Linda Nicolosi: What influence has the self-esteem movement had on the question of homosexuality?

Joseph Nicolosi: Since ours is a compassionate, egalitarian, and non-judgmental society, we strive to be inclusive, and to avoid stigmatizing. But to achieve this goal, psychiatry has had to drop some of the old labels and theories of psychosexual development.

LN: And this emphasis on compassion is certainly a good thing.

JN: It is, of course. But compassion can be carried too far, when it induces a loss of nerve among psychologists. Psychologists have an obligation to comprehensively understand and explain the human condition.

LN: Psychology seems to have become so non-judgmental now, that no one seems to have any real guiding sense, any more, of what is normal.

JN: That's true, and I think it's the end result of falling too much in love with democracy. We're heading toward what's called "hyper-democracy" -- a political system which knows no values other then liberty and equality.

LN: This drive seems to have some kind of strange life of its own, doesn't it? Looking at our own political life, there seems to be an almost addictive appetite for ever and ever greater equality. Some observers have said that the democratic political system may contain the seeds of its own destruction. There seems to be an inevitable "leveling effect," to the point that it begins to seem undemocratic to create any kind of hierarchy of value. Or even to be a a critical thinker...especially if one's critical thinking entails limits. That is, seeing some lifestyle choices as better or healthier than others.

JN: Ultimately, I think, we're headed toward blurring all the essential distinctions that have made civilized life possible. And of course, the distinctions relating to the gay issue are those that distinguish the genders.

LN: And looking at the academic literature right now, we see that the deconstruction of gender is a major issue. The idea that a male gender identity is natural to a man, and a female gender identity to a woman..."Who's to say what's natural?"

JN: That is the question.

LN: And this idea has spread beyond academic circles. California, for example, has passed legislation that defines gender -- in certain circumstances -- as "actual or perceived." In defiance of reality, if you are a man but you feel like a women, then you are considered to be a woman... "I can be whoever I think I am."... That in-your-face defiance of nature...

It's a curious turnaround after the '60's, isn't it? During those years, the rallying cry was "back to nature."

JN: And there's the loss of the distinctions between the species..."Is a human being morally equivalent to an animal? Do we have the same rights, are both sacred? Or is neither sacred?" And the blurring of distinctions between life and death..."When does life begin? Is a disabled newborn a human being with rights?" And between good and evil..."What is evil, after all?" All those old dividing lines and distinctions are falling.

LN: ...And the distinction between what is, and what ought to be. Who's willing to draw the dividing line? The fact that something is -- that it simply exists -- is assumed to mean that it ought to be. Things are "celebrated," solely because they represent diversity.

JN: Plus, the whole range of aesthetic distinctions..."What is art? How does one define excellence?" No one seems to be able to define art. "Art is...simply what an artist does." This has thrown the art world into the very same chaos we now see in psychiatry.

LN: So in response to this social change taking place on many levels, psychiatry has felt compelled to drop some of those old labels which were a barrier to self-esteem.

JN: Right. It's part of that "hyper-democratic" cultural ethos to erase as many hierarchies and distinctions as possible...To wipe out all those civilization-making differences and hierarchies of value.

But there'e been a price to be paid for following this road. Psychology has had to go through all kinds of intellectual contortions and compromises with reality to justify its new ideas about what is normal and natural.

The concept of natural law, the idea that we have a distinctively "human" nature, is falling in favor of the intellectual chaos of deconstructionism. The popular name for deconstructionism is that catch-all, mindless term, "celebration of diversity."

LN: The absurd assumption that differences are, in and of themselves, cause for celebration.

But how do you explain the idea of a "law of the universe," a natural law, to those who just don't see it? The idea that there's a design, a physical law, that means we have to live a certain way or pay a price? Your detractors would like to make this into a narrowly religious issue.

JN: I remember a pastor trying to explain the natural law as it relates to sexuality. He said, "What would you think of a man who was trying to drink through a straw -- and to do that, he put the straw in his ear, or up his nose?" Of course, people would say, "There is something wrong with that man." And that was his argument; a simple but from-the-gut illustration why same-sex sexuality is not normal.

LN: What is taking the place of the old concept of a natural order?

JN: We see a growing interest in intersubjective psychologies, with their emphasis on the individual's personal, subjective experience as the determiner of psychological health -- "whatever works for you."

At the same time, due to postmodern philosophy, there's a loss of confidence that we can know very much about objective reality or psychological normality.

The relativism inherent in the self-psychologies of the 1960's has been so thoroughly absorbed into all branches of the profession that we now simply take these ideas for granted as the intellectual foundation of our discipline.

LN: Do you think most psychologists hold to these views?

JN: Most practitioners today are trying to be inclusive and nonjudgmental. "Who am I to judge?" There is a pleasant feeling that communicates itself with this attitude; they want to be people-pleasers. Their first absolute is tolerance -- the kind of tolerance that really means not just putting up with, but valuing all lifestyles and opinions as equivalent. They may believe their job as a psychologist is simply to facilitate the goals and objectives of each individual. This sounds very egalitarian and democratic; it has a strong emotional appeal; but it is intellectually naive. It is more of a sentiment than an organized system of thought.

LN: A sentiment?

JN: Yes. Because psychologists who defend homosexuality as normal and natural have still not come up with any plausible, non-deficit-based theoretical model to explain homosexual development. They simply don't have a theory.

They haven't explained how a history of alienation from same-sex peers, gender-disidentification, alienation from the same-sex parent, and typically the feeling of not having been "seen" and understood by one's father or mother could result in a happy and well-functioning man or woman. But this is the childhood history of a remarkable percentage of homosexual men and women.

Psychologists can't explain how this could be normal, because it doesn't make sense. How could a childhood of deficits, fears, and feelings of alienation and inadequacy be a pathway that we call normal?

LN: So how do you think most psychologists explain it?

JN: Some of them say, "Yes, these clients have had a conflictual childhood, and never identified with the same-sex parent. True -- there's been a disturbance in gender identity. But who among us has had a 'normal' childhood?" These clients have made a useful adaptation, they say, and have simply directed their erotic attractions to a same-sex person. Many of them are living productive lives -- working and loving. And who says one's gender-identity must be consistent with their biological sex? Why should gender even matter at all? Therefore, they say, we can't label homosexuality a problem.

LN: And of course, there's a kernel of truth in some of that. We all make adaptations to less-than-ideal circumstances, and some of those adaptations work out pretty well. Obviously there are gay people who are quite content with their lives.

JN: Which was a major part of psychiatry's rationale when it normalized homosexuality..."If they're happy with their lives, who are we to say otherwise?"

But this is important: there is a difference between saying, "He's made the best of his situation that he knew how," and "His condition is normal and natural." You have a person who has a twisted leg; he may learn how to adapt and how to put his weight on the other foot, or walk on crutches; and when he goes into a restaurant, he stacks the crutches up and he puts them under the table...he does the best he knows how. But we still can't deny that it's better to have two good legs. We have to be honest about that.

LN: Why has there been so little dialogue about the developmental factors in homosexuality?

JN: Psychologists don't want to talk about it. Everybody wants to be the good guy. What these psychologists don't realize is that in order not to make a portion of the population feel bad, what they are doing is making a major compromise with reality. And this attitude is having incredible secondary consequences for our culture. By systematically eroding the conviction that opposite-sex coupling is normative, you are failing to support the many young people who are going through a period of gender-identity and sexual-orientation confusion.

LN: So if psychologists were willing to be more honest about what they see...society would be more supportive of healthy development.

JN: Yes, and it has always been the role of society to support and facilitate the transition to heterosexuality. For two reasons: First, heterosexuality is better for society; and second, heterosexuality is healthier for the individual.

LN: Would you explain that?

JN: We can make a good analogy with the way society supports single parenting. Because we fail to take a stand that single parenting is undesirable, we are getting more and more kids who don't have a father. And through our compassion and eagerness to be nonjudgmental, we are doing children and families a great disservice.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier. Motivated by compassion -- and also that democratic "leveling" instinct you mentioned -- our culture is erasing all the old hierarchies of value and the essential distinctions. We just don't want to hurt anybody's feelings by pointing out that his family configuration is not the way it's supposed to be....that it is a "make do" adaptation, often to tough circumstances.

LN: Because many single mothers are really struggling -- doing the best they can with very tough circumstances.

JN: Of course. And it may well represent a heroic effort on that mother's part to do the best she can with adverse circumstances. However, it is not the way things ought to be.

LN: But there's a fear that by talking about "what ought to be" will mean limiting options, making judgments, setting oneself up as an authority. Then the question is inevitably asked, "Who are you to say?" Unless you're endorsing all lifestyle choices as equal. Then you can speak as authoritatively as you wish.

JN: So we end up, by default, with a social system that endorses every form of personal liberation. But a lot of distortions -- even outright untruths -- are necessary to shore up that faulty logic.

For example, Family Research Council did a great essay awhile back on the distortions in high-school textbooks. Textbook writers are forced to point out the research that shows that single-parent families are not the best way to raise kids, and such families actually place kids at a serious developmental disadvantage in many ways, compared to the traditional family.

But then the textbooks conclude, "All choices of family configuration are valid"!

The editors just can't let the facts lead to a conclusion that might offend someone or narrow down the list of lifestyle choices. They place "tolerance" (which now requires actual approval) over honesty. And in so doing, they gravely mislead our children.

Email this to a friend