25/02/2022 | Writer: Umut Şah
The relationship between psychology and queer theory -which opens all normativities to questioning, posits that the self is constructed and performative, and highlights intersectionality-, as well as what queer theory can provide psychology, is being investigated increasingly.
Queer theory has emerged towards the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1950s as a reflection of queer activism in academia and as a philosophical/theoretical objection to heteronormativity and the sexuality norms of the era (see; Butler, 2008; Jagose, 2015). While queer theory has taken notable space in social sciences, this influence remained quite limited in psychology. Even though the subfield of “LGBT psychology” has developed within psychology in parallel to the LGBTI+ movement, this field has been shaped based largely on LGBT identity politics and traditional gender theories [2]. LGBT psychology that originates in U.S.A. particularly is a field where a large amount of studies on gay and lesbian identity, personality traits, trans transitioning process, coming out, visibility, discrimination, marginalization, the psychological effects of these etc. are generated [3]. Yet, the questions posited by queer theory have yet to find answers in this field (Hegarty, 2011a, 2011b). Still, there are various discussions and works on the types of tension that exist between LGBT psychology and queer theory, how they can be linked, and what queer theory can contribute to psychology (Minton, 1997; Seidman, 2006; Hegarty & Massey, 2006; Riggs & Walker, 2006; Riggs, 2007, 2011; Hammack, Mayers & Windell, 2013; Hegarty, 2011a, 2011b; Downing & Gillett, 2011; Joel, Tarrasch, Berman, Mukamel & Ziv, 2014; Nic Giolla Easpaig, Fryer, Linn & Humprey, 2014). Reviewing some of these works may be beneficial in understanding the relation opportunities between queer theory and psychology.
Firstly, “Narrative, Psychology and the Politics of Sexual Identity in the United States: From ‘Sickness’ to ‘Species’ to ‘Subject’” by Hammack, Mayers & Windell (2013) can be examined. In this article, the authors identify three main narratives of homosexuality (or non-heterosexual sexuality); sickness, species and subject. Sickness which was the dominant narrative between late 1800s to the 1970s approached homosexuality within a sickness, anomaly and psychopathology frame. Species narrative on the other hand was popularized after homosexuality was announced as non-psychopathological and removed from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) in 1973, as a result of the rising gay movement. According to this narrative, homosexuality was seen as a “minority identity”, and not as a personality trait or a psychopathology [4]. The subject narrative was shaped by the postmodern and queer resistance of the 1990s. In this frame, all categorizations and classifications of sexuality and gender were being defied, and sexuality was conceptualized as a fluid variation. While the subject narrative is becoming increasingly widespread, the authors claim that the species narrative was the dominant narrative until the 2010s in U.S.A. This is related to the “liberal rights discourse” which emphasizes LGBTI+ peoples “victimhood”. Still, it is indicated that psychology has started to engage with queer theory in the last ten years with the emergence of this subject narrative. The authors state that this engagement is significant in creating and developing new, alternative channels in psychology when considered with the other shifts in psychology (emphasis on quantitative and critical methods, Interpretivist approach, narrative psychology etc.). While this article does not directly frame what kinds of relations can be established between queer theory and psychology, it is significant in that it describes the current newly emerging relationship between them, as the developments of the last 10-20 years have influenced psychology to some extent.
One of the first studies that establish the relationship between psychology and queer theory is Minton’s (1997) article entitled “Queer Theory: Historical Roots and Implications for Psychology”. Minton initially details the historical development and the antecedents of queer theory in this article. While the beginning of queer theory can be seen as the gay liberation movement of the 1970s and the preceding activist groups such as Queer Nation, Minton takes the events that lead to these events back to the 1940s. In the 1940s, more empirical studies -and ones outside of clinical settings- were done, with the influence of some activists in the slowly emerging gay liberation movement. These studies helped change the belief that homosexuality was the inversion of gender roles, which was prevalent until the 1930s. At this stage, the ways in which George W. Henry and later Alfred Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker created change in how phycology and psychiatry view homosexuality, in relation to the developments in the gay liberation movement and queer theory. (A similar historical account has been also been described by Harris [2012]). In parallel with the momentum gained by the gay liberation movement in the 70s, a research field looking at gay and lesbian identities (LGBT psychology) has been shaped; and many models emerged on gay identity development and “coming out” processes. Some authors (e.g. Kitzinger, 1987; Rust, 1992; Minton, 1997) have criticized the “liberal humanist” identity approach these models are grounded on, and proposed a more sociopolitical perspective that does not depoliticize the issue. Afterwards, models that view identities as performances began shaping. According to Minton, queer theory is related to four post-positivist movements that were influences in social sciences, and psychology in particular. As such Milton stated that there were already existing connections between psychology and queer theory, but they needed to be developed on. The four movements he mentions can be identified as (1) Habermas’ liberating social sciences approach (which finds itself in psychology as ‘critical psychology’), (2) identity politics, which aims at increasing marginal/minority representation, (3) the necessity for social ethics as a result of social sciences and psychology being value-laden, (4) the participatory research model. Minton argues that queer theory can provide important opportunities to psychology theory and practice through these four movements, especially through subjectivity.
Another example that maps the relationship of queer theory with psychology is the “LGBT Studies and Queer Theory: New Conflicts, Collaborations, and Contested Terrain” 2006 special issue of the Journal of Homosexuality [5]. This issue is comprised of articles that investigate the relationships and tensions between queer theory and LGBT studies. These articles include discussions on how queer theory can interact with subfields such as social psychology, film studies, women’s studies, religious studies and so on, as well as the opportunities that can arise from these interactions. Steven Seidman (2006) outlines in his foreword to this issue how the field called “LGBT studies” developed in the 60s as the questions and studies around homosexuality changed; became almost mainstream in the 80s (in Europe and North America); and how the “universal homosexual identity” idea that was central to this field was heavily criticized in the 1990s. In the end, ‘queer theory’ was and is still being shaped somewhat by these criticisms. Seidman posits that there was a divide between queer theory and LGBT studies as disciplines in the 1990s, but this is starting to change as there are multiple developments in researching the interactions of these fields. And the aim of this issue was precisely to discuss the opportunities of interactions.
The most significant article in the issue in terms of psychology is Hegarty & Massey’s (2006) “Anti-homosexual Prejudice… as Opposed to What? Queer Theory and the Social Psychology of Anti-homosexual Attitudes”, which looks at social psychology studies on anti-homosexual prejudice from a queer perspective. The authors state that anti-homosexual prejudice is studied in social psychology as an ‘attitude’; that is was explained as a ‘universal fear of homoeroticism’ in the beginning (up until the end of the 70s) (universalizing models), but seen later as prejudice towards a distinct out-group (minoritizing models). (The popularization of the minoritizing models correspond to the ‘species narrative’ of Mayers and Windell (2013). Hegarty and Massey (2006) inform that in either case, the studies are done through “attitudes” with experimental/quantitative methods, which created certain limitations in how anti-homosexuality was studied. It is also stated that queer theory -which started to gain notoriety in the 1990s- not being able to find a reciprocity in psychology added to the limitations, alongside the methodological ones. The cognitive approach, which was dominating American psychology throughout the 1980s, distanced itself -and even outright rejected- qualitative methodologies. This caused it to stay away from and/or be disinterested in queer theory which relied mostly on discourse analyses. As such, the interaction seen between psychoanalysis and queer theory did not/was not able to translate to psychology.
On the other hand, LGBT studies that gained momentum with the gay movement of the 70s was able to find a large correspondence in psychology, and “LGBT psychology” emerged. According to the authors, this was because the subject of LGBT psychology was “homosexual identity” which could be quantitatively and empirically studied. As such, LGBT psychology finds its place as a subfield that was in line with the tools and interests of mainstream psychology. Queer theory on the other hand focuses on sexuality instead of homosexual identity and does not limit itself with the ‘empirical’. This clashes significantly with the dominant paradigm of psychology on top of making it difficult for psychologists to study using easy (empirical) methods. Furthermore, queer theory debated the knowledge generation and research of psychology (and other sciences) itself; and posited that out knowledge generation methods affect the way we ask questions and the discoveries we put forward, such that quantitative methodologies allow for certain questions to be asked but not others, and the insistence on empirical research has certain academical and political outcomes. While the authors believe that queer perspective does not require positivist epistemology to be tossed aside completely, existing queer theory and practice requires it to reevaluate its historical, discursive and political qualities and make room for alternative approaches. This would/could provide queer theory with important opportunities to enrich psychological research in general and understand anti-homosexual prejudice -a topic of social psychology- more completely.
Another significant call for a direct relationship between queer theory and psychology is comes from Hegarty (2011a) for the special issue of Psychology & Sexuality entitled “Queer Theory and Psychology” [6]. The issue contains various articles on how queer theory and psychology can enmesh and the opportunities this would create. In these texts, connections with queer psychology are drawn and discussed from many subfields of psychology from clinical to critical psychology. In their article “Viewing Critical Psychology Through the Lens of Queer”, Downing & Gillett (2011) outline how queer theory and psychology have clashing and overlapping histories, similar to Milton’s previous arguments (1997). They continue to describe that critical psychology has an even greater overlap, and how the changes in the last 20 years are connected to the criticisms towards traditional psychology ethics and epistemology. According to Downing and Gillett (2011), the forementioned changes lead to the deconstruction of the Eurocentric universal ‘subject’, and that the traditional subject/individual focused psychology ethics and epistemology have been shattered. As an alternative, a new (‘queerified’) understanding of ethics that focused on ideology and discourse, defended the acceptance of differences unconditionally and questioned the normality/anormality, healthy/unhealthy dicothomies began to form.
Other article from this special issue discuss how the therapist can position themselves within queer theory. Furthermore, Semp (2011) discusses how queer theory can be beneficial for public mental health service practives and research. Semp (2011) for example discusses how the current counseling practice is to match sexual orientation (i.e. match gay/bisexual clients with gay/bisexual counselors), which maintains the homo/hetero dicothomy. He then goes on to discuss what types of alternative practices can be used from a queer perspective. Additionaly, Hegarty (2011b) analyzed the use of intelligence tests and its relation with conservative rhetorics from a queer persoective; Hodges (2011) discussed what queer theory can provide for psychoanalytic theory/practice and outlined how the resources of psychoanalytics can be used from a queer perspective to challenge heteronormativity. Roen (2011) on the other hand debates how therapeutic interventions for adolescents with non-normative sexualities use methods and discourse that continue to reinforce dichotomous gender roles. The article goes on to say how the opposite where methods and discourse that allow adolescents to exist and become empowered with all their diversity is needed, and outlines how queer perspective can be helpful in this creating said methods.
Queer theory provides important opportunities to understand the intersectionality of gender/sexuality categories with other categories (e.g. race, class etc.) In this context, “Queer Theory and Its Future in Psychology: Exploring Issues of Race Privilege” by Riggs (2007) brings out the similarities between sexuality privileges and race privileges especially in multiracial societies with colonial histories; that racial norms are founded on ‘whiteness’ and sexual norms are founded on ‘heterosexuality’ which shows itself in every aspect of life including psychology. Riggs (2007) as well as Riggs & Walker (2006) argue that queer perspectives can be greatly beneficial to psychology in seeing and analyzing the intersections between racial and sexual privileges. De Vries (2012) similarly emphasizes the intersection of race, class and gender/sexual identities in understanding trans experiences. Riggs (2007) believes queer theory can help psychology be more susceptible and critical of various hierarchies and privileges -especially ‘white’ normativity-’ that intersect within different categories, by also using the discussions within itself.
A valuable work that exemplifies how the idea of ‘performativity’ in queer theory can be applied to psychology is “A Queer-theoretical Approach to Community Health Psychology” by Nic Giolla Easpaig, Fryer, Linn and Humprey’in (2014). Continuing from Semp’s (2011) line of work, authors reevaluate public health psychology from a queer perspective and argue that clinical interventions should focus on people’s practices and desires instead of their identities. They suggest a transition from a ‘consider people within the contexts of social systems’ view to a ‘subjectivity’ view which creates social interaction directly through daily ‘performative’ acts (Butler, 1990/2008).
Performativity is the process through which subjects are constructed. Subjects is created exactly within the micro processes of the daily life. As such, the authors argue that the process through which performative acts build the subject should be investigated. As such, sexual desire and practices, which are usually limited to people’s identity in psychology, will be seen as constructed, poly and collective phenomenons, thus will be able to studied in non-normative (non-pathologizing) ways.
Related to this discussion, Joel, Tarrasch, Berman, Mukamel and Ziv (2014) claim that the existing binary/bipolarized idea of gender (you are either a man or a women) does not embrace most people’s experiences in their article “Queering Gender: Studying Gender Identity in ‘Normative’ Individuals. The authors claim that while the gender binary is increasingly criticized for not being inclusive of trans, intersex and other non-normative individuals’ experiences, the assumption that ‘normative’ individuals mostly fit within this binary system, which they openly question, still exists. This belief that gender fluidity is only experienced by gender non-conforming people, and ‘normative’ people experience gender within the binary is so common in psychology that it is never investigated. Their research shows that this is a false assumption, that the binary also does not fit most ‘normative’ people’s experiences, and more so, that the multidimensional and complex aspects of experiencing gender have not been sufficiently observed in the past. The study indicates that the feeling of being a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ is not as strong as expected, heterosexuals do not have a stronger and fixed ‘core gender identity’ unlike previously thought, fitting into existing gender norms is an issue for many ‘normative’ people, and gender dysphoria is experienced to some level by many people. As such the authors claim that the gender dysphoria diagnostic in the DSM-5 (2013), as well as similar diagnostics in previous versions, are based on this false narrative of the gender binary and thus pathologise gender fluidity. In fact, this gender dysphoria is seen in ‘normative’ populations almost as often as ‘non-normative’ populations and thus, is not pathological. As such, a new conceptualization of gender (non-binary, more fluid) that is more inclusive and reflective of everyone’s experiences is needed.
To sum up, we can see through all the above studies that the interest in queer theory is newly emerging but growing in psychology (or more accurately Western psychology). As such, the relationship between psychology and queer theory -which opens all normativities to questioning, posits that the self is constructed and performative, and highlights intersectionality-, as well as what queer theory can provide psychology, is being investigated increasingly.
On the other hand, we cannot say the same for the psychology field in Turkey. Turkey psychology’s (especially academic psychology) engagement with queer theory is extremely limited. For example, when we look at post-graduate psychology theses, we see almost none that mention queer theory in any way when in fact there are a considerable number of theses that touch on sexuality, gender identity, coming out, discrimination within the frame of LGBT psychology [7]. The distance with/disinterest in queer theory is related with how limited of a relationship institutional/academic psychology has with other disciplines, critical perspectives, qualitative methodologies and non-scientific knowledge generators (NGOs, activists etc.). At this point it can be noted that the interest of psychoanalysts in Turkey in queer theory is higher than that of psychologists. While academic resources in this context are limited, the “Queer and Psychoanalysis” special issue of Kaos GL magazine can be an example [8].
To conclude, to the extent that Western psychologys’ (with Turkish psychology) improves its relationship with queer theory, it will become possible to move away from the current depoliticize psychology ethicsh that focuses on the liberal humanism, and towards a queer ethics and even a queer psychology that defends the acceptance of difference unconditionally and does not put humans and their behaviors the determinist binaries (Downing & Gillett, 2011). With the development of this ethical-political stance, the assumptions as well as the scientific and ideological beliefs of psychology can become open to questioning. As a result, the negative impacts of currently held beliefs on not only non-normative groups but everyone (in differing levels), and more importantly, our roles as subjects (psychologists) who maintain and recreate these beliefs can be more easily seen.
Translation: Yasemin Bahar
FOOTNOTES:
1. This article is extended version of the “Queer Studies in Psychology” section of my doctoral thesis “Discourses of Psychologists from Diverse Domains of Psychology on Sex, Gender and Queer Theory”.
2. While activists today use the abbreviation “LGBTI+”, this is not reflected in the field of psychology where the previous abbreviation LGBT is still prevalent.
3. See American Psychology Associations’ (APA) “Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues” division. http://www.apa.org/about/division/div44.aspx
4. The first issue of the DSM has been published by the APA in 1952. The DSM has gone through multiple revisions and the latest version DSM-V has been published in 2013. See https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm for more information.
5. For this magazine issue see http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/wjhm20/52/1-2
6. For this magazine issue see http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rpse20/2/1
7. For a detailed review of how gender and sexuality are approached in psychology theses in Turkey as well as psychologists’ discourse on queer theory see Şah (2016).
8. For this magazine issue see http://www.kaosgldergi.com/sayi.php?id=136
*This article was produced with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of Kaos GL Association and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.
Tags: human rights
