lasenza

orientation issues in graduate training reveals the influence of heterosexism and homophobia in our society.

It is important to distinguish here how heterosexism and homophobia are different but related phenomena. Heterosexism refers to an ideology that sanctifies heterosexuality as the only normal model for romantic-sexual relationships, while viewing homosexuality as criminal, sick, immoral, inferior, or insignificant (Cavin, 1985). It also involves the belief that heterosexuality is more natural than is homosexuality, often justifying ignorance about or neglect of the experiences of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people in society. Homophobia is an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals (Weinberg, 1972). Individuals may manifest different degrees of either or both of these phenomena, which require different interventions. Such a discussion is beyond the scope of this article. It is essential to understand, however, the complex motivations behind discrimination.

We as Counselors

The counseling relationship is an interactive process between the client and the counselor, in which the client needs to tell his or her unique story within an atmosphere of genuineness, empathy, and unconditional positive regard (Meador & Rogers, 1973). The counselor's experiences, beliefs, values, feelings, and fantasies influence the counseling process. It is presumptuous to assume that counselors who have been taught about valuable concepts like unconditional positive regard are able to apply them with gay-lesbian clients if they are not aware of their own heterosexist or homophobic biases (Thompson & Fishburn, 1977).

We, as counselors, confront ourselves through our countertransference that is everpresent in the counseling relationship. Working with gay, lesbian, and bisexual clients presents an opportunity to discover the complexity of our own myths, stereotypes, and sexual feelings, including our attractions and aversions toward persons of the same and opposite sex. Such awareness, when encouraged and discussed in training experiences, may allow the counselor to differentiate between his or her own homophobia and that of the client's. A counselor who is not aware of his or her sexual feelings often assumes that they emanate from the client. Counselors considered best suited to work with gay and lesbian clients are those who are aware of and comfortable with their own homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality, including their thoughts, feelings, fantasies, dreams, behaviors, and lifestyles (Clark, 1977; Landis & Miller, 1975; Riddle & Sang, 1978). It may be argued that heterosexual clients deserve similar standards in a counselor as well.

We as Counselors Trainers

The nature and seriousness of our work calls for the inclusion of sexual orientations in our training curricula (Cayleff, 1986; Myers, 1982; Norton, 1982). Such inclusion requires that we start with ourselves, as trainers and educators, to explore how we overtly or covertly perpetuate homophobic and heterosexist attitudes and feelings. For some, the fear of acknowledging and embracing their own homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual components a necessary process in providing good counseling work-may contribute to a tendency to distance themselves from the subject of sexual orientations in their teachings.

For others, growing up in a heterosexist culture has produced conscious and unconscious biases against gay, lesbian, and

74

bisexual individuals in much the same way that racism and sexism perpetuate prejudices against people of color and women. Norton (1976) emphasizes how important it is for counseling professionals to rid themselves of ingrained prejudices and myths, in addition to educating themselves and others about gay and lesbian issues. Counselor training programs are good places to start such an education process.

DIFFICULTIES IN CONDUCTING RESEARCH Counseling practice and research are interrelated. Much of our information for course work consists of reviewing the literature and applying recent research findings. Conversely, research questions often arise from clinical observations. Therefore, this discussion of the challenges involved in integrating sexual orientations into counseling course work will include a discussion of some of the issues that are involved in conducting sexual orientation research.

Masters and Johnson (1979), in the introduction to their book Homosexuality in Perspective, an exploration of how gay men and lesbian women compare with heterosexuals on sexual function and dysfunction, share their difficulty with the subject. They identify two of the problems involved in studying sexual orientations: widespread professional ignorance on the subject and societal disapproval, or homophobia. These will be discussed here more specifically in relationship to the following issues: (a) defining the construct of sexual orientation; (b) measuring the construct of sexual orientation; and (c) peer discouragement encountered by researchers who are interested in studying sexual orientation issues.

Definitions

Two types of definitional problems exist: confusion between sex-related identity terms and what constitutes sexual orientation. Ponse (1978) and Sophie (1982) discussed the problem that the lay and professional communities have in understanding sex-related identity definitions. Major identity definitions, such as gender identity (one's sense of being female or male), sexrole orientation (femininity or masculinity), and sexual orientation (homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality), are often used interchangeably. In addition, assumptions persist regarding the interrelatedness of these identities, which contribute to stereotyping. A common example of this is the assumption that gay men (sexual orientation) are more feminine (sex role orientation) or want to be women (gender identity) as compared to heterosexual men (Beane, 1981). Such assumptions, of course, are simplistic, and erroneous.

It is uncertain how gender identity, sex-role orientation, and sexual orientation may be interrelated. Some suggest that they should be regarded as separate continua (Shively & De Cecco, 1977). A beginning, at least, is to define properly each one and to keep assumptions regarding their interrelatedness to a minimum.

Both Richardson (1985) and Cass (1985) discussed the problems of determining what constitutes sexual identity. Richardson asks if identity is a general state of being (the person is gay or lesbian), a state of desire (sexual orientation), a form of behavior (sexual acts), or a personal identification (sexual identity). Other theorists (Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolf, 1985) suggested that sexual orientation consists of various dimensions, including emotional, social and lifestyle preferences, sexual behaviors, fantasies and attractions, as well as self-identification. These newer theories may help explain the complexities

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1989 VOL. 68

of sexual identities. The point is that we are only beginning to understand sexual orientations and how they develop. Cass pointed out the narrowness of only studying homosexuals to understand sexual orientation development and suggested that a variety of sexual orientation experiences be included in our research. Some researchers are beginning to explore the variety of sexual experiences over the life span (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1976, 1977; MacDonald, 1981).

Measurement

How to measure sexual orientation is another matter. Perhaps the best-known attempt to date are the studies by Kinsey and associates (1948, 1953), which suggested that homosexualityheterosexuality was not an either-or phenomenon and that people can be distinguished on the basis of where they may fall on a scale ranging from 0 (exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual). What is now becoming apparent is the need for multidimensional scales that include not only behaviors, but sexual feelings, dreams, fantasies, and social factors as additional measurement criteria (Coleman, 1988). This involves deconstructing social labels of homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual and inquiring about the meanings those labels have for individuals in light of their behaviors, feelings, fantasies, and social needs. Such multidimensionality more closely approximates the reality of sexual experience even though it adds to the difficulty of making classifications.

Sexual orientation as a multidimensional construct cannot be reduced to a single definition or developmental explanation. Labels of homo-, bi-, or hetero-sexual, within this context, have little meaning. Morin (1977) suggested that, because there is so much diversity of experience of same-sex object choice, the research variable of homosexuality has been a misleading and overemphasized one. Such complexity has produced disparate research results that complicate the task of educating counseling professionals.

Peer Discouragement

Another issue reported by researchers is peer discouragement of the topic of sexual orientations in publications, academic departments, and training settings. It is no longer acceptable in most professional situations to express disdain openly toward gay men, bisexuals, or lesbian women, but prejudice and discrimination continue to exist against openly gay and lesbian scholars and clinicians or those who are interested in sexual orientation research and practice (Paul, Weinrich, Gonsiorek, & Hotvedt, 1982).

Helena Carlson (1985) discussed the potential negative impact conducting sexual orientation research might have on one's employment as an academic psychologist. She drew her conclusions partly from a 1984 APA Committee on Gay Concerns survey of more than 500 psychology programs in the country. Three hundred and three department chairpersons (61%) responded to the survey. The survey found that 44% of the department chairpersons communicated a willingness of their faculty to sponsor gay-related doctoral research; 13.6% of the department chairpersons reported that their faculty were involved in gay-related research; 8.9% of the departments offered clinical training in the area of sexual orientation; 52.3% of the departments had a gay student organization on campus; 28.1% of the departments had openly gay graduate students and 9.9% of the departments had openly gay-lesbian faculty. Carlson found the results to be both encouraging and dis-

Integrating Sexual Orientations Into Counselor Training/Research

couraging. She found the prevalence of gay student campus organizations and the willingness of psychology departments to sponsor gay-related doctoral research as promising indicators of the acceptance of gay and lesbian issues in higher education. The fact that only 10% of the psychology department chairpersons reported having openly gay-lesbian faculty, however, concerned Carlson. She reported that many gay-lesbian faculty members remain closeted for fear of job or income loss. Norton (1976) has documented some of the struggles involved in gaining peer support within the counseling field. Peer discouragement of sexual orientation issues, in addition to the complexity of sexual orientation research, are additional factors that contribute to the challenges of integrating sexual orientations into counselor training.

SOME SUGGESTIONS

Some suggestions already appear in the literature regarding how to integrate sexual orientations into the work of the counselor (Norton, 1982; Siegel, 1985). Siegel presented a learning model that she uses, as a therapist, to work through her own homophobia. It includes reading gay and lesbian literature, exploring sexual orientation issues in her own therapy, working with lesbian clients, and pursuing relationships with lesbian colleagues. Parts of this model, along with the specific curriculum enhancements suggested by Norton, can be integrated into counselor training.

The first suggestion is that counselor educators develop components on gay and lesbian issues for inclusion in existing coursework, such as those dealing with cross-cultural counseling, gender, minorities, and counseling techniques. Professional literature on sexual orientations is beginning to expand and provides guidelines on how to work nonjudgmentally with gay and lesbian clients (Coleman, 1988; Gonsiorek, 1985; Hetrick & Stein, 1984; Hidalgo, Peterson, & Woodman, 1984; Sophie, 1982).

The second suggestion is that counselor educators locate and encourage opportunities for our students to gain practicum experience working with gay and lesbian clients. Students may learn firsthand some of the issues that are particular to gay men and lesbian women and also the similarities that are shared with heterosexuals. Myths, fears, stereotypes, and countertransferences can then be discussed in supervision. Students may learn how some psychological theories are inadequate to explain the variety of sexual experiences beyond strictly heterosexual ones. Over time, they may learn how to separate the symptoms of societal victimization (Allport, 1958) from those due to psychological maladjustment.

A third suggestion is that counselor educators create a learning environment in our graduate programs in which gay-lesbian faculty and students can be open and become active members as learners, teachers, and researchers. Sharing ideas on professional and personal levels with colleagues who have different sexual orientations provides opportunities to learn about the diversity of experiences on issues of sexuality. Gonsiorek (1986) stressed the important task that gay and lesbian therapists have of developing gay and lesbian affirmative therapies. He also emphasized the need for professionals-gay-lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual-to share their experiences dealing with the continuum of sexualities. Though it is sometimes difficult for professionals to break through their own barriers of prejudice and discomfort with one another, once the silence is broken, sharing has been found to contribute to professional and personal growth. Such silence needs to be shattered, starting at the

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1989. VOL. 68

75