An excerpt from "American Psychology: The Political Science" by Ray W. Johnson, Ph.D.
Ray W. Johnson, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist and founding member of the University of North Texas Psychology Department, as well as Training Director of the school's APA-accredited Counseling Psychology program. He is the co-author of a book on individual assessment and has published papers on personality, marital and family issues. In 1991 he founded Psychologists for a Free A.P.A. for the purpose of ending A.P.A. advocacy on social-moral issues.
"It will be recognized immediately that this title is an exaggeration. There are large numbers of psychologists, uncontaminated by doctrinaire politics, who continue to search for the basic processes which constitute our psychological lives. They also seek to determine the most effective interventions to change the activity of those processes to better the lives of others.
The title refers to organized psychology: the American Psychological Association. APA, like many groups involved in human service delivery, has been seized by political activists who have little regard for science or the democratic process. Since the seventies, the American Psychological Association has lobbied the government, filed court briefs, and engaged in and promoted boycotts on behalf of a host of social-moral causes. These causes have included ERA, unrestricted abortion (including abortion for children without parental notification and consent), sex and racial-ethnic discrimination, and homosexual politics.
Recently, homosexual politics have taken the forefront. APA council voted to threaten with boycotts states whose citizens passed APA disapproved laws regarding homosexuality. It has supported efforts to introduce programs into the public schools to reduce prejudice aimed at so-called "gay, lesbian and bisexual youth" or "prehomosexual" children. APA has refused military advertising in the APA Monitor because of the military's position regarding gays in the military. It has entered court to support Political Science homosexual parenting. Most recently, NARTH tasted the censors boot when the APA Monitor refused to print a notice of its meetings. The reason? "NARTH"s position on homosexuality is in direct conflict with APA's position on the issue, and is also in conflict with current research findings on sexual orientation" (Farberman, 1995). In short, APA has employed coercion to enforce its politics and restricted the flow of information so necessary for science to function objectively. Sadly, APA does all this with no scientific basis for predicting the effect on society of adopting APA's approved programs. It was because APA engaged in these grossly unscientific and partisan activities that Psychologists for a Free APA was organized. Free APA takes no position on any social-moral-political issue. Its major purpose is to stop the American Psychological Association from taking advocacy positions on those issues.
It is hoped that all sides of these issues are represented in the organization. We support:
- The publication and dissemination of scientific research for the purpose of the advancement of science and the understanding of social-psychological processes. The most appropriate vehicles for the professional dissemination of scientific research are the scientific-professional journals of the social sciences.
- The right of psychologists as individuals and as groups of individuals to advocate and promote any social-moral-political issues in which they believe. Such individuals and Political Science groups, however, should not speak for The American Psychological Association.
The fundamental concern is that psychologists present themselves as professionals who are scientists or at least who base their practice on their science. Science is an enterprise which requires openness and questioning. When a scientific organization takes up politics and advocates for one side of a scientific issue, it declares the theoretical and scientific dialogue closed. It smothers science. It assumes that it not only knows what is, but also how things should be.
The reality is that APA doesn't have the answers. In science there is always another question. Advocacy politics, on the other hand, require an assumption that truth has been found and therefore, it is time to spread it through the law, public policy, intimidation and propaganda.
In order to maintain the pretense of science, the American Psychological Association presents the results of research projects which support its politics. However, the limitations of the research are not emphasized which results in (a) overgeneralizing of data; (b) ignoring or misrepresenting research results contrary to its politics; and (c) using poorly conceived research to support its positions. To courts, legislatures, lay people, and professionals unschooled in research, this looks like science. This "appearance of science" approach to advocacy is evidenced in all the major areas for which APA has taken an advocacy stance. It tends to turn meanings upside down. For example, the statement "There is no evidence that...no longer means that we don't know, it now means that we should move ahead with what we are promoting.
A paper recently published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology ( Haldeman, 1994) was entitled "The Practice and Ethics of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy." In the abstract, the author states, "The literature in psychotherapeutic and religious conversion therapies is reviewed, showing no evidence indicating that such treatments are effective in their intended purpose." He also called for research on the potential harmful effects of such treatments. Note the scientific attitude. He did not call for research to determine if there was a potentially harmful effect. Or if therapy for this purpose is more harmful than therapy for other purposes. Essentially, the article serves to discredit efforts of therapists to help unhappy homosexuals to change their sexual orientation.
Assuming that Haldeman represents the current thinking of APA and homosexual advocates, it can be shown by using quotations from the writings of advocates, that APA, in it's advocacy for homosexual causes, has no scientific basis for doing so and is operating in the dark. This opinion is based on the following interrelated notions (1) there is no generally accepted scientific definition of homosexuality; (2) APA's efforts to gain protected minority status for homosexuals are not based on any scientific evidence that homosexuality is of the same order as, for example, sex and race; (3) there is no solid body of research based homosexuals; (4) there is evidence that conversion therapy works for some people called homosexual; and (5) there is no convincing evidence that efforts to provide conversion therapy should be considered unethical. I will address each of these points. In the quotations which follow the emphases are mine...
... So, APA without a definition to guide its activity is blindly trying to impose its will on society by attacking citizens who oppose its view. There is no scientific procedure which would enable APA to predict the future for such a fluid condition in a changing context...
APA and Homosexuality as a Protected Minority
The above quotations point to the second reason APA advocacy is political. On what basis does APA seek to have what it calls homosexuals declared a protected minority? There is no satisfactory scientific definition for the construct. The condition is variable and subject to change through a number of influences. Has any other group been granted this status under the same conditions? These laws have been previously applied to conditions (e.g., sex or race) which were clearly outside the control of the persons involved and were not changeable. Our quotations indicate that these conditions do not apply to homosexuals. With no science, and questionable legal grounds, APA's advocacy for homosexuals to attain the status of a protected minority is merely twisted, political activity.
Lack of Research
The problem of definition points to the third reason APA advocacy is politically motivated. APA asserts that its advocacy is driven by research (Tomes, H.,1993). Haldeman (1994) claims that "It is, ..., well within psychology's purview to disseminate accurate information from our considerable database about homosexuality" (p. 226). However, since there has been no adequate delineation of the construct and since the condition is variable, how could APA develop such a pool of scientific research? According to Gonsiorek (1991) "Research on homosexuality has been characterized by poor and biased sampling procedures and vague, erroneous, or simplistic assumptions about the definition of homosexuality" (p. 123). Is there a considerable database? The answer is embedded in criticisms of conversion research.
Conversion Therapy
APA is opposed to conversion therapy...
The Ethics of Conversion
... Much of the argument for the abandonment of conversion therapy is based on the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM, thus, according to Haldeman's (1994) quote from APA (1975), "...removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations." The major ethical arguments are contained in the following...
... It is debatable whether the 1973 decision should be considered evidence that homosexuality is "not an illness" or that it is normal. In the absence of lesions, chemical influences, parasites, bacteria, viruses, unequivocal genetic or brain anomalies, the decision as to what constitutes an illness is subject to the interpretation of existing research and personal opinion i.e., a political decision. It is decided by vote. This is the case with homosexuality. Gonsiorek (1991) concludes that "...the issue of whether homosexuality per se is a sign of psychopathology, psychological maladjustment, or disturbance has been answered, and the answer is that it not" (p. 135). However, the work he cites to support this position simply shows that homosexuals do not exhibit symptoms associated with other socially defined pathological conditions. Whatever may be the facts with regard to whether homosexuality is intrinsically pathological, large numbers of American citizens believe it to be undesirable and believe that its normalization would have deleterious effects...
It is clear that both APA's have ignored the absence of research on the potential social impact of the normalization of homosexuality. The American Psychological Association, which claims to be a scientific organization, is especially guilty because it has approved launching attacks on states in which its homosexual agenda has been thwarted...
In conclusion, using the words of homosexual advocates, it has been shown that there is no sound scientific basis for APA adopting its advocacy stance for homosexual politics. Furthermore, it has been shown that there is no scientific justification for attacks on therapists who attempt to help unhappy homosexuals try to change their sexual orientation. Without science, APA advocacy simply represents another prejudice.
APA is a very large, rich organization. In collaboration with other groups seeking radical social change, APA wields its power to impose its prejudice upon American citizens. The history of such collaborations are ominous. Whether the zealots joined wear brown shirts, pink triangles, or raise the clenched fist of radical feminism, when professional and scientific organizations embrace their cause, the scientific enterprise dies and is replaced by propaganda and coercion."
"... Since the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, few psychiatric or psychological journals focus on exploring the etiology of homosexuality. Today the view that homosexuality is inborn and immutable appears to be a working assumption for many mental health professionals and for most journalists who report on gay issues. Gay rights advocate and author Eric Marcus compares homosexuality to being lefthanded.
California's Project 10 is a compelling example of the extent to which the view of homosexuality as innate and immutable has won acceptance. Project 10 provides a way for high school students who may have a homosexual orientation to be channeled toward special gay counselors who can help them to accept and adjust to their sexual orientation. Project 10 is viewed as especially crucial because of the high rate of suicide among gay teenagers (one-third of all youth suicides). In the view of gay activists and numerous psychologists, many of these suicides result from the lack of proper institutional support to assist adolescent gays in accepting their homosexuality. It should be pointed out, however, that there is not unanimity on this subject. Critics maintain that such an approach further confuses adolescents about sexual orientation rather than assisting them.
POLITICS, NOT SCIENCE
It should be pointed out, however, that the growing advocacy for gay rights does not result from conclusive scientific breakthroughs in understanding the origin and nature of homosexuality. In fact, the organizing efforts of the gay rights movement beginning in 1969 serve as the real motor behind society's changing view of homosexuality. Through PACs and political lobbying organizations such as the Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Human Rights Campaign Fund, gays and lesbians have become a political force to be reckoned with in mainstream American politics. These and other related organizations have provided political and financial support to candidates who support gay rights...
HOMOSEXUALITY AND OBJECTIVITY
... It is clear that since 1969 the gay community has adopted a proactive strategy to bring homosexuality into the American mainstream, beginning with language itself. They are no longer "homosexual"; they are "gay." And those who oppose them are "homophobes."
Gays have also managed to put a lid on much of the research into the causes of homosexuality by the pressure they brought to bear on the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Beginning in 1970, gay activists initiated a very militant campaign focusing on the APA's annual convention. Through demonstrations inside the convention, they succeeded in disrupting the APA's proceedings on homosexuality .They accused the APA of using the same tactics against them that had been used against blacks. Over a three-year period their efforts bore fruit: In 1973, after much pressure, the APA's board of directors decided to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Strong pressure was exerted on psychiatrists to hold a referendum on the issue, and this took place in 1974. Prior to the referendum, the Gay Task Force helped the APA directors to draft a letter recommending the removal of homosexuality from the Diagnostic. The APA made its mailing list available to the Gay Task Force and provided them with APA stationery. Funds were raised inside the gay community to pay for the mailing. Nowhere did the mailing mention that it had been paid for by the Gay Task Force.
By a 58 to 40 percent vote, it was decided via the referendum that homosexuality would no longer be considered a mental disorder. Since that time, fewer and fewer studies examining the causes of homosexuality have been published, according to the January 1992 issue of the Journal of Counseling Psychology. Kronemeyer and others believe that privately many psychiatrists continue to view homosexuality as a form of psychosis but are reserved in articulating this view publicly.
Ruth Barnhouse, psychology professor at Loyola College in Maryland, points out that "most of the psychiatrists involved in making the decision were not specialists in homosexuality." She also notes that, although a special task force of psychiatrists was formed to make recommendations, their conclusions (expressing strong reservations toward the new APA position) were "essentially disregarded."
Perhaps most critical of the highly political nature of the 1973 decision is Ronald Bayer's Homosexuality and American Psychiatry--The Politics of Diagnosis, in which he recounts the political role played by the gay community in reversing the APA's position. Interestingly, Bayer saw this decision as both political and vulnerable. With the advent of the Reagan presidency, Bayer warned that the APA position on homosexuality was highly susceptible to being reversed:
The homosexual movement rode the crest of social protest in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Now like the broader movement of which it was part, it encounters deep resistance to change. The recent era of major reform has come to an end in the United States. Under these circumstances the APA's 1973 decision is bound to become increasingly vulnerable.Bayer went on to warn:
In removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the Psychiatric Association symbolically deprived American society of its most important justification for refusing to grant legitimation to homosexuality. As the need for such a justification resurfaces in the current period, pressure will mount in psychiatrists to reclassify homosexuality as a disorder. Lacking theoretical orientation with which to protect itself from such pressure, psychiatry may find it exceedingly difficult to resist those demands.
Bayer's observations clearly suggest the APA did not have a theoretical but rather a political motivation for rescinding its former position on homosexuality..."
A.P.A.'s Society for the Study of Gay Issues Urges Psychologists To Become Political Activists
"May 7, 2004 - The Division 44 Newsletter, (Spring, 2004) published by the American Psychological Association's Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues, urged gay psychologists to become activists in supporting gay marriage and domestic partnerships. Judith Glassgold, the president of Division 44, also urged gay psychologists to oppose any attempts by conservative groups to de-fund sexual orientation or sexuality studies conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
In her editorial, Glassgold says that Division 44 has contacted the APA's Public Policy office to urge them to lobby against President Bush's Defense of Marriage Amendment. In addition, she has encouraged gay psychologists to build allies inside the APA and also with outside gay, bisexual, lesbian, and transgendered communities.
She noted that Division 44 is building relationships with Division 19, the Military Psychology section of the APA in order to "oppose unfair and discriminatory policies together."
Dr. Glassgold also observed that the Executive Committee's meeting in Chicago (March, 2004) was to be devoted to a discussion of military issues, family protections and rights, as well as transgender issues.
Transsexual Psychologist Urges Change In DSM
In a separate article in the Division 44 Newsletter, a male-to-female transsexual doctor, writing under a pen name, expressed his hope that someday the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual would be changed to normalize transsexualism.
Madeline H. Wyndzen states: "As a psychologist and transsexual, I find that the mental illness label imposed on transsexuality is just as disquieting as the label that used to be imposed upon homosexuality." He said he looked forward to the day when his children will think that it was "unfathomable that I was once diagnosed and treated for 'Gender Identity Disorder.'"
Heterosexuality "No Longer Normative"
Division 44 head Dr. Glassgold wrote a second essay in the newsletter which dealt with the use of psychoanalysis and other philosophies to "reformulate" psychoanalysis and reorder society's view of reality.
According to Glassgold, "Psychoanalysis has evolved and modern psychoanalysis no longer sees heterosexuality as normative and no longer views sexual and gender varieties as pathological; as a result, psychoanalysis and LGBT psychology do not have to be at odds, and can actually be allies."
Glassgold says that psychoanalysis, united with postmodernism and social constructionism, "provides very powerful theories to understand reality; however this potential has yet to be fully realized."
She continues, "Social change as well as new and fluid models of gender and sexuality can evolve from psychoanalytic understanding. Some of the strengths of modern psychoanalysis are its rejection of predetermined goals, its embracing of psychic creativity, and respect for an individual's agency in self-realization."
American Psychological Association related replies in this thread: 121, 240 and 242.
American Psychiatric Association related replies in this thread: 46, 139, 213, 232, 237, 239, 241, 243, and 246.
As further documentation, consider this exchange between Freepers Lentulusgracchus and Clint N. Suhks:
To: Clint N. Suhks
Actually, I wonder if a majority of the American Psychological Association don't agree with you. You're aware, I'm sure (I can send you a link or an article), of how the gay movement rolled the APA in the early 70's and got homosexuality deleted from the APA's diagnotic manual as Step One of their bustin'-out move to get out of the shadows and into the Clinton White House.
Looking at survey data from the APA membership, it would appear that a majority of the older members still believe that the origins of homosexuality are psychological as well as genetic.
The younger members have been propagandized assiduously for over 30 years by homosexual APA members who have taken care to dominate the appropriate committees and control its message on homosexuality, both to the practice and to the public. But the older members still aren't buying it. That refusal to change professional opinions despite all the propaganda and eyewash that's been thrown out there is damning, AFAIC, of the APA/gay message.
To: lentulusgracchus
homosexual APA members who have taken care to dominate the appropriate committees and control its message on homosexuality
Ah yes, the self-serving division 44 where the inmates are running the asylum. I did an impromptu check on their members, out of 15 investigations, 10 were openly homosexual. Division 44 is in charge of making APA policy on homosexuality, there’s a conflict of interest when the committee is disproportionately homosexual.
To: Clint N. Suhks
Thanks for the data, and I suspected some high proportion of gays on the 44 Committee (I believe I've noticed a reference to that group on their site).
David Ehrenstein, a gay fascist propagandist and Hollywood film critic (and self-appointed persecutor of magazine editor Andrew Sullivan), has written a book on the overthrow of the APA. He of course took another point of view, but in between his agitprop-terrorist fulminations on Salon's "TableTalk", his pride of authorship led him to divulge the method by which the APA was turned.
It seems that the principal investigators of homosexuality were, some of them, themselves gay. Gay-rights spear-carriers went to these people and offered to "out" them if they failed to see the light and support the new position rallying around the famous study that laid down the new rationale you outlined for "discovering" that homosexuality was not a paraphilia and not a disorder, if other mental-health criteria were satisfied.
So in short, major support was gathered for the DSM-3 rewrite via plain old blackmail.
Ehrenstein was eloquent in his disgust for gay psychiatrists who were engaged in psychotherapy work on other gays to attempt to reorient them. He said that he felt that it was a) hypocritical of them and b) deeply cynical of them to accept pay and emoluments for doing what the straight community wanted done "to" other gays.
Ehrenstein is a gay essentialist who believes it is the duty of the gay psychiatrist or psychologist to assist the embryonic gay in his development and self-realization. Ehrenstein didn't share his opinion of the practice described by the street phrase, "skinning some chicken".