The Mismeasure of Desire

The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation
Cover
Author Edward Stein
Country United States
Language English
Series Ideologies of Desire
Subject Sexual orientation
Publisher Oxford University Press
Publication date
 1999
Media type Print (Hardcover and Paperback)
Pages 388
ISBN 978-0195142440

The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation is a 1999 book by the philosopher Edward Stein, in which the author critically evaluates scientific research on sexual orientation, discusses "social constructionist" and "essentialist" views of the subject and related ethical issues, and responds to criticism of social constructionism. Part of the "Ideologies of Desire" series edited by the queer theorist David M. Halperin, the book was published by Oxford University Press.

The book received mainly positive reviews and was praised by philosophers and other commentators, who described it as an important and well-researched work and credited Stein with carefully examining the assumptions underlying scientific research on sexual orientation and refuting the idea that biological research on sexual orientation should be used to support arguments for gay rights. However, reviewers disagreed over the book's style of writing, some finding it well-written but others poorly-written, and some commentators remained unconvinced by Stein's discussions of topics such as social constructionism and the ethics of research on sexual orientation. Reviewers complimented Stein for raising important issues, but noted that he left many questions unresolved.

Summary

Stein discusses the origins, nature, and importance of sexual orientation, including relevant legal and ethical issues. He critically examines scientific research on sexual orientation, questioning its assumptions, its methods, and its relevance.[1] He provides a philosophical discussion and criticism of "social constructionism" and "essentialism", which he defines respectively as "the thesis that sexual orientations are mere social constructs" and the thesis that "sexual orientations are more than mere social constructs."[2]

Research criticized by Stein includes a 1995 study by Jean-François Ferveur et al. that was published in Science magazine. He finds it and other studies that claim to have identified genes that cause homosexuality in Drosophila (fruit flies) to be guilty of anthropomorphism. He argues that such research is irrelevant to understanding sexual orientation in humans. Stein calls the journalist Chandler Burr's A Separate Creation (1996) "unsophisticated" and criticizes Burr for failing to discuss social constructionist views and uncritically accepting "courtship" behavior between male fruit flies as an example of animal homosexuality. Stein criticizes Michael Ruse's views on social constructionism as expressed in Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry (1988). Stein criticizes the neuroscientist Simon LeVay, writing that in The Sexual Brain (1993), LeVay fails to discuss social constructionism even though it is relevant to his subject. Stein argues that in Virtually Normal (1995), Andrew Sullivan failed to show that social constructionism is false. Stein argues that it has not been shown that sexual orientations are non-arbitrary groups ("natural kinds") and that the ethics of sexual orientation research are open to question.[3]

Discussing Halperin's social constructionist views, Stein writes that Halperin's claims about the development of contemporary categories of sexual orientation in One Hundred Years of Homosexuality (1990) are not universally shared: while Halperin maintains that the word "homosexual" was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1869 and attaches significance to this event, others such as John Boswell argue that the concept the word refers to has existed for centuries.[4]

Stein calls Sexual Preference (1981) one of the most detailed retrospective studies relating to sexual orientation. Stein writes that while the study has been criticized on various grounds, including that all of its subjects were living in San Francisco, arguably an atypical place with respect to the sexual orientation of its inhabitants, Bell et al.′s conclusions about theories attributing sexual orientation to the effects of experience have been accepted and confirmed. Stein adds that the study "suggests that early sexual experience does not play an important role in the development of sexual orientation", and that it also fails to support theories relating homosexuality to family dynamics. Stein summarizes its data as showing no difference between gay men and straight men in the strength of their attachment to their mothers, and only a weak connection between unfavorable relationships with the father and male homosexuality and gender non-conformity, with similar findings for women. Stein writes that the study does not support the "parental manipulation theory" according to which "children with no siblings would almost never be lesbian or gay and...children with a large number of siblings would be likely to be so." Stein observes that many other retrospective studies have been conducted on childhood gender non-conformity partly because of Bell et al.′s findings relating it to homosexuality.[5]

Publication history

The Mismeasure of Desire was first published in hardcover by Oxford University Press in 1999. A paperback edition followed in 2001. The book is part of the "Ideologies of Desire" series edited by David M. Halperin.[6]

Reception

Mainstream media

The Mismeasure of Desire received positive reviews from Jeffrey Ingram in Library Journal and J. L. Croissant in Choice,[7][8] and a mixed review from Paul Gediman and Charlotte Abbott in Publishers Weekly.[9]

Ingram called the book "intelligent, well-researched, and well-written", and wrote that it "should be the first title on any queer studies reading list" and was "more interesting and more accessible than its rather daunting title would suggest". However, Ingram wrote that like many philosophical works, the book "poses a lot more questions that it answers".[7] Croissant wrote that the book was important and that Stein "meticulously articulates the assumptions of the current paradigms" governing scientific research on sexual orientation. However, he found Stein's critique of "constructivist theories" weak, attributing this to the fact that "Stein's argument converges with constructivist insights".[8] Gediman and Abbott called the book "refreshingly daring", but criticized Stein for his writing style and for separating his review of scientific and psychological research on sexual orientation from his discussion of the philosophical and ethical issues surrounding it. They also suggested that some readers would find his book tedious. They complimented Stein for questioning the desirability of undertaking scientific research on sexual orientation, but concluded that, "he so frequently refrains from taking sides that his analysis raises more questions than it answers."[9]

Gay media

The Mismeasure of Desire received positive reviews from the historian Michael Bronski in The Advocate and the radical feminist John Stoltenberg in The Harvard Gay & Lesbian Review,[10][11] and a negative review from Michael Hemmes in Lambda Book Report.[12]

Bronski called The Mismeasure of Desire "a smart book that raises skepticism to a fine art", "groundbreaking", and "meticulously researched and argued". He credited Stein with discrediting gay politics based on genetic theories of sexual orientation and showing the harmful consequences of arguing that sexual orientation is innate. However, according to Bronski, LeVay expressed disagreement with many of Stein's conclusions.[10] Stoltenberg wrote that, despite Stein's "careful method and measured tone", his book was "radically discombobulating". He considered Stein's work a "landmark book". He credited Stein with writing "simply and straightforwardly" despite his philosophical approach, and with refuting "biological arguments for lesbian and gay rights" and discrediting the "conventional wisdom" about the nature of sexual orientation, including the question of whether it makes sense to classify people on that basis. He was convinced by Stein's argument that, even if a sound scientific case for a biological basis to sexual orientation were made, this would not advance gay rights.[11] Hemmes found the book informative, but also poorly written. He accused Stein of writing in "too much detail" and of presenting "tortuous examples".[12]

Scientific and academic journals

The Mismeasure of Desire received positive reviews from the psychologist Bertram Cohler in the Journal of Sex Research,[13] the philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah in the Journal of Homosexuality,[14] and the philosopher John Corvino in The Philosophical Quarterly.[15] In Law and Philosophy, it received positive reviews from the philosopher Martha Nussbaum and the philosopher Ian Hacking,[16][17] and a précis from Stein.[18] It also received mixed reviews from Gilbert Zicklin in Signs and Heidi E. Grasswick in Hypatia,[19][20] a negative review from Scott Hershberger in The Quarterly Review of Biology,[21] a review from Timothy F. Murphy in Sexualities,[22] and a review in Diversity Factor.[23]

Cohler considered Stein's book "important for any scholar interested in a detailed review of the assumptions, methods, and findings emerging from the biological study of homosexuality". He also wrote that it may be "the most careful and detailed exploration to date of the claims of those maintaining biological factors as essential in the origin of a same-gender sexual desire fixed from earliest prenatal life", and that it cogently countering such claims. However, he was unconvinced by Stein's argument that his views should not be labelled social constructionist, and found Stein's discussion of the ethics of the research less impressive than his review of the scientific findings.[13]

Appiah credited Stein with helping to clarify the issues surrounding social constructionism, but argued that, because of his avoidance of some technical philosophical issues, Stein failed to make the strongest possible case against some forms of "essentialism". He complimented Stein for his discussion of early scientific research on sexual orientation, as well as his criticism of more recent work by scientists such as LeVay, Dean Hamer, and Daryl Bem. He wrote that Stein clarified the debate over the relevance of choice to sexual orientation, and considered Stein's "notion of nondeterminism" to be one of his most original contributions. He endorsed Stein's view that the science of sexual orientation is not relevant to debates on gay rights, but was less convinced by Stein's arguments that future technologies that might make it possible to determine a child's sexual orientation would encouraged prejudice and thus be unethical. He welcomed Stein's contribution to the debate over the morality of conducting scientific research on sexual orientation, and concluded that his was "a rich and rewarding work that should be read by anyone who wants to think about what is at stake in the scientific exploration of sexual orientation."[14]

Corvino considered the book a "useful corrective" to oversimplified views of sexual orientation, and "lucid, engaging and ambitious". He credited Stein with eliminating some of the confusions regarding the "essentialist/contructionist debate." However, he nevertheless suggested that Stein might have misconstrued the debate, given that it often appeared to be more about how much significance sexual orientation should be given rather than whether it is a "natural human kind".[15]

Nussbaum wrote that the book "will advance the public debate about homosexuality and the law" and praised its "rigor and clarity, its wide-ranging and ingenious arguments, and its accessible style." However, she also found Stein's account of natural kinds, and hence also the debate over social constructionism, unclear. She maintained that the "issue of natural human kinds" is less important to the legal and ethical questions surrounding sexual orientation than Stein suggests.[16]

Hacking called Stein's book an "encyclopedic study", "an authoritative history of twentieth century scientific approaches to sexual orientations", and "a rich body of analysis, distinctions and arguments." He credited Stein with being the first philosopher to expose the confusions involved in asking whether homosexuality is a natural kind. However, he criticized Stein for defining natural kinds through reference to the work of the philosopher Hilary Putnam, while adopting only a single theme from Putnam's theory that does properly convey Putnam's view. He also found some of Stein's claims about natural kinds confusing, and questioned the idea of the natural kind was useful for Stein’s purposes, Stein's use of his ideas, as well as his uses of the terms "essentialism" and "constructionism".[17] Stein replied to Nussbaum and Hacking, writing that while they both claimed that he believes that the question of whether sexual orientations are natural human kinds is relevant to ethical and legal issues, he sees no such connection.[24]

Zicklin maintained that Stein succeeded in "demonstrating the problematic epistemological and scientific status" of the concept of sexual orientation, but in the process tested "the reader's ability to follow an all-too-closely reasoned argument". While he found Stein's goal of diminishing "the cultural and psychological significance of the gender of one's sexual partner" to be laudable, he wrote that it "cannot be accomplished by simply analyzing the concept of sexual orientation." He criticized Stein for claiming to have eliminated cultural presumptions associated with the concept of sexual orientation, arguing that this was impossible "given how densely this concept is woven into our culture." He concluded that a better approach would be to abandon the concept of sexual orientation entirely and "publicize the moral bankruptcy of research into the etiology of homosexuality."[19]

Grasswick called the book an ambitious attempt "to delve into the difficulties of executing and assessing scientific research on sex and sexuality." However, she wrote that while Stein endorsed a "multiple-origins" model of sexual orientation in which biological factors played only an indirect role, he did little to develop the framework of such a theory. She commented that "in the course of strategically accepting and working with" a framework that involves "dualisms of nature/nurture, essentialism/constructivism, and science/ethics ... Stein leaves himself little room to explore the interactive complexities that his own analysis seems to point toward."[20]

Hershberger wrote that while Stein argued that there is no conclusive evidence that sexual orientation is biologically determined, the evidence was in fact "overwhelming". He faulted Stein for criticizing only a limited number of scientific studies, ignoring "others that could only rationally have a biological interpretation", adding that LeVay had already answered the criticisms that had been directed against his study. He was unconvinced by Stein's criticisms of the concept of sexual orientation, and wrote that Stein wrongly elevated philosophical reasoning above empirical fact. He found Stein's book well-written, and agreed that arguments for gay rights should not be based on scientific findings.[21]

Evaluations in books

The anthropologist Roger Lancaster, writing in The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture (2003), described The Mismeasure of Desire as a "methodical, meticulous, and highly readable critique of scientific research on sexual orientation". He added that while Stein covers many of the problems of the research of LeVay, Hamer, J. Michael Bailey, and Richard Pillard, his "important and cautionary text was given less attention than it deserved in the gay press, and it was hardly noticed at all in the mainstream media".[25] Corvino, writing in What's Wrong With Homosexuality? (2013), called The Mismeasure of Desire a "dated but still excellent" book on sexual orientation research.[26]

References

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Stein 1999, p. ix.
  2. ↑ Stein 1999, pp. 7–8.
  3. ↑ Stein 1999, pp. iii, 78, 105, 166, 338, 350, 366.
  4. ↑ Stein 1999, p. 100.
  5. ↑ Stein 1999, pp. 235–237.
  6. ↑ Stein 1999, pp. ii, iv.
  7. 1 2 Ingram 1999, p. 220.
  8. 1 2 Croissant 2000, p. 1336.
  9. 1 2 Gediman & Abbott 2000, p. 63.
  10. 1 2 Bronski 2000, p. 64.
  11. 1 2 Stoltenberg 1999, pp. 61–62.
  12. 1 2 Hemmes 2000, pp. 28–29.
  13. 1 2 Cohler 2000, pp. 284–287.
  14. 1 2 Appiah 2001, p. 151.
  15. 1 2 Corvino 2002, pp. 421–423.
  16. 1 2 Nussbaum 2002, pp. 316–334.
  17. 1 2 Hacking 2002, pp. 95–107.
  18. ↑ Stein 2002, pp. 305–316.
  19. 1 2 Zicklin 2002, pp. 1207–1216.
  20. 1 2 Grasswick 2004, pp. 203–208.
  21. 1 2 Hershberger 2000, pp. 437–438.
  22. ↑ Murphy 2000, p. 371.
  23. ↑ Diversity Factor 2000, p. 39.
  24. ↑ Stein 2002, pp. 349–353.
  25. ↑ Lancaster 2003, pp. 270–271.
  26. ↑ Corvino 2013, p. 101.

Bibliography

Books

  • Corvino, John (2013). What's Wrong With Homosexuality?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-985631-2.
  • Lancaster, Roger N. (2003). The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520236202.
  • Stein, Edward (1999). The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-514244-6.
Journals

  • Appiah, Kwame Anthony (2000). "The Mismeasure of Desire (book)". Journal of Homosexuality. 42 (1).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Bronski, Michael (2000). "Blinded by science". The Advocate (804).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Cohler, Bertram J. (2000). "The Science of Sexual Desire". Journal of Sex Research. 37 (3).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Corvino, John (2002). "Book Reviews". The Philosophical Quarterly. 52 (208).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Croissant, J. L. (2000). "The mismeasure of desire (Book Review)". Choice. 37 (7).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Gediman, Paul; Abbott, Charlotte (1999). "Forecasts: Nonfiction". Publishers Weekly. 246 (41).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Grasswick, Heidi E. (2004). "Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality / The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation (Book)". Hypatia. 19 (3).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Hacking, Ian (2002). "How "natural" are "kinds" of sexual orientation?". Law and Philosophy. 21 (1).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Hemmes, Michael (2000). "The Cause of Affection". Lambda Book Report. 8 (8).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Hershberger, Scott (2000). "The Mismeasure of Desire (Book Review)". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 75 (4).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Ingram, Jeffrey (1999). "The mismeasure of desire (Book Review)". Library Journal. 124 (14).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Murphy, Timothy F. (2002). "Book Review". Sexualities. 3 (3).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Nussbaum, Martha (2002). "The Mismeasure of Desire (Book Review)". Law and Philosophy. 21 (3).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Stein, Edward (2002). "Précis of The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory and Ethics of Sexual Orientation". Law and Philosophy. 21 (3).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Stein, Edward (2002). "Reply to Martha Nussbaum and Ian Hacking". Law and Philosophy. 21 (3).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Stoltenberg, John (1999). "Not in Your Genes". The Harvard Gay & Lesbian Review. 6 (4).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • Zicklin, Gilbert (2002). "No Place like Home/Sissies and Tomboys/The Mismeasure of Desire (Book)". Signs. 27 (4).  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
  • "Resources". Diversity Factor. 9 (1). 2000.  – via EBSCO's Academic Search Complete (subscription required)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.