The first installment of this column is a broad opening statement. One that will invite further contributions in the area of the self and orientation. I cannot help but be reminded of the mixture of unease, relief, and in a few cases, rancor that accompanied the initial open discussion of orientation at the Self Psychology meeting in Chicago back in 1994. Things have settled down considerably and several of us have long since shook hands and made up. Papers and pre-conferences on orientation have become commonplace at our meetings, though regular attendees have observed that the same people come year after year, and many have wondered, "Where are the other (read heterosexual) folks?"
Orientation is one of those topics that, while seemingly a small part of analytic theory, eventually brings in the entire theory. Indeed it is impossible to discuss what we have come to call sexual orientation independent of the corpus of theory - ultimately because we are all share a human mind. It is further complicated in that "orientation" is not really an analytic term, it seems to have arisen out of the work of John Money and Robert Stoller back in the 80's. In the corpus of analytic literature the terms homosexuality and heterosexuality tend to be employed. The multiple usage of these terms i.e. as a theoretical/diagnostic statement about the "choice of object" male or female that then sets the stage for the oedipal drama; the yearned for object and consequent sexualization, and as the manifest object of adult sexual attraction tends to create confusion (see Stoller 1985 for a more thorough discussion). Though rarely, until recently was manifest homosexuality and love - the love that is ascribed to heterosexual pairings, mentioned in the same paragraph.
In reviewing the works of Kohut in this area we are left with several summary statements. The text presented by Tolpin and Tolpin (1996) contains the nexus of his thinking. Namely, that homosexual sexualization represents an effort to get something from an idealized, more powerful figure, and that homosexual relationships tend to be weighted towards the narcissistic side of things. Though Kohut offered a radically different view of narcissism than did Freud, one does hear echoes of the older analytic versus narcissistic dichotomy. Just as Freud (1905) tailored Aristophanenes' fable to suit his own needs (the entire work is more a celebration of homosexuality than of heterosexuality), we tend to forget that Freud (1914) offered two anacytic choices: the mother who feeds and nurtures and the father who protects. To summarily assume that homosexuality must represent one of the narcissistic choices goes against the grain of the fundamental analytic assumption of the plasticity of the mind and of the multiple possibilities of human attachments. Close analysis of heterosexual folks often reveals that efforts to get something from the opposite sexed parent are at the heart of heterosexual sexualizations and love relations.
We have access to two versions of the lectures Kohut gave at the Chicago Institute in 1976. One is cleaned up for publication and the other is presented in a relatively unaltered state.
The version offered by Tolpin and Tolpin (1996) reads as follows:
"People are not all cut according to the same plan. There have been periods in history in which homosexual relationships were considered to be proper and beautiful and nothing to be ashamed about, in which the relationship of men with growing boys was an aspect of a highly developed culture. I would say that certain creative people do not develop their object-love capacities to a great degree, but their narcissistic forces lead to the flowering of their creativity. Who is to say that this is less good than the capacity to fall in love with women? Value judgments don't belong there. That's what I mean. The capacity to copulate does not outweigh Socrates' homosexual propensities and the flowering of his mind and the contribution to western culture. So much for that." (p 40)
The version offered by Strozier (2001) is more raw and emphatic:
"People are not all cut according to the same plan," he says. Homosexuality is simply one expression of narcissism, whish is not at all to be regarded as unhealthy. Homosexuality may, in fact, even represent something higher in human organization. At times in history and with some "highly developed" culture (he was undoubtedly thinking here of the ancient Greeks) sexualized relationships between men were regarded as "proper and beautiful." Certain creative people, furthermore simply do not develop heterosexual investments. "Who is to say," Kohut concluded passionately, "that it is less good than the capacity of some nincompoop to fall in love with women. The moron's capacity to copulate - this may be heterosexual - does not outweigh Socrates' homosexual propensities and the flowering of his mind and his contribution to Western culture." (p266)
Marian Tolpin related to me that they edited the lectures to smooth over Kohut's, at times, complex style of conveying his ideas in an effort to make them more readable. She is also quite insistent that Kohut did not think that all homosexuality represented sexualization (M.Tolpin 2003). In the same lecture, Kohut went on to say that he had observed homosexual relationships where the two men were experienced as independent sources of initiative, and that they reminded him of a younger-older brother pairing. At any rate, we are left with several ideas: 1. homosexuality represents sexualization - a yearning to get something from an idealized figure; 2. in a different sense it is but one of many expressions of narcissism; and 3. that one can observe enduring relationships based on a recognizable object relation, i.e the younger-older brother dyad. But also there is the idea that one is a nincompoop if one thinks of it as a lesser way of living and relating.
So, we could say Kohut felt there was a "real orientation" - heterosexuality, then there was homosexual sexualization, and in a few cases something that approximated heterosexuality and leave it at that. Or we could take contextualism seriously and offer the thought that at that point in time the idea of a homosexual orientation as a bona fide orientation was out of the scope of the majority of analysts' thinking. In suggesting one look at the total life of the person in question and in pointing out that he had observed enduring relationships that were not built on sexualization but upon a recognizable object relation, Kohut took a forward leap (or was he was just repeating what Freud had said in his letter to the American mother?).
While Strozier, in his biography of Kohut, does make quite a to do about Kohut's homosexual sexualization, I find it much less of a potboiler than many. Ultimately, though, we must stop and give pause. Let's think in terms of what we would have potentially lost, in terms of the contribution to analysis Kohut made, if, given the prevailing analytic convictions when Kohut was being trained, some gatekeeper had kept Kohut out. Might not the course of analytic history have been changed?
Let's take the discussion in another direction. I seriously doubt that Kohut went to dinner at the home of a homosexual couple, one of whom was an analyst, and met their children. Not that he would not have accepted such an invitation. It simply would have been something exceedingly rare in Kohut's day but something that is quite possible in 2003. Indeed, one also hopes that we do not have to reach the pinnacles of Socrates in order for our "other qualities" to balance out a homosexual orientation.
Prominent analysts like.Goldberg (2001), Kernberg (2002), and Tolpin (2003), have all made statements about what constitutes "normality" in a homosexual orientation. All of their definitions rely on in-depth analytic observations rather than upon summary statements based on manifest orientation. I think we would all agree that there is a difference between the often frantic sexualizations and the deep, enduring relationships that we observe in all of our patients. Ultimately, whether homosexuality is on par with heterosexuality is a matter of personal opinion and conviction. One must wonder if the idea of homosexuality as a poor relation to heterosexuality is so engrained in our larger culture that it is difficult to discuss the matter without becoming either outright defensive or polemic and polarizing in our arguments, regardless of which side of the debate we come from. It may be as fundamental as the readily observed tendency, regardless of which gender we are attracted to, to idealize our personal sexuality and orientation. The reconsideration of homosexuality and its role in the human mind leads, at some point, into one of the most understudied yet integral aspects of analytic thinking, namely the changing of one's mind about something.
I have always been a bit ambivalent about the arguments regarding the roll of social change in reshaping our theories about homosexuality offered by my good friends Ralph Roughton (2002) and Bert Cohler (2002). At the root of it, I wanted something deeper, a tour de force of analytic theorizing. Perhaps my longing was a reflection of my own narcissistic rage - a longing for a hero bearing the mighty sword of theory, to smite the opposition who used theory to support their convictions (see Shelby 2000 for a discussion of the role of narcissistic rage in the lives of gay men). After all, theory is deeper than social change - or is it? Can the two ever definitely be separated?
I came to change my mind about these arguments when I took a break during the Self Psychology conference in Washington, DC, last fall. After many years of being fascinated by the great, at the same time somber and grandiose monuments erected to the memory of our national heroes, I finally made my pilgrimage to the Jefferson Memorial. For so many years it seemed far away but this trip, for whatever reason, I realized it was only a 15-minute walk from the Smithsonian.
As tends to be the case in the national monuments, passages are carved in the walls that summarize the hero's thoughts. Further research revealed the unabridged version presented here to be even more to the point of this discussion:
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that law and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." (Letter to Sammuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810)
As analysts, we must be a bit more respectful of coats, and remind ourselves that our smaller coats were at one time acts of parental vigilance, bestowed upon us at a time when we were unable to provide our own. I am not in favor of throwing out the old coats of theory, rather of reweaving them into something more suitable for our day and times. As our ideas about the very nature of knowledge changes and as a consequence of change in analytic theory our readings of the old texts change as well.
We must also remember that while Kohut was writing, Mahler, Loewald and Brenner - to name a few - were offering their own radical departures from the ideas of Freud. At the same time, enduring Freudian concepts are found in the writings of all these people and we continue to incorporate "re-editions" of Freud's ideas in our own work, on a daily basis. I do not think people who disagree with me are barbarians. Indeed, when it comes to work with gay men my thoughts about analyzing the sexualizations in the context of the orientation have raised the ire of many a gay clinician.
At any rate I found myself mulling over Jefferson's quote, reconsidering the role of social change in our theories and convictions, and reconciling myself to the arguments of analytic friends while simultaneously musing that I had finally come to a place that once seemed so far away. At any rate, we now live in an academic environment where we are freer to explore the relationships between the self, sexuality, sexualization and orientation. If we agree that our fundamental quest is the deeper understanding of the human mind in general, and our individual patients in particular, then our possibilities are endless.
Of course, missing in this discussion, as in so many analytic discussions, are ideas about female homosexuality. A vast literature exists on the topic and I invite my colleagues who are more familiar theoretically and clinically to contribute to this effort. So let the exchange of ideas begin.
References:
Cohler, B. (2002), Two analysis, two times. The Annual of Psychoanalysis, Jerome Weiner and Jim Anderson (eds) V.30, 83-100.
Freud, S. (1905), Three essays on the theory of homosexuality. SE 7.
Freud, S. (1914), On narcissism, an introduction, SE 14.
Kernberg, O. (2002), Unresolved issues in the psychoanalytic theory of homosexuality and bisexuality, Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 6/1 9-18.
Goldberg, A (2001), Depathologizing homosexuality, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 49/4, 1109-1114.
Tolpin, M. & Topin, P. (1996), Heinz Kohut: The Chicago Institute Lectures. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.
Tolpin, M. (2003), Personal communication.
Roughton, R. (2002), The two analyses of a gay man: the interplay of social change and psychoanalytic understanding, Annual of Psychoanalysis, Jerome Weiner and Jim Anderson (eds) V. 30, 101-118.
Shelby, R. (2000), Narcissistic injury, humiliation, rage and the desire for revenge: Thoughts on Jack Dresher's psychoanalytic therapy and the gay man. Gender and Psychoanalysis. 5/3,275-290.
Stoller, R. (1985), Observing the Erotic Imagination. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Strozier, C. (2001), Heinz Kohut: The Making of a Psychoanalyst. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
