|
from Clinical/Therapeutic Issues
Is Human Sexuality A Reflection
of Design and Purpose?
By Linda Ames Nicolosi
Where did we come from, and what is our purpose? Different people
answer that question differently. Yet the answer to that question cannot
simply be a personal matter, relegated to private musings during our
quiet moments. For the response we give will profoundly affect our
foundational understanding of education, the law, ethics, science--and
indeed, of psychology and sexuality.
No one in recent years has forced us to look at that issue more
profoundly that Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson.
Professor Johnson has reopened a controversy that was assumed by many to
be long-ago laid to rest---the scientific debate about evolution. The
media tends to caricature the debate as a contest between Bible-waving,
illiterate creationists from the backwoods on the one hand, and modern
scientific rationalists on the other. The issue, however, is not that
simple.
Specifically, Professor Johnson has pointed out the striking gaps in the
fossil evidence and the unanswered questions in the established
Darwinian theory of evolution, while challenging scientists to take a
closer look at a new discipline known as intelligent-design theory
(1,2,3).
As a theory of limited variation within pre-existing types, Johnson
agrees, neo-Darwinism is perfectly scientific; but as a general theory
of how complex types of plants and species of animals came into
existence, it is as yet philosophical speculation.
Since Johnson burst onto the intellectual scene a few years ago, he has
stimulated a small group of science writers to reexamine the evidence.
(4,5,6) But such a pursuit is not for the faint-hearted researcher.
Since grants, teaching appointments, faculty tenure, peer review in
scientific journals, and overall credibility all depend on a
researcher's willingness to work within the established scientific
model, an interest in intelligent-design theory could be the kiss of
death for an ambitious scientist.
The Essence of the Debate:
Where Did We Come From, and Why Are We Here?
Still, Johnson emphasizes that it is not so much a dispute over the
mechanism--whether or not we came into being through some form of
gradualism--that is at the heart of the debate. (Johnson himself is a
theist who admits that a supernatural creator might have used some form
of evolution.) No, the heart of the problem, he believes, is the
foundational principle that arises from the assumption that no
intelligent cause could possibly have been involved to give human life
direction and transcendent meaning. This is the assumption of
naturalistic evolution.
Science is the supreme authority in modern society, and so we have
(usually unthinkingly) come to accept naturalism as our culture's
official creation story. We once sought to understand the created order
and to live in harmony with its inherent purposes. Now, however, we
seek to live according to purposes that we ourselves have chosen. They
need not be in harmony with any external measure, as long as they do not
interfere with another person's right to his own pursuit of happiness.
And these purposes are assumed to be good, simply because we have chosen
them.
The Implications of Naturalistic Evolution
 In the words of the famous Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord
Simpson, the meaning of evolution is that
"man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not
have him in mind."
A popular college biology textbook written by Douglas Futuyma echoes the
same assumption. It says,
"Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not
designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere mechanical
mechanisms---but this seems to be the message of evolution."
In contrast, if the world was designed by an intelligent agent for a
purpose, according to Professor Johnson, then it follows that the most
important knowledge to have would be an awareness of the purposes of
that designer.
But if there is no evidence for design and we are merely evolving
through a mindless, uncaring, and strictly material process, then man is
free to tailor his life to fit his own, or his culture's, evolving
values.
The philosophical assumption of naturalism has led to profound changes
in law, education and science. Some changes that come to mind:
- the statement, now accepted unthinkingly in our culture, that homosexual is "who a person really is"
- the relativist's insistence that no one can "impose his morality" on another
- the educator's claim that children's values should be primarily chosen by them, not shaped by adult mentors
- the drive to reform marriage into a legal contract between any two people who love each other--rather than viewing it as a covenant based on complementarity, whose central purpose is the protection of children
- the "rights-based" mentality in law, which has no universal concept of the good--and thus is on shaky grounds when it calls prostitution illegal, when it tries to discriminate between pornography and art, and when it rules that a boy cannot go to school wearing girls' clothing
- the "grand sez who" -- that is, the retort "Who are you to say?" to any statement of value.
Social Science is an Applied Philosophy
 Professor Johnson reminds us what the scientific community--and
psychologists--tend to forget: that there are actually two kinds of
science.
First, there is the objective, "hard" science that involves the likes of
data-collection, statistical analysis, discovery of mathematical and
chemical formulas, and so on, through what is known as the scientific
method. Few people dispute its validity.
Second, however, there is another kind of science that is necessarily an
applied philosophy. Most of psychology--particularly the personality
theories--fits into this category.
According to established scientific practice, an investigator must first
begin with a foundational philosophy or worldview, which is necessary to
give any scientific work direction and meaning. He thus commits himself
to whatever explanation for a phenomenon he considers to be most
plausible. He then works backward from that foundation and tries to
prove that the data actually fit his conceptual framework. But if the
data don't fit, it's his job to reject that original conceptual
framework and start over.
The dedicated evolutionist holds a philosophical precommitment to the
assumption that matter is all there is, and no supernatural force could
possibly have intervened at any point in human history. Evolutionists
will freely admit that the world may look like it was the product of
some sort of designer. But they refuse to follow the facts wherever they
may lead, Professor Johnson charges, whenever the evidence points away
from naturalism and toward the design hypothesis.
Johnson notes instances where evolution theorists have worked to
suppress scientific evidence that would reveal the weaknesses of their
theory. Nevertheless the idea that man has evolved from impersonal and
purposeless processes has become our culture's official creation story,
and that concept--along with all the far-reaching implications such a
worldview implies--is tenaciously defended by a dogmatic priesthood.
What This Means for Psychology
Many observers see evidence for design and purpose in the psychosexual
complementarity of men and women.
"We need to live a certain way because we are designed to live that
way," says Professor of Philosophy J. Budziszewski (7). "Everything in
us has a purpose: everything is for something. When you thwart a thing's
design, it either works badly, stops working or breaks...The same thing
is true of the human design."
Others, however, approach human sexuality from the philosophical
assumption that--as gay advocate Andrew Sullivan has argued-- "order is
just a euphemism for disorder."
In 1945, one researcher defined normality as "that which functions
according to its design." (8) But just before the 1973 decision to
remove homosexuality from the diagnostic manual, Judd Marmor---who was
soon to become president of the American Psychiatric
Association--expressed a philosophy that flatly rejected design and
purpose. He wrote,
"I submit that the entire assumption that homosexual behavior per se is
'unnatural' or 'unhealthy' is a moral judgment and has no basis in
fact...
"...to call homosexuality the result of disturbed sexual development
really says nothing other than that you disapprove of the outcome of
that development [emphasis added]" (9)
In disparaging terms, Dr. Marmor labelled the philosophy undergirding
the "disorder" view of homosexuality as "pious" -- at the same time he
freely admitted that homosexuality often results from disturbed family
relationships!
Marmor's worldview seems to fit that of psychoanalyst and author Robert
Stoller. In his book Pain & Passion, Stoller explored the "fetishes and
bizarre practices" of consensual sadism and masochism. Rejecting
established concepts of design and purpose---not to mention normalcy and
social custom---Stoller contended that "psychoanalysts [should] become
less threatened by the pleasures that perversions bring the perverse
..." (10) It is only the psychoanalyst's "deep prejudices" about the
nature of perversion, Stoller says, that would lead to the conclusion
that sadomasochism is abnormal.
We see a similar worldview in a recent book by a gay advocate.
Biological Exuberance "celebrates the diversity" of sexual behavior that
can sometimes be seen among animals, particularly gender-atypical and
homosexual behavior (11). With his rejection of the purposes inherent in
male-female complementary, and a valuing of diversity per se as good,
the author does not look beneath the surface to investigate causes for
the behavior (pollution in the environment, high levels of stress,
fetal-hormonal anomalies, dominance) that would explain homosexuality as
either a prenatal developmental error or as a behavioral anomaly.
It's a Worldview Issue
Another gay advocate, writing in The Journal of Homosexuality, astutely
noted that the 1973 psychiatric debate about homosexuality was not a
battle over new scientific evidence. It was, he admitted, really "more
akin to judging it [homosexuality] differently, while in possession of
the same old facts." (12)
Similarly, psychologist Gary Greenberg--who is a staunch gay advocate
and sexual liberationist--argues that the normalization of homosexuality
is a question that could never have been settled solely by science (13).
The only way the American Psychiatric Association (or anyone else)
could settle the question of the normalcy of homosexuality was through a
philosophy---some way of understanding the world. Thus the A.P.A. gave
"wrong reasons," Greenberg says, to explain to the public how psychiatry
arrived at its landmark 1973 decision. The Association misrepresented
its deliberations as having been grounded in facts, rather than facts
interpreted through the prism of a changing foundational philosophy.
Indeed, to borrow a phrase from Phillip Johnson, the A.P.A. had
"rejected the old creation story for a new one," so it could no longer
answer the question, "What is sexuality for?" or "What is
homosexuality?" through the philosophical assumptions of design and
purpose.
The New Goals: "Safety and Happiness"
Modernism's new goal, Johnson says--and one that appears to have been
adopted by much of the mental-health profession--is "learning to control
our physical and social environment in order to increase our safety and
happiness." (14)
We see many examples that suggest such a philosophical shift in the
mental-health literature. Since a naturalistically-based psychology
cannot meaningfully conceptualize inherent purposes in human nature, it
shifts away from the older mental-health goals of character, wisdom and
virtue toward a pursuit of autonomy--that is, self-defined forms of
self-actualization, which can be roughly translated into the model of
"safety and happiness."
The Family Therapy Networker recently featured a case history entitled,
"Monagamy and Gay Men: When are Open Relationships a Therapeutic
Option?" (15). In that column--which, significantly, was followed by
no published letters-to-the-editor from outraged counselors--the
therapist sought to help a sexually bored gay couple stay together.
The therapist suggested several possibilities: try group sex, engage in
some varieties of public sex, and try changing the "marriage" into a
three-person rather than a two-person relationship.
The author of the column, an instructor at Hunter College School of
Social Work, said "I have grown to respect the fluidity and customized
relationship forms that can work well for gay men." The definition of
the term "works well" would have presumably meant whatever succeeded in
keeping the relationship together and providing sexual satisfaction. Of
course, whether the counselor's suggestions would have ultimately
provided the couple with happiness--if the word "happiness" is used in
the fuller sense of "well-being"--would be a subject for another
discussion.
Then there was the case of the woman going through a traumatic divorce,
who felt rejected and vulnerable and was considering a lesbian
relationship. Taking a utilitarian tack in apparent pursuit of "safety
and happiness," two scholars wrote that a lesbian affair can represent a
useful adaptation when the woman needs to consolidate her female
identity, introject a loving maternal object in response to a
disappointment, or where there is no man available (16).
Could sadomasochistic torture-play really be just harmless fun? Even if
it brings pleasure, what does it do to the integrity of the person? Is
three-way sex good for the well-being of a relationship? If we don't see
obvious evidence of harm among men who were molested as children, could
adult-child sex be harmless? Could a lesbian affair be "adaptive" during
a time when no man is available?
This brings us back to Phillip Johnson's original question: "Where did
we come from, and what is our purpose?" Indeed, psychology cannot begin
to respond to any of those questions without first assuming some version
of a Creation Story.
And if Johnson is correct--that the concept of design and purpose will
eventually be recognized within the realm of scientific knowledge, not
marginalized in the fields of philosophy and ethics--then psychology
may find a compelling motivation to rethink its foundational assumptions
about human sexuality.
Endnotes
(1) Johnson, Phillip E. (1993) Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity.
(2) ------------------- (1995) Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity.
(3) ------------------- (1998) Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity.
(4) Dembski, William (1999) Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity.
(5) Behe, Michael (1996) Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. N.Y.: Free Press.
(6) Berlinski, David, "The Deniable Darwin," Commentary, June 1996.
(7) Budziszewski, J., "But What Do I Say?" Teachers in Focus, October 2000, pp. 4-9.
(8) King, C.D. (1945) "The Meaning of Normal." Yale J. of Biology and Medicine, 18, 493-501.
(9) Marmor, Judd, "Mental Illness or Moral Dilemma?" International J. of Psychiatry, vol. 10, no. 1, March 1972, p. 115.
(10) Stoller, Robert (1991) Pain And Passion: A Psychoanalyst Explores The World of S & M. Plenum Press, p. 38.
(11) Begelman, D.A., "Homosexuality and the Ethics of Behavioral Interventions," J. of Homosexuality vol. 2 [3], Spring 1977.
(12) Bagemihl, Bruce (1999) Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. New York: St. Martin's Press.
(13) Greenberg, Gary, "Right Answers, Wrong Reasons: Revisiting the Deletion of Homosexuality from the DSM," Review of General Psychology, 1997, vol 1, no. 3, pp. 256-270.
(14) Johnson, P. (1995) p. 13.
(15) "Monagamy and Gay Men: When are Open Relationships a Therapeutic Option?" Family Therapy Networker, Mar-April, p. 63-71.
(16) Kirkpatrick, M. and C. Morgan,"Psychodynamic Psychotherapy of Female Homosexuality," in Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Reappraisal, by Judd Marmor, editor, l980, N.Y.: Basic Books.
Updated: 3 September 2008
|
