Psychoanalysis and Homosexuality
This short new book, Psychoanalysis and Homosexuality: A Contemporary Introduction (Routledge, 2023, vii+164pp.) by two British clinicians, Leezah Hertzmann and Juliet Newbigin, is something of a useful handbook of (select) sources. It would be helpful to have on hand to refute those who still wish to criticize Freud and associate to him what are demonstrably later and far less felicitous attitudes towards homosexuality, which he never held. Such (often tendentious) criticism is rather tiresome and has long been known to be baseless by those of us who have actually read, and still regularly re-read, Freud (as I have done since 1990), either in German or in the authorized translation, or both.
Hertzmann and Newbigin's book reads, in part, rather like a graduate student's lit review as part of a thesis requirement. The authors have provided decent lashings of (select) primary source material (always in translation, of course) farced not with scholarly analysis but rather with commentary of their own, which has its place. The style is admirably and immediately accessible and clear.
My hesitation with this book is threefold: first, it is never clear how they chose to pay attention to some figures and not others. It is never good to leave your readers guessing about your selection criteria. To my amazement, the radical views of Sandor Ferenczi (so much so that Freud himself, very "liberal" in his day on this question, was made uncomfortable by them) on homosexuality show up nowhere in this book. It would have been good, at the very least, to have a look into Sandor Ferenczi: Reconsidering Active Intervention by Martin Stanton. Other important figures from that first generation--which, as a whole, was far more "liberationist" than their reactionary heirs in postwar America--are also overlooked. Why?
Second, the book attends in no significant way to significant historiographical issues in the composition and context of the texts they choose to include, and in those they exclude. I teach my history of psychology class every fall, and attending to how and why that history is written, and by whom--who is in, who is out, who does the choosing, and what are the subterranean currents to this choosing and composing we need to listen for with our third ear--is at least as important as any question of what was written.
From this follows my third concern: the book pays insufficient attention to sociopolitical factors, especially in the United States in the postwar (=Cold War) period, where many of the developments we can now rightly deplore in psychoanalysis took root with a vengeance. Though these authors indicate a nodding familiarity with Dagmar Herzog's book Cold War Freud, they have not sufficiently integrated her arguments into this little book (or those of other scholars who are relevant here, including Todd McGowan and Paul Roazen).
The problem--as Freud foresaw as far back as 1909--was that on questions of sexuality in general, America was a puritannical and hostile nation that could not handle his ideas. And this was confirmed after his death in 1939 and the end of the war in 1945 when American attitudes (many of them politically driven) towards many things argued by Freud were disastrously distorted or abandoned, including such things as the restriction of analysis to physicians (which he strongly denounced in The Question of Lay Analysis) and the rise of psychoanalysis as an ideology (the best recent book here is Adam Phillips, The Cure for Psychoanalysis) with orthodox beliefs and practices rigorously policed and enforced by training institutes that often existed in a state of excommunication from each other) rather than a method of treatment. Those institutes, of course, came to exclude homosexual candidates from training.
Now, it is rightly objected--as I have objected in the past as both editor and reviewer--that one must not unfairly criticize authors for not having written the book the reviewer thinks they should have while overlooking the book they did in fact write. That would be a valid objection here if--again--we were given any sort of rationale for how this book was written, or what the purposes of composing this highly selective, almost idiosyncratic text were. It is certainly not a systematic or comprehensive history, but that does not deny its value and virtues, and the place it does fill as a very brief introduction to the topic. Scholars wanting a more thorough, searching, critical, historiographically sophisticated text will have to produce one themselves or wait for others to do so.
Having offered such concerns, let me now end with some examples of the book's virtues.
The third chapter does, in some ways, attend to postwar figures sometimes overlooked, including Sandor Rado who, with some of the Kleinians and others like Edmund Bergler, seem to have played significant roles in shaping views on homosexuality and trying to obtain a role in its "treatment." This chapter--drawing on Herzog--also notes (as more recent authors such as Andrea Celenza and Galit Atlas have done) that psychoanalysis as a whole became far less willing to consider the role of the erotic, in all its forms, and far more suspicious of it and intolerant of its ambivalences and ambiguities.
The final chapter of the book is the richest, and here the authors turn again to the problem of the exclusion and suspicion of sexuality across the board in clinical work, noting--as others such as Celenza, Atlas, Maroda, and Gabbard have done--that most training programs deal insufficiently or not at all with questions of erotic transference and counter-transference, but that such questions are even more defended against when "the patient's sexual or gender orientation is different from that of the therapist" (p.133). Thus, they argue, one of the challenges going forward is to more fully recognize non-heterosexual forms of desire and how they show up in, and have an impact upon, treatment.