Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry

Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry

Cover
Author	Michael Ruse
Country	United States
Language	English
Subject	Homosexuality
Published	1988 (Basil Blackwell)
Media type	Print (Hardcover and Paperback)
Pages	299 (first edition) 384 (1990 edition)
ISBN	978-0631175537

Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry is a 1988 book by the philosopher Michael Ruse,^[1] in which the author surveys different theories of homosexuality and evaluates the moral status of homosexual behavior. Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry received a mixture of positive and negative reviews. Some reviewers praised the book for Ruse's comprehensive treatment of his subject, careful discussion of theories about homosexuality, and use of philosophy to argue in favor of gay rights. However, Ruse's discussion of psychoanalytic and sociobiological theories, and his use of historical evidence to discuss homosexuality in past societies, were criticized, and commentators also suggested that some of Ruse's comments about homosexuality could be seen as insensitive. Some reviewers suggested that Ruse's arguments and conclusions were influenced by his personal reaction to the AIDS epidemic.

Summary

Ruse defines a homosexual as a "person whose erotic yearnings and fantasies are directed toward his/her own sex and whose activities are influenced by such yearnings."^[2] Ruse defends sexual orientation research against ethical objections by appealing to the value of truth.^[3] He rejects social constructionist views of sexual orientation,^[4] and defends the value of hormonal studies, summarizing the research.^[5][6] Ruse discusses sociobiological theories, concluding that despite objections to them, they are scientific and potentially helpful in understanding homosexuality.^[7][8] Ruse argues that psychological, hormonal and sociobiological hypotheses may be complementary rather than in conflict with each other.^[9] Ruse defends Sigmund Freud against the charge that his theories are untestable, finding Adolf Grünbaum's arguments, made in The Foundations of Psychoanalysis (1984), against Karl Popper's view that psychoanalytic theories are pseudo-scientific because they can never be falsified to be decisive. He is also unconvinced by the criticism of Freud made by Roger Scruton in his Sexual Desire (1986). Whereas Scruton argues that genuine science does not involve metaphor, Ruse finds that "metaphor runs rampant through science from physics to sociology".^[10] Ruse rejects Irving Bieber's adaptational theory of homosexuality, but maintains that judgment should be reserved on other psychoanalytic theories: they are legitimate hypotheses, but none of them is supported by adequate evidence. Though the causes of sexual orientation are unknown, Ruse believes that people do not choose their sexual orientations. Ruse explores the issue of whether homosexuality is an illness, concluding that in general it is not.^[9]

Discussing ethical issues, Ruse distinguishes between involuntary inclination and willful behavior, arguing that while a homosexual orientation is morally blameless, this is not necessarily true of homosexual behavior.^[11][12] Ruse finds no justification for homosexual or heterosexual promiscuity, but nevertheless maintains on utilitarian grounds that people should be free to be promiscuous.^[9] He criticizes ethical arguments that appeal to scientific claims about the naturalness or unnaturalness of homosexuality,^[13][14] for example the views of the Greek philosopher Plato, according to whom homosexual behavior did not occur in animals. Ruse finds this claim to be mistaken,^[15][16] and dismisses the idea that homosexuality is unnatural. Ruse argues that both neo-Kantian and utilitarian theories of the just state must affirm the moral worth of homosexual relationships and support equal rights for homosexuals and heterosexuals.^[9]

Reception

Mainstream media

Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry was reviewed by James Michael MacLeod in Library Journal,^[17] and the biologist Douglas J. Futuyma in the Los Angeles Times.^[9]

MacLeod gave Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry a positive review, crediting Ruse with providing a detailed survey of current research in medicine and the behavioral sciences relevant to homosexuality, and writing that his "careful questioning" resulted in "a comprehensive analysis of issues relating to homosexuality in both men and women." He concluded that the book was a welcome addition to the literature on homosexuality.^[17] Futuyma also gave the book a positive review, writing that Ruse helped to provide the kind of objective discussion of sexual orientation that had previously been lacking. He credited Ruse with carefully discussing various theories of homosexuality, concluding that Ruse rightly took a more skeptical view of evolutionary explanations of homosexuality in the book than he had in his previous writings. Futuyma expressed agreement with Ruse's skepticism about hormonal explanations of homosexuality and the psychoanalytic theories, and also with Ruse's view that a person's sexual orientation is not a choice, that homosexuality is not unnatural, and that both neo-Kantian and utilitarian ethical theories must support gay rights. However, he noted that while Ruse's book was easy to read and avoided philosophical jargon, it was not always graceful in style, and suggested that gay readers might find some of Ruse's comments about homosexuality insensitive.^[9]

Scientific and academic journals

Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry received a negative review from Jim Sait in Social Alternatives,^[18] a positive review from Christopher Badcock in the British Journal of Sociology,^[19] a negative review from G. S. Rousseau in the Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences,^[20] a review from Ken Plummer in Theory, Culture & Society,^[21] and a mixed review from Paul Bloom and the philosopher Edward Stein in The American Scholar.^[22]

Sait considered Ruse's discussion of psychoanalytic and sociobiological theories of homosexuality biased, although he credited Ruse with outlining their limitations. Sait criticized Ruse for relying uncritically on the work of the classical scholar Kenneth Dover in his discussion of Greek homosexuality. Sait found Ruse's discussion of the issue of whether homosexuality is a sickness or a disease confusing, and suggested that Ruse's attempt to make a detached philosophical analysis was compromised by Ruse's personal reaction to the AIDS epidemic. Sait also suggested that Ruse's "explicit and implicit" definitions of homosexuality weakened his discussion of the social aspects of homosexuality. Sait criticized Ruse for using a "primarily sexual" definition of homosexuality that ignored emotional and other ties between homosexuals, and for writing about homosexuality as though all homosexuals were men, ignoring lesbians and their experience. Nevertheless, Sait considered Ruse's book useful for combating arguments and theories used to stigmatize homosexuals, and applauded Ruse's philosophical support for gay rights.^[18] Badcock praised Ruse's comprehensiveness and called his book "excellent".^[19]

Rousseau wrote that, like several other recent works about homosexuality, Ruse's book was "more socially rather than scientifically grounded" and that Ruse was not "willing (or equipped) to address the question about etiology." He also wrote that too many of Ruse's positions are "taken with AIDS peering at the reader in the face", and questioned both the extent of Ruse's compassion for homosexuals and the ability of philosophy to help homosexuals. He maintained that Ruse's conclusions "neither advance the theoretical debate about homosexuality nor propose any practical solutions to the homosexual crisis." While granting that Ruse's book "abounds with information" and had "noble" objectives, he argued that Ruse had an "impoverished" view of homosexuality that frustrated those objectives, and that Ruse neglected the role love and shame play in the lives of homosexuals. He wrote that while Ruse challenged the idea that homosexuality is a mental illness, he did so "without acknowledging that these views had already been debated in the 1950s". He suggested that Ruse made comments about homosexuality that could be interpreted as expressing the desire to eliminate it, describing this as "outrageous". He agreed with Ruse's conclusion that there should be no discrimination in favor of homosexuals, but nevertheless found Ruse's arguments for that conclusion offensive.^[20]

Bloom and Stein wrote that Ruse's ethical arguments were interesting and that his discussion of the various theories of homosexuality was clear, intelligent, and innovative. However, they criticized Ruse for failing to acknowledge that it is a mistake to focus only on the origins of homosexuality. They also argued that Ruse, rather than try to evaluate various views of homosexuality, relied upon an implicit understanding of the subject. They criticized Ruse's discussion of social constructionism, writing that Ruse considered only the most extreme form and quickly dismissed it, and found Ruse to be guilty of inconsistency, noting that while Ruse at one stage suggested that there "is no objective criterion for being gay" he often disregarded that view. They found Ruse's discussion of bisexuality to be unsatisfactory and inaccurate. They also criticized Ruse's treatment of sociobiology, arguing that he failed to recognized the shortcomings of sociobiological theories, including their failure to explain bisexuality. They criticized the amount of space Ruse devoted to discussing psychoanalytic theories, arguing that their lack of empirical support meant that the attention was undeserved. Bloom and Stein concluded that Ruse's work is far from a definitive discussion of its subject and is "best viewed as a first attempt at addressing a range of deep and complex issues."^[22]

Evaluations in books

The legal scholar Richard Posner praised Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry for Ruse's care in evaluating rival theories of homosexuality.^[23]

Stein, writing in The Mismeasure of Desire (1999), criticized Ruse's book. Stein found Ruse's definition of a "homosexual" to be vague and open to possible objections, noting that Ruse does not explain whether he considers someone who only rarely wants to have sex with a person of the same sex "homosexual", or whether wanting to have sex with a person of the opposite sex would disqualify a person from being "homosexual". Though Stein granted that Ruse's definition is wide enough to be a candidate for playing a role in explanation in the sciences or the social sciences, he maintained that its wideness does not prove that sexual orientations are non-arbitrary groups ("natural kinds"). Stein found Ruse's critique of social constructionism unconvincing. He rejected Ruse's suggestion that defining sexual orientation in terms of sexual feelings rather than sexual behavior shows that social constructionism is false. Stein observed that while Ruse refers to the work of John Boswell to support his case that there were people in periods from that Ancient Greece to that of the Renaissance who were recognized as having a homosexual orientation, such evidence can be interpreted differently. Stein rejected Ruse's defense of sexual orientation research, arguing that the ethical implications of a research program must be considered in deciding whether the program is worth pursuing.^[24]

See also

• Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women
• Lesbian/Woman
• The Myth of Mental Illness
• One Hundred Years of Homosexuality

References

Footnotes

Bibliography

Books

Journals

Online articles