|
from Clinical/Therapeutic Issues
Remembering the Is/Ought Distinction
By Linda A. Nicolosi
Can the mere existence of a sexual interest be considered
grounds for its psychiatric normality? It would seem logical that the
answer would be no.
Yet there is an increasing assumption that "what is" cannot
and should not be distinguished from "what ought to be."
In his recent book Real Boys -- which critiques masculine gender
roles as oppressive -- Dr. William Pollack lays out human sexual
responsiveness on a continuum, from homosexual to heterosexual:
"There is every reason to believe that homosexuality and
heterosexuality are not absolutes, and that substantial gray
areas exist. Not everybody is 100% homosexual or 100%
heterosexual...
"Determining our sexual orientation, at the end of the day,
is not about finding simple black and white answers. Our
sexual identity is almost always complex, unclear, confusing."
Following this reasoning, many social scientists promote the
assumption that a young person's task is simply to find out who
or what it is that sexually attracts them, and then to follow it.
As one social worker advised her readers in a column in
New Woman magazine not long ago, "We cannot choose who makes our hearts
beat faster, and I wish we could all stop worrying about it."
But the forgotten factor in this mode of reasoning is the
"is/ought dichotomy" (also known as the "fact/value dichotomy"). In
other words, "what is" cannot simply be assumed to imply "what ought
to be."
The Normal Brain is
"That Which Functions in Accordance with Its Design"
Researchers have no problem understanding the concept of design
as it applies to brain functioning. We do not simply normalize
"what is" and assume that it "ought to be." If a person is mentally
retarded, autistic, or has attention-deficit disorder (ADD),
such brain functioning is acknowledged as deficient. Scientists see
ADD, Down syndrome and autism as biological flaws because people
with those conditions cannot function according to design.
But in the case of sexual behavior, Kinsey and others ignore
design, and instead conclude that is equals
ought.
"When this idea filters down into the general culture," says
Joseph Nicolosi, "I call it the philosophy of Oprah. Here is a group
of people who are telling their stories...and her spin is
simply, 'Well, here they are.' This philosophy of 'Whatever is,
ought to be' worked when gay activists appealed to the American
Psychiatric Association in 1973, and it still works today on Oprah."
This blurring of is and ought is facilitated by a gradual
replacement of the old, morally laden terminology, with the use of
new terms like adult-child sex and extra-dyadic
sex, which replace old terms carrying unwanted connotations (pedophilia, child abuse,
promiscuity).
Then there's the book, The Bisexual
Option, by psychiatrist Fritz Klein. Endorsed by sexuality experts as "must reading" for
anyone who wants to "understand where they fit on the sexual
orientation continuum," Klein's book claims that anyone who is not in
conflict with their attractions should feel free to act on them.
In fact, the whole concept of "normal," Klein explains, has no
inherent meaning. It is "only a set of values defined for the
purpose of maintaining or securing economic, political or other
advantages for society -- or more likely, some portion of society."
But in assuming that it is healthy to act upon one's desires,
simply because they exist, we have not arrived at a neutral,
purely "scientific" conclusion. Instead, we have made a
philosophical judgment, which is to normalize the full continuum of sexual
responsiveness. Increasingly, the layman has come to think of
this as the scientific position.
As our culture's earlier convictions about human anthropology
begin to lose their authority, the "philosophy of Oprah" slowly
obliterates the old scientific view -- grounded in human design and
biology -- that normality must be "that which functions in accordance with
its design."
Updated: 3 September 2008
|
