criminals!

Behind Dr. Bergler's attack on bisexuality apparently lies the fear that this concept of Freud's, as re-interpreted and supported by Kinsey, might eventually lead to a new definition of sexual normlity. Such a development would have been as repugnant to Prend as it is to Dr. Bargler. Indeed, what is notable about Dr. Bargler, as of most true disciples of Preud, is his conservatism. The desire to defend the traditional semal morality is indicated in Dr. Bergler's criticism of Kinsey for his disregard of cultural standards and in the proposal to label "subversive" works of art destructive of accepted values. What was "sin" in the age of religion has become "sickness" in the age of science, but the substance has stayed the same, Such an analyst as the late Robert Kindner might observe how readily we create the illusion of progress merely by manufacturing new rationalisations for standing still-and how diverse are the devices for maintaining the sexual status quo.

Obviously, the way to enforce sex conformity is by "curing" homosexuals. To the moralist like Dr. Bangler, this is not only medically desirable but morally imperative. It is not only that homosexuals can be cured; they must be cured. And "cure" camot mean for Dr. Bergler, as it does for many analysts, a satisfactory homosexual adjustment: Care must mean a conversion to active beterosexuality with no homosexual remnants. Dr. Bergler's optixian about the possibility of affecting such conversions is the most smsational and most publicised aspect of the book.

The therapeutic method is derived from the theory of the masochistic source: "Separating the homosexual desire from the masochistic concord tant kills homosexuality." The theoretical possibility of such "tures" is made stronger by the alleged non-existence of any true homosexual drive independent of the masochistic sub-structure.

The convertibility of homosexuals by psychoanalysis is asserted 13 times by count. The optimism is usually qualified by the phrase "provided the patient really wishes to change," or its equivalent. Dr. Bergler takes more than 20 pages to explain what that phrase means. Let no homos ornal rush to Dr. Bergler seeking a "cure:" Likely as not the good doctor will roject him as a bad therapeutic risk. Dr. Bergler advises his fellow malysts that they should "no longer accept for treatment every homosexnal who presents himself, but instead avoid otherwise inevitable disappointmants--both for themselves and for patient's-by making a selection..." That selection is to be made in a trial period (of 4 to 6 weeks) designed to investigate six aspects of the patient's condition to determine whether or not he satisfies the "eight pre-requisites for the psychoanalytical trestment of homosexuality." For example, the patient may believe that he wants to be "cured" but the analyst my find out that deep down inside he wants to stay homos ernal.

What of the results? Of 130 who apparently passed the test of the trial period and were accepted for analysis, 30 cases were interrupted "ed ther by myself or by the patient's leaving;" these presumably were the failures, where Dr. Bergler's estimate as to the suitability for treatment went wrong. One hundred analyses were "successfully concluded," presumably "cured," or in other words, converted. This is an impressive number. It is less impressive, however, when viewed as the end result of a tulos sifted sample. The first sifting occurred when the patient decided to seek analytical treatment. The second sifting occurred when Dr. Bergler weeded out those he did not consider good therapeutic risks. Since almost all of those who originally came to him had gone reason to want to change, it is not surprising that a good proportion of those who finally were accepted for analysis successfully accomplished the conversion they sought.

When I asked an analyst I know--a most distinguished man in the profession--about Dr. Bargler, he remarked, "It fakes me longer to read his books than it takes him to write them." I have no reason to believe that 24 mallachine REVIEW

the analyst I am quoting is a particularly slow reader; he was simply com menting on the extraordinary productivity of Dr. Bergler who is rapidly writing his own 5-foot shelf-and perhaps suggesting that a slower pace aight produce increased precision in thinking and clarity in expression. For the theoretical portions of Dr. Bergler's book are frequently disorganised, repetitious and written in jargon (one difficulty is that he lifts whole sections from his other books). On the other hand, the case histories, however unrepresentative, are skillfully, even entertainingly written. Though intended to illustrate and confirm the theoretical formulations, the case histories gain added interest from the fact that they often include exactly those external and environmental factors which the theories rigidly exclude; they contain, in other words, much material for alternative explanations of homosexuality.

But no fair reader can fail to admire Dr. Bergler's canacity for observation, classification and generalisation. He has built a brilliant thooretical structure. Our admiration must be tempered however by our assessment of the adequacy of the sumporting evidence and the validity of the underlying assumptions. What is most exasperating is Dr. Bergler's dognatism. He recognizes that "the ways of scientific discovery are admittedly tortuous; transitory errors and untenable theories are unavoidable." But he consistently gives the impression that all error ends with him. The fact remains that he has not proved his case--not because his theories are necessarily untrue--but because in the present state of knowledge they are unprovable. The research which would confirm them has simply not been done. It is emually true that the research which would disprove and dispose of his theories has also not been done.

The first requisite for such research is that it be undertaken without bias. The second is that it should be a cooperative endeavor by analysts, anthropologists, biologists, historians and sociologists; Dr. Fergler's disregard of anthropological, biological and historical evidence argues aloquently against any one-dimensional approach which may use research to "prove" a particular theory. Most importantly, future research must be based on the study of a scientifically selected cross section of homoseauals; not on the "neurotic volunteers" who, Dr. Bergler says, distorted Kinsey's sample--and who certainly distorted Dr. Bergler's.

In time, probably within our own time, we shall know to what extent Dr. Bergler--and the general viewpoint he represents—is truth and to what extant it is nonsense. On the basis of present knowledge, any homosexual who uncritically accepts Dr. Bergler's thesis would indeed be a psychic masochist. On the other hand, any homosexual who, on the basis of present knowledge, utterly rejects or ridioules the whole approach because some of its refinements are natently ridiculous would be demonstrating that This much can be said: supercilious reaction Dr. Bergler would expect.

Any homosexual who makes a genuine effort to be open-minded, who is willing to go beyond self-justifying explanations of homosexuality, will find this a thought-provoking and often profoundly disturbing book.

23