 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Daryl Bem's Exotic Becomes Erotic
Conversation with Chandler Burr and Daryl Bem
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 01:09:31 -0500
To: policy@Bridges-Across.Org (Policy List at Bridges-Across)
From: Maggie Heineman <maggie@CritPath.Org>
Subject: *BA-POLICY* Chandler Burr and Daryl Bem
[The permissions]
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:46:23 -0400
To: Maggie Heineman <maggie@CritPath.Org>, Chanburr@aol.com
From: "Daryl J. Bem" <d.bem@cornell.edu>
I have no objection. I do tend to write all my E-mail messages "from left to right," that is, I don't do any editing or rewriting, so they tend to be less grammatical and more redundant than I would wish. Perhaps you could post the exchange with that caveat.
At 11:05 AM 7/25/97 -0400, Chanburr@aol.com wrote: Have you kept a record of this exchange? I want to put it on my website, and haven't kept it. Please let me know.
Chandler
[I used a message from the Schools List as an excuse to write to them. Chandler's *very large* site is http://members.aol.com/GAYGENE/index.htm Bem's article "Exotic Becomes Erotic" and the "Political Postscript" are at http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/ebe_theory.html and http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/ebe_politics.html I just surfed into a new article by Bem at http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/Reply_to_Peplau.html ]
To: Chanburr@aol.com, d.bem@cornell.edu
From: Maggie Heineman <maggie@CritPath.Org>
Cc: chase@messiah.edu
Chandler, I'm wondering if, based on new information, you would change some of the things you wrote back in 1993?
Daryl, I'm wondering what your views are on the 1993 Atlantic Monthly article? I understand that you and Gene Chase have had some correspondence already. I think it's cool that Gene will be at Cornell next year and presumably get to know you and Sandra.
Chandler, Gene Chase is the webmaster for Exodus. As you know from Bill Friend, I do indeed talk to the other side. (Don't make any assumptions about Gene, get to know him instead.)
If either of you have any comments on the 1993 article which you'd like me to send to the schools list, I'd be happy to do so. I'd also like to send them to the bridges-across distribution which Daniel and Gene are both on... or add you to the distribution, if you prefer.
Thanks, Maggie
[I included the post from the schools list]
At 08:02 AM 7/22/97 -0400, [] wrote:
From the Coalition for Safer Schools, CSS, Po Box 2345, Malta, NY 12020
Hi
I found an article that I long been have looking for. It is somewhat scholarly but very readable in lay terms. It is the well known Atlantic Monthly (1993) article "Homosexuality and Biology". The article is very compelling and comprehensive.
GO TO:
http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/97jun/burr2.htm
I found it through a link located on the homepage of the American School Counselor Association, http://www.edge.net/asca/ ASCA homepage has good info and info resource links under "sexual orientation".
Maggie--
The answer to your question-- would I change anything in the Atlantic article "Hsxlty and Biology"-- is both an emphatic yes and an emphatic no. Yes, if you mean would I update it, and by that standard I have completely changed it in the form of my new book "A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation." (Hyperion 1996). The research has gone well beyond what was available in 1993, that article is now completely out of date, and all the newdetails are laid out in the book. But no if you mean would I retract at all the idea that sexual orientation per se, on an instinctual-- not cultural-- level, is 100% biological.
Chandler
[Daryl replies]
My views are essentially the same I make in my published article. I do not reject any of the biological CORRELATES of sexual orientation, but correlation is NOT cause--as we tell our beginning students in psychology. Even if the specifics of my own theory turn out to be wholly wrong, the general point is the same:
Biology could easily be coding for some intermediate personality variable which is itself the antecedent of sexual orientation. My theory asserts that the antecedent variables are activity level and aggression, which lead to sex-typical or sex-atypical activity preferences, which lead to feeling different from either opposite or same sex peers, which leads to sexual orientation.
Those who champion an essentialist biological view of sexual orientation do not spell out the developmental path that gets us from the genotype (the genes) to the phenotype (sexual orientation). That would constitute the THEORY that fills in the gap left by these correlations. So, even if my theory is wrong, there is not an alternative theory being posed from the biological types. Just a correlation.
To challenge my theory, those who continue to believe that biology codes directly for sexual orientation must show that the biology is not influencing activity level or aggression. I believe that all the biology reviewed by Chandler in the Atlantic Monthly and in his book--genes, prenatal hormones, brain neuroanatomy--are all subject to my EBE interpretation. Again, I could be wrong, but a nontheory is not an answer to it.
And as you know from my political postscript, I don't think it matters what the "causes" are, whether Chandler is right or I am right. Even if everyone in America could be convinced it's all biological, much would remain the same. Those who are pro-gay will then believe that homosexuality is like being left-handed, no big deal. Those who are anti-gay will then believe that homosexuality is like being born with a tendency toward alcoholism or schizophrenia, better to be pitied than scorned. You might regard the move from homosexuality-as-sin to homosexuality-as-sickness as a progressive step, but I doubt it will do much to advance the cause of gay rights. Indeed, I think America will have to advance to the point that homosexuality is accepted--even as a deliberate choice--before I will consider attitudes to have changed. What kind of gay-pride stance is it to argue that "it isn't my fault"? I don't hear African-Americans or Jews doing this to justify their existence. If there is nothing wrong with being gay, then what does it matter whether it is even determined or chosen?
And, you also know that my EBE theory is just as deterministic as the pure biology theory, and hence takes the same stance in the public debate over "choice."
Daryl
From: Chanburr@aol.com
Daryl and Maggie--
Again, I will correct a both fundamental and rather obvious mistake (something really misleading and factually inaccurate) with those who dislike-- for *political purposes-- the biology theory, as Daryl clearly does.
Daryl writes: "And as you know from my political postscript, I don't think it matters what the "causes" are, whether Chandler is right or I am right. Even if everyone in America could be convinced it's all biological, much would remain the same. Those who are pro-gay will then believe that homosexuality is like being left-handed, no big deal. Those who are anti-gay will then believe that homosexuality is like being born with a tendency toward alcoholism or schizophrenia, better to be pitied than scorned. You might regard the move from homosexuality-as-sin to homosexuality-as-sickness as a progressive step, but I doubt it will do much to advance the cause of gay rights."
This is completely incorrect for a very simple reason: Pathology (alcoholism or schizophrenia) is part of the phenotypic (trait level) data of any trait. Either a trait is pathological-- doctors define this as "anything that hurts the organism or impairs its functioning"-- or it is not. And the data are quite clear and have been since 1956: Homosexuality is not pathological. So I'm sorry, but Daryl is both incorrect and misleading in his analysis, that this "moves from homosexuality-as-sin to homosexuality-as-sickness." It does not move it from "sin" to "sickness." It moves it from "sin" to "non-pathological biological trait." Daryl's political argument-- that data saying homosexuality is analogous to left-handedness still allows anti-gay people to say it is analogous to schizophrenia-- is thus flatly and obviously incorrect. Daryl, you completely contradict yourself. EITHER the clinical analogy is left-handedness OR it is schizophrenia. You cannot argue pathology (which is to say: You cannot argue against the political efficacy of the biology theory) when NO CLINICAL RESEARCH demonstrates or uncovers any pathology correlation and ALL CLINICAL RESEARCH demonstrates an absence of pathology correlation. So *politically* the research is completely solid and extremely potent, indeed irresistible to the great majority of Americans : the analogy is left-handedness. You, Daryl, in arguing that "they could still argue it's like schizophrenia", are misrepresenting the same data that demonstrates it is not a choice. And I believe you are misrepresenting it because of your political ideology: You WANT the biology not to work because you want America to be forced to accept homosexuality even as a choice. I'm sorry: Homosexuality doesn't function that way *politically* for you, and the biology theory is not *politically* flawed that way. You have to find another cause in order to promote your ideological goal (one I happen to agree with) that people should be allowed to choose how to live their lives.
Chandler
From: "Daryl J. Bem" <d.bem@cornell.edu>
Chandler & Maggie:
Chandler, far from being against a biological explanation of homosexuality for political reasons, I actually hope you are correct that Americans would respond to the biological data by viewing homosexuality as analogous to left-handedness. In fact, I would argue that EBE theory is not only compatible with the biological theorizing, it IS biological theorizing. It simply seeks to go beyond the empty correlations between biological factors and sexual orientation by filling in the biology-environment interactional path that get us from genotype to phenotype. That, it seems to me, is part of the biological enterprise.
If the biological argument (including EBE or not) does turn out to be correct, I would view homosexuality as analogous to left-handedness and would hope to persuade most Americans of that view. But in the long term, I would hope that the "cause" would become irrelevant. As I note in my political postscript to EBE theory, current civil rights legislation defines as protected classes some that are biological and unchosen (e.g., sex, race), some that are not biological but unchosen (e.g., nationality), and some that are, in the usual sense of the word, chosen (e.g., veteran's status, creed, religion). In New York, even convicted felons who have served their terms receive legal protection against discrimination. So, I consider it naive to plump for gay civil rights on the grounds that sexual orientation is biological. And, of course, in the long run, I would hope that most Americans would come to see any "choice" of sexual orientation (that doesn't hurt or exploit others, especially minors) as equally valid; at that point, choice and non-choice would again become irrelevant.
You write: "Daryl, you completely contradict yourself. EITHER the clinical >analogy is left-handedness OR it is schizophrenia. You cannot argue pathology (which is to say: You cannot argue against the political efficacy of the biology theory) when NO CLINICAL RESEARCH demonstrates or uncovers any pathology correlation and ALL CLINICAL RESEARCH demonstrates an absence of pathology correlation."
Chandler, I am NOT saying that I believe it is either one or the other. It is not I who am contradicting myself. Of course I believe the research and your point about it's not being pathological. But it is not I who has to be convinced. My skepticism has to do with the kinds of arguments that sway the public.
Perhaps there is a large "middle" group of Americans who can be persuaded to change their views of homosexuality by the biological data and the analogue to left-handedness. If so, great! But emotionally-based attitudes are not so easily changed with purely cognitive arguments. But, as always, I am an empiricist and open to data on this point. In a posting on sexnet, Simon Levay did cite a study--which I don't have at my fingertips--showing attitude change being produced by the biological argument. I hope this is a valid study; I will be looking it up soon. It may temper some of my skepticism of how easily attitudes would change on this topic.
What I do believe that most data show, however, is that attitude change on this topic is changed most by knowing someone gay and even better, knowing more than one gay person personally. This is why the vicarious "knowing" provided by the mass media, especially the TV sitcoms, is very important. I regard it as far more important for public attitude change that there were 23 likable gay characters (and, of course, Ellen and Anne Heche) on the sitcoms last season than any amount of biological data. Similarly, I think it is of the utmost importance that as many gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered people come out whenever and wherever possible. It is after such attitudes are softened, I believe, that people will then be ready to contemplate an argument based on deterministic biological argument--which will then be unnecessary.
In sum, the correctness of EBE theory is actually not a very politically hot topic for me. It is something I enjoy debating within the professional academic world and I like to expose my students to the nature-nurture debate with it. I constructed EBE theory in much the same iconoclastic spirit that I wrote an article the previous year on ESP and that, many years ago, I proposed a theory of self-perception that challenged dissonance theory. It's fun; it's how I make my living. If I have a political agenda, it is to persuade Americans that EBE theory (and its competitors) is not relevant to how they should view us queer folk.
Daryl
From: Chanburr@aol.com
Daryl--
1) I agree with you that ultimately, as long as anti-gay forces are wrong in claiming that homosexuals are inherently disordered, more subject to psychopathology, etc., then it shouldn't matter *politically* if homosexuality is a) biological b) EBE or c) choice.
2) My point was that you said something inconsistent. You said,basically, that the clinical/ biological research could convince some people that hsxlty is not a choice. Then you said "But they could still think it pathological, like schizophrenia." This is illogical because the same research that contradicts choice contradicts pathology. So if they are convinced of the one, there is no reason they should be unconvinced by the other. Yet you (motivated, it seems to me, by a political dislike of "innateness as measurement for acceptance") said "If they accept it's not a choice, they might still think it pathological." Well, they could. But at that point, they could believe the moon is made of cheese. The clinical data are clear. No choice. No pathology.
Maybe our problem is with the word "could," as in "They could still think..." Well, they *could think absolutely anything, if they want to dump objectivity. That's possible. And they *could in the face of the data be objective about choice but not about pathology. What they could not do (and it seemed to me you were saying they could do), what is impossible, is for them to be objective about the data and at the same time accept the right answer on choice but the wrong answer on pathology, the political scenario you advance. That is impossible because they data are clear. And I perceive you as putting forward this impossibility as a possibility in order to buttress your claim that the data have no or little political utility.
Final caveat: I admit it is true that data will never convince the fanatics. But most Americans are not fanatics. And, no matter how they grumble, they will usually be brought around by data.
3) When you look up Simon's cite to that study showing the biology argument politically effective, please send it to me. I'd like to see it.
Thanks,
Chandler
From: "Daryl J. Bem" <d.bem@cornell.edu>
At 4:33 PM -0400 7/23/97, Chanburr@aol.com wrote: >Daryl-- > ... material omitted...
[Chandler] Final caveat: I admit it is true that data will never convince the fanatics. But most Americans are not fanatics. And, no matter how they grumble, they will usually be brought around by data.
I agree. On issue after issue, polling data show that about 20% of Americans end up on one extreme end of the debate (e.g., prochoice) and another 20% on the other (e.g., prolife), with the remaining 60% in between, forming a silent majority that rarely participates in the public debate. It is this 60% who are the most susceptible to persuasion based on data and reason--and, even more, on changing social norms.
But those who believe for religious reasons that homosexual acts are sinful will not change their view on that--nor should they because this is not an empirical proposition but a metaphysical one. What I think we are likely to see within this group is more movement toward the Catholic position of "condemn the sin but love the sinner." And the biological data could well facilitate this movement.
[Chandler]
>3) When you look up Simon's cite to that study showing the biology argument politically effective, please send it to me. I'd like to see it.
Here was LeVay's posting. Unfortunately, I don't have or remember the Stires posting to which he refers. It implies that there may be a more recent article showing the same thing--or it may be a reference to the same article by Piskur and Degelman.
"The abstract by James Allen, cited by Lloyd Stires, seems like a repeat of a study by Julie Piskur and Douglas Degelman ("Effects of reading a summary of research about biological bases of homosexual orientation on attitudes towards homosexuals," Psychological Reports 65: 1003-1010, 1989). That study also found that subjects who read a research summary supporting a biological basis were more gay-positive than those who read a research summary that supported other theories of causation."
I plan to go over the library this weekend and get the article. I certainly hope it's right and that my pessimistic scenario is wrong. After all, Gallup polling shows that the percentage of Americans who believe that "homosexuals are born that way" has gone from 16% to 31% between 1983 and 1993 and has probably increased much since then because of mass media attention to biology--and to writers like you. Even though you and I may disagree on some things, I think you have performed and are continuing to perform a valuable service in educating the public and, not incidentally if these data are correct, changing attitudes.
I do think that the presence of likable gay/lesbian people in the mass media and personal contacts with friends and relatives who come out are still the major persuaders here.
Residents of South Florida are even claiming that the Versace murder and its aftermath have bonded gays and straights down there. The media coverage of the gay angle seemed straightforward and not at all anti-gay. I suspect--on the basis of no hard data--that this whole sequence of events helped the pro-gay cause. In contrast to Jeff Daumer (sp?) and other "homosexual killers" who only feed negative stereotypes, the net effect here seemed positive. Perhaps polls this coming week will tell us.
Daryl
[the conversation continued with the addition of Gene, Steve, Dean Hamer and Richard Pillard-- NEXT]