A few words about Joseph Nicolosi

Insofar as any one man has served as the public face of "conversion therapy" over the years, it has been that of the dearly departed Joseph Nicolosi.

Nicolosi, the author of REPARATIVE THERAPY FOR MALE HOMOSEXUALITY (1997) passed away last week, on March 8, at the age of 70.

I've written about conversion therapy, as a legal issue, before in this blog. Here's a link: once you get to the other side of it, scroll down a bit

The above is the stock photo of Nicolosi used by MSNBC. It makes him look like a televangelist, which seems fair.

Apparently the phrase "reparative therapy" was Nicolosi's own coinage, and refers to his views as distinct from some other styles of conversion effort. He coined it because he held the view that (male) homosexuality is a unconscious effort to repair a sense of inferiority.

I really ought to read or at least skim Nicolosi's book before commenting further. But, hey, this is a blog, and ignorance isn't usually an impediment to opinionating. So I'll say this: I'm guessing JN was drawing on Adler, and the old Adlerian notion of an inferiority complex.

I'll quote Adler: "Everyone (...) has a feeling of inferiority. But the feeling of inferiority is not a disease; it is rather a stimulant to healthy, normal striving and development. It becomes a pathological condition only when the sense of inadequacy overwhelms the individual and, far from stimulating him to useful activity, makes him depressed and incapable of development."

So I'm guessing Nicolosi believed gay men feel incapable of sex with women, and seek to "repair" themselves by turning their "striving" elsewhere.

It would be good if this sort of thing were no worse than a tumbling ground for whimsies. Unfortunately, as the history of such therapy indicates, it can be far worse than that.

Comments

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog