Individualizing Gender and Sexuality and Homosexual Prejudice in Theory Exposed
Following the sudden death of Stephen Mitchell in 2000, a ripple of awareness was re-awakened across the psychoanalytic community regarding the treatment of homosexuals and homosexuality as “pathological”. Here, Mitchell, aged 32, wrote:
“Unless one begs the question entirely by simply defining homosexuality as pathological, it seems apparent that any determination of pathology must rest on the presence of psychodynamic factors, nor on the demonstrability of a psychodynamic causation, but on the presence and relative weights of defensive and adaptive aspects in the behavior, the quality of the interpersonal relationships, and the degree of development and integration of the self. To call the outcome pathological because the origins are “pathogenic” is tautological (1978, p.259).
Here in lies the problem with studying psychoanalysis, especially from a classical Freudian perspective. The rigid theory in classical Freud regarding gender roles based in the culture of the fin de siecle time period in which Freud wrote. The classical Freudian position was one in which the Oedipus Complex was only understood as the Father’s castrating penis, the little boy’s fear of the father and the little girl’s loss resulting in penis envy. These were the traditional mechanisms that set up children sexual orientations. All little boys want to possess their mothers and all little girls want to possess their fathers but each, upon realization that this cannot be achieved, cements their psycho-sexual development and will ultimately set in motion a repetition drive to seek the lost Object in adolescence upon puberty during dating.
Freud had criticized Carl Jung, who, coincidentally was widely criticized by not just Freud, but many others in the field at that time. Jung would go on to establish the field of analytical psychoanalysis. He would establish what he called the “collective unconscious” in which seven major archetypes existed. A connection to some modern psychoanalytic theory here, might be drawn to what Lucy Holmes called the triangulation of Mother-Father-Self (“The Internal Triangle: Theories in female development”, 2008) . We all possess this triangulation and, for some, we are, to a greater or lesser degree, influenced by these two respective male and female Objects.
Of the seven archetypes, Jung had established something he called the Anima and the Animus, respectively, which are the male and female parts of the psyche that correspond to femininity (motherly type attributes) and masculinity (fatherly type attributes). Jung’s studies and clinical experiences convinced him that we each carry within us the whole of human potential, both male and female. The Anima represented the quality of moods, reactions, and impulses in man. The Animus the masculine qualities of commitments, beliefs and inspirations in woman. More importantly, as the “not I” within the self, the Anima and Animus serve as psychopompi, or soul guides, to the vast areas of our unacknowledged inner potential (Fontana, 1994, pg. 38).
Stephen Mitchell’s “Psychodynamics, Homosexuality, and the Question of Pathology” (1978) was published during a time period when psychoanalytic approaches to Homosexuality ranged from pathologization to condemnation. In this work Mitchell points to how developmental accounts — with their inevitable inclusion of conflict, fixation, and complex object relations — were allowed, in the case of homosexuality, to constitute pathology. Mitchell shows that psychoanalytic explanations of homosexuality run against psychoanalytic principles. For example, if any meaning leading to homosexual object choice is found to be conflictual or defensive in any way, this motive or meaning is allowed to stand solely for the entirety of meaning and motive. Homosexuality manifests the genetic fallacy and a failure to recognize the operation of secondary autonomy. In secondary autonomy, behaviors and attitudes which are initially associated with a conflict between drive manifestations and defenses can become detached from their sources. This takes place through a change of function, made possible by a de-sexualization and a de-aggressivation of the associated mental energy.
Heinz Hartmann (1964), who argued that some ego functions, on the one side, have “primary autonomy,” for example, the capacity to postpone gratification in order to avoid pain, or the adaptive function of perception and cognition. These ego functions are inborn, and they mature, as do the drives, and they can also become, through fantasy and defense, embroiled in conflict. On the other side, some ways of being that originate in conflict and defense can gain secondary autonomy, a relative freedom from their genetic origins. Specifically this is where Mitchell makes the point not only by arguing we need to assess the quality of object relations and fantasy in anyone’s sexuality, but also as I noted earlier, through arguments drawn from Hartmann, that these object relations and fantasies, whatever their origin, can gain secondary autonomy. We can think of secondary autonomy as working to establish identity and is an area where an individual can entertain the possibities through freedom of expression, acquiring what they desire which has originated out of conflict, fantasy, and defense as when a woman seeks to transform herself from appearing feminized to appearing very masculine through body building or achieving some other a goal that is in line with their secondary autonomy. The genetic fallacy ignores the possibility of transformation (Chodorow, 2012, pg. 65).
Sources:
Chodorow, Nancy J. (2012) Individualizing Gender and Sexuality: Theory and Practice. New York. Routledge; Taylor & Francis Group.
Holmes, Lucy (2008). The Internal Triangle: Theories in female development. New York. Jason Aronson.
Fontana, David (1994). The Secret Language of Dreams: A visual key to dreams and their meaning. San Fransisco. Chronicle Books.
Hartmann, Heinz (1964). Essays on Ego Psychology. New York. International Universities Press.
