In order to understand why the physical, psychological or intellectual bullying of homosexuality is dangerous for our American society, we need to talk about the nature of democratic consciousness and ask ourselves why it is essential if individual freedom is to survive and grow. I mentioned in my previous post…“democratic consciousness is grounded in the awareness that [toleration of] alternate philosophies of life are the only guaranteed safeguard to everyone’s freedom. I think we all recognize this. But, one could ask, is democratic consciousness just moral relativism? That is, there is no absolute truth at all. Am I just giving a fancy name to an old issue? I don’t think so. Democratic consciousness means that each member of a society, each citizen is willing to modify something we human beings hold on to with great strength and tenacity. And that is the conviction that we are right, that we know what is going on. The apparent consolation, so to speak, but not particularly true, that a person has importance because he or she knows how one is supposed to live.  We human beings are very fragile vessels when it comes to our feelings of self worth. It is not easy to entertain another approach, to consider other opinions than ours; to realize that we might be mistaken in our most deeply held convictions. Such possibilities are, for most people, difficult.

Democracy is difficult because it means that the only way we can live with each other, despite different life styles, is to be willing to put ourselves in another person’s shoes, so to speak. Many people find this so difficult and so threatening that they amass all kinds of arguments why someone acting  differently than they do must be mistaken, wrong or possibly dangerous. No wonder individuals feel free to pick and choose a sentence or a thought from Scripture and use it against those they disagree with. I think that the only truth of any life style that is worth holding on to is a truth that is constantly being looked at, thought about, investigated and reflected upon. Is that easy? No, not particularly. Does such an attitude expose a person to the anxiety of not knowing what is going on, at times? Yes. It does. I ended my previous article on democracy with the thought that “open dialogue is very easy to affirm; it is extremely difficult to implement, yet it [remains] the cornerstone of a democratic consciousness.

Democratic consciousness is an ongoing task; it is something we all have to keep trying to understand and experience. Its enemy is just reading, talking or listening to others who agree with us, politically, religiously or psychologically. To be pulled out of the comfort zone of our particular beliefs, our particular communities is upsetting and sometimes disorienting – and it can easily make one angry and reactive. Teenagers, in particular, since they are struggling with their personal and sexual identity, are very vulnerable to such anxiety and to possible anger. In this regard it helps to remember that the primary goal of education should be to help students appreciate and evaluate other ways of seeing the world, of seeing themselves, it is to open students to knowing that truth is something we have to search for over and over again. Such a search makes life interesting. Only then can students appreciate whatever facts and theories they are taught.

The genius of democracy is the awareness that by appreciating and allowing differences to flourish individuals are not threatened, a society is strengthened. Without diversity a society and its citizens easily fall into what we can call dogmatic consciousness. That is, one has the truth and there is no need to think about it any further. Fundamentalist thinking tells us “what” to think – and that is very comforting – it’s also the opposite of democratic consciousness. We have enough examples, in the twentieth century, of totalitarian political regimes telling their citizens what to think and how to act. Not to mention the religious intolerance that has plagued the West for centuries.

Now lets turn to homosexuality. Of course we are all products of our genes and our environment; the argument that homosexuality or heterosexuality is innate biologically really does not concern me here. It’s a moot point – irresolvable, so far, from a scientific or psychological perspective. And, ultimately, unimportant. Genes do not guarantee personal freedom, democratic consciousness does! For many years psychoanalysis, particularly in America, considered homosexual behavior as deviant and neurotically based and set out to “cure” it. We now know that one does not “cure” comfort zones, preferences or inclinations – in a democratic society one “respects” them.  It is interesting to note that Freud himself did not consider homosexuals “sick” and in need of cure. Despite its earlier convictions about homosexuality, psychoanalysis has always been dedicated to individual freedom and autonomy, to resolving the issues that make a satisfying and fulfilled life difficult. What we know today is that any life style, heterosexual or homosexual, can be put to neurotic purposes. Self harmful behavior is a universal human possibility,  no one lifestyle has cornered the market. Psychoanalysis is not interested in telling people what to do or how to act. Any therapist who does that is not following the insights that psychoanalysis offers.

Democratic consciousness means I am taught at home, ideally and at school, necessarily, that respect for alternate opinions, for personal choices must be talked about, should be discussed, and must be honored. Homophobic behavior or homophobic thinking is the opposite of what we have been discussing. Of course anyone can have his or her own opinion about life choices but that does not entitle anyone, or a democratic society, to forbid another person from choosing a particular life style. Yet such legal forbidding, I am calling it legal bullying, is one of the main pillars behind the armed services policy of don’t ask, don’t tell. We ask our young people to possibly die in defense of our democracy but at the same time we refuse to practice that very democracy they may in fact die for.

One of the main insights of the Christian New Testament is that we are not supposed to throw the righteous stones of our particular beliefs at those we disagree with. No one is innocent when it comes to truth; no one religion, despite its proclamations, has cornered truth. The fact that all three great religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam claim direct inspiration from God and yet say contradictory things – should cause one to hesitate. If each religion is correct, then God must be a very confused person. Maybe what we are supposed to learn is that one should not use spiritual insights to hit another person over the head.  The condemnation of homosexuality in the Hebrew Scriptures is on an equal par with the injunction to stone a woman caught in adultery. A practice we no long think is in God’s service. Therefore the lesson to be learned is that no one should just pick and choose selective passages and claim they are conveying an unchanging truth. Scriptural scholars have spent years of study, understanding the time and place, the historical moment, the use of language, the dangers and problems of transcription of the scriptures – to be dismissed by a simple reading of words. Using such an approach, by reading the scriptures as if they are some simple food recipes for what to think and to do, is relinquishing our obligation to constantly search for the truth, to entertain different possibilities and to give up the consolation that we not only have the truth but we obviously have God on our side as well. I am aware that this is a complex topic and that the condemnation of homosexual behavior is also based on what is referred to as natural law. In this case, as well, such arguments are, for the most part, based on a literalist, overly concrete interpretation of natural law. Literalist readings of scripture or of philosophy betray the dignity of man and the gift of intellect the creator has given. Such a literal mindset undermines religious freedom and undermines democratic consciousness as well.

So why do we have to teach our young not to bully? Why do we have to inform adults that intellectual, legal or psychological bullying is just as harmful? Because living in a democratic society demands no less. Why do we have to help adults get past their condemnation of life styles they personally do not approve of? Because personal and social maturity demands that individuals give up the consolation of narcissism – that is, I are right and I know I are right. Everyone is free to say what he or she likes or does not prefer- no one is obliged to like the homosexual lifestyle. Democratic consciousness means, it’s worth repeating, that a person is willing to respect difference, allowing differences to be. Refusing, thereby, to assume that my opinions are automatically superior and should, or must be, imposed. That is the stuff of totalitarian consciousness – it’s the exact opposite of what America is all about.

I invite your comments and reactions….



Narcissism is the excessive need to be noticed, the unfortunate conquest of specialness over personal uniqueness. The unexamined conviction, for example, that only by holding fast and absolutely to one’s own interpretation of what is going on in the world does one thereby achieve some kind of lasting personal significance. There is something truly profound in the human quest for truth, yet simultaneously tragic when we are convinced we have it. The goal of a liberal education, throughout history, has always been to bring such a paradox to full consciousness. When one does not appreciate the complexity of human experience, one can easily experience suspicion if someone, for example, questions one’s worldview. In the arena of religion such suspicion frequently leads to the judgment of heresy; in politics, such suspicion frequently leads to name calling – “liberal” or “right wing”. We, in the West, classify different cultures as primitive simply because they don’t meet our technological standards. Even in academia, narcissistic righteousness dismisses alternate opinions. Interpersonally, we are all too easily injured or angry if someone does not support our worldview. So pervasive, and frequently so unnoticed is narcissism, much more so than the dramatics of sexuality, that it can shadow a whole life – a whole cultural outlook, frequently masking under the banner of truth. A truth that I (or we) possess!

To have found such truth is to steal a little of immortality for ourselves; to seemingly lift ourselves out of the day to day historical flow of experience into a realm where the task of finding, and refinding, of weighing and counterbalancing our thoughts and opinions, has been solved for us. We have, in effect, achieved an immortality of certainty. I am speaking here to the psychological underpinnings of narcissism, not to the philosophical issue of truth and its attainability. No one, no group is immune from this stalking, frequently unconscious killer called narcissism. Life can be experienced as an inviting mystery, who we are is worth constantly exploring rather than just asserting. Education has to lead us out of our house of mirrors.

Can we protect ourselves from such a psychological virus? I don’t really know. Certainly to be, as well as to feel, loved, offers some protection; to commit oneself to the life-long task of learning and questioning is also a great help. To be aware that absolutes, in any guise, are misleading is perhaps the equivalent of washing our hands, frequently, to avoid colds. If we are complacent in our convictions, we should be concerned that the virus has struck; to know without question that we are right and that others are unequivocally misguided, or evil, is to have the beginnings of a serious illness. Nationalistic or ethnic pride, as the twentieth century painfully exemplified, easily obliterates the conviction of our universal human connection. To experience religious insights as a confirmation, rather than an invitation to truth, is, in short, to act as if our personal path is the highway for everyone else. It is to succumb to a narcissistic infection that will close our minds and steal our hearts to the profound mystery we call life, — to the deep, even if troublesome joy, of celebrating human diversity.

The genius of representative democracy is the ability it fosters, and in a sense demands, of its citizens to distinguish between the particular content of any belief, that is, “what” one believes, and the recognition that most people need some belief system, some type of personal definition. The mark of any totalitarian system is its inability – either out of a grab for power or a basic lack of understanding of what free choice means – to distinguish between the human need for political or religious convictions and the content, that is, the “what,” of those convictions. Totalitarian consciousness is similar to fundamentalist thinking in that it provides the belief content, that is, the “what” one believes. This is clear, for example, in the issue of school prayer, setting up in public buildings engraved carvings of the Ten Commandments, or restrictions on who may or may not get married in a civil ceremony; in such cases we are being given “what” we are supposed to believe. A well functioning democracy, by definition, doesn’t confuse our very human need for self-definition with any objective creed or political position. A democratic consciousness imposes no answers, promotes no particular religious conviction or political ideology outside that of protecting the general welfare of people. Such awareness seems rather obvious; it seems to follow from the very definition of democracy, yet it is being overshadowed in our present political discourse.

Democratic consciousness is grounded in the awareness that alternate philosophies of life are the only guaranteed safeguard to everyone’s freedom. This is based on the recognition that imposed truth is, in actuality, no truth at all – it is intimidation. And intimidation gives birth to loyalty oaths. McCarthyism was not just a dark period in American political history – it was and is, ultimately, a mindset. The most powerful weapon in the world, as we know, is an idea. A foreign enemy, for example, who witnesses an elected leader during a time of war being criticized, is one of the best examples of democracy that I can think of. Not to know this is not to understand democracy at all.

When citizens engage in open debate, based on informed thinking, aware of the ever-present possibility of personal error, we have the opposite of totalitarian and/or fundamentalist consciousness. A democratic consciousness tolerates the anxiety that the lack of certainty entails. What the western world knew twenty-five hundred years ago in Athens had to be remembered anew with the dawn of western democracies. Democracy is not just a different political system guaranteeing religious and political freedom; in its fullest realization, it is a growth in human consciousness. One of the many deaths each person has to overcome is the death that absolute certitude brings. In its promise to respect individuality, in its refusal to celebrate any particular content, democracy is the best guarantor that any religious content or any political conviction will have a voice; but it demands, as I have mentioned, that one give up the consolation of certitude.

Is democracy served merely by its citizens voting? I have suggested that democracy imposes something more basic, namely, the obligation not only to respect individuality in all its many colors, particularly when those colors clash with one’s personal surroundings, but also and particularly to appreciate and foster open discussion. Such a position is basic for developing a democratic consciousness. Respecting individuality is, quite obviously, the opposite of name-calling. When an individual proclaims an opponent to be “liberal” or “conservative,” or one of their many variations – that is, when an individual uses such terms to accuse rather than to define – he or she is foreclosing the experience of a democratic consciousness and, in fact, laying the groundwork for a totalitarian consciousness.

Open dialogue is very easy to affirm; it is extremely difficult to implement, yet it is the cornerstone of a democratic consciousness. Without it, we lose an essential advance in civilization.

While all the above is true there is an added problem that some physicians may not have the time or the training to address. By that I mean the psychological factors that are present with any illness. Children are particularly sensitive to their parents’ unspoken words and unspoken feelings. An unconsciously angry parent, for example, will create an emotional tone that surrounds the household, which can haunt a child, irrespective of the parent’s overt behavior. An overly anxious parent can invade a child’s psyche in subtle ways so that the child begins to evidence behavior as if he or she is the anxious one. Such an emotional situation burdens the child with his/her parent’s anxiety in addition to their own feelings about their illness. Most frequently both child and parent are not conscious of these dynamics. Consciously everyone’s energies are spent solely addressing the objective illness, while the damage that excessive anxiety is causing is left untreated.

What is a parent to do? Obviously such a state of affairs can snowball so that a family becomes overwhelmed with an admittedly serious physical illness but also a psychological one that has “invaded” the family. In such a situation if a parent is experiencing noticeable anxiety they should seriously consider a consultation with a neutral professional trained to recognize such reactions. In such situations parents have to learn to recognize the difference between understandable yet frequently unproductive anxiety—it just contaminates everyone around them—and, adult competent concern. We entrust our bodies and our minds and emotions to professionals who exhibit competent concern, rather than overly anxious responses. Parents, in particular, have to try to imitate such an emotion situation. I am not advocating cold or dispassionate response to an ill child. Competent concern is supported by knowledge and grounded in love. Competent concern is marked by a serious attention to, but not an obsession with, an illness. It conveys seriousness and diligence without conveying debilitating inactivity or avoidance of everyday tasks. It asks of parents that they recognize that their primary job is not only to protect and secure the best medical advice available, but also to convey to their child their own progressive competence in handling their illness. Even young children can be taught this. What we are talking about is an emotional and secondarily an intellectual message.

Quite frequently a few sessions with a therapist, for those parents who find that their child’s illness is causing them notable and intrusive anxiety, can prove to be very helpful. A neutral ear enables us to hear our best selves. Anxiety is a warning signal that something serious is in danger of happening; concern, on the other hand, recognizes the seriousness of an issue and responds by fostering, developing and teaching competence. As an ill child can experience his/her own beginning competence in recognizing and addressing their condition they are no longer the passive recipient of an unwanted illness, but rather an active respondent to a life situation which can contribute to a sense of mastery. That is an invaluable lesson for anyone to learn, child or adult.

(2009)

thanks, Jerry Gargiulo

The Metropolitan Museum of Art is getting more crowded these days. Is it the good exhibits, i.e. the Russian Impressionists collection, collection from the Holy Land, the Van Gogh exhibit? Perhaps busy New Yorkers and those from the close environs simply need a respite from the economic hailstorm that besets most people today. Stock market discussions and “making it” seem to have replaced those on literature, or political philosophy or art. Could the singleminded nature of economic discussions be causing people to search for a place where the human experiment is more comprehensively expressed? Are they seeking a quiet place where one can see how others, particularly great others, saw the world? Do they want to know how these great others changed what they saw, in order to see what they knew was really there? The French Impressionists studied light and how it creates the objects we see; artifacts from the Holy Land impressed me as being more ritualistically complex then one would have expected; Van Gogh, the present exhibit, creates, I believe, a new world for us to see. (Variously appreciated he is beautiful “Vincent” according to Don McLean’s poignant song of a few years ago; Stranger On The Earth, according to a perceptively written psychological biography by Albert Lubin, M.D.)

Van Gogh, a man of the most enormous energy, dead at thirty-seven, is being discovered again as an artist of towering proportions. What is it in this somewhat “mad” artist that beckons us?

The son of a Protestant minister, Van Gogh grew up in Holland where order, cleanliness and work were most rewarded. He was utterly dedicated, for a good portion of his life, to helping the poor, spending time as a preacher and clearly identifying with the common people, particularly miners with whom he worked for a short period of his life.