|
from Interviews/Testimonials
Democracy and Psychology
Linda Nicolosi: What influence has the self-esteem movement had
on the question of homosexuality?
Joseph Nicolosi: Since ours is a compassionate, egalitarian,
and non-judgmental society, we strive to be inclusive, and to
avoid stigmatizing. But to achieve this goal, psychiatry has had to
drop some of the old labels and theories of psychosexual development.
LN: And this emphasis on compassion is certainly a good thing.
JN: It is, of course. But compassion can be carried too far,
when it induces a loss of nerve among psychologists. Psychologists
have an obligation to comprehensively understand and explain the
human condition.
LN: Psychology seems to have become so non-judgmental now, that
no one seems to have any real guiding sense, any more, of what is
normal.
JN: That's true, and I think it's the end result of falling
too much in love with democracy. We're heading toward what's
called "hyper-democracy" -- a political system which knows no values
other then liberty and equality.
LN: This drive seems to have some kind of strange life of its
own, doesn't it? Looking at our own political life, there seems to
be an almost addictive appetite for ever and ever greater equality.
Some observers have said that the democratic political system
may contain the seeds of its own destruction. There seems to be
an inevitable "leveling effect," to the point that it begins to
seem undemocratic to create any kind of hierarchy of value. Or even
to be a a critical thinker...especially if one's critical
thinking entails limits. That is, seeing some lifestyle choices as
better or healthier than others.
JN: Ultimately, I think, we're headed toward blurring all the
essential distinctions that have made civilized life possible.
And of course, the distinctions relating to the gay issue are
those that distinguish the genders.
LN: And looking at the academic literature right now, we see
that the deconstruction of gender is a major issue. The idea that
a male gender identity is natural to a man, and a female gender
identity to a woman..."Who's to say what's natural?"
JN: That is the question.
LN: And this idea has spread beyond academic circles.
California, for example, has passed legislation that defines
gender -- in certain circumstances -- as "actual or perceived." In defiance of
reality, if you are a man but you feel like a women, then you
are considered to be a woman... "I can be whoever I
think I am."... That in-your-face defiance of nature...
It's a curious turnaround after the '60's, isn't it? During
those years, the rallying cry was "back to nature."
JN: And there's the loss of the distinctions between
the species..."Is a human being morally equivalent to an animal? Do
we have the same rights, are both sacred? Or is neither sacred?"
And the blurring of distinctions between life and death..."When
does life begin? Is a disabled newborn a human being with rights?"
And between good and evil..."What is evil, after all?" All those
old dividing lines and distinctions are falling.
LN: ...And the distinction between what is, and what ought to
be. Who's willing to draw thew dividing line? The fact that
something is -- that it simply exists -- is assumed to mean that it
ought to be. Things are "celebrated," solely because they represent diversity.
JN: Plus, the whole range of esthetic distinctions..."What is
art? How does one define excellence?" No one seems to be able to
define art. "Art is...simply what an artist
does." This has thrown the art world into the very same chaos we now see in psychiatry.
LN: So in response to this social change taking place on many
levels, psychiatry has felt compelled to drop some of those old
labels which were a barrier to self-esteem.
JN: Right. It's part of that "hyper-democratic" cultural ethos
to erase as many hierarchies and distinctions as possible...To
wipe out all those civilization-making differences and hierarchies
of value.
But there'e been a price to be paid for following this road.
Psychology has had to go through all kinds of intellectual
contortions and compromises with reality to justify its new ideas about what
is normal and natural.
The concept of natural law, the idea that we have a
distinctively "human" nature, is falling in favor of the intellectual chaos
of deconstructionism. The popular name for deconstructionism is
that catch-all, mindless term, "celebration of diversity."
LN: The absurd assumption that differences are, in and of
themselves, cause for celebration.
But how do you explain the idea of a "law of the universe," a
natural law, to those who just don't see it? The idea that there's
a design, a physical law, that means we have to live a certain way
or pay a price? Your detractors would like to make this into a
narrowly religious issue.
JN: I remember a pastor trying to explain the natural law as
it relates to sexuality. He said, "What would you think of a man
who was trying to drink through a straw -- and to do that, he put
the straw in his ear, or up his nose?" Of course, people would
say, "There is something wrong with that man." And that was his
argument; a simple but from-the-gut illustration why same-sex
sexuality is not normal.
LN: What is taking the place of the old concept of a
natural order?
JN: We see a growing interest in intersubjective
psychologies, with their emphasis on the individual's personal, subjective
experience as the determiner of psychological health -- "whatever
works for you."
At the same time, due to postmodern philosophy, there's a loss
of confidence that we can know very much about objective reality
or psychological normality.
The relativism inherent in the self-psychologies of the 1960's
has been so thoroughly absorbed into all branches of the
profession that we now simply take these ideas for granted as the
intellectual foundation of our discipline.
LN: Do you think most psychologists hold to these views?
JN: Most practitioners today are trying to be inclusive
and nonjudgmental. "Who am I to judge?" There is a pleasant
feeling that communicates itself with this attitude; they want to
be people-pleasers. Their first absolute is tolerance -- the kind
of tolerance that really means not just putting up with, but
valuing all lifestyles and opinions as equivalent. They may believe
their job as a psychologist is simply to facilitate the goals and
objectives of each individual. This sounds very egalitarian and
democratic; it has a strong emotional appeal; but it is
intellectually naive. It is more of a
sentiment than an organized system of thought.
LN: A sentiment?
JN: Yes. Because psychologists who defend homosexuality as
normal and natural have still not come up with any plausible,
non-deficit-based theoretical model to explain homosexual development.
They simply don't have a theory.
They haven't explained how a history of alienation from
same-sex peers, gender-disidentification, alienation from the same-sex
parent, and typically the feeling of not having been "seen" and
understood by one's father or mother could result in a happy and
well-functioning man or woman. But this is the childhood history of
a remarkable percentage of homosexual men and women.
Psychologists can't explain how this could be normal, because
it doesn't make sense. How could a childhood of deficits, fears,
and feelings of alienation and inadequacy be a pathway that we
call normal?
LN: So how do you think most psychologists explain it?
JN: Some of them say, "Yes, these clients have had a
conflictual childhood, and never identified with the same-sex parent.
True -- there's been a disturbance in gender identity. But who among us
has had a 'normal' childhood?" These clients have made a useful
adaptation, they say, and have simply directed their erotic
attractions to a same-sex person. Many of them are living productive
lives -- working and loving. And who says one's gender-identity must
be consistent with their biological sex? Why should gender even
matter at all? Therefore, they say, we can't label homosexuality
a problem.
LN: And of course, there's a kernel of truth in some of that.
We all make adaptations to less-than-ideal circumstances, and some
of those adaptations work out pretty well. Obviously there are
gay people who are quite content with their lives.
JN: Which was a major part of psychiatry's rationale when it
normalized homosexuality..."If they're happy with their lives, who
are we to say otherwise?"
But this is important: there is a difference
between saying, "He's made the best of his situation that he knew how," and
"His condition is normal and natural." You have a person who has a
twisted leg; he may learn how to adapt and how to put his weight on
the other foot, or walk on crutches; and when he goes into a
restaurant, he stacks the crutches up and he puts them under
the table...he does the best he knows how. But we still can't
deny that it's better to have two good legs. We have to be honest
about that.
LN: Why has there been so little dialogue about the
developmental factors in homosexuality?
JN: Psychologists don't want to talk about it. Everybody wants
to be the good guy. What these psychologists don't realize is that
in order not to make a portion of the population feel bad, what
they are doing is making a major compromise with reality. And this
attitude is having incredible secondary consequences for our
culture. By systematically eroding the conviction that opposite-sex
coupling is normative, you are failing to support the many young people
who are going through a period of gender-identity and
sexual-orientation confusion.
LN: So if psychologists were willing to be more honest about
what they see...society would be more supportive of healthy development.
JN: Yes, and it has always been the role of society to support
and facilitate the transition to heterosexuality. For two reasons:
First, heterosexuality is better for society; and second,
heterosexuality is healthier for the individual.
LN: Would you explain that?
JN: We can make a good analogy with the way society
supports single parenting. Because we fail to take a stand that
single parenting is undesirable, we are getting more and more kids
who don't have a father. And through our compassion and eagerness
to be nonjudgmental, we are doing children and families a great
disservice.
This goes back to what I was saying earlier. Motivated by
compassion -- and also that democratic "leveling" instinct you
mentioned -- our culture is erasing all the old hierarchies of value and the
essential distinctions. We just don't want to hurt anybody's feelings
by pointing out that his family configuration is not the way it's
supposed to be....that it is a "make do" adaptation, often to
tough circumstances.
LN: Because many single mothers are really struggling -- doing
the best they can with very tough circumstances.
JN: Of course. And it may well represent a heroic effort
on that mother's part to do the best she can with adverse circumstances.
However, it is not the way things ought to be.
LN: But there's a fear that by talking about "what ought to
be" will mean limiting options, making judgments, setting oneself up
as an authority. Then the question is inevitably asked, "Who are
you to say?" Unless you're endorsing all lifestyle choices as
equal. Then you can speak as authoritatively as you wish.
JN: So we end up, by default, with a social system that
endorses every form of personal liberation. But a lot of
distortions -- even outright untruths -- are necessary to shore up that faulty logic.
For example, Family Research Council did a great essay awhile
back on the distortions in high-school textbooks. Textbook writers
are forced to point out the research that shows that
single-parent families are not the best way to raise kids, and such families
actually place kids at a serious developmental disadvantage in
many ways, compared to the traditional family.
But then the textbooks conclude,
"All choices of family configuration are valid"!
The editors just can't let the facts lead to a conclusion
that might offend someone or narrow down the list of lifestyle
choices. They place "tolerance" (which now requires actual
approval) over honesty. And in so doing, they gravely mislead our children.
Updated: 8 February 2008
|
