New Directions in Lesbian Research, Theory, and Education

BARBARA E. SANG

In the last decade some exciting research has taken place within the lesbian community that has more to do with what is relevant to lesbian life-styles and less to do with proving to society that "homosexuality" is a viable life-style. Current lesbian research tends to be descriptive and phenomenological as opposed to being formal empirical research. There is also a movement toward less reliance on existing theoretical models, which tend to be sexist and homophobic, to guide these observations. We need to discover our own voice.

t has been only in the last 10 to 12 years that lesbian women have finally begun to obtain meaningful information about themselves, their life-styles, their needs, and their problems. Lesbian women who came of age before the 1970s had little knowledge about other lesbians; they were often totally isolated and oppressed by society. The few books that did exist on "homosexuality," if you could find them, presented lesbianism as a pathological condition. We have come a long way since this time, even though there still remains much to explore and understand.

In the last decade some exciting research has taken place within the lesbian community that has more to do with what is relevant to lesbian life-styles and less to do with proving to society that homosexuality is a viable life-style. In the last 10 years there has been clear experimental evidence to show that lesbians are as well adjusted, if not more fulfilled, as their heterosexual counterparts (Freedman, 1975; Oberstone & Sukoneck, 1976). Before going on to contemporary thinking and research, I would like to give the reader an overview of the way lesbianism was perceived before, and shortly after, the advent of the feminist movement.

HISTORICAL PAST

A number of books and position papers on lesbianism, written by psychiatrists and psychologists, began to appear in the 1950s and early 1960s as an outgrowth of psychoanalytic thinking (Bergler, 1956; Caprio, 1954; Fried, 1960). Lesbianism was described as a form of immaturity, an ego deficit, a narcissistic condition, and a denial of female genitality. The belief that lesbianism was an arrest in development persisted despite the fact that there was no evidence to support this position. Between 1939 and 1960 there was a total of 22 articles in the Psychological Abstracts that mentioned lesbianism (Shifrin, 1977). The largest study reported during this period was done on 14 delinquent girls! Most of these articles dealt with curing homosexuality through psychoanalysis or electric shock therapy. Lesbians seeking psychotherapy spent considerable time and money trying to become "straight" rather than working to feel comfortable with their real selves (Riddle & Sang, 1978; Sang, 1977). The late 1960s and early 1970s marked the beginning of a

more politically active gay movement and a surge in vitality within the feminist movement. Important changes that were taking place during this time were the following: (a) Society's change in its perception of women who were career-oriented, who were assertive, who did not prefer vaginal orgasms (Hite, 1976), and who chose not to have children; (b) an awareness that research on homosexuals had been done on male homosexuals; (c) the first beginnings of a feminist and gay impact on the psychological literature. Also, in 1975, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities" (Conger, 1975, p. 633). Most, but not all, of today's introductory textbooks on psychology reflect these new ways of viewing gay individuals. In the next section the characteristics of these ways of perceiving individuals are addressed.

CHARACTERISTICS OF LESBIAN THEORY AND RESEARCH, 1978-1988

From 1961 to 1977 there were, on the average, 4 articles a year that mentioned lesbianism that were listed in the Psychological Abstracts (Shifrin, 1977). In contrast, over the last 10 years (1978-1988), I have found an average of 25 articles a year listed in the Psychological Abstracts, which does not include the large number of books and articles intended for the lesbian community that have not found their way into mainstream psychology (Lewis, 1979; Vida, 1978). Lesbian women have become more open about their life-styles during the last 10 years and, therefore, it has been possible to study hundreds of lesbians from diverse parts of the country. For the first time, articles and research have begun to appear about older lesbian women (Kehoe, 1986; Raphael & Robinson, 1984; Warshow, 1987) and minority lesbians (Espin, 1987; Greene, 1986; Gunn Allen, 1984; Hill, 1987).

Of the 255 articles that mentioned lesbianism that were listed in the Psychological Abstracts for the last 10 years, almost half of them dealt with lesbianism only. The remaining articles consisted of comparisons between lesbians and heterosexual women and between lesbians, gay males, and heterosexual couples. There seemed to be an increase in the number of studies that used lesbians (and gay men) as participants as a means of furthering our understanding of human behavior (e.g., the decision-making processes of couples). The emphasis in these studies was on difference and diversity rather than on "psychological adjustment."

The 225 articles on lesbians listed in the Psychological Abstracts between 1978 and 1988 could be divided into 36 distinct categories: adjustment and etiology articles were the most popular (16%), followed by relationships (9%), affirmative

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

psychotherapy (9%), and lesbian mothers (6%). Other areas included literary criticism (5%), substance abuse (4%), sexual behavior (4%), identity development (4%), support systems

(4%), attitudes toward lesbianism (4%), "coming out" (4%), aging (4%), and history (4%). Most of the articles in the adjustment and etiology category reflected a pathological bias.

Over the last 10 years almost every major mental health journal has published an article on lesbianism. Articles on lesbianism can be found in diverse journals such as the Journal of Adolescent Health Care, Issues in Mental Health Nursing, Family Coordinator, and Perceptual and Motor Skills. Most of this work is positive. As can be expected, the journal with the largest number of articles on lesbianism (one-quarter) is the Journal of Homosexuality. The two new women's journals, Women and Therapy and Signs, have had more articles on lesbianism than the other mainstream journals, but too few considering that it is still difficult to publish in this area.

For the most part, it is the psychoanalytic model that continues to view homosexuality as a pathological condition. This kind of thinking abounds in such journals as the Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis or Dynamic Psychotherapy.

A recent book by Elayne Siegel (1988), Female Homosexuality: Choice Without Volition, is a good example of how old myths about homosexuality are perpetuated and, in turn, how clients get cheated out of real options in psychotherapy. Based on 12 select clients who came to psychoanalysis out of "desperation," Siegel generalized her findings to all lesbians. She seemed to be unaware of the fact that a large body of theory and research on lesbianism has already taken place that contradicts her point of view.

It should be noted that the women in this small and biased sample could just as well be labeled "heterosexual" as "lesbians." Although Golden (1987) pointed out that there is no such thing as a "real lesbian" and that lesbians vary considerably from one another, Siegel's sample does seem to be atypical of most lesbians. The majority of these women were married or were basically involved with men but were struggling with "homosexual" issues. Engaging in same-sex behavior does not necessarily make one a lesbian or female homosexual to use Siegel's term. Much of the "symptomatology" and "immaturity" found in this sample of "lesbians" was also characteristic of a sample of heterosexual women described by Bernstein and Warner (1984).

According to Dorpat, who provided the theoretical framework for Siegel's case studies in the foreword to her book, "female homosexuality arises from the need of certain women who were traumatized early in their development to repair their defective body image by seeking others like themselves" (p. xvii). Siegel's findings are said to provide a convincing explanation of why these women were unable to traverse the usual developmental stages that make a female into a sexually mature woman. Siegel found that, as children, these women did not play with dolls but, instead, substituted gross motor activities, which, in turn, prevented them from establishing proper gender identity. Siegel's views of women are as antiquated as her theories about gays. It is no wonder one of her clients would bring her materials on feminism.

In several instances Siegel protests that she never interpreted homosexuality as an illness, and yet all her case histories are viewed within the context of a pathological model of homosexuality advanced by Socarides over the past 20 years. Lesbian-affirming models have emerged in the last 10 years. These models will be discussed in the next section.

Lesbian Research, Theory, and Education

NEW DIRECTIONS IN LESBIAN THEORY AND RESEARCH

Ten years ago I concluded my paper on lesbian research with the statement that "Eventually we may not only be asking different questions, but also making significant changes in the nature of research itself" (Sang, 1978, p. 86). Both of these predictions have come true: We are putting more energy into exploring issues that matter to us and less energy into justifying ourselves to the heterosexual world. We have also moved away from traditional research methods and are experimenting with new forms and structures that best fit our own needs and experience.

Why Do We Have to Fit Lesbian Experience Into Existing Theoretical Models?

Feminist researchers have been acutely aware of the fact that science reflects the social values and concerns of the dominant societal groups (McHugh, Koeske, & Frieze, 1986) and that it may be necessary to use new theories to explain phenomena that do not fit existing theories (Denmark, Russo, Frieze, & Sechzer, 1988). Because lesbianism has been traditionally examined from both a sexist and heterosexist perspective, lesbians need to define for themselves who they are. We still do not even know who is "out there."

Theoretical models that are used to explore women's issues continue to be based on psychoanalytic theory, which, according to Sowle (1988), limits attempts by feminist scholars to create theory that accurately reflects the experience of women and lesbians. Sowle also observes how reluctant women are to see themselves as theoreticians, traditionally a male domain.

One example of how preexisting theories can obscure what is going on can be seen in the area of lesbian relationships. It has been widely observed that lesbians spend more time with one another than do gay men and heterosexual couples (Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Elise, 1986; Kaufman, Harrison & Hyde, 1984; Krestan & Bepko, 1980; McCandlish, 1985; Sang, 1984; Tanner, 1978). This closeness, however, has been labeled by some writers as merging, fusion, and symbiosis, terms derived from object relations theory that unfortunately have pathological connotations (Burch, 1985; Elise, 1986; Kaufman et al., 1984; Krestan & Bepko, 1980; Tanner, 1978). Chodorow's (1978) theory of "separation and individuation" has also been used to explain lesbian relationship dynamics. It is hypothesized that the lack of separateness between daughters and mothers makes for a lesser degree of differentiation in women's adult relationships.

The problem with using these theories is that lesbian togetherness is taken out of its social context, which makes it seem like an absolute characteristic. Not all lesbians have time problems and "lose themselves" in one another. In fact, as a result of the feminist movement, some lesbians were spending so much time on careers and outside interests that there was little time for one another (Sang, 1982). Ultimately, the problem of time together may be a matter of the needs of the individual couple and what works for them. Psychotherapists counseling lesbian couples need to be aware that these issues are characteristic of "normal" lesbian relationships and are not necessarily indicative of intrapsychic problems (McCandlish, 1985). More research is needed in this area.

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