De Cecco (1981). Similarly, Haldeman (1991) criticizes Bieber et. al. (1962) in that they "... reported a meager 27% success rate in heterosexual shift after long-term therapy. Of these, however, only 18% were exclusively homosexual in the first place. 50% were bisexual. This blending of 'apples and oranges' is quite common in conversion therapy.." (p. 151). Haldeman (1991) also faults Meyerson and Lieffs (1965) sample because "half [of them] reported engaging in exclusive heterosexual behavior 4.5 years posttreatment. However,....those subjects reporting such were bisexual in the first place; exclusively homosexual subjects reported little change..." (p. 151). Haldeman's attitude about these quotes might be summed up in the following statements (Haldeman, 1994): "It is likely rather than converting or reverting homosexual people to heterosexuality, this program enhances heterosexual responsiveness in people with already established heteroerotic maps" (p.225). And "...those conversion therapy programs that claim the greatest success included more subjects whose behavioral histories and fantasy lives appeared to have significant heteroerotic components" (p. 221).
A major implication to be drawn from these quotations regarding research samples is that only people who have had no erotic heterosexual experience may be considered homosexual. A question to be asked here is, does APA opposition to conversion therapy apply to all people called homosexual or only those with no heteroerotic experience? In addition, the quotations clearly point to a group of self-defined homosexuals for whom conversion or reparative therapy might be successful. Thus APA's wholesale condemnation of conversion-reparative therapy flies in the face of known research and tends to inhibit further study of the topic.
What about the substantial data base on homosexuality? Adopting the perspective that only homosexuals without heteroerotic experience should be considered homosexual has extremely important consequences. To my knowledge, there is very little research on homosexuality which excludes people who have experienced erotic heterosexual arousal. De Cecco (1981) says that the widely cited study by Bell and Weinberg (1978) would more properly be labeled "...the study of the homosexuality of bisexual and exclusively homosexual individuals" (p.59). His statement is based on the fact that "...there were considerable amounts of heterosexuality reported by their respondents" (p 59). Similarly, the Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith (1981) study, which is frequently cited as demonstrating the inadequacy of dynamic, family formulations on the development of homosexuality, 62% of the male homosexual subjects reported heterosexual arousal before age 19.
The demand that subjects have no heteroerotic experience would seriously limit the value of most existing research on homosexuality. So, if the advocates criticism is valid, APA has no substantial data base on homosexuality. There is only sample-flawed research on an undefined construct leading to questionable results. It is on these quaking scientific grounds that APA is attacking our citizens, threatening our profession, and degrading our science.
The Ethics of Conversion
Three issues are typically claimed as reasons for making conversion therapy unethical: (1) No need for cure without a disease; (2) There are no voluntary clients; (3) Offering such services reinforces societal prejudices against homosexuals.
Much of the argument for the abandonment of conversion therapy is based on the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM, thus, according to Haldeman's (1994) quote from APA (1975), "...removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations." The major ethical arguments are contained in the following:
"Ethicist's object to conversion therapy on two grounds: first, that it constitutes a cure for a condition that has been judged not to be an illness, and second, that it reinforces a prejudicial and unjustified devaluation of homosexuality." (Haldeman, 1994, p. 225).
"Were there properties intrinsic to homosexuality that make it a pathological condition, we would be able to observe and measure them directly." (Haldeman, 1994, p. 225).
"Psychologists do not provide or sanction cures that which has been judged not to be an illness. Individuals seeking to change their sexual orientation do so as the result of internalized homophobia, given the consistent scientific demonstration that there is nothing about homosexuality per se that undermines psychological adjustment....conversion therapies by their very existence, exacerbate the homophobia which psychology seeks to combat." (Washington State Psychological Association, 1991 in Haldeman, 1994).
It is debatable whether the 1973 decision should be considered evidence that homosexuality is "not an illness" or that it is normal. In the absence of lesions, chemical influences, parasites, bacteria, viruses, unequivocal genetic or brain anomalies, the decision as to what constitutes an illness is subject to the interpretation of existing research and personal opinion i.e., a political decision. It is decided by vote. This is the case with homosexuality. Gonsiorek (1991) concludes that "...the issue of whether homosexuality per se is a sign of psychopathology, psychological maladjustment, or disturbance has been answered, and the answer is that it not" (p. 135). However, the work he cites to support this position simply shows that homosexuals do not exhibit symptoms associated with other socially defined pathological conditions. Whatever may be the facts with regard to whether homosexuality is intrinsically pathological, large numbers of American citizens believe it to be undesirable and believe that its normalization would have deleterious effects.
It is also claimed that "...no one is a 'voluntary' patient for sexual orientation change" (Silverstein, 1977). It is said that they come only because of social pressure from their parents and religion, the shame and guilt arising from their childhood experiences, and the fact that their behavior is condemned by society.
In embracing such ideas, APA has ignored several problems associated with them. First, what does it mean to say that there is nothing intrinsic to homosexuality that would make it pathological? How is the criterion of intrinsicness applied in other DSM pathologies? Once organic problems are eliminated, what is intrinsically pathological about, for example, paranoia? There is nothing intrinsically pathological about delusions! They simply are beliefs which do not conform to others constructions of reality. If it were not for the potential social-interpersonal consequences of paranoia would it be considered a disorder? Do the APA's suffer from delusiophobia? How many disorders would disappear from the DSM if psychology and psychiatry ignored the possible social consequences associated with the disorder.
It is clear that both APA's have ignored the absence of research on the potential social impact of the normalization of homosexuality. The American Psychological Association, which claims to be a scientific organization, is especially guilty because it has approved launching attacks on states in which its homosexual agenda has been thwarted.
Second, the claim that homosexuals should be denied therapy because they cannot be voluntary clients due to social influences ignores the motivation of most people for seeking therapy. Using this criterion, in 25 years of practice I don't recall having a voluntary client. My clients came to me because they were feeling pressure from some source and the source was usually interpersonal. In most cases and certainly the more serious cases, it was virtually certain that shame, guilt, family, church, and childhood experiences were a part of the pressure. All these sources of unhappiness may be construed to have arisen because of prejudice, bigotry, ignorance, jealousy, etc. So, from a therapeutic perspective, how is it different for homosexuals? It is different because APA has adopted a political position that it is different.
Taking such social advocacy positions has an insidious effect on the integrity of professional-scientific organizations. Notice the declaration in the WPA quotation that "Psychologists do not provide or sanction cures for that which has been judged not to be an illness." This is masterful hypocrisy. A casual reader would assume that this meant that psychologists would not treat a client unless they had an illness. However, the quote only disqualifies "cures for that which has been judged not to be an illness." How many of these are there?
The statement had to be framed the way it was. Psychologists in private practice do not deal primarily with ill people but with people who are unhappy with their lives, whatever the source of their unhappiness. Unhappiness has never been an illness, its alleviation could not be considered a "cure." Is there nothing "intrinsically" worthwhile in helping unhappy people become at least less unhappy by reducing the social conflict in their lives?
The persistent use of the "no need for cure" ploy is important for APA and homosexual advocates. It allows them to do three things: (1) condemn change efforts and support the normalization of homosexuality; (2) claim that attempts to change sexual orientation represents bigotry and promotes violence against homosexuals; and (3) to say that since homosexuality is not a sickness, homosexuals who want to change must have some other illness i.e. internalized homophobia. This tactic ignores the fact that the whole notion of "cure" in psychotherapy is connected to a model which many psychological practitioners have abandoned.
Finally, to this writer's knowledge, there is no evidence that offering the opportunity for sexual orientation change to homosexuals reinforces prejudice, increases social homophobia, and leads to violence. Such notions grow out of an no-disease-no cure-therefore-it-must-be-malevolence argument. Haldeman (1991) says "If we attempt to conjure a 'cure' for homosexuality, we only reinforce bigotry" (p. 160), and "Both [therapy and religion] do gay people harm by trumpeting false promises of 'cure' when it is the caregivers themselves-and society as a whole-that are in need of cure" (p. 160). From this perspective it is the social organism which has an illness and APA, in its advocacy for homosexual causes, is imposing a cure.
In conclusion, using the words of homosexual advocates, it has been shown that there is no sound scientific basis for APA adopting its advocacy stance for homosexual politics. Furthermore, it has been shown that there is no scientific justification for attacks on therapists who attempt to help unhappy homosexuals try to change their sexual orientation. Without science, APA advocacy simply represents another prejudice.
APA is a very large, rich organization. In collaboration with other groups seeking radical social change, APA wields its power to impose its prejudice upon American citizens. The history of such collaborations are ominous. Whether the zealots joined wear brown shirts, pink triangles, or raise the clenched fist of radical feminism, when professional and scientific organizations embrace their cause, the scientific enterprise dies and is replaced by propaganda and coercion.
References
American Psychological Association (1975). Minutes of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist, 30, 633.
Bell, A.P., & Weinberg, M.S. (1978). Homosexualities, New York: Simon and Schuster.York:Simon and Schuster.
Bell, A.P., Weinberg, M.S., & Hammersmith, S.K. (1981).
Sexual Preference: Its development in men and women. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Bieber, I., Dain, H., Dince, P., Drellich, M., Grand, H., Gundlach, R., Kremer, M., Rifkin, A., Wilvor, C., & Bieber, T. (Society of Medical Psychoanalysts) (1962). Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic study. New York: Basic Books.
De Angelis, T. (1994, September). More research is needed on gay, lesbian, concerns. The APA Monitor, p. 39.
De Cecco, J.P. (1981). Definition and meaning of sexual orientation. Journal of Homosexuality, 6 (4), 51-67.
Farberman, R.K. (1995). Letter to U. Meshoulam. January.
Gonsiorek, J. (1981). Review of Homosexuality in Perspective: by Masters and Johnson. Journal of Homosexuality, 6(3). 81-88.
Gonsiorek, J.C. & Wenrich, J.D. (1991). The definition and scope of sexual orientation. In J.C. Gonsiorek and J.D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy. (pp.1-12). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gonsiorek, J.C. (1991). The empirical basis for the demise of the illness model of the homosexuality. In J.C. Gonsiorek and J.D. Wenrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 115-136).
Haldeman, D.C. (1991). Sexual orientation conversion therapy: A scientific examination. In J.C. Gonsiorek and J.D. Wenrich (Eds.) Homosexuality: Research implications for public Policy (pp. 149-160). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Haldeman, D.C. (1994). The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62,. 221-227.
Meyerson, P., & Leif, H. (1965). Psychotherapy of homosexuals: A follow-up study of nineteen cases. In J. Marmor (Ed.), Sexual Inversion (pp. 302-344). New York: Basic Books.
Silverstein, C. (1977). Homosexuality and the ethics of behavioral intervention: Paper 2. Journal of Homosexuality, 2(3), 205-211.
Tomes, H. (1993, April). In the public interest. The APA Monitor (p.34).
Washington State Psychological Association (1991, March). Policy statement on sexual orientation conversion therapy. In Haldeman, D.C. (1994) The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2), 221-227.
Updated: 8 February 2008
|
