That, however, is a feature of all love. What appears to be the most
extreme manifestation of altruistic feeling is at bottom but the outcome
of egoistic cravings. Love is but egoism potentialized. Every neurotic
suffers of narcissism. He is a slave to self and cannot escape that
bondage. The homosexual loves, or appears to love, his own sex, but even
superficial examination shows this to be but part of his narcissism. In
truth he loves neither man nor woman. He has to overcome a hatred
stronger than the corresponding feeling in the normal. That hatred is
the theme of his childhood. As perpetual infant, he fails to sublimate
sufficiently that hatred, or to fix it upon objectives considered proper
in our current cultural development.
All who investigate homosexuality find an early awakening of the sexual
instinct. It is perhaps the greatest social function of sexual instinct,
next to reproduction, to provide for the conquest of hatred. Though the
selfish child becomes a loving person, the child’s love is still
entirely self-centered. The child loves the persons who serve it. In
vain one tries to point out that it ought to love also the teachers who
are severe but mean well, that parents must punish in order to teach!
This view belongs to the adult mind and is what enables the adult to
forget the childish notions of revenge which he entertained as a child
whenever he suffered punishment which he looked upon as unjust before
his higher sense of responsibility had asserted itself. But in the
neurotics, including homosexuals, sexual precocity brings early to
surface cravings which involve the love of others; they are therefore
inclined to renounce or modify their hatred. The proportionate share of
hatred against some beloved person is withdrawn and turned against the
others. These infantile feeling-attitudes may undergo a second
transformation in later years. A boy may love the father and hate the
mother, because she is his rival in the father’s affection. At the same
time the sisters may be hated because they draw to themselves a certain
quantum of the father’s love, which the self-centered jealous boy wishes
to secure exclusively for himself. Later the mother and sisters are
loved, and the father recedes to the background.
Jealousy is an infantile feeling. Its appearance in later years always
signifies a regression to infantile attitudes. The homosexual spreads
his hatred from one persons to the whole sex under the form of jealousy.
Let us assume that he loves the father insofar as he is at all capable
of loving. The mother is looked upon as a rival. With the formulation of
that attitude, all other women become likewise potential rivals, capable
of robbing him of his father’s affection. Therefore he hates all
women,—the subject is on the road to homosexual neurosis. At the onset
of homosexuality stands jealousy and the latter, therefore, preserves
its infantile value throughout life.
I have already mentioned that it is the function of sexuality to conquer
hatred. But that task is never completely carried out. An eternal
rivalry persists between the two sexes giving rise to the so-called
“struggle between the sexes.” I have no doubt that man’s capacity for
loving has increased in the course of our racial evolution. What subtle
refinements our erotism has undergone! How complicated the psychic
processes displayed by the man and the woman in love! But the antagonism
or hatred which divides the two sexes has grown apace. Modern love owes
its profuse affectivity to this conquest of hatred, this periodic
regression back to the feeling-attitude of hatred and its renewed
subdual.
The question arises: Have we in fact any proof that the polar tension
between man and woman has diminished? He who fails to see a proof of
this in the improvement of woman’s social position and her acquisition
of equal rights may turn to biologic facts. _These biologic data prove
that the sexual differentiation between man and woman has increased with
growth of culture._ In primitive times woman was not so womanly, the man
less manly, than the man and woman of civilization. _Fehlinger_[46]
compares the primitive peoples with the Europeans and shows that _the
secondary sexual characters are much more pronounced among the civilized
peoples than among the savages_. Subtler stimuli are required to excite
the domesticated sexual instinct.
That sexual differentiation is more pronounced among Europeans is shown
also by the fact that the period from the onset of sexual adolescence to
the attainment of complete physical growth is more prolonged among
civilized peoples than among the colored races. The primitive races show
a great similarity between male and female types and that is most
pronounced among the various pygmean races. The latter are characterized
by an infantile physique, which, as is well known, is sexually but
little differentiated.
_Since the homosexual represents retrogressively a stage of racial
development during which the bisexual character of the organism was more
pronounced, he carries _ab ovo_ the inclination to project himself unto
both sexes._ He passes into the world of sexual differentiation as into
some strange, inimical, and, to his mind, incomprehensible realm of
existence. He belongs to the primordial period in which a man, if
necessary, could have replaced the woman. His _engrams_ perceive the
homosexual feeling as something as natural as if he had come a few
hundreds of thousands of years sooner into the world. But into the
cultural age in which love plays such a tremendous rôle he brings with
him also the antagonism of bygone ages. That feeling of hatred becomes a
powerful lever in the struggle between the sexes. Physically he stands
between man and woman but he is not suited for the rôle of mediator
because he has not learned to subdue the eternal struggle between male
and female within his breast. The love-attitude which is a mixture of
love and hatred, he splits into its two components directing one
separately towards each of the two sexes. Towards woman he turns his
primordial hatred, while man he loves as a representative of culture.
When he is grown up that deadly hatred is repressed and stands a hidden
stumblingblock between himself and woman. Unable to be a complete man,
unable to extricate himself from that infantile feeling-attitude, he
also hates the woman in him. He overvalues manliness and in his
excessive appraisal of it turns to it with his whole love. The hatred of
all women corresponds to his scorn of the woman in himself,—a reaction
due to his personal inability to overcome the woman in his own make up
and to become a complete man. Finally in the course of the continuous
struggle between the man and the woman within his breast he reaches the
curious compromise of accepting the feeling that he is a woman. That is:
he excepts a single woman from his hatred ... himself. In that manner he
becomes a transvestite. He may be active heterosexually, he may,
apparently, have overcome his homosexuality, yet, as penance for his
hatred, he puts on the clothes which had seemed once so hateful to him.
_The latent homosexual becomes a transvestite only on account of his
guilty conscience._
Our investigations have proven that homosexuality has no uniform
psychogenesis. But all cases showed an archaic emphasis on bisexuality.
Although I speak of regressive manifestations I should not care to see
that conception confused with the notion of “hereditary taint” or of
“degeneration.” For my investigations of artists have convinced me that
they present the same tendencies as the homosexuals. They, too, are
neurotics. In fact, the number of homosexual artists, even of homosexual
persons of rare genius, as given by _Hirschfeld_, is impressive. I hold
the view that every great creative work has been and is being achieved
through these regressions. It is as if nature attempted to rejuvenate
herself and once more to absorb creative energy by dipping down into the
primordial source of all energy. It might be more proper, perhaps, to
speak of them as _dégénérés supérieurs_, in the sense of _Magnan_. It
seems to me that true degeneration, as seen in the stigmata of physical
decay, and which manifests itself in an insufficient adjustment to the
ethical requirements of society, represents rather the terminal point of
an exhausted stem, gravitating downwards, while the neurotic represents
a progression. Degeneration and regressions certainly have a great deal
in common. But similar causes often bring on varying results. I need
refer only to the well-known laws of inbreeding, for instance. The
summation of good qualities through the intermarriage of relatives may
lead to the birth of a true genius, but the same step causes more or
less degeneration by reinforcing morbid tendencies.
I see in such an atavistic tendency the predisposition to homosexuality,
common to all neurotics. Perhaps organic changes, such as I have found
in more or less pronounced form in most homosexuals also play a certain
rôle. Persons of pronounced bisexual type do not necessarily become
homosexual, but this does not disprove that the organic condition may be
a factor. Here is where I agree with _Hirschfeld’s_ “intermediate sex”
theory. But beyond this point our standpoints diverge. The organic
factors remain yet to be investigated. We are but at the beginning of
our studies of organic bisexuality. The ascertainment of unilateral
hermaphroditism, it seems to me, will play a particularly important rôle
in future investigations. Already the data obtained through the
examination of large groups of persons, for which the World War
furnished me an opportunity, impressed me with the fact, that contrary
sexual _Anlage_ is to be found particularly often on the left side of
the body. (In men this shows itself in the form of unilateral
gynecomasty, scant hair growth, asymmetry of the face, the left side
being more pronouncedly of feminine type.) The finding of infantile
features must also be considered of significance in the diagnosis of an
organic predisposition to homosexuality.
These interesting facts do not relieve us of the need of establishing
the psychogenesis of homosexuality on a sound basis. But the multitude
of conditions which may lead to homosexuality admit no hard-and-fast
line. Every case is a problem of its own; these are the very cases where
we must carefully individualize and guard ourselves against hindering
future research by laying down any hard-and-fast rules.
A question which no investigator of sexual problems has thus far
satisfactorily answered, now suggests itself: Why is it that
homosexuality and particularly male homosexuality has become the object
of such terrific social abhorrence? Why is our penal code so backward in
that respect?
We can understand the reasons for that only in the light of the historic
aspect of the problem. It is a striking fact that although female
homosexuality always appears along with the male, it is not nearly so
abhorred but is rather tolerated under the cover of silence. Austria is
the only European country in which sexual intimacy between women is a
penal offence. Probably the difference in this attitude bears some
relation to the problem of reproduction, since man, as the fertilizing
agent, plays a more active rôle than the woman.[47] The seed, that most
precious possession with which a man may fructify several women, must
not be squandered.
The decided struggle against homosexuality began energetically with
Judaism. Monosexualism developed with monotheism. The Bible hardly
refers to homosexuality. The blessings of children, of reproduction, the
advantage of numbers were the needs to which the sexual cravings had to
be subordinated. There is, therefore, justification for the contention
that Judaism has fought against homosexuality,—impelled by social
motives. On the other hand it was also an account of another set of
social motives that, in Greece, homosexuality was not only tolerated but
permitted and even expressly introduced. _Aristotle_ is of the opinion
that in accordance with their customs and beliefs the Dorians expressly
intended to limit the increase in population through the encouragement
of boy love and the separation of women from society.[48] But that in
itself would not explain the high regard in which homosexuality was held
in ancient Greece.
I refer those interested in the subject to the interesting work of a
philologist, Prof. _E. Bethe_.[49]
Like many other philosophers and investigators of history, _Bethe_ falls
into the error of pointing to the Christian church as the agent
responsible for the newer orientation in sexual matters. In the first
place these writers overlook the fact that the new attitude had set in
already with Judaism. Secondly, they fail to see that religions are,
themselves, but the result of social conditions. Religious teachings
always adjust themselves to the social needs of their day and even
fulfill them. Religious formulæ prove meaningless only to the
progressive, emancipated, free and forward-striving persons, the
imperatives of religion are superfluous only for those above the
average. The crowds must cling to religious formulæ and will always need
sexual inhibitions of a religious character.
Sexuality is changing all the time, it undergoes progressive refinement.
No careful observer can deny that fact. More and more of our instinctive
cravings are gradually throttled. But when the process of repression
becomes too severe there are regressions such as we have witnessed in
the agitation for free love of the last decades and in the current more
frank discussion of sexual matters. But if all signs do not fail the
high tide of the agitation for sexual freedom has passed and the wave of
that agitation is receding. Pioneers in the movement for sexual freedom
are beginning to uphold monogamy; and the problem of population made
pressing by the World War does not favor the abandonment of the current
social and legal proscriptions against homosexuality. On the contrary.
There is likely to be in the near future a stronger revulsion against
homosexuality inasmuch as society finds itself compelled to revert at
all costs back to the Old Testament attitude of fostering reproduction.
I have already pointed out that the secondary sexual characters are
becoming more strongly accentuated through culture. The prehistoric
stage was probably characterized by an undifferentiated sexual feeling,
such as _Max Dessoir_ ascribes to the pre-adolescent stage. _The polar
tension between male and female has increased!_ That explains the
difference between the old Greek and the modern attitude towards
homosexuality. The Greek was a bisexual being. He was capable of loving
his friend and wife and woman slave alongside the boy. The modern
homosexual, carrying within him the bisexual instincts of the most
archaic developmental stage, finds himself confronted with another
sex-attitude. He is confronted, so to speak, with the need of making a
new choice, and therefore he seeks always the type to which he himself
belongs, the man who is a woman, or the woman who is a man. Exceptions
do not disprove this rule. But in proportion as the polar tension
between the sexes increases, the basic antagonism between man and woman
also grows. As we have seen—the last case was particularly instructive
in that regard—the homosexual, who apparently stands above that
struggle, is inspired from within by a feeling-attitude of extreme
hatred. He hates woman with such deadly antagonism that the fear of his
own passion makes him avoid woman. His hatred is a will of annihilation.
But that feeling involves its polar alternative: love to the point of
self-annihilation, a willingness to be utterly humbled. Subject No. _83_
gives us a history clearly illustrating this interplay of forces.
But it is plain that the number of homosexuals will not decrease. On the
contrary. _I am of the opinion that under certain conditions the extreme
polar tension between man and woman will always drive to homosexuality
certain individuals possessing the requisite bisexual predisposition and
that the number of homosexuals will increase._ Since I look upon
homosexuality as a neurosis, a morbid condition, if one insists on the
term, I am decidedly opposed to the policy of penalizing the homosexual,
and against those legal proscriptions which have been and are the cause
of much misery. It is a striking fact that in France and Italy
homosexuality plays a lesser rôle than in Germany, for instance,
although in those countries the offence is not so severely penalized.
Dangers and prohibitory laws often excite the strongest attraction and
the neurotic is the very person who likes to become a martyr. Homosexual
relations or acts, carried on under mutual understanding and with the
consent of the parties thereto, should not come under the province of
penal law, as provided in the _Codex Napoleonis_. The latter penalizes
only public nuisances (_outrage à la pudeur_) that is, acts committed in
public or carried on in the presence of witnesses; the _Code Napoléon_
penalizes coercion and protects the minors and the feeble-minded.
With these provisions the requirements of our current ethical standards
are fully met. I cannot conceive the State compelling the homosexuals to
reproduce. Although I do not accept _Tarnowsky’s_ viewpoint that their
offspring is degenerate,—because personal observation has often
convinced me of the contrary—I look upon the rise of the homosexual
neurosis as a sort of social instinct. The homosexual possesses an
endopsychic perception of his asocial tendencies. He feels himself
beyond the pale of society and does not care to adjust himself into the
social order with regard to his sexuality. His struggle against
reproduction is perhaps best for society. Considering the strength of
his sadistic inclinations we can appreciate that through his voluntary
sterilization in certain cases he renders society a genuine service.
The question rises whether it is advisable to clear the homosexual’s
path towards woman through psychoanalysis. That brings up the chief
question whether homosexuality is at all amenable to therapy.
My personal experience has convinced me that here and there
psychoanalysis is successful in effecting a cure. But only under certain
conditions. The homosexual must be genuinely willing to be cured. He
must actively desire a change in his leaning.
But experience shows also that this will to health is found only in the
lighter forms of homosexuality in which latent sadism does not dominate
the condition.[50] That in a certain sense the homosexual of this type
is curable I am in a position to affirm on the basis of my personal
experience. The cure proceeds spontaneously but it may be hastened
through psychotherapeutic endeavor.
The proper psychotherapeutic method can never be _hypnosis_. What may we
expect hypnosis to accomplish so long as the homosexual himself remains
in the dark regarding his false attitude, so long as he has not learned
to acknowledge openly the repressions against which he has fought so
long? Contrary to _Krafft-Ebing_, _Schrenk-Notzing_, and _Alfred Fuchs_,
I have never met with a lasting cure through hypnotic treatment. We must
accept with greatest caution the statements of homosexuals claiming to
have been cured by us.[51] Case _62_ recorded in this work, illustrates
that there are some homosexuals who in order to please the physician and
conclude the treatment with flying colors, claim they are well without
having changed in the least their deeply rooted feeling-attitude.
_Moll’s_ association therapy I am also unable to accept. That method of
treatment consists of the systematic development of normal and the
equally deliberate destruction of the perverse, associations. _Moll_,
who has proposed this therapy and given it that designation, has the
homosexual cultivate deliberately feminine company so as to come
strongly under the specific female influences, he regulates the
subject’s reading and helps him overcome the homosexual phantasies. The
subject must think of “normal pictures” only, before going to sleep and
thus influence his dreams in the proper direction.[52] But one must not
think, as _Moll_ concludes, that the heterosexual dream pictures which
follow are due to the association therapy. The pictures thereby are
merely rendered _bewusstseinsfähig_, tolerable to consciousness. They
were always present. But the patient lacked the courage to acknowledge
them.
I do not mean to deny a certain relative value to the association
method. It is certainly not an advantage for the homosexual who
earnestly strives to get cured to continue to frequent homosexual
circles and to have constantly dinned into his ears the assertion that
his condition is inborn and hopeless. I have quoted some cases showing
that latent homosexuality may become manifest through contact with and
the example of homosexuals while the heterosexual leaning may be
disturbed thereby. But I did not intend to suggest the advisability of
any compulsory measures for restricting the homosexual’s freedom of
action or social intercourse. I have already expressed myself clearly
against compulsions and punishments. It is advisable to urge the
homosexual anxious to get cured to give up contact with homosexual
circles.
But that the association therapy alone is capable of effecting a
complete cure I cannot but doubt. The subject must first learn to see
himself clearly and to recognize the source of the evil against which he
is fighting. We must bear in mind the many subjects with whom repressed
sadism is the true cause of the fear of woman. Such subjects must first
consciously overcome their sadism, they must recognize that the fear is
a ridiculous attempt at protecting themselves against leanings which
under normal conditions never break through.
_The first condition for the successful cure of homosexuality is
adequate self-knowledge._ That can be accomplished only through
persistent psychoanalysis. The physician must devote himself to the
subject for some months until the side-tracked leanings which the
patient has stubbornly overlooked are brought into the field of
consciousness and clearly acknowledged. The subject is like a person
with torticollis looking constantly in one direction and avoiding a turn
of his head on account of the pain. This mental torticollis must be
overcome. The homosexual—if he is to get well—must be able to turn his
gaze unrestrictedly over his whole mental horizon.
That is by no means a simple task. It is an achievement challenging the
whole medical art, requiring insight, diplomacy, sympathy, friendliness,
and patience. But few physicians are fitted for the task. Perhaps the
opposition to psychoanalysis would not be so sharp if it were practiced
only by competent psychotherapeutists and experienced professional men
possessing the requisite tact. The physician is like the sculptor
engaged in the task of bringing forth a certain form out of raw
material.
Unfortunately I must point out in this connection that the
psychoanalytic method inaugurated by _Freud_ is in danger of falling
into discredit through careless application. On the one hand the
exaggerations of the master and his pupils have repelled many
practitioners; on the other many of the patients have themselves become
psychoanalysts, without being completely cured of their own trouble.
What would one think of a hydrotherapeutist, expert though he be in his
own specialty, who undertook a laparotomy? Analysis is comparable to a
serious operation requiring a steady, experienced and skilful hand.
Psychoanalysis does not permit dilettantism like hypnosis. Only from an
experienced master may one learn the difficult art of psychoanalysis and
in turn become a master of the art.
It is quite likely that the analysis of today will be ridiculed in the
future as a raw beginning. Various subtleties and gradations remain to
be uncovered by the future generations.
The psychoanalytic realm is not yet completely laid out.