Psychoanalysis and Homosexuality: Do We Need a New Theory?

Abstract

No need exists, it is argued, for a new psychoanalytic theory of homosexuality. Certainly psychoanalysis should not be expected to generate such a theory using its own methodology alone. The preoccupation with producing such a theory avoids more important questions about psychoanalytic theory building raised by an examination of the long relationship between psychoanalysis and homosexuality. These questions concern the problems related to using psychoanalytic methodology (1) to construct categories (including the categories normal and abnormal), (2) to construct causal theory (the problems include the limitations of psychoanalytic developmental theory and a long-standing confusion between psychoanalytic developmental theory, psychoanalytic genetic reconstruction, and psychodynamics), and (3) to identify "bedrock." Finally, the question is addressed of what might be needed that is new in the psychoanalytic approach to homosexuality.

Queering psychoanalysis: power, self and identity in psychoanalytic therapy with sexual minority clients

“…In relation to working with lesbian patients/clients, Ryan (2002) suggests that the notion of a conditional bisexuality is of very limited use in thinking about gender and sexual identity in the clinic and argues instead for a proper consideration of the complex relation between homosexuality and heterosexuality, especially their interdependence. She goes on to argue, following Auchincloss and Vaughan (2001), that psychoanalysis took up the category of homosexuality from psychiatry and sexology with 'no acknowledgment of the historical specificity and regulatory role of these categories . .…”

“…In this way, Drescher (2001) reminds us that psychoanalytic theories play a pivotal role in practice not least because they affect our clinical skills, especially the ways we listen to and hear what patients/clients are saying. Thus, properly listening to sexual minority patients/clients, without the distraction of pathologising theories of origin and development becomes a key focus of concern (Auchincloss and Vaughan, 2001); however, such an assertion does not go far enough, as Ryan (2002, p. 4) argues, . .…”

Theorizing About Theorizing: an Examination of the Contributions of William I. Grossman To Psychoanalysis

“…Formulations of female sexuality put forward by Freud can hence be seen as provisional, and his hypotheses can be argued pro and con much more readily. An excellent demonstration of how separating the three strands clarifies the psychoanalytic understanding of female homosexuality is presented in Auchincloss and Vaughan (2001).…”

Psychoanalytic Developmental Theory: A Contemporary Reconsideration

“…For some critics (see below), these distinctions in and of themselves disqualify the developmental point of view from consideration as a specifically psychoanalytic perspective, as it is not derived from psychoanalytic data (Auchincloss and Vaughan 2001;Green 2000a,b) and not oriented toward "idiosyncratic meanings and hidden motives" (Wolff 1996, p. 327).…”

“…Auchincloss and Vaughan (2001) suggest that abandoning our search for simple causality and our notions of bedrock can only free us to learn from our patients about their experience. The application of a nonlinear systems approach shifts our thinking away from simplistic linear dynamic formulations and requires that we recognize the power of developmental transformation as an ongoing force throughout childhood and adolescence and even into adulthood, with its potential for beneficial corrections as well as premature closure and fixity.…”