Response

The place of homosexuality in American psychoanalysis is inevitably linked to politics. Political conflict is not about attitudes toward homosexuals where the term political correctness applies but about laws and regulations regarding equality that have consequences in financial benefits, protection from violence, and political power in all its forms. Therefore, the way in which psychoanalysis enters into this struggle has political implications in the larger world despite its rejection by extremes on both the political left and right.

The consequences of attitudes toward homosexuals in psychoanalytic institutes are more direct. There can be no retreat from equal status for homosexual psychoanalysts and candidates. In my experience, they tend not to deny the place of psychopathology in homosexuality, at least privately. Yet they all too frequently endure the sting of insensitive comments by colleagues and teachers. There are also problems with scientifically aimed generalizations. Mme. Chasseguet-Smirgel's terminology of “deficiency” is a case in point. It echoes the language of the religious right which describes homosexuality as a deficiency of moral character.

The medical principle of “do no harm” applies particularly where the risk/benefit ratio favors risk. Since the success rate of converting active homosexuals to heterosexuality by psychoanalytic treatment is not impressive, we must be careful in proposing pathologizing generalizations that have little heuristic value. Individual cases should be described and formulations made, but when it comes to generalizing, both scientific and political correctness are the better part of valor.