For almost four decades now organized mental health has declassified
homosexuality as a mental illness in the United States of America. After several years of bitter dispute, the American Psychiatric Association decided to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders, its official list of mental diseases. Nevertheless it is remarkable that a demise of therapies designed to change homosexual orientation seems improbable at least, given that some religious political activists and marginalized health professionals are apparently seeking to reinstate the disease-model of homosexuality by presenting stories of presumably cured homosexuals to the American public. Aside the professional media, especially religious
groups promoting sexual orientation change therapies recently
experienced unwanted popular media coverage.The treatment of homosexualityby medical practitioners is of relatively recent origin. Before 1800, homosexuality was essentially conceived as
a merely theological-moral phenomenon. From then onward however,
legislative declared it a legal matter until medical professionals declared it a sickness. While at it’s time of origin, the medical practitioners’ concept of homosexuality as a sickness may have been a liberal and humaneadvance over the conception and punishment of homosexuality as a crime, at the latest since the post World-War II years, psychiatrists andpsychologists can be regarded among the major ideologues of homosexual oppression. Sexual conversion therapies or reparative therapies derive from this
disease model portraying homosexuality as a mental disorder and a social evil. Since these terms in my opinion inaccurately imply defectiveness in homosexuality and bisexuality, I chose to refer to such therapy as sexual orientation change efforts in the title of this paper. Today the main groups pursuing these kinds of therapies are the before-mentioned marginalized psychotherapists and conservative Christians. This paper will consecutively show that this kind of therapy should not in any way be influential to the
development of public policy since the very origins of the disease model are based on badly flawed assumptions. It will subsequently critically evaluate sexual orientation change efforts in general, addressing several issues as its effectiveness, potential harmfulness and its effect on the public view of lesbian, gay and bisexual people.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Body
2.1. The disease model of homosexuality: origins in psychoanalytic theory and religion
2.1.1 Key figures of psychoanalytic history in cohesion with the disease model of homosexuality
2.1.2 Homosexuality and right-wing Christians
2.2. Sexual orientation change efforts – a critical evaluation
2.2.1 Internalized homophobia - a sufficient reason for therapy?
2.2.2 Effectiveness of sexual orientation change efforts
2.2.3 Potential harmfulness of sexual orientation change efforts
2.2.4 Sexual orientation change efforts and its effect on the public views of lesbian, gay and bisexual people
3. Conclusion
4. Works Cited
Objectives and Topics
The paper examines the historical and theoretical origins of the "disease model" regarding homosexuality within psychoanalysis and religious discourse, while critically evaluating the efficacy and ethical implications of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE).
- Historical development of the pathologization of homosexuality in the US.
- Intersection of psychoanalytic theory and religious ideology in promoting change therapies.
- Scientific and ethical critique of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE).
- Psychological and social consequences for individuals subjected to reparative therapies.
- Analysis of the impact of these efforts on public perception of the LGBTQ community.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1.1 Key figures of psychoanalytic history in cohesion with the disease model of homosexuality
Originally there has been a wide variety of treatments for homosexual patients. These ranged from castration over electroshocks to drug- and aversion therapy, just to name a few13. Although these treatment modalities have also promised to cure homosexuality, reparative therapy is generally associated with talking cures employed in psychoanalysis14. This part of the paper will review the history and theoretical assumptions of psychoanalytically-oriented practitioners whose opinions shaped the psychiatric landscape in regards to the emergence of the disease model of homosexuality.
It is remarkable that the innovator of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud apparently never intended this form of treatment to solve the problem of homosexuality. Greenberg quotes15 Freud from his Letter to an American Mother where he comments that homosexuality is not a sickness16. Furthermore, Faderman and Drescher agree that Freud’s attitude toward homosexuality was tolerant for his time even though he was not immune to a certain bias about gender behaviour. Unlike modern reparative therapists, he did not believe in criminalization and social opprobrium as acceptable therapeutic tools17.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the historical shift in mental health classification regarding homosexuality and defines the scope of the paper, which focuses on the critical evaluation of conversion therapies.
2. Body: This section provides an in-depth analysis of how psychoanalytic and religious frameworks collaborated to create the "disease model" and examines the practical, ethical, and societal impacts of attempts to change sexual orientation.
2.1. The disease model of homosexuality: origins in psychoanalytic theory and religion: Explores the shared biases between psychoanalytic and religious establishments in the mid-20th century that led to the pathologization of homosexuality.
2.1.1 Key figures of psychoanalytic history in cohesion with the disease model of homosexuality: Analyzes the theoretical contributions of figures like Freud, Bergler, Rado, and Socarides, tracing the evolution of reparative therapy concepts.
2.1.2 Homosexuality and right-wing Christians: Discusses the political and religious motivations behind the involvement of conservative groups in promoting and funding change therapies.
2.2. Sexual orientation change efforts – a critical evaluation: Critically questions the scientific validity of the theories underpinning reparative therapy.
2.2.1 Internalized homophobia - a sufficient reason for therapy?: Investigates whether patient requests for therapy are based on genuine desire or internalized social pressure and stigma.
2.2.2 Effectiveness of sexual orientation change efforts: Examines the lack of empirical evidence supporting the success of these therapies and the methodological flaws in pro-therapy research.
2.2.3 Potential harmfulness of sexual orientation change efforts: Discusses the negative psychological, social, and spiritual consequences reported by individuals who have undergone conversion therapy.
2.2.4 Sexual orientation change efforts and its effect on the public views of lesbian, gay and bisexual people: Explores the wider societal implications, suggesting that these therapies reinforce prejudice and hostility toward the LGBTQ community.
3. Conclusion: Summarizes that the "disease model" is a flawed concept based on prejudice, and concludes that conversion therapies are ineffective and harmful, suggesting that efforts should address social stigma rather than the individual.
4. Works Cited: Lists the academic, historical, and professional sources utilized throughout the research paper.
Keywords
Homosexuality, Disease Model, Psychoanalysis, Reparative Therapy, Sexual Orientation Change Efforts, Conversion Therapy, LGBTQ, Mental Health, Internalized Homophobia, Social Stigma, Religion, Psychology, Psychiatry, Sexual Orientation, Historical Pathologization
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper examines the historical origins of the "disease model" of homosexuality within the US and provides a critical evaluation of sexual orientation change efforts.
What are the primary fields of study involved?
The work primarily focuses on the intersection of psychoanalytic theory, religious ideologies, and modern mental health practices.
What is the central research objective?
The objective is to demonstrate that the disease model of homosexuality is scientifically unfounded and that "reparative" therapies are both ineffective and potentially harmful to patients.
Which scientific methodologies are employed?
The paper utilizes a literature-based historical and critical analysis, evaluating existing studies, professional psychiatric shifts, and sociological reports on the impact of conversion therapies.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section covers the history of psychoanalytic theories regarding homosexuality, the role of conservative religious groups, the efficacy of change therapies, and the resulting psychological harm to individuals.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Homosexuality, Psychoanalysis, Reparative Therapy, Conversion Therapy, Mental Health, and Social Stigma.
How does the author view the "triadic family" theory?
The author highlights this theory as a key, yet flawed, component of reparative therapy that falsely attributes homosexuality to specific parenting patterns.
What is the significance of the year 1973 in this context?
1973 marks the pivotal declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association, which undermined the scientific legitimacy of the "disease model."
How is the relationship between the "ex-gay" movement and religion described?
The text describes a close, often indistinguishable, collaboration between religious "ex-gay" ministries and certain psychoanalytic groups, both seeking to promote a political and moral agenda.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Oliver Than (Autor:in), 2010, Homosexuality and Pathology in the US , München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/155795
