You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In this paper I shall critique the psychoanalytic model of male homosexuality—focusing, in particular, on its central thesis that homosexuals suffer a pathological condition caused by a disturbed upbringing and developmental arrest. Although a comprehensive review of this subject would be book length, the fundamental concepts and propositions utilized by psychoanalysts in studying sexual orientation are surprisingly few. The underlying model was adumbrated by Freud early in the 20th century, and was then elaborated without major revision by analysts during Freud's lifetime. The model went essentially unchallenged until the 1940s when simplifications introduced by Sandor Rado effected greater internal consistency and enabled the theory to consolidate in its “classical” form. Since the 1960s, parts of the theory have been updated with concepts of gender development, but otherwise, little has been added or changed.
Psychoanalysts have often claimed that their model of male homosexuality is based on well-established scientific data, and on “absolute standards” of sexual behavior independent of cultural conventions (Panel, 1954, p. 336). As I will show, however, this sanguine assumption is justified neither by the history of psychoanalysis nor by the verdict of the other empirical sciences. As Kuhn (1962) demonstrated clearly, every scientific model or “paradigm” has historical origins and a heuristic value relative to the changing interests of the research community. The psychoanalytic model of male homosexuality, in particular, prevailed among researchers, virtually eclipsing the more liberal ideas of Havelock Ellis and Magnus Hirschfeld,