What do you think?
Rate this book
The Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality
Chronicles the changing psychoanalytic position on male homosexuality, tracing the evolution of psychoanalysis from a humane discipline to a calcified orthodoxy and the emerging disinterest of psychoanalysts in homosexuality
301 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 1988
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
August 19, 2024
A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST SURVEYS THE VARIOUS PSYCHANALYTIC THEORIES (circa 1988)
The author wrote in the Introduction to this 1988 book, "I have written the following study with two aims in mind. First, I have attempted to set out... the psychoanalytic theory, or theories, of male homosexuality... Second, I have also tried to account for how that theory developed. The subject matter of this second narrative is psychoanalysis itself... my stance is critical, and I have ventured to point out deficiencies in the theory and to criticize both the way psychoanalysis has gathered its clinical data on homosexuality and the way the theory was formulated and developed." (Pg. 13) He adds, "I would provide the reader with an account of how the analytic theory of male homosexuality developed, giving notice of particular advances in the theory and showing how analysts were influenced by previous work." (Pg. 16-17)
He concludes the Introduction on the note, "There can be no doubt that some forms of homosexuality are psychopathological, but the same is true for heterosexuality... Homosexual people do not need the analytic establishment, and they will continue to lead their lives as they have done in far more hostile and dangerous circumstances. But the acrimony and alienation that characterize the relation between homosexuals and psychoanalysis are wasteful and unnecessary, and healing that breach will profit both groups. I should like to think that a major conclusion to be drawn from the following history is that, despite the enmity, a tradition has always existed within psychoanalysis that operates through respect, compassion and fairness... it is only fitting that psychoanalysis now frame the first gestures of reconciliation." (Pg. 22-23)
He observes, "The early psychoanalytical writers ... [sometimes] made rather sweeping claims without offering one bit of clinical evidence. Thus [Ludwig] Jekels could maintain that all homosexuality was essentially passive, regardless of its manifest signs, without offering any clinical material whatever. Most others, of course, supported their claims with evidence, however unsystematically." (Pg. 60-61)
He suggests, "The issue psychoanalysis has never faced squarely, at least up to this point in our history, is the possibility that the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality does not correspond to that between neurotic-oedipal and disturbed-oral... Any clinician with even limited experience can recognize the difference between psychotic and borderline patients and more nearly neurotic and normal ones. Yet psychoanalytic theory has failed to acknowledge and account for the latter... But in 1962, the theory of male homosexuality was partly advanced and partly retarded by the publication of [Irving] Bieber's immensely influential but deeply flawed study ['Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study'] of the origins of male homosexuality." (Pg. 183)
This is an objective historical summary, and will be of interest to anyone studying the history of interpretations of this matter.
The author wrote in the Introduction to this 1988 book, "I have written the following study with two aims in mind. First, I have attempted to set out... the psychoanalytic theory, or theories, of male homosexuality... Second, I have also tried to account for how that theory developed. The subject matter of this second narrative is psychoanalysis itself... my stance is critical, and I have ventured to point out deficiencies in the theory and to criticize both the way psychoanalysis has gathered its clinical data on homosexuality and the way the theory was formulated and developed." (Pg. 13) He adds, "I would provide the reader with an account of how the analytic theory of male homosexuality developed, giving notice of particular advances in the theory and showing how analysts were influenced by previous work." (Pg. 16-17)
He concludes the Introduction on the note, "There can be no doubt that some forms of homosexuality are psychopathological, but the same is true for heterosexuality... Homosexual people do not need the analytic establishment, and they will continue to lead their lives as they have done in far more hostile and dangerous circumstances. But the acrimony and alienation that characterize the relation between homosexuals and psychoanalysis are wasteful and unnecessary, and healing that breach will profit both groups. I should like to think that a major conclusion to be drawn from the following history is that, despite the enmity, a tradition has always existed within psychoanalysis that operates through respect, compassion and fairness... it is only fitting that psychoanalysis now frame the first gestures of reconciliation." (Pg. 22-23)
He observes, "The early psychoanalytical writers ... [sometimes] made rather sweeping claims without offering one bit of clinical evidence. Thus [Ludwig] Jekels could maintain that all homosexuality was essentially passive, regardless of its manifest signs, without offering any clinical material whatever. Most others, of course, supported their claims with evidence, however unsystematically." (Pg. 60-61)
He suggests, "The issue psychoanalysis has never faced squarely, at least up to this point in our history, is the possibility that the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality does not correspond to that between neurotic-oedipal and disturbed-oral... Any clinician with even limited experience can recognize the difference between psychotic and borderline patients and more nearly neurotic and normal ones. Yet psychoanalytic theory has failed to acknowledge and account for the latter... But in 1962, the theory of male homosexuality was partly advanced and partly retarded by the publication of [Irving] Bieber's immensely influential but deeply flawed study ['Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study'] of the origins of male homosexuality." (Pg. 183)
This is an objective historical summary, and will be of interest to anyone studying the history of interpretations of this matter.
August 30, 2020
Pseudoscientific garbage.
February 5, 2026
Bit tedious.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews