Of course, one might ask, “Why even bother to consider the characteristics of individuals who may be experiencing questions of “concern” about sexual orientation?” Well, if one of those characteristics was depression or suicidal ideation it would be something warranting attention. The rate of suicide amongst homosexual youth is often cited as an argument for tolerance. I suspect this is true but there are claims that raise questions about the existing statistics, as an on-line search will show. At the very least, one needs to get the claims and the evidence on the table and evaluate each item critically.

Other characteristics could be similarly important. If a characteristic was a lack of parental or community support, it could be addressed. If a characteristic was linked to tangential sexual activity or abuse, or peer pressure, then it might assist a counselor or teacher in understanding the development of a sexual identity and devising a reasonable proactive approach when dealing with children and adolescents.

Diversity of opinions and disagreements about explanations must exist if tolerance, the dictionary definition of tolerance, is to exist. If one tolerates a person, an opinion or explanation, then by definition, he or she disagrees with the person, or the opinion, or the explanation. Tolerance extends to the ideas, positions, and people we disagree with, not to those we agree with. Thus the tolerant person, is the person who allows all ideas on the table, and challenges ideas in a scholarly fashion with tools of reason, evidence and argument, as opposed to emotion, name calling, ad hominems, silencing, shouting-down, and so on.

Does one tolerate strange people? Does one tolerate weird ideas? You might wish to reflect on the weird papers in Postmodern Pooh (Crews, 2001). (For a brief overview see below). While I found no affinity with any position in the book, I noted that some positions were more egregious than others. Same with the participants; I would likely find it easier to get along with some presenters rather than others. Does this suggest that tolerance is a continuous variable (indicating degrees of disagreement) rather than a categorical variable (yes/no)? I think so. The question then arises, when does tolerance change to intolerance or bigotry? I would contend that the boundary relates to the ethical issue of harm. For a chart framing these terms with illustrations see below.

Framing the Terms: Tolerance, Acceptance, Affirmation and Bigotry

Biological Influence

With respect to homosexual and bisexual individuals, when considering the evidence for a biological basis for one’s sexual orientation, the evidence is weaker than popular opinion, and the popular media, would suggest. This is particularly true for a deterministic position. Nevertheless, certain biological factors do appear to be instrumental in leading to tendencies in a particular homosexual or bisexual direction.

Genetics. The studies claiming genetic influences seem to have suffered attrition in support over the years. An early study of monozygotic twins showed a 100% concordance for homosexuality (Kallman, 1952). If one identical twin was homosexual, the other was as well. But this study fell into disrepute, and apparently was later termed a statistical artifact by the author. Subsequent reports by one of the most prominent researchers in the field (Bailey, 1995; Bailey & Pillard, 1991; Bailey, Pillard, Neale, & Agyei, 1993; Bailey, Dunne, & Martin, 2000) have been supporting a heritable component but in a very tenuous fashion. Baily is a determinist claiming “…all behaviours are ‘biologically determined’ in the sense that all events are caused, and behavioural events are caused by brain states which are ‘biological’” (Bailey, 1995, p 104). Thus, his bias towards a biological explanation is clear even though his data lead in the direction of environmental influences. In the Bailey et al (1991) study of twins the concordance rate for monozygotic twins was 52%, for fraternal twins 22%, for brothers 9.2%, and for adopted brothers 11%.  A similar pattern for females was evident with a concordance rate for monozygotic twins of 48%, for fraternal twins 16%, for sisters 14%, and for adopted sisters 6%.   It looks like there is a genetic component, though dramatically less than Kallman (1952) claimed.

However, close scrutiny of the studies raises questions about the methodology, noted by Bailey himself. The sample was drawn by advertisements in a gay community where participants might be sensitive to the intent of the study and the political value of demonstrating a genetic basis. Jones and Yarhouse (2000) also note that a study of twins reared apart (four female sets) where one was homosexual did not show any concordance. The more recent study by Bailey et al (2000) also shows further attrition of the genetic effect since the concordance rate drops to 20% for male MZ twins and 24% for female MZ twins. It would seem then that the search for a genetic explanation is far less less compelling now than in 1952.

Hormones. The hypotheses that hormones are implicated in sexual orientation have an inherent logic to them. If behaviour and development are influenced by hormones one would expect such correlates to be evident.  However, the notion that homosexuals differ from heterosexuals with respect to hormones and hormonal levels has not garnered much advocacy, given the methodological problems in this research domain (Gooren, 1988). Homosexuals do not appear to differ with respect to hormone levels. The one caveat here is that there may be a subset in the lesbian population that has high levels of testosterone; however, this also could be the result of sample selection bias or physical exercise patterns (Gladue 1988; Jones & Yarhouse, 2000).

The hypothesis that prenatal hormones influence sexual behaviour, and possibly orientation, appears to be stronger than the adult hormone hypothesis. When Gunter Dörner was reporting his findings with stressed pregnant rats, and the possible impact of stress on fetal development of male homosexuals (Dörner, 1976; Dörner, Geier, Ahrens, Krell, Münx, Sieler, Kittner, & Müller, 1980; Dörner, Rohde, Stahl, Krell, & Masius, 1975; Dörner, Schenk, Schmiedel, & Ahrens, 1983), the case that was emerging had a logical coherence and elegance. It made some sense, even though the evidence was arguing for influence, not determinism. Of all biological factors which might impact sexual orientation this appears to be the strongest. The inference that there is an effect, can be drawn from the animal studies where animal fetuses are exposed to either feminizing or masculinizing hormones. In rats, particularly, effects related to brain structure differences and changes in sex-specific behaviour patterns (i.e., lordosis in males and mounting in females) is evident (Bailey, 1995). This hormonal influence on (1) certain architectural features of the brain and (2) certain sex-related, hard-wired behaviours is, at least, suggestive of a hormonal influence that can impact behaviour in humans as well. The caution, though, in making the logical leap is seen in comments like, “One must note, however, that there is no direct demonstration yet that the hormone-behaviour relationships seen in intersex individuals do, in fact, apply to the development of sexual orientation in nonintersex persons (Meyer-Bahlburg, Ehrhardt, Rosen, Gruen, Veridiano, Vann, & Neuwalder, 1995, p.13). The entire tone of the study by Meyer-Bahlburg, et al (1995) is cautious and tentative. Moreover, there is a danger in assuming an animal posture (e.g., mounting) can be extrapolated to human homosexual behaviour since (1) this would not be a defining feature of homosexual behaviour and (2) mounting may be a dominance behaviour (as often seen in castrated dogs and females) as well as a sexual behaviour.

Environmental Influence

The evidence for strictly environmental causes of sexual orientation is also weak (Lips, 2001). However there are studies that support environmental influences (for brief descriptions see Zucker & Bradley, 1995). Parents are implicated in terms of such characteristics as depression, pathology, expectations, models, reactions to sex-typed behaviours, and so on. The child’s natural tendencies (e.g., physiological arousal, timidity, play preferences, and so on) may play a role as well. Then there are the personal history events such as sexual abuse, homosexual experiences, peer pressures, and so on.

The environment may impact an individual who is psychologically prepared for a particular response. An illustration of this is evident in one of the more intriguing theories which has been proposed (Bem, 2001) and is based on the notion that the “Exotic” becomes the “Erotic.” If males are perceived as exotic by male children, that eventually flowers as, or turns to, “perceived as erotic.”

 The basic point here is that the environment seems to play a role in influencing sexual orientation. Perhaps the best model at this time is an interactional model. A host of environmental determinants emerge as potentially influential here. Similarly, genetic and hormonal influences are factored into the mix.  Finally, constructionist practice is acknowledged. Thus, biology, environment and personal and social constructions which involve choices are seen to contribute to the construction of a sexual orientation.

Some of the correlates, or potential environmental determinants, may be considered politically controversial. For example, the homosexual community is gaining a more acceptable profile in the larger community as a result of media support (TV sitcoms, film, editorial reporting, “coming-out stories” of high profile individuals, and so on). The popular media support is powerful, and logically influential. The question that arises is this: Could this powerful media-modeling-influence itself be a potential determinant? Constructivists would likely answer in the affirmative. Thus, it would be reasonable to expect young people to question their sexual “orientation” in a favourable light, that is to say, in a contemporary “cultural” context that fails to address, or incorporate, the psychological or biological or moral context. 

Subjects

Subjects for this study were selected from a population of female high school students in four Ontario high schools. Two hundred students were randomly selected and invited to participate, and 131 students responded (65% return rate).  

Instrumentation

A questionnaire was used to collect data on adolescent behaviours and attitudes. The profiling questions relevant for this particular study related to (1) Demographics (age, menstruation onset), (2) Worry (Interpersonal Relationships, Peer Pressures, Physical Appearance, Thoughts of Depression and Suicide), (3) Sex (Sexual Harassment, Sexual Activity), (4) Support (Paternal, Maternal, Community Adults, Community Resources), (5) Media (Time watching TV) and (6) Sports (Activity in Sports). The dependent variable addressed whether or not participants had concerns about their sexual orientation.

Procedure

            A research randomizer was used (stratified across high school grade levels) to select a pool of female students to be invited to participate in the data collection. Of 320 permission forms distributed to the randomly selected participants, 149 were returned (46.5%). Twelve forms contained a coding error reducing the sample to 137. The planning and communications were conducted in conjunction with the guidance department personnel and the public services attached to the schools. The public health nurse informed students of the details of the questionnaire implementation and parental permission was obtained for participation. The questionnaire was administered in cafeteria settings in the various high schools.

In this study a number of correlates were seen to exist for adolescents concerned with their sexual orientation. One prominent correlate was age. In effect, younger students in this sample showed more concern with sexual orientation. Of the twelve students who indicated a concern, three were 14-years-old, six were 15-years-old, one was 16, one was 17, and one was 18. It appears that younger students (ages 14-15) are the more concerned group. This is consistent with Remafedi, Resnick, Blum, & Harris, (1992) who reported that concern or “uncertainty” diminished in older groups. While they view their data as an unfolding of sexual identity, it is also reasonable to note that the higher concern in younger adolescents parallels the immature cognitive resources they have to deal with the concern. This would be especially important if sexual orientation was not an “unfolding” but rather a “construction.”

If it is younger students who are most concerned, and if younger students lack the more mature cognitive resources to assist with decision making, then the younger students would appear logically to be particularly vulnerable to undue influence. Sources of influence that might pose a threat could be one-sided public health presentations, uninformed peers, media models, social acceptability, and so on.

Such concerns are important if sexual orientation is not biologically determined. If we acknowledge psychosocial models from Freudian implications based on the parents—for which there is evidence (see Zucker & Bradley, 1995)—to Bem’s model of “Exotic becomes Erotic” (Bem, 2001), then there are practical implications for educators with respect to policies and practices.

The genetics explanation has fallen from favour. The hormonal hypothesis is stronger, but still not deterministic. The hormonal influence on (1) certain architectural features of the brain and (2) certain sex-related, hard-wired behaviours is suggestive of a hormonal influence that can impact behaviour, but there are cautions. The caution is seen in comments like, “One must note, however, that there is no direct demonstration yet that the hormone-behaviour relationships seen in intersex individuals do, in fact, apply to the development of sexual orientation in nonintersex persons (Meyer-Bahlburg, Ehrhardt, Rosen, Gruen, Veridiano, Vann, & Neuwalder, 1995, p.13). The entire tone of the study by Meyer-Bahlburg, et al (1995) is cautious and tentative. So again, the biological influences are not considered deterministic. At best, there may be a biologically based influence related to certain predispositions, but there is no case for biological determinism at this point.

Most researchers today would acknowledge that there are biological “influences” (genetics and prenatal hormones), environmental influences (family, peers, experiences, media, psychological) and choices (personal and social constructionism) driving sexual orientation. The shift back to environmental influences is seen in Bailey’s (1995) comment that, “the high rate of discordance among the MZ twins shows that environment must exert an influence on sexual orientation” (p. 129). This becomes even more dramatic as Bailey had in mind concordance rates of 47 to 52% for males and 48% for females at the time he made this claim in 1995 (which, by the way, is a long way from Kallman’s claim in 1952 of a 100% concordance rate). Bailey’s more recent studies of twins, where several bias issues were addressed, show an even more dramatic shift to the environmental causes with concordance rates falling to 20% for male MZ twins and 24% for female MZ twins (Bailey, Dunne, & Martin, 2000). Moreover, examination of the counting technique used (i.e., counting each twin as a second subject) may be artificially inflating the concordance rates reported still more (Jones & Yarhouse, 2000).

With a shift away from biological determinism to psychosocial factors and social and personal constructionist claims, it becomes incumbent for educators and parents to be informed on the topic. Such information would involve language issues (e.g., definitions of “normal”), etiological information (biological, psychosocial, social constructionist), correlates (e.g., depression, suicide, sex-type behaviours, and so on), and trajectories (developmental paths, change options, interventions, and so on).  The informed educator hopefully realizes that the research literature advanced to support a biological basis for homosexuality is seriously limited, and thus turns to draw on additional perspectives.

            One consequence of additional perspectives is the change issue. The change issue is one that counselors need to consider. For some time the popular side of the debate held that homosexuals are “born that way” and any attempts at changes—therapeutic attempts—were unethical. More recently some prominent figures in the research community, most notably Robert Spitzer, are revisiting this issue and admitting that change may be possible for some (http://www.newdirection.ca/research/spitzer.htm). In fact, discouraging those who wish to attempt to change from seeking counseling to facilitate this change is arguably unethical (Yarhouse and Throckmorton, 2001).

            What this leads to is the importance of the notion of “want” when dealing with the issue of sexual orientation. In the adult literature it is recognized that some homosexuals “want” to change to a heterosexual orientation, and some “want” to maintain a homosexual orientation. Wanting to change might be motivated by personal religious values, worldview, parental pressures, or simply the belief that life would be easier, and so on. A mismatch between a counselor (who does not support change) and a counselee (who wants therapeutic assistance to help change) should be addressed by a broadened perspective. What is needed is an educator or counselor who adopts multiple perspectives. It is the multiple-perspective-taker who would be in a position to be tolerant of people’s “wants.”

            With respect to tolerance, a question that might arise here is this: Do you want people (educators, therapists, politicians and so on) to be tolerant (i.e., bear with what they don’t accept as reasonable or right), or do you want them to be accepting (i.e., agree with the truth claims and moral claims)? If the answer is accepting rather than tolerant then the advocate needs to change the person’s belief, which means they need a good argument. The problem then is, as Goldberg (1991) puts it:

“My suspicion is that the homosexual does not want merely the rights that should always have been his. Nor does he want merely the empathy and openness we offer (or should offer) anyone with or without physical or psychological problems. The homosexual wants social affirmation of the normality of his behavior. For the reasons we have discussed, we cannot give this affirmation unless he can give a causal factor for homosexuality that can be considered normal. If he cannot do this, he asks us to affirm as normal that which fails to meet the criteria for normality we invoke in all other cases. To do this we would have to deny truth and live a lie.”  (p. 59)

In effect, we tolerate people and ideas we disagree with; we accept people we disagree with but we do not accept ideas we disagree with.

So when is the question of “want” to be respected in our fellow human beings? The 10 year-old? The 14 and 15 year-old? If these youngsters are to be respected in terms of their “wants,” then the effects noted in this study related to susceptibility to peer pressure, and the experience of sexual harassment, are areas that are descriptively interesting only. They would apply to understanding rather than application.

Of course the data might suggest schools should implement programs to teach children and adolescents to deal with peer pressure, or sexual harassment activities. However, these agenda items would be warranted regardless of sexual orientation issues.

Similarly, the increased activity in sports would be descriptive only. It contributes to understanding, not application. It merely adds support for similar observations reported by others (see Zucker & Bradley, 1995). We do see though that it predicts “concern,” which is a milder term than orientation or identity or behaviour. Thus, this effect gives some credibility to the notion of “concern” since it parallels the literature on sex-typed activities which indicate an increased interest in sports-type activities for lesbians (Zucker & Bradley, 1995). Indeed, they note that “activity level” and “rough and tumble play” is higher for girls with gender identity disorder (and the opposite pattern is evident for boys).

Bailey, J. M. (1995). Biological perspectives on sexual orientation. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.) Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan (pp102-135). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bailey, J. M. & Pillard, R. C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 1089-1096.

Bailey, J. M., Pillard, R. C., Neale, M. C. & Agyei, Y. (1993). Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 217-223.

Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M. P. & Martin, N. G. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 33.

Baumrind, D. (1995). Commentary on sexual orientation: Research and social policy implications. Developmental Psychology, 31, 130-136.

Bayer, R. (1981). Homosexuality and American psychiatry: The politics of diagnosis. New York: Basic Books.

Bem, D. J. (2001). Exotic becomes erotic: Integrating biological and experiential antecedents of sexual orientation. In A. R. D’Augelli, & C. J. Patterson (2001). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and youth (pp. 52-68). New York: Oxford University Press.

Billings, P. & Beckwith, J. (1993). Born gay? Technology Review, (July),  60-63.

Bruno, O. (2001). The importance of being portly.  In F. Crews (Ed.) Postmodern Pooh (65-79). New York: North Point Press.

Byne, W. & Parsons, B. (1993). Human sexual orientation, The biologic theories reappraised. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 228-239.

Cravat, D. (2001). Twilight of the dogs.  In F. Crews (Ed.) Postmodern Pooh (147-161). New York: North Point Press.

Crews, F. (Ed.) (2001).  Postmodern Pooh. New York: North Point Press.

Dörner, G. (1976). Hormones and brain differentiation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Dörner, G., Rohde, W., Stahl, F., Krell, L.. & Masius, W.G. (1975). A neuroendocrine predisposition for homosexuality in men. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 4, 1-8.

Dörner, G., Geier, T., Ahrens, L., Krell, L., Münx, G., Sieler, H., Kittner, E., & Müller, H. (1980). Prenatal stress as possible aetiogenic factor of homosexuality in human males. Endokrinologia, 60, 297-301.

Dörner, G., Schenk, B., Schmiedel, B., & Ahrens, L. (1983). Stressful events in prenatal life of bi- and homosexual men. Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology, 81, 83-87.

Francis, R. (2001). Gene/Meme Covariation in Ashdown Forest: Pooh and the consilience of knowledge.  In F. Crews (Ed.) Postmodern Pooh (97-115). New York: North Point Press.

Graber, J. A. & Archibald, A. B. (2001). Psychosocial change at puberty and beyond: Understanding adolescent sexuality and sexual orientation. In A. R. D’Augelli, & C. J. Patterson (2001). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and youth (pp3-26). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ernulf, K. E. & Innala, S. M. (1989). Biological explanation, psychological explanation, and tolerance of homosexuals: A cross-national analysis of beliefs and attitudes. Psychological Reports, 65, 1003-1010.

Gladue, B. A. (1988). Hormones in relationship to homosexual/bisexual/heterosexual gender orientation. In J. M. A. Sitsen (Ed.) Handbook of sexology: The pharmacology and endocrinology of sexual function (pp 388-409). NY: Elsevier.

Goldberg, S. (1991). When wish replaces thought. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Gooren, L. J. G. (1988). An appraisal of endocrine theories of homosexuality and gender dysphoria. In J. M. A. Sitsen (Ed.) Handbook of sexology: The pharmacology and endocrinology of sexual function (pp 410-424). NY: Elsevier.

Hamer, D. H., Hu, S., Magnuson, V. L., Hu, N., Pattatucci, A. M. L. (1993). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261, 321-327.

Hershberger, S. L. (2001). Biological factors in the development of sexual orientation. In A. R. D’Augelli, & C. J. Patterson (2001). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and youth (pp27-51). New York: Oxford University Press.

Horgan, J. (1993). Eugenics revisited. Scientific American (June), 122-131.

Irvine, J. M. (2001). Educational reform and sexual identity: Conflicts and challenges. In A. R. D’Augelli, & C. J. Patterson (2001). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and youth (pp251-266). New York: Oxford University Press.

Jones, S. L. & Yarhouse, M. A. (2000). Homosexuality, The use of scientific research in the Church’s moral debate. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Kallman, F. J. (1952). Comparative twin study on the genetic aspects of male homosexuality. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 115, 137-159.

King, M. & McDonald, E. (1992). Homosexuals who are twins. British Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 407-409.

LeVay, S. (1991). A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science, 253, 1034-1037.

Lidz, T. (1993). Reply to “A genetic study of male sexual orientation.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 240.

Lips, H. M. (2001). Sex & gender. Mountain View CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Maddox, J. (1991). Is homosexuality hard-wired? Nature, 353, 13.

Malatesta, D. (2001). The courage to squeal.  In F. Crews (Ed.) Postmodern Pooh (117-131). New York: North Point Press.

Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., Ehrhardt, A. A., Rosen, L. R., Gruen, R. S., Veridiano, N. P., Vann, F. H., Neuwalder, H, F. (1995). Prenatal estrogens and the development of homosexual orientation. Developmental Psychology, 31, 12-21.

Morris, J. F., Waldo,, C. R., & Rothblum, E. D. (2001). A model of predictors and outcomes of Outness among lesbian and bisexual women. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, 61-71.

Nicolosi, J. & Nicolosi, L. A. (2002). A parent’s guide to preventing homosexuality. Downers Grove Il: Intervarsity Press.

Pesman,  (1991, November). Love and sex in the ‘90s: Our national survey. Seventeen, 63-68.

Piskur, J. & Degelman, D. (1992). Effect of reading a summary of research about biological bases of homosexual orientation on attitudes toward homosexuals. Psychological Reports, 71, 1219-1225.

Popper, K. (1969) Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge.

Risch, N., Squires-Wheeler, E., & Keats, B. J. B. (1993). Science, 262, 2063-2065.

Robertson, L. & Monsen, J. (2001). Issues in the development of a gay or lesbian identity: Practice implications for educational psychologists. Educational and Child Psychology, 18, 13-30.

Rahman, Q. & Silber, K. (2000). Sexual orientation and the sleep-wake cycle: A preliminary investigation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 127-134.

Remafedi, G., Farrow, J. A., & Deisher, R. W. (1991). Risk factors for attempted suicide in gay and bisexual youth. Pediatrics, 87, 869-875.

Remafedi, G., Resnick, M., Blum, R., & Harris, L. (1992). Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents. Pediatrics, 89, 714-721.

Rivers, I. & D’Augelli, A. R. (2001). The victimization of lesbian, gay and bisexual youths. In A. R. D’Augelli, & C. J. Patterson (2001). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and youth (pp199-223). New York: Oxford University Press.

Rotherham-Borus, M. J. & Langabeer, K. A. (2001). Developmental trajectories of gay, lesbian and bisexual youths. In A. R. D’Augelli, & C. J. Patterson (2001). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and youth (pp 97-128). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ryan, C. (2001). Counseling lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. In A. R. D’Augelli, & C. J. Patterson (2001). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and youth (pp 224-250). New York: Oxford University Press.

Satinover. J. (1996). Homosexuality and the politics of truth. Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books

Schneider, M. S. (2001). Toward a reconceptualization of the coming-out process for adolescent females. In A. R. D’Augelli, & C. J. Patterson (2001). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and youth (pp. 71-96). New York: Oxford University Press.

Socarides, C. W. (1992). Sexual politics and scientific logic: The issue of homosexuality. The Journal of Psychohistory, 19, 307-329.

Spitzer, R. L. (2001). 200 subjects who claim to have changed their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Presentation at the American Psychiatric Association Annual Convention. New Orleans, May 9, 2001. Downloaded from http://www.newdirection.ca/research/spitzer.htm

Strickland, B. (1995). Research on sexual orientation and human development: A commentary. Developmental Psychology, 31, 137-140.

Swaab, D. F. & Hofman, M. A. (1990). An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men. Brain Research, 537, 141-148.

Wood, M. E. (2000). How we got this way: The sciences of homosexuality and the Christian Right. Journal of Homosexuality, 38, 19-40.

Yarhouse, M. A. & Throckmorton, W. (2002). Ethical issues in attempts to ban reorientation therapies. Psychotherapy: Theory/Research/Practice/Training, 39, 66-75.

The strongest evidence of Piglet’s early abuse, though, is the fact that he doesn’t have any conscious memory of it at all.

                                                                           Malatesta, 2001

The quote above is from a paper/presentation in a recent academic discussion of Winnie The Pooh. It reads as a serious quote, from an apparently serious collection. The entire collection illustrates the value, indeed the scholarly delight, of allowing multiple-perspectives “on the table.” Bizarre perspectives can facilitate the development of more reasonable perspectives; that is, perspectives that can be shown to have warrant.

Some may argue against multiple perspectives, basing their challenges on political correctness, social conventions, reason, negative social repercussions, “it hurts people,” and so on. Indeed, some perspectives are suppressed--either “shouted down” loudly, or dissolved by quiet, nuanced, and subtle uses of ad hominem arguments, fashionable name-calling, straw-man arguments, and other logical fallacies. But such is not the scholarly approach, nor should it be. 

Then there is the other extreme. Some argue that all perspectives should be “on the table” because they are all equal—the postmodern relativistic notion that all perspectives are just subjective constructions emerging from a culture or predetermined by a natural brain-state. If this is the case then is it not nonsense to defend any position? Communication, all communication, would be just “small talk,” or party-chatter--subjective opinion. The book Postmodern Pooh has this “party-chatter” flavour to it.

In a balanced multiple-perspective-taking stance there is a case for all perspectives being “on the table,” as well as a case for arguing that some positions deserve more credibility, or less, than others. This assigning of credibility, based on the use of such tools as reason, empirical evidence, common sense, logical fallacies, agendas, and so on, is the scholarly enterprise. If all positions are merely subjective constructions, with yours not being better than another’s, why argue for your position? Why should you listen to another? The only reason to listen is to determine if your position is better than theirs, or at least has some merit worth considering.

Is it ironic that those who hold to subjectivism and relativism nevertheless argue for their position? Or does their practice reveal their true belief. Diversity of opinions and disagreements about explanations, understanding, knowledge and truth exist. And some formulations are better than others. This must be the case if scholarship is to exist.

With respect to getting ideas on the table the book, Postmodern Pooh (Crews, 2001), illustrates this dramatically. Reading the postmodern positions on Pooh in such variegated forms as Deconstruction, Marxism, Radical Feminism, Post Colonialism, and some newer neologisms like “Negotiationism,” which dominated this recent compilation (Crews, 2001), gives one the opportunity to practice tolerance, and multiple-perspective-taking.  Considering the perspectives on the left, where you are likely to disagree with many, or most, or all, can be delightful. As well there were a few positions from the other end of the spectrum (Biopoetics, or the naturalism associated with E.O. Wilson, and Satanic Ritual Abuse and Pooh, even self-aggrandizement perhaps presented satirically. Also on this far end of the spectrum there was a single, traditional, marginalized-critic snuck in at the end). These, too, were positions allowed onto the “table,” tolerated, and argued against, or for. The reader is given the opportunity to judge the multiple-perspectives, the multiple arguments.

I found the Preface gave some hope for a reasonable approach to Pooh, but this was soon diffused as only two chapters made a modicum of sense.  The chapter by Orpheus Bruno (Bruno, 2001) was encouraging. His colourful expressions, “cockamamie commandoes of correctitude,” “lefties in labels,” and “postmodern claptrap” were dwarfed, however, along with the rather portly Bruno himself, by the sheer numbers of “other perspectives.” The critic too (i.e., Cravat)  was dwarfed.

The entire collection, as a barometer of academia, was disheartening, generally, but enlightening, specifically.  Of the two academia-outsiders, Malatesta and Cravat, only Cravat--the token, and apparently scorned, critic--seemed to be on to something reasonable. Malatesta was constructing (confabulating?) the case for sexual abuse and repressed memories in Pooh lore. (Thus, the quote about Piglet that opens this present commentary). Her position, while a stark contrast to reason, evidence, argument, and scholarly debate, is not too far removed from others in mortarboards. Yet it too is “on the table,” and represents a tradition.

This openness to Pooh provides a model for openness to all subjects, and especially academic subjects. If scholars can be open and diverse and inclusive with respect to the beloved bear, surely they can bear different perspectives on less volatile topics.