In Changing Our Minds: Lesbian Feminism and Psychology, Celia Kitzinger and Rachel Perkins challenge the current degeneration of feminism into self-help and therapy for the white middle classes. Both recalling writings from the 1970s, when feminist anti-psychology theorizing was strong, and looking at present writings on both sides, the authors make some good points throughout. Although MIM has fundamental disagreements with the authors regarding their identity politics, with its subsequent focus on only middle-class white lesbians that form their community, we also have much unity with their criticisms of psychology, which we present here.

Kitzinger and Perkins describe some excellent models of non-hierarchical support as an alternative to psychology and therapy. But in their refusal to outline a strategy for making these models sustainable, the authors lapse into anarchism, seeming to hope that individuals in the "lesbian community" will be able to change their society without eradicating patriarchy altogether. MIM believes their progressive ideas could only work when applied within the context of a vanguard which has the discipline and commitment identity-defined groups lack. MIM is happy to hear feminists disavowing psychology, but stresses that the world Kitzinger and Perkins describe is only attainable through socialist revolution.

Watching our language

One of the most noticeable infiltrations of psychology into the feminist movement is the growth of its language. Among so-called feminists, psychological terminology is increasingly replacing political language to describe the situation of women in society. Psychological language adopts a particular way of communicating experience, and as such, it has political ramifications for feminism. Beyond adding its own terms like "co-dependency" and "internalized homophobia," therapy has co-opted political language like "liberation" "revolution" and "power." These erstwhile political terms now refer to individual transformation rather than social and political change, lending a feminist veneer to objectively patriarchal concepts.

Redefining "power"

Kitzinger and Perkins write: "When men exercise power, what they are often demonstrating is power over women. Male power is vested in the state that withholds free contraception, abortion, or child care facilities to women, or in governments that outlaw lesbians, endorse police harassment, and sack us from our jobs ... Kathleen Barry and Andrea Dworkin have shown how male power operates through the widespread use of rape, pornography, and sexual terrorism. Male power means domination, oppression, coercion... That is the kind of power men have. It is real, concrete, and it affects our daily lives."(1)

And what power do women have? "Lesbians know that, even under male domination, we are not completely powerless. We have power over those weaker than us... We have power over other lesbians who are oppressed in ways that we are not: because of their race, ethnicity, class or disability. A lesbian can use a power, of a sort, when she uses 'feminine wiles' to get her own way. Those are real powers."(1) The authors are not equating these types of power, but they correctly recognize that both types they describe have both material foundations and social backing.

Unlike the power offered by therapy. A power that "lies within ourselves." "Power as good as menıs power, but a special 'female' version."(2) The way that psychology would have women gain power would be to reclaim the power of our inner selves. Significantly, this is a form of power that capitalist, patriarchal culture does not recognize! Some of the worst psychological theorists even claim that the feeling or lack thereof of personal power is the decisive element in whether a woman is raped, for example.(3)

Kitzinger and Perkins also address the political implications of child sexual abuse prevention programs that try to "empower" children to "say no."

"Power is seen in individualistic terms as something that can be 'claimed' or 'given away' by a five-year-old. The reality, of course, is that children are not 'in charge', that girls can say 'no' and still be raped, and that men often see children's bodies as their rightful property. The slogans and jingles proclaiming childrenıs power conceal this reality," and encourage them to blame themselves for their victimization. (To this analysis, MIM adds that biological women can also be the abusers and biological boys the victims.)

Kitzinger and Perkins maintain that it is crucial to recognize when women and children have power, and when they do not. Fighting for power means working against patriarchal violence, for self-determination, not finding "what is ours already, waiting to be tapped, if only we stand still, breathe deeply, and pretend to be trees."(4)

The politics of "homophobia"

While pseudo-feminist therapy and psychology appropriated the language of power from political feminism, "homophobia" is a term psychology itself invented. Any form of heterosexism, whether institutional or individual, is thus defined as action based on an irrational fear by those who are "sick." Psychologyıs practitioners have graciously decided that lesbians are no longer "sick," and now apply the "sick" label to those who disagree with the experts' new philosophy.

Kitzinger and Perkins maintain that there is revolutionary potential in lesbianism; MIM disagrees with this while still recognizing the politics of heterosexism. No, lesbian practice or identification is not intrinsically a threat to male supremacy, but that does not make hating lesbians irrational. Compulsory heterosexuality has been a sturdy component of patriarchy for quite some time, and wishing to preserve that is a political, not psychological, wrong. Therefore MIM is not afraid to call opponents of homosexuality wrong. We do not resort to calling them phobic.

The term "homophobia" might be convenient for opponents of heterosexism, since there is a long history of proclaiming oneıs political opponents "mentally ill." However, to depoliticize the debate in this way is to legitimize the use of this tactic and adds to the prestige of the oppressive institution of psychology.

This tactic has led to the invention of the term "heterophobia" which, like homophobia, is supposedly an illness. Usually those who suffer from it are lesbian separatists, and, never fear, they can be treated by feminist therapists! This equation of the institutionalized practice of heterosexism with the (in MIM's view misguided) political views of lesbian separatists is false. Like the "men's rights" advocates who see themselves as the parallel of those working for women's rights, those who decry the problem of "heterophobia" distort the reality of domination. The concept also of course suggests that lesbians who fear the enforcement of compulsory heterosexuality are doing so irrationally. MIM maintains that it is not the correct political line to oppose heterosexual sex, but at the same time recognizes that fear of heterosexual domination is rational, and not a phobia as defined by psychology.

Therapeutic lifestyles

The rise of therapy among groups of feminists has been a part of the decline of consciousness- raising. Consciousness-raising, which was a fundamental part of truly radical feminist groups like the Redstockings of the 1970s, is the antithesis of therapy because it makes the personal political, while therapy is an inversion of that principle. (See MIM's article on the Redstockings in this issue of MIM Theory.)

Feminist therapists claim that they provide a sympathetic ear to women with ordinary problems. And in this context, sympathetic means non- judgmental. This limits what an (unpaid) friendship relationship can accomplish, as it furthers the agenda of profit-seeking therapists, who are in the business of loneliness.

The therapist is by definition the expert in relation to the client. "JoAnn Loulan [a therapist] compares the power of the therapist to the power of the car mechanic. The only difference, she says, is that 'unlike car repair, which can be learned, one cannot learn to be objective about oneself.' So you can learn to service your car, but there's no way a responsible owner of a 'psychology' should tinker with that herself: it has to be checked out by a psychological expert."

The hierarchy is also a matter of preferring one personality type to another. Some women are considered "self-actualized" or "fulfilled" while others, even if they are not quite "sick," are in need of healing. The therapist gets to decide whoıs who. Some therapists think that the most self-actualized lesbian considers herself just like heterosexuals and is beyond activism, while others think that activism is a high stage. Kitzinger and Perkins maintain that even if the therapist agrees with their politics, and counsels her patients to have politics like theirs, a therapy session is not the correct place or mode of imparting these political beliefs. "Therapy replaces the words 'right' and 'wrong' with 'health' and 'sickness', so concealing the value judgments made."(5)

The notion of "self"

Psychology revolves around a notion that there is a "self" inside each person that can (and should) be discovered and nurtured. This is the goal that therapy says it serves, validating what the patientıs "self" wants and so on. Of course, it also makes itself indispensable by maintaining that finding and loving that "self" is a very difficult endeavor. Women ostensibly need to strip away all influences of culture, other people, and morality, in order to get at this elusive thing and attain happiness. What do Kitzinger and Perkins make of this?

"This is a ludicrous and nonsensical notion. It relies on the profoundly individualistic, modern liberal Western concept of what it means to be a person; a version of personhood alien to most of the world's people. We are simply unable to believe in this free-floating 'self', for the 'self' only comes into existence within a context. Individual and society are not formed apart from one another, "interacting" as though each were external to the other... There is no core 'real self' lurking beneath the layers of social experience."(6)

The influence of Amerikan individualism on the women's liberation movement in Amerika has made its theories vulnerable to psychological appropriation. If women don't care about justice, only "self-fulfillment," then psychological solutions are easy.

Not only does psychology invent a "self," it sees that "self" as wounded, fatally so unless adequate care is taken. Therapy does not provide any sense of perspective on the relative suffering of First World women and Third World women. Kitzinger and Perkins quote Wendy Kaminer, who contrasts 12-step groups with womenıs groups in Cambodia:

"There is more laughter and lightness in these meetings of vulnerable, impoverished survivors of genocide than in any twelve-step group I have attended, where people pursue recovery with deadening earnestness. Twelve-step groups depress me; so many people talking about such relatively trivial problems with such seriousness, in the same nonsensical jargon. The Cambodian women's groups enhearten me; such resilience these women show."(7)

Fact is, not all "womanhood" is equal. MIM argues that First World women enjoy class, nation and gender privilege in the world of imperialist patriarchy. Real feminists do not focus on invented frailties, appealing to therapists to heal them, but work to eradicate oppression of people over people.

And the authors of Changing our Minds make the point that there is no pre-requisite for being capable of doing political work, as the fans of "loving yourself first" proclaim: you learn to wage revolution by waging revolution.

In sex-therapy, the judgmentalism of non- judgmentalism is clear. If a woman finds a contradiction between radical feminism and lesbian sadomasochism, then she is "erotophobic" or some such disorder. Feminist therapists show their libertarian colors, the conventional wisdom among them endorses any sexual practice thatıs "fun." Kitzinger and Perkins recognize that singling out s/m for condemnation may not be the point, saying "if it is true that differences in power lie at the root of sexual desire, then this is a problem for lesbian feminism, and something we would want to change...Recognizing what is actually happening is not the same as accepting its legitimacy; and certainly does not mean 'celebrating' it."(8) MIM holds that power is indeed at the root of sexual desire, and is working to abolish the patriarchal system that makes that hold.

Therapy asserts that it would be cruel to hurt a "wounded self" with criticism. Kitzinger and Perkins are highly critical of the anti-leadership bias among feminists that led to and re-inforced the notion that women are weak. Revolution should therefore wait until women are "healed." But "what kind of revolution waits until its soldiers are happy and fulfilled before confronting the enemy?"(9)

Kitzinger and Perkins go into what they think should be done to create a lesbian community in which lesbians could support one another with consideration, not just doing "what feels right," and instead opting for sisterhood based on ethical debate and political action. MIM does not think this endeavor can work, precisely because it is based fundamentally on identity and not on politics. Trying to get all the people who claim a certain identity to adopt a political line is impossible. Lesbianism does not a feminist make, (and maleness or heterosexuality does not a non-feminist make). To put politics in command, it is necessary to form the group around political line. Politics formed around social and romantic relationships cannot be scientific.

Social disabilities

Even those who agree that most women do not need therapy may believe it is necessary in extreme cases, such as suicidal depression, anxiety so extreme a woman is afraid to go out alone, or a feeling of compulsion to spend hours performing cleaning rituals. Kitzinger and Perkins call such debilitating behavior "social disabilities." The term is good in that it recognizes the nature of so-called mental illness: a social problem that should be dealt with socially, not in the individual therapy context of isolating these women from their society in order to analyze their particular problems.

Marginalization and exclusion is not a good way to deal with women (or men) who exhibit these behaviors. Sometimes others do not believe that women with social disabilities are suffering, that their behavior is just an act best ignored. This is callous and acts on a long held and incorrect notion that women in general should not be believed. Still another form of marginalization is to say to women with social disabilities, "I know how it is, I get depressed sometimes too." This is the arrogance of a therapeutic culture that always draws false parallels to the personal experience of the listener.

Kitzinger and Perkins suggest that the lesbian community can offer practical help to women with social disabilities by doing whatever possible to help such women lead normal lives. If, for example, a woman believes that she cannot go out on certain days, then others should let her know that they disagree that going out would cause trouble, but at the same time take care of her needs.

MIM has had some experience providing this kind of support for comrades with such social disabilities, struggling with them to take responsibility for their actions as political line, and keeping the focus where it should be: on the proletarian pole. This support is not paternalistic, but important to further the goal of making the comrade fully functional again for the party and the people.

Of course, MIM has something over the ill-defined "lesbian community" Kitzinger and Perkins describe. Revolutionaries have a commitment to their comrades (through their commitment to the international proletariat) that lesbians lack for their fellow lesbians. And MIM does not use its resources according to identity politics. We use them to assist revolutionaries in furtherance of the struggle.

Kitzinger and Perkins speak of the need to create true asylums, that is "a shelter, a sanctuary, a safe inviolable place of refuge,"(10) as an alternative to oppressive psychiatric hospitals. This is sometimes a crucial part of care for comrades with severe "psychological" problems as well. If others can make sure that their material needs are met, then much of the stress of the debilitation can be alleviated. Fortunately, MIM has only had to deal with short-term problems so far. The challenge of revolutionaries with more long-term problems may be great indeed, but we are certainly better equipped for it than ad hoc groups such as those the authors describe.

Going beyond "changing our minds"

Kitzinger and Perkins hope that lesbians will abandon the current fad of "validating" poor arguments and instead use principled political debate to find the best arguments out there. MIM hopes that everyone will. Concretely, however, MIM recognizes that the women that the authors preach to have a material interest in the status quo and does not indulge in liberalism with lesbians any more than anyone else. The struggle against the pseudo-science of psychology will be more difficult than Kitzinger and Perkins realize, but it is possible through the development of independent power and the establishment of socialism. Changing Our Mindsı authors ring hollow with their cries of "after the revolution," but MIM forges ahead on the theory and practice of revolution with confidence.

Buy This Book