Let me pause on Rick Warren for a bit. There's more news on the ever-changing story about the proposed anti-gay Ugandan legislation and US ex-gay ministries' influence on it.
In particular, there's this interview between Rachael Maddow and Richard Cohen, a representative of the "International Healing Foundation" who sent a representative to Uganda to discuss the causes of homosexuality (from Cohen's perspective). Cohen's arguments were subsequently among those cited by the bill's supporters as proof that homosexuality can be cured, is not innate, etc.
I re-post the interview here:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
(Transcript here). Some quick observations:
I don't watch a lot of cable news talk shows, primarily because they usually involve lots of yelling, posturing, and very little substantive, careful debate. Given those low expectations, I was pleased to see Maddow treat Cohen with a bit more respect, giving him time to explain himself.
That being said, however, I'm not convinced the interview is the rhetorical slam-dunk that other progressive commentators appear to think it is. Certainly the interview featured some "slam dunk" moments. Maddow confronted Cohen with several key quotes from two of his books and one of his newsletters--some of which he seemed surprised by (e.g., "race" as a possible factor contributing to same-sex attraction) and some of which he ignored (e.g., his multiple suggestions that homosexuals represent malign, threatening forces in culture; his use of research by the thoroughly discredited Paul Cameron). In these instances, Cohen's insistence that his work does nothing to fuel intolerance of homosexuals at home and abroad comes under some strain.
But Maddow herself engages in some less-than-fair argumentative tactics that unfortunately give some credence to ex-gay complaints that their work gets misrepresented by the liberal press. She quotes, for example, a passage from one of Cohen's books in which he suggests a number of general factors that (he argues) may contribute to developing same-sex attractions, including "[d]ivorce, death of a parent, adoption, religion, race." Cohen interrupts to dispute whether race is in there. Maddow shows him that it is, creating one of the evening's "slam dunk" moments.
Maddow expresses disbelief about the idea that, as she puts it, "divorce makes you gay." Cohen interrupts to insist that she's taking his words out of context. "No, I'm reading it from your book, dude," she says. Now--a petty point, perhaps, but as any first-year composition student should know, "in context" means something greater than just "from the book." Cohen insists that she read the rest of the passage, where he clarifies that homosexuality (in his view) is multicausal. Maddow does so, and as it turns out, the passage she quotes comes at the very end of a long and fairly detailed list. The context does in fact problematize a portrayal of his argument as "divorce causes gayness."
That exchange would actually count as a "slam dunk" in Cohen's favor; at the very least, it demonstrates that in this instance Maddow was straw-manning his argument. It's at this point that Maddow refocuses on the race issue--which Cohen appears ill at ease with--pushing Cohen finally to concede that race is not in fact an influence on same-sex attraction.
Cohen and Maddow also disagree about the "cure" issue. Maddow portrays Cohen as claiming that homosexuality is a choice and that gays can be cured. Cohen strenuously disagrees with this representation, saying that he never claims that homosexuality is a choice and that he never uses "cure" as a term to describe therapy. Maddow dismisses this clarification, citing the "change is possible" mantra he often invokes. To suggest that "change" and "cure" aren't the same, she says, is "semantics."
Yes and no. Yes, in that it's a semantic difference, but no if by calling the difference semantic she means that the difference is meaningless (semantic differences rarely are). Ex-gay ministries by and large are careful to qualify a range of meanings for change. Change might be a lessening or transformation of same-sex attractions, but it might also mean a simple re-prioritizing of one's life. I'm not saying I agree with this logic, but I have to recognize that it exists, that for ex-gays change does not mean cure.
By far the most serious disagreement between them, however, is the allegation by Maddow that Cohen has blood on his hands, that because some of the Ugandan bill's supporters cite Cohen's material, Cohen himself bears some responsibility for the bill.
As repellent as I find many of Cohen's arguments, Maddow's blood-on-your-hands argument is a non-starter.
On one level, there's the simple fact that Cohen himself speaks out repeatedly and unambiguously against the Ugandan bill, saying again and again that imprisoning and executing homosexuals is utterly opposed to his theories, which cite a lack of appropriate love as the main factor in creating same-sex attractions. He insists--and Maddow has no evidence to the contrary--that the speaker they sent to Uganda said nothing at all about imprisoning gay people, nor did any of the US ex-gay speakers have any inkling that Uganda was going to come out with this draconian legislation. As Cohen points out, Uganda has had anti-homosexuality legislation on the books since the 1950s; its government needed no help in becoming intolerant.
In fact, Cohen's ex-gay arguments--i.e. gays are people suffering from a developmental deficit and in need of understanding, not condemnation--represent a weird kind of step in the right direction. As Randy Thomas of Exodus, International, has argued, Ugandan conservatives sponsoring this bill are more likely to listen to arguments against this bill coming from ex-gays like Cohen than from liberals like Maddow.
On another, more basic level, though, the "blood on your hands" allegation wrongly suggests that authors have absolute responsibility for how their readers interpret and apply their words. Now, obviously, if Cohen had called for the criminalization of homosexuality or if he had outlined a program similar to Uganda's proposed legislation, then he might have some explaining to do. But, as he tries to point out, Cohen makes no such argument; indeed, a fair reading of his arguments--homosexuals are in need of love and understanding--militates against precisely the attitude the bill's supporters represent (i.e., "kill the gays").
In other words--the Ugandan bill's supporters are misinterpreting Cohen's work, using it selectively to support a stance that Cohen himself does not endorse. It is simply beyond his control if people misuse his work so.
It is true that Cohen, like other ex-gay groups and spokespeople, undercuts his message of understanding and love by coupling it with more standard religious-right rhetoric about the threat of the "gay lobby" or the "gay agenda." Maddow scores a definite hit when she castigates Cohen for using discredited (read: fabricated) research by Paul Cameron about gays being more prone to pedophilia than heterosexuals (Cohen insists he will excise the latter sections from the next edition of his book). These arguments certainly do not do anything to militate against fearmongering and hatemongering against gay people in Uganda. But neither are they explicit calls to pass laws such as the proposed bill.
As a matter of free speech, people are allowed to express strong, unpopular, even intolerant sentiments--even though those expressions might inspire a listener or reader to act violently on the basis of those acts. One person's statement does not equate to another person's action. Maddow herself has a reputation for making what some might consider provocative statements. Suppose, for instance, some deranged person were to take utterly literally Maddow's charge that Cohen has blood on his hands, using that allegation as a pretext to murder Cohen in retaliation. Would Maddow then be responsible for the murderer's actions? Would she have blood on her hands?
Why am I harping on this? I don't like Cohen's arguments. I don't support his take on homosexuality. I think it's important that people recognize (as Maddow stated) that Cohen's psychological and counseling credentials are not recognized by any major credentialing body. Why bother to defend him at all?
Because, frankly, there are people in this country who do explicitly argue that gay people should be imprisoned and put to death. Extremists like that exist. Cohen--while certainly non-progressive—is not one of these extremists. He's not even in the same ballpark. It’s unethical and plain sloppy argumentation to classify Cohen and other ex-gays as no different, really, from Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps or a KKK vigilante or—yes—some supporter of a bill to execute gays. Doing so betrays a lack of ability (or gumption, or both) to imagine what makes non-progressives tick. It takes a whole swath of people who for whatever reason aren't comfortable with the idea of same-sex love and turns them all into the same species of irrational, immoral bigot--little Phelpses to be feared or dismissed.
If we as progressives ever hope to alter those people's discomfort (change is possible!), we at least need to do them the basic favor of listening carefully to what they are saying rather than lumping them all into one big category of "hater."
More tomorrow,
JF
No comments:
Post a Comment