Queer Science Review
Review of: Simon LeVay, Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA; London, UK, 1996
Claiming that scientific research on homosexuality is politically neutral would apparently exclude the belief that it has consequences for policy-making but Simon LeVay is trying to have it both ways. His book is a plea for “objective” scientific studies of homosexuality because he thinks that US policy regarding gay and lesbian rights will become more accepting if science gets involved. This contradiction haunts not only the book’s story line but also the logic of argumentation.
The story revolves around presenting and reviewing scientific understandings of homosexuality and linking them to the political situation of homosexual men and lesbian women. LeVay is an apt populariser of science who vividly describes and explains the history of scientific research on homosexuality in a manner that clarifies the scientific thinking in the studies carried out in various disciplines. However, LeVay’s subject position as brain scientist (neuroanatomist) and gay activist does not always agree with the healthy scepticism that a story re-telling so many of the strangest episodes in science would need. Read from the position of STS scholarship with an interest in feminist poststructuralism and a strong engagement for lesbian and gay rights advocacy, LeVay’s book stands out as a symptom more than an analysis.
As a symptom the book belongs in a lineage whose genealogy it presents by tracing the roots both of research on homosexuality and of the struggle for homosexual rights back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Turn-of-the-century political and scientific activists like Karl Heinrich Ulrichs and Magnus Hirschfeld argued for the civil rights of homosexual men and women by trying to prove that homosexuality was a biological trait. Although opposed by Eugene Steinach who believed homosexuality had biological causes but that it could be cured and Adolf Brandþs movement that fought for civil rights but rejected scientific explanations, the trope has survived to this day.[1]
…about men, women and inappropriate desire…
One of the images looming large in LeVay’s book is what Judith Butler has called “the heterosexual matrix”.[2] This is a thought-figure, with deep roots in Western culture and history, which links gender and sexual desire in a circular gridlock. According to the heterosexual matrix an intrinsic feature of being a woman is to sexually desire men and vice versa. The implication is that a women who sexually desires women must in some way be masculine and men who desire other men feminine. Alas, lesbians and gay men are gender deviants by default.
As a reader one is first led to believe that LeVay attempts to distance his thinking from this image when he expresses doubts about the 19th century theories of Ulrichs and Hirschfeld that set homosexuals apart as a “third sex”, but it is the scientific quality of their work he disagrees with. That gender characteristics and sexual desire is intrinsically linked in a way which implies feminine traits in gay men and masculine traits in lesbians is a presupposition not to be questioned.
The arguments of the book should have been gained by questioning the heterosexual matrix since it seems to blur LeVayþs thinking. An example is when he recounts the history of research on sexuality and hormones from the 1920s, a decade marking a new era in endocrinology with the techniques to produce synthetic hormones. The discourse on sex hormones has invited scientists to conduct numerous studies and experiments on both animals and humans. LeVay presents several research projects, for instance studies done since the 1970s of females with CAH, a genetic disorder in which the afflicted have been subjected to extremely high doses of androgens (male sex hormones) during gestation in the uterus. These hormonal influence are strong enough to “virilize” the female genitalia so that surgery is sometimes performed after birth.
LeVay says that
Studies of girls with CAH have shown several significant differences from other girls (such as their unaffected sisters). During childhood, these girls have an unusual interest in playing with toys such as trucks that boys typically play with. Conversely, they are less interested in traditional girls’ toys such as dolls and kitchen implements. These differences are not merely anecdotal but have been established in rigorously controlled observations of the childrenþs behavior. They also score better than their sisters on tests of spatial ability in which boys typically outperform girls. CAH girls also typically express less interest in becoming mothers than unaffected girls. (p121)
I will not comment on this view of gender conduct but continue to quote a passage further down.
It should be emphasized that not all CAH girls become lesbian women; in fact the majority do not. This could be for a variety of reasons: the androgen levels may not have been high enough, the timing of the increased androgen levels may not have coincided with the critical period for partner preference, the women might not have been followed long enough to allow their homosexual feelings to become apparent, or (and this is surely at least part of the explanation) prenatal hormones may not be the sole determinants of adult sexual orientation. But the results strongly supports the belief that hormones do play a significant role. (p123)
To me the conclusion seems strange to say the least. If women with CAH severe enough to affect their behaviour and morphology do not become lesbians one would think that this would cast some doubt on the causative influence of prenatal exposure to male hormones on the direction of womenþs desire.[3]
LeVay also uses the heterosexual matrix as the baseline against which scientific quality is measured. For example, the behaviourists following J. B. Watson and B. F. Skinner are evaluated according to it. These researchers invented numerous stimuli-response framed “cures” for homosexuality. Besides describing the horrendous “therapies” LeVay takes the chance to evaluate the “scientific validity” of the claims put forth. He concludes that Richard Green and George Rekers who both presented (different) explicit theories of the causes of homosexuality at least achieved scientific reasoning by linking it to the development of gender identity.
As retold by LeVay the entire enterprise of biological research into homosexuality provides a pedagogical example of the functioning of heterosexual matrix for those who find Butlerþs theory difficult to grasp due to its abstract character.
…about natural politics…
A prevailing feature of this book is the idea that homosexuality can be constituted as a “natural kind” through research into human biology. It is argued that if homosexuals can be proven to be a “natural kind” with a behaviour possibly to be attributed to biological factors the religious right will accept gay men and lesbians and pay us the same respect as they give straight people. I think LeVay is heading for a major disappointment. It does not matter if he could trace homosexuality to a specific biochemical cause, fundamentalist religion with anti-gay beliefs would not grant gay men and lesbians the same status as straight people. Religion is not susceptible to scientific argument nor does it have to be; it operates on other premises.
Even if LeVay at face level expresses some doubts in the clear trajectory between biological causation and social acceptance the link between them is strengthened in the way psychoanalysis, behaviourism and other psychological understandings of homosexuality are narrated. LeVay reads Freud as being ambivalent towards homosexuality, sometimes declaring it to be a normal variation and at other times explaining it with disturbances in childhood psychosexual development. According to LeVay the American Analysts following Freud showed no ambivalence but were singularly negative. This analysis is echoed in the discussion of the ways in which homosexuality has been considered a disease, especially by psychiatric discourse. The rhetoric implies that psychoanalysis, behaviourism and psychiatry have legitimated negative attitudes and “curing” attempts because of a rejection of biological explanations.
The link between science establishing homosexuality as a natural kind and a judicial system granting homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals is made explicit in chapter twelve which turns on the legal situation of gays in the US. One learns that US law categorises people in different classes where some are “suspect”, meaning that it is likely that social prejudices are at work when individuals from these groups are treated disadvantageously in courts of law. Race and national origin are two examples of “suspect” classes. “Quasi-suspect” classes also get protected from discriminating laws unless the laws are substantially related to a legitimate governmental objective. Sex is a “quasi-suspect” class. “Non-suspect” classes can be discriminated against as long as it is on a rational basis. If homosexuality could be “objectively” defined by natural scientists, homosexuals could become a suspect class and discriminating laws could be overturned, according to LeVay.
One could argue that the relationship of science and law is not that easy or that there is a long specific history behind countering discrimination in this way which makes the area quite unpredictable.[4] I know very little about anti-discrimination legislation in the US, but I do know that the example given by the Scandinavian countries disproves the belief that gay and lesbian rights have to be based on a “natural kind” argument. In Sweden, for example, gay and lesbian rights have been consistently argued from a human rights perspective since 1951. So far this has resulted in the right for same sex couples to legally formalise their relationships, an anti-discrimination clause is on its way and lesbian and gay parenting is explored by a government commission.
Establishing homosexuality as a “natural kind” is a project fraught with epistemic and political problems that LeVay does not manage to solve. The kind of sociobiology propagated by LeVay does not allow for social diversity and flexibility but requires “social kinds” distinct, immutable and internally coherent to be mapped in a one-to-one manner to the “natural kinds”.
The second chapter is an attempt to establish “the nature and prevalence of homosexuality”. This is the title of the chapter but it is also a description of its direction since the reader is not only told about how Ulrichs, Hirschfeld, Alfred Kinsey, Kurt Freund, Dean Hamer and other scientists over the years have worked to define homosexuality in a way that would make the category become “based on an objective segregation of the phenomena being considered” (p44) but is also told that this is a worthwhile pursuit.
As others before him LeVay also attempts to establish the essence of homosexuality by turning to studies of animals.[5] “Nature” as a model for human affairs is problematic (to say the least) as LeVay points out but this does not dissuade him from venturing into this area to re-tell of “discoveries” of homosexuality in seagulls as solid truths. A funny turn is his conclusion that if we look at animal behaviour homophobia seems to be entirely lacking, suggesting to the reader that it might be considered “unnatural” according to the same logic claiming human behaviour “natural” if it can be over-layered by animal studies. Eventually the definition of homosexuality turns out to be an insurmountable difficulty in this book which also ends up in great trouble with bisexuality which is solved by pinning it to anecdotes about the different behaviour of women who the author knows.
Politics is present at many levels in this text besides the explicit aims of gay and lesbian rights. For instance, in the image of the relationship between gay men and lesbians. LeVay has read enough feminist critique to know better than to let gay menþs experiences, or biology, stand in for that of lesbians. Consequently he points out that studies and results concerning gay men are not necessarily applicable to lesbians. Unfortunately this makes me wonder if the political struggle for equal rights should differ for lesbians and gay men. An issue that introduces itself when the question of political rights is tied up to being a “natural kind”.
In the end of the book LeVay sums up the commitment of his story in two sentences: “It will also become clearer that gay people live in a fashion that is appropriate to their kind. Thus it is likely that their perceived worth, both in a practical and a moral sense, will increase, science or no science.” (p295)
Feminism, with a history of struggle against women being expected to live in a “fashion appropriate to their kind”, provides us with reasons to be suspicious of any attempt to naturalise social divisions among humans. Especially when the objective is to find appreciation from a society in which the “heterosexual white middle-class male” is the preferred kind. Letting this figures mirror image the “homosexual white middle-class male” become the essence of queerness may not be in the best interest of us other others.
…about science…
In this story there prevails a tendency to gloss over the critique against present day scientific studies of homosexuality concerning hypotheses and methods. Such critique abounds and needs to be dealt with seriously in a story aiming to tell about this research in an appreciative manner. The move into LeVayþs own scientific territory, research on the brain, does not improve the quality of the argument or of the science told about. The style may be lucid and accessible, this time aided with graphs, but gender non-conformity is still equalled with homosexuality, criticism of research is glossed over and odd conclusions are drawn from studies that are inconclusive and contradict each other. The wording slips rapidly from “tentative conclusions” to “strong evidence” in several places. This pattern of reasoning prevails in recapitulations of research on mental traits, stress and genes, all as correlating with or causative of homosexuality. I can not help to wonder if it is LeVay’s presentation of the research or the research in itself that makes this look much more like “bad” science (according to scientists’ own criteria) than “queer” science. There may be research that can only lose by being clearly explained. For instance, it is vividly demonstrated (quite contrary to the author’s intent I believe) why research on rats to explain human sexual behaviour has to fail.
Perhaps lesbians and gay men have nothing to fear from science, as LeVay argues, but it seems like science has a lot to fear in terms of quality from the research presented in this book.
…but there are good reasons not to follow his lead.
That gay men and lesbian women should be granted equal rights because science can prove that homosexuals belong to a natural kind is not convincing to a reader coming from present day STS with its more sceptical attitude to scientific claims. Nor does the political project of gaining acceptance for homosexuality because gay white middle-class men are as valuable to society as straight white middle- class men appear as an appealing endeavour for a feminist poststructuralist. From the perspective of Swedish lesbian and gay rights activism it also seems utterly odd to commit to link purportedly universal science to specific US legislation.
LeVay’s book appears to be a symptom of the dissatisfaction of the otherwise well adjusted professional who feels like he is missing out on the goods that society owes him because of a minor variation in sexual preference. He moves way beyond his area of expertise to legitimate his claim for inclusion. Would he be included this would have very little effect on the rest of the queer community who may not be so well adjusted or appreciative of existing social order but it would signify a dangerous new alliance between science and human rights.
Notes
Another well known scientist/activist following this trajectory is Dean Hamer.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
To assume that the effect of hormones was in some way not enough to make all these women become lesbians is also to assume that heterosexuality is a default state. Working with one possible trajectory as the default from which another is set off by triggering extraordinary events is a very dubious logic as shown by Anne Fausto-Sterling in her 1996 article How to Build a Man in Rosario, Vernon (ed.) Science and Homosexualities. New York: Routledge, 219-225.
Since I lack knowledge about US legal discourse I refer, for a critical evaluation of this argument, to Jennifer Terryþs 1996 article The Seductive Power of Science in the Making of Deviant Subjectivity in Rosario, Vernon (ed.) Science and Homosexualities. New York: Routledge, 271-295.
The problems with taking animal studies as the base-line truth about human nature are treated in detail by Donna Haraway in her 1989 book Primate Visions. Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York: Routledge.
author’s address: vetcl@hum.gu.se