Even though we have come to expect this kind of bluster and obfuscation from Dr. Socarides, this letter from him and his Committee of Concerned Psychoanalysts is an astonishing reaction to an article introducing the new Committee on Issues of Homosexuality and to my letter in a recent issue of TAP. In my letter I was critical of statements made by Dr. Socarides on national TV (see below). But he does not address the substance of my comments; instead he denounces my motives and the aims and methods of the committee—all derived from his own distortions and all entirely wrong.
Apparently it is not possible to disagree with Dr. Socarides's opinions or to challenge his public rhetoric without his interpreting it as a threat to his freedom of speech and to the future of psychoanalysis. His position is now quite clear: those who agree with him are brave embattled scientists; those who challenge him are radical political activists.
Now that this is understood, I would like to clarify some of the major points so that readers who did not see the original article and letter may form their own opinions of Dr. Socarides's charges. Far from representing “the agenda of a particular group,” the committee and its chair were appointed jointly by President Bernard Pacella and BOPS chair Marvin Margolis as an ad hoc committee of Board and Council. Committee members include, among others, the president-elect of The American and former directors of four of our institutes—hardly a dangerous fringe group.
In fact, we have also been criticized from the opposite direction for being hopelessly naive and timid about homosexuality and discrimination. When I agreed to chair the committee, I expected criticism from both ends of the spectrum, but support from a large middle group for our efforts to oppose antihomosexual bias. That prediction seems to have been correct.
The committee's purpose and functions have the approval of the Executive Committee, the Board on Professional Standards, and the Executive Council. Two-thirds of the institutes sent official representatives to a committee workshop on “Homosexuality and Psychoanalytic Education,” and there were enthusiastic requests to continue the workshop.
As the article clearly stated, the committee's purpose is “to become aware of the results of bias and discrimination that may persist and to facilitate appropriate changes in attitude and policy…and to offer assistance in a spirit of consultation and mutual education.” Facilitation, consultation, and mutual education are not code words. They mean just what they say, and they reflect the tone of our committee. We hope to bring about change by making everyone, including ourselves, more aware of subtle antihomosexual bias that goes unrecognized except by those affected.
Please note that the committee's purview is bias and discrimination, not theoretical questions about sexual orientation. We do not claim to have the answers to these complex questions, nor are we constituted as a study group to formulate and test hypotheses. Rather, we will undertake a variety of projects aimed at creating a more accepting atmosphere for gay men, lesbians, and bisexual individuals in The American and its institutes.
Institutes or individuals who have problems to discuss will have a forum or may request a consultation. We will encourage other committees of The American (Program, Social Issues, Public Information, Institutes, etc.) to become more aware and involved in regard to this issue. Because there has been a proliferation of publications on the subject in recent years, we plan to compile a bibliography which will be inclusive, not limited to one point of view. And we want to inform our professional colleagues and the general public that there is more than one viewpoint on homosexuality in The American.
The committee does not have, nor do we want, the kind of power that Dr. Socarides attributes to us. We will not condemn anyone nor attempt to silence anyone. There will be no thought police, no nascent Nazi movement, and no interference with Dr. Socarides's ongoing discussion group, which the Program Committee regularly includes in our scientific meetings. We will not be an appeals board or an arbiter of correctness in research or publications. At the same time, we will try to increase awareness of antihomosexual bias when it appears in print—not by censorship, but by publishing another opinion.
In my previous letter, I was critical of Dr. Socarides for creating the impression on the MacNeil-Lebrer News Hour (July 15, 1993) that he speaks for all psychoanalysts and, from that self-proclaimed position, for summarily dismissing the NIH research that suggests a genetic influence in sexual orientation. Worse than that, however, was the insult he added by insinuating that such studies could not be trusted because they were conducted (according to him) by homosexual scientists.
Our Federal judiciary defines discrimination as formulating opinions about others based not on their individual merits but, rather, on their membership in a group with assumed characteristics. The NIH study requires further research for clarification of its explanatory usefulness. But, by dismissing it as he did, Dr. Socarides displayed not only a discriminatory attitude but also an unscientific attitude, in addition to implying that all psychoanalysts would agree with him.
I have not, however, implied that Dr. Socarides should be silenced. What I wrote was: “Dr. Socarides's opinions are not those of the majority of psychoanalysts; but unless we state our disagreement publicly, we have only ourselves to blame when activists protest and when fellow professionals dismiss us as narrow-minded, unscientific, and homophobic.” And they do—in large part because too many of us have remained silent and allowed the one voice to be portrayed as the established psychoanalytic view. There is a range of theoretical viewpoints within the membership of The American on the origins, development, and pathology of sexual orientation, and all should be heard and judged on their merits. However, the American Psychoanalytic Association has adopted one official position in opposition to antihomosexual discrimination. It is important that we all keep theoretical differences and issues of discrimination clearly separate.
Regarding the Social Issues resolution, I have always supported an atmosphere of free and open exploration, both in scientific endeavors and in analytic treatment. My comments were not about the resolution itself, but about the context of its presentation. Because these problems have not arisen within our own meetings or publications, it seemed that the resolution was addressed not so much to ourselves as to those “others” out there. As a message to them, I felt it would have been more effective to acknowledge that provocative statements have been made from both sides. As an example of such provocation, I cited Dr. Socarides's TV appearance.
I would like to end this response on a positive note. After years of fighting against The American's antidiscrimination policy, Dr. Socarides is finally accepting that “candidates, faculty, and training and supervising analysts” are to be selected, without bias, on the basis of their qualifications and merit. That is progress.