Gay-rights activists scored a coup by injecting the language of “homophobia” into our national conversation. They may regret it, though. It’s poised to come back and bite them.
From one perspective, “homophobia” is a truly marvelous term, as strategic as it could possibly be. We who disagree with homosexual practice aren’t just wrong, we’re sick. No need to talk about whether there’s merit in what we believe: our very position on the issue proves we’re mentally and emotionally deficient. Game over.
Thus gay cultural insurgents have used “homophobia” as part of an open strategy to subvert rational discourse. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen wrote in their 1989 strategy manual After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90′s (pardon the language, please; it is theirs, not mine):
For us to attempt to argue with homohaters is to risk carrying the argument onto their turf, which gives attention and, implicitly, credence to many of their basic assumptions…. we’d better have a strong emotional appeal in our back pocket. (p. 140)
Propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and assholes—people who say not only ‘faggot’ but ‘n___,’ ‘kike,’ and other shameful epithets—who are ‘not Christian.’ … Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. (pp. 151-153)
(The bold emphasis in all quotes is mine.)
Emotions, not reasons, are at the core of their persuasive strategy. The following comes out of a slightly different context, but it continues to illustrate the non-rational approach these strategists promoted:
The objection will be raised… that we would ‘Uncle Tommify’ the gay community; that we are exchanging one false stereotype for another equally false; that that is not how all gays actually look…. It makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we’re using them to ethically good effect…. the ads will have their effect on them [straights] whether they believe them or not. (p. 154)
Lest you think these quotes exaggerate their propagandistic intent (or its effect), I invite you to read this short article the same authors wrote two years before the book. (Madsen used a pseudonym for that piece.)
The phobia suffix became an effective tool in creating and managing a strong, non-rational, non-logical, cultural attitude adjustment; a way to achieve a result without needing to be overly concerned about truth. The problem is, like the “gate” suffix, “phobia” turned out to be flexible enough to use anywhere. Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent, analyzes how that has happened:
This successful linking of a hostile attitude towards gays with the emotional disorder that is ‘phobia’ has encouraged others to define themselves as the victims of phobia, too. The coining of the term ‘Islamophobia’ is the most successful recent attempt to customise the homophobia tag for a new group of people: Muslims. The Islamophobia tag gained currency in the 1990s. In 1996, the UK Runnymede Trust’s Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia played a key role in framing anti-Muslim prejudice as a form of irrational sentiment….
[B]y drawing on the successful creation of homophobia, the advocates of the new term of Islamophobia could appeal to an established consensus around identity politics and multiculturalism. Moreover, the constructers of Islamophobia, like those who rewrote the phrase homophobia, could draw on the powerful therapeutic outlook that dominates Anglo-American societies today….
“Homophobia” was the lexical parent of “Islamophobia.” Odd, isn’t it, that the one would have given birth to the other?
I wonder whether someday some gay-rights advocate might feel threatened by Islam. It’s a realistic enough scenario, especially in Europe. We can be sure he would be emphatically opposed to Islam’s extreme social restrictions (far more extreme than evangelical Christianity’s). His strong opposition to Islam would make him “Islamophobic,” diseased with the “irrational sentiment” of “anti-Muslim prejudice.”
I wonder if he might object to being labeled that way. “This is no irrational fear, and I’m not mentally ill,” he would want to say. “I’ve thought this through, and I have reasons to believe there are some things actually wrong with Islam. Don’t just set me aside with a label like that. Let’s at least talk about it.”
And I wonder if he would recognize the irony in that.
“Homophobia” strikes back.
Also posted at Thinking Christian.
March 4th, 2011 | 11:28 am | #1
The appeal to emotion is not bad in principle, despite what many enlightenment rationalists have told us.
Emotion and reason are two faculties that can help us reach the “right” answer. Sometimes emotion can cut through the reasons (read: rationalizations) that we’ve built up around something. (And sometimes it goes the other way — reason must trump our emotions.) I’m sure you can think of some time where this happened to you.
Take crisis pregnancy centers (yes, I agree they sometimes spread misinformation and use questionable tactics to get people in the door), whose giving of free ultrasounds often evokes an emotional response from the woman/couple that cuts through their nominal reasons for wanting to terminate the pregnancy.
Now consider: in their article about NYC’s 41%(!) abortion rate, the NYTimes quotes a woman who says, “I’ve always been against abortion, [b]ut if I had a kid now, it would have a terrible life. I’d rather wait” (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/nyregion/04abortion.html).
An emotional response to an ultrasound might help her to see her inconsistency (abortion for me but not for thee) and recognize that a hypothetically projected “terrible life” is not a substantial enough reason to terminate what one presumes she believes to be a real life and now knows has a heartbeat and a cute little nose.
She could then seek alternatives that are consonant with her self-professed beliefs against abortion, such as raising the child with her partner/spouse (or by herself), raising the child within the context of a larger group (parents, grandparents, other family, or friends), or adoption.
March 4th, 2011 | 12:13 pm | #2
Emotions are great servants but terrible masters.
March 4th, 2011 | 12:48 pm | #3
Right. Decision-making is impossible without emotion. There is a famous case in the psych literature of a man whose brain’s emotional centers were damaged. He was able to think through the pros and cons of various decisions, but he was unable to settle on one, not even as simple as his next appointment time with his doctor.
The crisis pregnancy centers of which you speak, Quin, are presenting accurate pictures of reality. They evoke emotion through truth. I’m all for that. But that’s not what these “phobia” terms are about.
March 4th, 2011 | 3:15 pm | #4
“And I wonder if he would recognize the irony in that.”
So far there hasn’t been much cognitive dissonance in the secular mind between “All cultures are equally valid–none is ‘better’ than another” and “Islam’s treatment of women is bad.” Both of those are considered “rational” beliefs.
And for years there has been no conflict between “All groups should be treated equally” and “We must treat some groups unequally in order to achieve equality of results.” Again, both “rational” beliefs.
So I’m guessing that no, he will not recognize the irony; it will be passed over lightly, as with much else. The guiding principle seems to be, “Anything a secularist believes is by definition ‘rational.’” On the other hand, anyone disputing the secularist’s beliefs is by definition “phobic” about something.
March 4th, 2011 | 3:55 pm | #5
There is a lot of bigotry behind the term homophobia to begin with. I can guarantee that the very same people think it is politically incorrect to call someone who has a learning disability a retard or make fun of someone suffering from a mental illness. Yet they use the word phobia in judgmental, condescending and contemptuous way.
According to the National Institute of Mental Health phobias are a form of mental illness that between 8.7% and 18.1% of Americans suffer.
Would it be acceptable to use the word retard in the same way phobia is being used in homophobia? How does that make people who suffer from real phobia’s feel? In my opinion using phobia the way it is used in homophobia is not only a misuse but abuse of the term. In other words, these people need to find some better rhetoric.
March 4th, 2011 | 4:55 pm | #6
It’s not just an appeal to emotion, it’s a whole metaphor – one that is much, much larger than just the gay rights argument.
The metaphor is that the left has “science” and “reason” on its side.
The reason this is powerful is that it presumes the other side lacks both science and reason.
Look around. You will notice that homophobia is by no means the only “diagnosis” out there.
It is their whole strategy.
Any time the left disagrees with the right, it isn’t an honest disagreement between two world-views. No, it is healthy vs. sick. It is well-adjusted vs. those with irrational fears and sexual dysfunction.
This makes them the “expert”. The relationship moves from one between equals, to one in which a stable grownup diagnoses a person who isn’t functioning right.
They diagnose their opponents as being:
“repressed” – an unhealthy relationship with normal, healthy desires and appetites; automatically nullifies any arguments about boundaries, setting limits, self-control, or personal responsibility/discipline;
“pathological” – including “unhinged”, “hysterical”, “unbalanced” etc. – automatically shoves you to the extreme right wing, because we all know that all crazy people are right wing, and all right wing people are crazy, right?
“anxious” – whatever you’re in favor of, you’re only imagining danger. You’re paranoid. You’re seeing things that aren’t there.
And so on.
Once you see how they have expanded it to include certain eugenics-type assumptions, you can see how “stupid” and “ignorant” can be diagnosed like diseases, too.
March 4th, 2011 | 6:09 pm | #7
Notice how Freudian the language is. You would think politics has co-opted psychoanalysis. Well, at least it tries to.
March 4th, 2011 | 7:04 pm | #8
‘You would think politics has co-opted psychoanalysis.”
After most mental health care methodologies have rejected it. How brilliant is that?
March 5th, 2011 | 6:53 am | #9
I do think that it’s important to see this, in an historical context. Homosexuals have suffered tremendous bigotry, over the centuries. And, it’s only very recently been the case that, homosexuals have not had their sexual behavior, criminalized, in our country.
What’s important, is to distinguish between those people who, on the basis of what they believe to be good reasons, disagree with homosexual behavior, and those who, for whatever reason, hate homosexuals. The former, is not hate. If they can provide valid reasons, for their objections, to the sexual behavior, of homosexuals, rational people should believe them, and if they’re homosexual, change their sexual behaviors, or if they’re heterosexual, change their opinions, about homosexual behavior. I’ve seen the arguments, and they are respectable arguments, and therefore should be given a fair hearing, but I don’t find them persuasive. But it’s illogical to refer to people who provide these arguments as “homophobic”. No, their arguments should be heard, and given fair analysis. The arguments should be accepted, or rejected, on the basis of reason, not emotion. As I said, I don’t find the arguments, against consensual, adult homosexuality persuasive, but they’re respectable arguments.
There’s another group, however, composed of bigots, with respect to homosexuals. how large their numbers are, I don’t know, but they clearly exist, and I fear that, at least some of them, hide behind the cover of religion. The key, is making a clear distinction, between these true haters, of gay people, and those who don’t hate gay people, indeed want the best for them, but disagree with the sexual behavior, of gays, and can provide respectable arguments, for this view. The latter, have every right to present their arguments, and rational people, are obligated to give these arguments serious consideration.
March 5th, 2011 | 7:32 am | #10
Craig Payne: you make a good point that, clearly, there are those who seem to hold logically inconsistent views. But it’s important, to not paint, with too broad a brush.
When you refer to the “secular mind”, you seem to imply that, it consists of a monolithic cognitive structure, with respect to its moral judgments: they claim all cultures are equal, and yet, Islam treatment of women is bad, two seemingly contradictory views. While I agree with you that, those who do hold these opposing notions, are being illogical, in this regard (one cannot affirm moral relativism, as implied by the view that all cultures are equally valid, or good, since this same claim-all cultures are equally valid-is an absolutist claim, but also, the notion that a particular culture, Islam’s treatment of women, is bad, is an absolutist moral claim), it’s important to point out that, not all secular minds, are oriented toward moral relativism, or hold, the moral relativism, and moral absolutism, at the same time, and are therefore inconsistent. Some, or many, but not all. Thomas Nagal, a New York philosopher, and atheist, for example, is an absolutist, morally.
Also, it’s inaccurate for someone to assert “Islam’s treatment of women”. Which branch? Some branches treat women better than others. I know you were just using this as an example, and you propbably don’t believe that all Islam, treats women badly, but it’s important to qualify, these statements.
Clearly, moral relativism is untenable, as is the intellectual cancer, of which moral relativism, is a portion of, the postmodern denial of truth. But this is not the exclusive domain, of secularists. Some Christians, have flirted with postmodernism, as well.
March 5th, 2011 | 7:53 am | #11
Craig Payne: In fairness, you do qualify your claims, with “So far, there hasn’t been much cognitive dissonance in the secular mind between ‘All cultures are equally valid-none is ‘better’ than another. and ‘Islam’s treatment of womenis bad.’ both of these are considered rational beliefs”. Your qualifying, is in “so far there hasn’t been much”, which implies that you do accept that some secular minds HAVE rejected this inconsistent viewpoint. But you do imply that many, if not most secular minds hold these moral absolutist/ relativist views, at the same time. Perhaps this is true, but I haven’t seen any evidence for it, do you have evidence, for it?
March 5th, 2011 | 10:32 am | #12
Bret,
Granted there are people with an evil and/or irrational hatred toward homosexuals. The term “homophobic” is still wrong for them; it still short-circuits rational discourse; it is still tarred by its over-application to people who neither fear nor hate homosexuals. I mean, if you think it’s important to qualify statements concerning Islam’s treatment of women, then for consistency you ought to be joining us in calling an end to the use of “homophobia.” Why not just identify the people you are speaking of, those who hate homosexuals with an evil and/or irrational hatred toward homosexuals, as people with an evil and/or irrational hatred toward homosexuals?
Don’t lose sight of gay-rights insurgents’ documented intentionally manipulative purposes. Don’t support it, either; you know better than that, I’m sure.
March 5th, 2011 | 11:31 am | #13
[...] “Homophobia” Strikes Back [...]
March 5th, 2011 | 5:17 pm | #14
Dear Bret Lythgoe: You wrote that I was “painting with a broad brush.” To this I plead guilty.
After all, I have a lot of atheist friends who are very, very clear thinkers.
But I still stick by my comments–as long as it’s recognized that I am broad-brushing, just a tad.
March 5th, 2011 | 6:13 pm | #15
Tom, you’re right. Certainly the term “homophobia” has been used to describe not just those who hate homosexuals (and if it was restricted to just these people, it would be an accurate description), but also, it seems, to any who disagree with homosexual practices. This latter use of the term, is clearly irrational, and thus unfair.
March 5th, 2011 | 6:16 pm | #16
Craig Payne: thanks for your comments. I have always respected your rational approach to things, even when I’ve disagreed. I didn’t think you would mind, me pointing this out.
I know that I’ve been guilty of painting with a broad brush, before, as well.
March 6th, 2011 | 2:36 pm | #17
Modern democratic societies are founded on two basic principles: (1)tolerance and (2)freedom of thought or conscience. We need to note that the American founders often used freedom of conscience interchangeably with freedom of religion, which also could be freedom of no religion.
The fact that modern democracies are founded on these two principles has led to a society that is, to a large degree, morally diverse, especially when it comes to matters of sexuality and sexual expression.
I’m enough of a libertarian that for the most part I’m okay with this, as long as my rights and personal moral choices are respected.
The problem with the so called gay rights movement is that it undermines the two basic principles I’ve listed above. In arguing that certain kinds of moral and religious thinking is unhealthy or pathological the rhetoric itself, at least implicitly, advocates the undermining those rights. In other words, a Christian believing and thinking that homosexuality is immoral is, in the view of gay activists, thinking and believing things that are not only illegitimate but also not to be tolerated. A Christian’s freedom of conscience is, therefore, essentially nullified.
The beauty of natural rights as conceived by the founders was that they were universal and not mutually exclusive. Advocates of so called “gay rights,” on the other hand, posit a position that is mutually exclusive with the vision of the founders and the vast majority of people that enjoy our societie’s freedoms.
If Christians pushed their morality the same way the gay rights advocates push theirs they would be accused of trying to establish a theocracy. Like a man-made theocracy the utopian vision of these militant gays can only lead one place– a totalitarian society.
March 6th, 2011 | 10:59 pm | #18
Leftists do show that they have nothing but pure contempt for those suffering from mental illness if they cast moral judgment on homophobia. Either that, or they know full well they are just blowing smoke.
Don’t those with the gene for homophobia need to be accepted and tolerated? They didn’t ask to be born with the condition, and, what with it being a mental disorder and all, they are not morally culpable.
Can’t leftists please, please show a little compassion for a problem that is much more widespread than homosexuality itself?
March 7th, 2011 | 8:48 am | #19
Dear Matteo: Funny!
March 7th, 2011 | 12:43 pm | #20
For a crusty old English major like myself, the term ‘homophobia’ is in itself problematic. It means literally ‘fear of the same’. So, when it comes to dinner I am indeed ‘homophobic’ — at least about what I cook for my family night in and night out. We like variety in our household.
But seriously. To brand a serious religious/moral conviction as a species of mental illness is to participate willingly in the destruction of rational debate. It’s a trump card played as part of a pure power game which seeks not so much to engage the opposition as to silence them and brand them as outside the pale of rational, civil society. It is almost never appropriate. It may be descriptive of some small sample of folks on the fringe (Westboro Baptist ‘Church’ for example) but it really is a variant of the “shut up, I explained’ gambit. It operates much like the term “racist” — an accusation which immediately sucks all the air out of any rational discussion. Which, I suspect, is the intent.
Finally, (in the ‘sauce for the goose’ style) if it is really fair to use such a term, broadly speaking, why don’t we brand those favoring abortion as “biophobic”? Or the atheist as “theophobic”?
March 7th, 2011 | 1:12 pm | #21
Some tactics that may be strategic and effective are nonetheless off limits for people who care about their integrity. (You knew that, I know!)
March 7th, 2011 | 1:31 pm | #22
Agreed (as you know, Tom).
I do wonder sometimes, if evangelicalism with its tendencies towards utilitarianism and the uncritical acceptance of methods of modern advertising and the use of media, has not (unwittingly) promoted the ‘strategic and effective’ without really fully considering issues of integrity, or civility.
But like I said, I’m crusty…
March 8th, 2011 | 8:40 am | #23
[...] recently on “homophobia” (you may find the same article with a more lively discussion here). Other themes worth mentioning here [...]
March 9th, 2011 | 3:03 pm | #24
In response to Matteo:
The gay evolutionary psychologist Jesse Bering has just published a piece pretty much confirming his agreement with your position, Matteo. “Homophobics” can’t help being that way, he says. The article is called Natural Homophobes, and he ends it with,
If hatred is just an artifact of evolution…
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact