[recycled material - first appeared here]
Roughly twenty years after the birth of the term, I still don’t like homophobia. The word. But before arguing against the use of this term, let me emphasize that by taking a position against the word I am by no means taking a position in support of any or all behavior the term is used to categorize. The issue I address here is solely the perceived misuse of language.
Why quibble over “homophobia”? First, as popularly employed, homophobia implies a diagnosis, and supports a perspective, that rests upon a tenet of pop-psychology. The tenet asserts that behind all aggression, anger, and resistance, exists the true causal emotion — fear. But does fear underlie all aggression, all anger, all opposition?
As Andrew Ortony and Terence J. Turner, researchers specializing in the psychology of emotion, long ago outlined in the pages of Psychological Review, anger is a distinct emotion that has its developmental roots in the infant’s experience of frustration. The infantile experience of frustration, especially that of restraint, develops into the adult emotion of anger. Furthermore, the expression of anger emerges prior to that of fear. Hence anger does not develop out of fear.
What underlies adult anger?
In a 1993 edition of another psychological journal, Cognition and Emotion, renown authority on human emotion Nico Frijda wrote, “As for anger: The most elementary elicitors…are acute goal interference.”
For the above and other reasons, the fear-as-primary-motivator tenet of pop-psychology seems to me to be more than highly questionable. It is likely outright false.
Returning to the specific case of homophobia, opposition to the increasing presence and political clout of homosexuals cannot and should not be written off as a mere symptom of widespread phobia. It is more complicated than that.
If you think about it, the reasoning behind “homophobia,” “homophobic,” and “homophobe,” is almost absurd. With similarly applied reasoning, one could diagnose anti-abortion activists as choice-phobic, environmentalists as development-phobic, and republicans as tax-phobic. As an even more ridiculous example, I myself could be called “creamed-corn-phobic,” for I intensely dislike this canned vegetable and resolutely oppose its inclusion into my diet.
Why not diagnose as phobic all aversive and oppositional behavior? Because the underlying reasoning is defective, and because a term as serious as phobia should not be used to categorize a person or people with reckless abandon.
The second and perhaps primary reason why the popular use of homophobia concerns me is that behind this term lurks moral and political bullying. All too frequently individuals employ the term in an attempt to pathologize opposing perspectives. To force values. To close issues. By labeling and defining people as “homophobic” you easily discredit their concerns. Calling someone homophobic is equivalent to saying, “You are sick. Your feelings and beliefs have absolutely no place in this society.”
True, the “other side” is frequently guilty of the above, but does that justify it?
The questions of homosexual rights (the extension of civil rights to people with differing sexual orientations), and how and to what degree society should accept and accommodate homosexuality, are controversial and complex. Personally, I’m for homosexual rights such as the right to marry and adopt children. However, using words that discredit the holders of opposing opinions and values, and thus, indirectly, the opinions and values themselves, is a strong-arm political tactic–a tactic that undermines the effort to make our communities and nation more free-thinking.
Language is a powerful tool. Sure, it would be nice if we could classify all behavior and persons we didn’t like as pathological, hence undeserving a legitimate place in the world. But it just isn’t that simple. Furthermore, by doing so we undermine a better understanding.
New research proves it: herbal medicine works. Check out the news release headline -
Chinese herbal medicine may provide novel treatment for alcohol abuse
But wait a minute. I think a neglected to put an “an” before “herbal medicine works.” For it was one Chinese herbal treatment, right?
Yes and no.
Yes, in that the ‘herbal medicine’ was the plant Hoventia.
No, in that it wasn’t administered as Chinese medicine is. Rather, the experiment used a component isolated from the plant, the chemical dihydromyricetin.
The research team determined that dihydromyricetin may provide a molecular target and cellular mechanism to counteract alcohol intoxication and dependence, leading to new therapeutic treatments — all based on an ancient “folk medicine” treatment that has been used by humans for at least 500 years.
While I applaud this scientific finding, I question the misleading language used in the write up. For example, this title would be more accurate:
“Treatment based on a Chinese herbal remedy may provide . . . “
Once a laboratory isolates the active chemical in an herb, extract or manufactures it, and then applies the methods of science to that chemical, I no longer consider it a Chinese medicine. Rather, it is traditional/conventional medicine working off an idea for a new treatment from Chinese medicine.
Just as alcohol comes in different strengths, so too does science. On one end of the spectrum you’ve got shots of pure vodka, on the other you have some hyper-fruity concoctions with only a slight hint of rum.
Mind you, sometimes you’ve got to start with the fruity stuff. Maybe often. You then progressively distill out the impurities and up the strength. Scientifically speaking.
A recent study on home births and midwifes struck me as quite fruity. Allow me to highlight the chunks of pineapple and candied cherries.
First, the title: Midwives Use Rituals to Send Message That Women’s Bodies Know Best.
“Rituals” . . . fine. But it depends what they are. Might be a legit variable. Yet a ritual isn’t good by default, simply because we like the word.
Then, “women’s bodies know best”? That strikes me as pandering and at least partially mistaken. It implies always. There is plenty of research showing people don’t really know their bodies well, nor are they skilled at interpreting what their body is ‘saying.’ Sometimes, sure. Maybe what the midwives are doing is giving the women greater confidence to . . . trust and accept the incredibly dynamic changes their bodies go through during childbirth. To relax (relatively).
Next we have a paragraph that has a cloying taste, to me — one that manifests bias.
The midwife experience uses these rituals to send the message that home birth is about female empowerment, strengthening relationships between family and friends, and facilitating participatory experiences that put mothers in control, with the ultimate goal of safe and healthy deliveries less focused on technological intervention.
Um, technology isn’t bad, nor is empowerment always good. These are mere words and we really have to get into the nitty-gritty to evaluate any goodness or badness.
Data source alert: in-depth interviews with midwifes and their clients. That’s bottom-shelf, low-proof brew. Even when you add the ‘in-depth’ umbrella.
What strikes me as most cautionary and likely telling about the quality of the science conducted — and the questionable intellectual diligence of the scientist — is the use of jargon. The use of terms that are less scientific, more political. They are aimed at persuading by way of their first-sniff attractiveness or repulsion. Empowerment, rituals, participatory, mind-body connection, family, home . . . how can you not root for those? Technology, hospital, medicalized, equipment . . . who could have warm and fuzzy thoughts about something medicalized?
Consider this bit from the news release:
Cheyney also documented the use of common phrases to create birthing mantras. She lists phrases such as “don’t fight it,” “let your body do it,” “open,” and “let it be strong,” as key components to the home birth ritual.
“Don’t fight it” is a . . . mantra? Oy. Another colorful word with questionable substance behind it.
Oregon State University researcher Melissa Cheyney seemed to argue that home births were better than hospital births. And some times for some people, they no doubt are. For other people at other times, probably not.
Finally there is this, at the core of the issue -
Cheyney said evidence shows that hospital births result in about triple the rate of cesarean section for low-risk women compared to midwife-attended home births. Because of her unique role as both a researcher and midwife, Cheyney was able to gain access to hundreds of home births in various parts of the United States, and also witnessed more than 60 hospital births.
This is definitely an important issue. But is the solution to the unnecessarily high rate of cesarean births to instead opt for home births? Does a drawback to hospital births automatically make home births better? Though the two issues overlap, it seems to me that there are a number of things going on. For instance, maybe the more important factor is the profit motive (to avoid insurance claims, maybe, to pad the hospital bill, sadly maybe?) Hospitals don’t like taking risks, so they tend to avoid them. And they do prefer to make money. Midwives lack the same incentive when it comes to risks, but might share the one about protecting their wallets. Is there an element to a turf war to this? I wonder.
Personally, I think home births are great if they can be done safely and you are into that sort of thing. Other times, hospital births are the smarter choice. But the only way to determine when one type of delivery might be better than the other is to do better science.
Public dis-service announcement: There may be alpha-terpineol, 4-methylpentanoic acid and ethyl propionate in the foods you eat! Details at 11:00.
Okay, that was a joke. Actually, many of us actually welcome the presence of those “chemicals” in our food. Here’s the actual news release -
North Americans and Western Europeans love a good mix of alpha-terpineol, 4-methylpentanoic acid and ethyl propionate for dinner, flavor compounds shared in popular ingredients like tomatoes, parmesan cheese and white wine. Authentic East Asian recipes, on the other hand, tend to avoid mixing ingredients with many shared flavor compounds, according to new complex networks research from Indiana, Harvard, Cambridge and Northeastern universities.
[source: Shared flavor compounds show up on US menus, rare in Asian cuisines]
Oh. Chemicals can be scary sounding, but can also be good for you? What’s more, just because something is a chemical (and what is devoid of chemicals?) or has a laboratory-sounding name, that doesn’t mean it is toxic.
But the prejudice remains. And it rests upon the “naturalistic fallacy.” Natural things are better because they are natural. Circular logic anyone?
As an example of just how deeply entrenched this prejudice is, consider this finding from out of the University of Maryland:
Food Coloring and ADHD – No Known Link, But Wider Safety Issues Remain: Researcher
Considering that the science part of the finding was “No Known Link” between food coloring and ADHD, I was surprised to the read this:
“The testimony I heard presents significant questions for me – issues that have not been adequately studied by scientists,” says Chronis-Tuscano, a mother of young children, an associate professor of psychology and director of the University of Maryland ADHD Program.
“Beginning in the womb, developing brains are particularly sensitive to toxins,” Chrois-Tuscano explains. “It’s important to get better information about how much of these substances American children consume, and whether these levels are dangerous. [emphasis added]
Oh please. Toxins? Why not include a statement about evil spirits while you at it. Both include voodoo-like connotations.
Hmm. On second thought, shouldn’t the news release title have included the word “Artificial” before “Food Coloring”? I don’t think anyone would be afraid of the anthocyanin that gives blueberries their blue color. Or would they?
Anthocyanin? Why, that’s a chemical!
Egads. As has been said before, arsenic is a natural compound. Just as is dihydrogen monoxide. If you haven’t heard of this potentially dangerous chemical before, I suggest doing some research. The stuff can kill you (if you ingest too much or fall in it and drown).
Do hornets have free will? Do I?
It’s a serious philosophical issue. I guess. I’m not fond of it — the issue, hornets can be another matter. Until free and will are clearly defined, I just as soon enter into a discussion about it as I would stir up a hornets’ nest.
Recent Comments