On Deviance, Expertise, and Values – A Response to Prof. Yoram Yovel’s Article, ‘They Are Not Deviants,’ Shabbat Supplement, Parashat Eikev – Follow-up Column (Column 26)
With God’s help
In the previous column I responded to Prof. Yoram Yovel’s article in Makor Rishon’s Shabbat supplement, Parashat Eikev, this year (5776). It is also worth looking at the discussion that developed in the comments below my post.
My response to Prof. Yovel’s remarks was published in abbreviated form in the Shabbat supplement for Parashat Re’eh (together with other responses that are all certainly worth reading[1]). Here are my remarks as they were printed there:
On Deviance, Expertise, and Values
(A response to Prof. Yoram Yovel’s article, ‘They Are Not Deviants,’ Shabbat supplement, Parashat Eikev)
Prof. Yovel’s article suffers from a grave confusion between values and facts. It is worth noting that this distinction was a guiding light for his late grandfather, who is mentioned in the article, and it is a pity that he ignores it.
His remarks rest on three pillars: 1. A model for the relationship between rabbi and professional expert. 2. The psychiatric definition of sexual deviance (an inability to love a whole person). 3. Scientific determinations: homosexuality is not the result of choice but of an organic background, it is very difficult to change it, and it is dangerous to try. Already here I will say briefly: 1. The model Yovel proposes is mistaken (see my article in Tzohar 7) and is also irrelevant to the discussion here. 2. The psychiatric definition is likewise irrelevant to the discussion. 3. These professional questions are not relevant to the discussion. I will now elaborate.
Once I was sitting in a kollel in Bnei Brak, and a kollel student approached me and asked whether glass is a liquid or a solid. I told him that with respect to the laws of the Sabbath, glass is a solid, although physicists tend to define it as a liquid for their professional purposes. And the moral is this: if psychiatry defines sexual deviance as an inability to love a whole person, good for it. But why should Jewish law or morality adopt the professional definition and apply it on the normative plane as well? Moreover, definitions are not an empirical finding, and therefore the professional has no advantage over the layman with respect to them. Psychiatrists can and should define their concepts for professional purposes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the normative question. Michel Foucault wrote that psychiatric diagnosis is saturated with value assumptions. Although, in my view, he was one of the heralds of the loathsome postmodernism, on this point he was right. Well, even a stopped clock shows the correct time twice a day.
The psychiatrist can at most determine the sources of homosexuality. Is it rooted in genetics, environment, or something else? He can determine whether it can be treated, by what methods, and what the consequences of each treatment are. All these are professional determinations, and assuming the scientific knowledge exists (and in this case it is certainly not complete, something that in my opinion was not sufficiently emphasized in Yovel’s remarks), the expert can answer them. But the question whether this is a deviance and how one ought to relate to it is a matter of normative definition and not of professional determination (see my aforementioned article).
Two more comments:
A. As a very minor expert in psychiatry, I doubt the explanation Yovel offered for the change in psychiatry’s attitude toward homosexuality. In my view, this is mainly a change in values and not a scientific-factual change. A considerable part of society today thinks the phenomenon is not morally negative (I myself agree with that) and therefore does not see it as a deviance. Psychiatry here is being dragged along by social values, not the other way around. Think of kleptomania. Let us assume for the sake of discussion that it has genetic roots and that it cannot be changed (‘converted’). Does that mean kleptomania is not a deviance? It is forbidden and harmful to steal, and therefore it is reasonable to define a kleptomaniac as deviant. This is so even though there too an inclination to steal does not mean the person actually steals (as Yovel explained regarding homosexuality), and there too it cannot be treated and it has genetic or organic roots (on my assumption for the sake of discussion). The difference between kleptomania and homosexuality is that most psychiatrists today think it is permitted and harmless to be homosexual, whereas in their eyes theft is forbidden and harmful. Thus we see that this is about values and not facts.
B. Yovel writes that ‘every educated religious person’ knows that in an intensive care unit there may lie a person who is completely dead while his heart is beating. I think I am a fairly educated person (and also fairly religious), and I do not know this at all. Moreover, he himself does not know it either. This has nothing whatever to do with education (though perhaps with religion), since the definition of death and life is normative and not clinical. The physician can determine, if at all, what functions exist in such a condition, and what the chances are of returning from it to normal life. But he cannot determine whether such a person is alive or dead, and certainly not whether he may donate organs (which in my personal opinion he may and indeed must do even if he is considered a living person. See my article in Tehumin 29). All these are value questions and not factual ones. Different doctors who refuse to accept this are further indication that the confusion between values and facts appears not only among laymen.
In response, Prof. Yovel posted on the supplement’s website a general reply to all of us. A specific response to my remarks (and also to Dr. Azgad Gold) he posted on his site, and this is what he wrote:
To Rabbi Dr. Michael Abraham
The Advanced Institute for Torah Studies
Bar-Ilan University
Dear Rabbi, greetings,
First, know that the undersigned greatly appreciates you and your work. I am not sufficiently at home in the world of Torah to evaluate your Torah and halakhic work, but the neurobiology and bit of philosophy that I do understand were enough for me to derive tremendous pleasure from your book Mad’ei Ha-Hofesh (‘The Science of Freedom’), which in my opinion is an original and beautiful masterpiece, and a major contribution to the field.
In contrast to my enjoyment of your book, it is quite clear from your response that you did not derive much pleasure from my article ‘They Are Not Deviants.’ I am therefore pleased by the chance for a second round of improvements that I have taken upon myself here, in order to try to persuade you of the justice of my words—or, if not persuade, then at least begin building a bridge between your mountain and mine. Let us begin with the things on which I agree with you:
I agree with you twice over (and not merely twice a day) about Michel Foucault: both regarding postmodernism, which I too think is empty verbiage, and regarding his claim about psychiatric diagnostics, on which unfortunately he is quite right. But I think—and I am not sure you agree with me here—that it cannot be otherwise: psychiatric diagnostics is doomed, by its very nature, not to succeed in detaching itself from value assumptions, at least not in the foreseeable future. Therefore what the philosopher can allow himself—to make a sharp distinction between values and facts—the psychiatrist cannot allow himself. And in particular he cannot delude himself or the public that such a full separation exists—or can exist—in his field. I shall return to this.
I also agree with your sharp analysis of the question of the halakhic status of the person lying in intensive care whose brain has ceased and will not return to functioning while his heart still beats, and I even learned something new from the outline you wrote on the subject in your response. Moreover, I am glad that your final conclusion—that one is obligated to donate this man’s organs—is identical to mine. I hope you will continue to use your standing and influence among Torah scholars in order to change the benighted—and even heretical—attitude of some of the leaders of Haredi and Religious Zionist Judaism toward this subject.
But what you can do on the issue of the distinction between ‘alive’ and ‘dead,’ you cannot, in my opinion, do on the issue of the distinction between ‘deviant’ and ‘not deviant.’ Let me explain: first, contrary to what you write, the physician most certainly does determine whether a person is alive or dead. I know this firsthand. When I worked in the internal medicine department as a resident physician, a sad part of my role was to determine, at first light, the death of patients who had passed away during the night. To this day I still remember the many faces I covered with a sheet in preparation for the arrival of the orderly, who came to take them to the beginning of their final journey.
And nevertheless I recognize that you are right when you say that the halakhic determination of who is ‘alive’ and who is ‘dead’ can differ from the medical determination, and is not subject to its authority. But the conclusion implied by your response—that the psychiatric definition of deviance and the religious definition (and certainly the social-religious definition) of deviance are likewise unrelated to one another—does not, in my opinion, reflect reality.
Let us take kleptomania, which you brought as a test case. Kleptomania is not a deviance. It is a mental disorder. In psychiatry, as in street language, the term deviance is reserved for unusual—indeed, repellent—behavior in a sexual context. I hope you are not trying to use the mathematical, and value-neutral, definition of deviation from the norm (cf. standard deviation) in order to whitewash the monstrosity of the terrible evaluative attitude of institutionalized Haredi Judaism toward homosexuality.
Psychiatry deals not only with ‘behavior’ but with subjective phenomena; as you wrote, and I am glad that here you agree with me, the kleptomaniac need not actually steal in order to be a kleptomaniac, and the homosexual need not engage in lying with a male (male homosexual intercourse) in order to be gay. But here the analogy between the parable and the moral ends. The kleptomaniac harms and injures others by his behavior, and therefore his behavior is wrongful (not deviant), and society may defend itself against it. Moreover, if he steals valuable items, his mental disorder may not avail him in court, and it will be taken into account only at the sentencing stage. I think that both you and I agree that homosexuals are not criminals, and if they do not engage in lying with a male (male homosexual intercourse), it is not clear to me in what way they differ from all other Jewish men, who also contend with the Torah’s prohibitions on the expression of their sexuality.
I return to the issue of the impossibility of making an absolute distinction between values and facts in psychiatry. The Catholic Christian believes with perfect faith that the holy bread he received and ate during the mass turned in his mouth into the actual flesh of the Messiah. This is a delusional thought in every respect, and it is excluded from the definition of psychosis because of a social and value norm—hundreds of millions of people believe it. This is a trivial example, but psychiatry, when it comes to defining, diagnosing, and treating subjective phenomena, is groping deep in the dark regarding the biological-factual basis of these phenomena.
I would be happy to be able to place my profession on the same foundations on which physics stands, but this will not happen in my lifetime, and perhaps never. As you know better than I, a fundamental philosophical question that lies at the basis of this issue, and to which I think there is currently no satisfactory answer, is the question of psychophysical causality: is it one-directional or two-directional, or perhaps does it not apply to the issue at all? My grandfather, whom you mentioned, dealt, like you, with the question of psychophysical causality, and even held that it has no solution and can have none (Ignorabimus—‘we do not know and never shall know’). Without pretending, and without trying to enter here into the thick of the matter, I actually side with the view of his student, Prof. Yosef Neumann, who thought that today there is no solution, but tomorrow there might be (Ignoramus—‘we do not know, but perhaps one day we shall’).
In conclusion, I want to return from the heights of philosophy to the dark world of religious homosexuals. I wrote my article following the words of your colleague Rabbi Levinstein, which excluded these good people and caused them pain. At the end of the day, the practical question that interests me, and to which I did not find a direct and substantive response in your reply (and I hope for such a response), is whether there is a way to allow religious homosexuals to live and establish families within Religious Zionist communities. Once we are speaking of people who do not engage in lying with a male (male homosexual intercourse), this is, in my humble opinion, more a social question than a halakhic one. Here, in my opinion, it is fitting that you, I, and all our readers remember the saying of your colleague in the profession, Albert Einstein: ‘It is easier to split an atom than to split a prejudice.’
Yours,
Yoram Yovel
And here is my response to his remarks:
Dear Prof. Yovel, many greetings.
First, I am honored that you enjoyed my book and even expressed your appreciation here. This is certainly not a light matter in my eyes.
Indeed, I did not agree with your article, though I cannot say that I did not enjoy it. As is your way, the remarks are well written and presented clearly and beautifully. Still, as stated, even after the ‘second round of improvements’ (as you put it), I do not agree with them, and I will try to explain here why.
If we agree about Foucault (I mean the second point), then we have reached a first common conclusion: psychiatry is saturated with value assumptions and is based to a large extent on them. Of course it also contains a factual dimension, but the bottom line is almost always bound up with questions of value and culture.
From the very fact that you agreed this is the case, I do not see how you can claim that the relationship between rabbi and psychiatrist is subject to the model of the relationship between rabbi and professional expert. Even if psychiatry does not see this as a deviance, you yourself agree that this is a value claim. So why should the rabbi accept it as a professional determination? He can of course decide that he accepts it, but that is his halakhic decision and has nothing whatever to do with professional authority. As for the model of rabbi versus professional expert, I already referred you in my first response to the article I devoted to the matter in Tzohar 7.
You then added that there is no escaping it (that psychiatry will mix values with facts). True, I am not a professional, but even so I will venture to say that I do not agree with this. Correct me if I am mistaken, but psychiatry could focus on facts (in the broad sense, that is, including theories that explain them, as in the natural sciences), and nothing more. For example, it could confine itself to determinations about what the source of homosexuality is (from my point of view this includes even wild psychoanalytic speculations, if you like, so long as these are theories that try to explain the phenomenon itself without evaluative baggage), how it develops (same), where it is prevalent, whether and how it can be changed, and what the price of every such form of change (or ‘conversion,’ heaven forbid) is, and so on. These are questions that deal with facts and their interpretation, and therefore they are legitimate scientific and professional questions. It seems to me that all these questions are entirely free of evaluative content. By contrast, the question whether this is a deviance or not should be left to society and to each person within it to decide.
Of course, if you turn the concept of ‘deviance’ itself into a factual one, like a deviation from the statistical norm (‘a neutral mathematical definition,’ in your words), then psychiatry can determine it professionally. But you already agreed in your remarks here that that is not what is at issue. On the other hand, here you return and correct my use of the term deviance, and in my opinion by doing so you once again try to impose a psychiatric definition on everyday usage. In the common usage in our circles, deviance is a strong (perhaps innate?) tendency toward transgressive conduct, as in the example of kleptomania, about which we agreed apart from the terminology of ‘deviance.’ Be that as it may, this is a matter of definition, and therefore Rabbi Levinstein and I—small as I am (and very far from his views on most matters)—agree that there is no place to claim professional authority regarding it. As for the concrete content of the concept, and whether it includes homosexuality, I personally tend to think not (because in my opinion deviance is a tendency toward immoral activity, not a tendency toward prohibited activity in the religious sense). It seems to me that Rabbi Levinstein’s view is that it does (because in his opinion a tendency toward prohibited activity in the religious sense is also deviance, apparently because he identifies Jewish law with morality, which I reject emphatically, and in this I join your late grandfather).
Bottom line: I see no reason in the world why the American Psychiatric Association, or any other professional association, should determine for all of us what ought to be treated and what ought not, and what is deviance and what is not. This should be left to society, to each individual for himself, and of course also to his personal psychiatrist (as distinct from their professional association). That is to say: society will decide whether there is something that harms others (kleptomania, pedophilia, and the like), and then it should be treated even if the patient has not expressed a desire for this (in sufficiently extreme cases). In cases where there is no social harm, the person himself will decide whether he needs/wants treatment or not. And of course the psychiatrist to whom he turns (not the association) can say that he is unwilling to treat this matter because of his own values. In any case, I see no place for collective decisions by a professional association on such matters.
It seems to me that this picture also clarifies why, in my opinion, there certainly is a way to avoid bringing value dimensions into psychiatry. To the best of my understanding, in this model we avoid that, and therefore in my opinion the psychiatrist certainly can adhere to the distinction between values and facts, just like the physicist or the philosopher. Since I am not an expert, I have no doubt that there may be an error in these remarks of mine, and I would be glad if you corrected me.
The same is true regarding the status of a person lying in intensive care while his heart is beating and his brain has ceased to function. Those who oppose my view, who in my opinion are mistaken and harmful, are not ‘benighted,’ as you put it. After all, this is not a matter of facts or of any knowledge whatsoever, and therefore I object to the use of that term with respect to them. In my opinion they are mistaken in values, and for that reason they are harmful. Again, it is very important to me to insist on the distinction between values and facts. Precisely for that reason the doctor has no added value whatsoever with respect to this question.
The fact you noted here, that in practice this determination is entrusted to doctors, is nothing but a delegation of authority, and no more. It is not a professional determination. Do not again confuse values with facts. Factually, the decision of determining death is entrusted to doctors (as you described with respect to yourself in your capacity as a doctor), but that does not mean it is a factual-professional decision. This is done only for the sake of convenience and efficiency, and in essence it is a delegation of authority by the legislator to the doctor merely in order to shorten and streamline the process (in my aforementioned article in Tzohar I explained that the doctor is no more competent than I am to determine this, but no less competent either. Therefore there is logic in unifying the powers and giving him the authority to determine death, even though it is a value determination). The decision as to what functions that person has in such a condition and what his chances are of returning to life is a professional decision. The decision whether in such a condition he is considered dead is a pure value decision. It has absolutely nothing to do with the facts. Contrary to what you wrote, the halakhic decision regarding life and death is not ‘different from the medical decision,’ because there is no such thing as a ‘medical decision’ on the matter of life or death. It is a pure value decision (as described above). It is indeed true that a legal decision can differ from the halakhic one, since these are two different normative (and not factual) categories.
We do indeed completely agree that those with a homosexual orientation are not criminals. But we certainly do not agree that homosexuals (who realize their orientation in practice) are not transgressors. We agree that their actions do not constitute a crime, that is, a moral offense (I mentioned that there are people in the religious camp who think otherwise; I am not among them), since they do not harm others. But in halakhic and Torah terms they are transgressors, and therefore from a religious and halakhic point of view they are transgressors in the same sense as a murderer or a robber (except that those are also moral criminals). The degree of culpability is, of course, another matter. Here enter the degree of choice and control they have, and the degree of awareness that this is a prohibition (a secular person, of course, does not see this as a wrongful act). Precisely like a kleptomaniac as opposed to an ordinary thief.
It is important for me to note that regarding the treatment of homosexuals I am even more liberal than you expected of me. From my point of view, even one who realizes this in practice is entitled to normal humane treatment in the community (unless he brandishes it and preaches it, which in the view of Jewish law is advocacy of transgression). A person who is a transgressor in his personal and private sphere is a legitimate member of the community, especially if he is in such a difficult condition to cope with. I have written about this at length in the past, and you are invited to see, for example, here and also here. You wondered why these points did not appear in my newspaper response; that is because there I commented only on the arguments you raised in your article and not on the issue itself. If you look at the beginning of my longer response in the previous column on the site, you will see that I explicitly wrote that I agree with most of your practical conclusions. Unfortunately the editorial staff did not allow me to elaborate in the newspaper response. Therefore I made a ‘second round of improvements’ in the last two columns here on the site and in the discussion that developed following them (in the comments).
And I will conclude with the saying you cited in the name of ‘my colleague in the profession,’ as you put it (I am embarrassed even to mention my name in the same breath as such a giant of science). Indeed, it is hard to change or shatter a prejudice. But the great question is whether in the present case this is indeed a prejudice, or perhaps a different value position (every value position, including yours and of course mine, is in a certain sense a prejudice). The taboo and the social attitude in religious society toward homosexuality (which in my opinion has no connection to the prohibition, for the prohibitions of labor on the Sabbath are no less severe than it and do not receive such treatment) are indeed a prejudice in my opinion (because factual assumptions are made there, and not only value assumptions, and they are unfounded). But viewing homosexuality itself as prohibited is not a prejudice but a halakhic norm (even if, in my opinion, it is regrettable). The attitude to such norms (as to any norm whatsoever) naturally depends on the beliefs of each of us. I personally trust the Giver of the Torah, that if He prohibited it there is apparently something problematic in it (which, in my poverty, I have not merited to discern). I subordinate my own judgment to His commands. But since these are questions of faith, I would not want psychiatry to determine positions—and certainly not emphatic positions—about them (exactly as regarding what happens to the holy bread in the mouths of our Catholic cousins), and thus we have once again returned to the possibility and the need to detach psychiatry from values. And on this, as ‘our sages’ already said (there, there): Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…
Respectfully,
Miki Abraham
[1] I must say that together with Yoav Sorek’s two articles—the one published in that same supplement two weeks earlier and the one published on the Shabbat supplement website (Parashat Re’eh)—this is the most intelligent and substantive discussion known to me in the press, or anywhere, on this subject. It is an honor for me to take part in it.
Discussion
So-and-so:
The moral problem with all forbidden sexual relationships is that a person not only sins himself but also aids and reinforces his partner in sin.
When the forbidden relationship is institutionalized and openly visible to the public without shame – then there is the added dimension of setting a bad example for the many, and the public statement that the thing is permitted, a statement that has a destructive influence on youths who are still in a stage of uncertainty, and a bad example can cool the prohibition in their eyes.
All Israel are guarantors for one another, and the deeds of the individual have consequences for the entire collective. May it be God’s will that we all merit to sanctify ourselves and improve, each person in whatever needs improvement, and thereby tip the whole world to the side of merit..
Regards, S. Z. Levinger
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Greetings.
By this you have turned every prohibition of any kind whatsoever into a moral offense. After all, according to the parable of the hole in the ship, even transgressions that do not inherently involve another person still do affect his fate. So according to this, the whole Torah is morality.
If you do not explain why the prohibition is in itself moral, then it is meaningless to speak of its being moral because of the dimension of causing others to stumble and the harm involved. That is a trivial tautology.
So-and-so:
With God’s help, the 5th of Elul, 5776
To Rabbi M. Abraham, may his light shine – greetings,
Indeed all transgressions against God’s will are immoral, for surely we are obligated in the honor of the Creator, both because He is the “Master of the house” of the world, and because of gratitude for all His kindnesses to us.
All the more so with forbidden sexual relations, which elevate us to building healthy family life, in which not only passion rules, but also the values of love, fidelity, and kindness, by whose power father and mother do good to one another and lovingly and devotedly plant tender saplings that will continue their spirit for generations upon generations.
But besides the honor of the Creator, there is also an elementary duty of honor toward one’s parents. How much anguish is caused to parents when their child falls into a life whose entire being is a grave prohibition, a life in which there is no chance at all of establishing a “generation of the upright [that] shall be blessed” that will continue the path of Judaism?
A person who knows how much his parents invested in him and how much they devoted themselves to bring him into the world, raise him, and educate him – is obligated to make every effort to leave the place into which he has fallen.
Just as parents not infrequently undergo difficult treatments, both physically and emotionally, in order to merit embracing a child, and if they do not succeed with one treatment they try another, and do not give up – now it is incumbent upon the child who has become a man to invest to the same degree so that he may grant his parents “Jewish satisfaction.” This is the minimum he can repay them for all their kindness toward him.
Even therapists who are not sure that everyone can change report that there are successes. Even when the homosexual inclination is strong and pronounced, so that it is very hard to change – Dr. Zvi Moses says (in his article, “Is Treatment for Same-Sex Inclinations Psychologically Effective,” on the Shoresh website) that highly determined people with strong faith can establish a family, with the help of proper professional treatment.
Regards, S. Z. Levinger
Adoption and surrogacy, besides not solving the problem of the prohibition, involve sorrow for the parents from whom the child is taken. Increasing the demand for adoption for same-sex couples will inevitably bring about a trend in social services to increase the “supply” by overusing adoption instead of striving to leave the child with his parents.
All the more so with “surrogacy”: it is exploitation of the terrible distress of families. No reasonable woman will enter into the suffering of pregnancy and childbirth so that her child will be given to strangers, unless she is in terrible financial or emotional distress, and who knows whether criminal organizations and corrupt regimes are not involved?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Greetings.
As I wrote, all this may be true and still it is irrelevant to the discussion. The question is about the nature of the prohibitions themselves, not whether there are accompanying moral aspects.
Beyond that, a few comments on the substance:
1. The Creator is the one who created the person with his inclinations. I am not sure I see a moral obligation upon a person to change this.
2. The anguish to the parents may exist, but there can be cases in which it does not. What then? Does the moral obligation disappear? Beyond that, although I have not checked, I think there are such couples who raise children who observe Torah and commandments. I think “there is no chance at all” is too strong an expression.
3. The person did not “fall” but rather “found himself.”
4. All these arguments speak about an obligation to change (if possible), but do not point to a moral problem in the act itself.
5. A person is not obligated to change his lifestyle because it bothers his parents. The well-known words of Maharik, brought by the Rema in Yoreh De’ah, say that a son is not obligated to obey his parents in the choice of a spouse, and I elaborated on this in my article on honoring parents.
6. There are many therapists who report failures and terrible harms. I am not entering the question whether the treatment can work, but you have described the situation too rosily. Demanding that a person enter such risks requires a very strong basis. Again, on the religious plane there is certainly such a demand, but to see this as a moral obligation—I am very doubtful. No gratitude obligates a person to enter terrible suffering and such grave psychological risks. Let the parents undergo conversion therapies that will change their minds and rid them of their anguish—that is much easier and more called for (morally, not halakhically).
7. The last comments are a very one-sided and biased description (and I am using very mild language). It is clear to you that if you did not oppose the act and the situation, you would not see it this way. Surrogacy is an agreement between adults. Anything that may grow out of this should be prevented as far as possible. That does not delay the act itself. Giving charity can also cause people financial hardship and they may end up stealing. About Yigal Amir they said that religious faith can lead to murder and extreme acts. Should one therefore give up religious faith?
As a rule, when you raise all kinds of arguments and for some reason every last one of them points in the same direction, I would be suspicious and reexamine my judgment.
——————————————————————————————
So-and-so:
Without entering into a detailed discussion of all the points you raised – I will make only one comment regarding the risks spoken of in conversion therapies.
First of all, one must understand that not every treatment offered is appropriate, and there are treatments that may suit one person and be destructive to another, just like medicines, where what helps one can bring another to the gates of death, God forbid; therefore, as in medicine, everything must be done by an expert psychologist after careful diagnosis and careful matching of the treatment to the person.
Secondly, one must be aware that science is fairly groping in the dark regarding the entire matter of homosexuality (incidentally, a large part of the darkness is intentional, through a conscious blocking of any attempt to find a way out, because the very attempt supposedly constitutes a denial of legitimacy to homosexual identity).
One of the central risks attributed to attempts at cure is the fear of total despair because of the failure of the treatment attempt. But when one is aware in advance that these are innovative and experimental treatments – the level of expectations is very moderate, and accordingly the disappointment at failure does not shatter the person. And people understand that what did not “work” right now in this way may perhaps succeed tomorrow in a somewhat different direction, “and if not tomorrow, then the day after” 🙂
On the one hand, one must proceed from a starting point of faith, that the Holy One, blessed be He, has set humanity a great challenge: to find a cure for this inclination, which is contrary to the Torah. And on the other hand, to know that the road before us is long and we have still not found a clear solution.
So it is with all human problems: when people strive to find a remedy, they make progress. Sometimes it takes decades, sometimes hundreds of years, and even more, and yet they do not despair; they hope and continue searching in every possible direction, until suddenly a breakthrough arrives.
Regards, S. Z. Levinger
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
First, these are reports from expert psychologists.
Second, as long as no treatment has been found and everything is shrouded in fog, as you say, then what do you expect from the person? That he should be moral and not be homosexual without effective treatment?
——————————————————————————————
So-and-so:
What is one to do?
A. Seek solutions.
Consulting professionals and reading professional literature can give a person new insights into his personality and the causes of his problem, from which he may perhaps find new solutions on his own—maybe even directions that the experts had not thought of.
B. Turn the difficulty into a challenge.
Just as people enjoy trying to crack an obscure sugya in the Gemara or in the Ketzot. Here the young man has been given a fascinating challenge – to crack the riddle of his life. To ask himself what arouses his love and his passions, and what calms them. To identify what qualities arouse his love for his own sex. And perhaps there is also a woman with such qualities, who too may arouse his love and later perhaps even thaw the frost in the “cross-gender” sexual attraction.
C. Also develop a little compassion for the “straights”
who endure the unbearable trial of walking down a street where they constantly encounter women whose clothing, or lack of clothing, is intended to arouse the passions of passersby in the street. (Mnemonic: the trial of the “straight” on the “street” 🙂
D. Know how to “give yourself credit” for every success, even if small and partial.
Think how much satisfaction the Creator has from every success and every rejection of the impulse. At first, one will delight in resisting the impulse for a few hours; later for a few days; and later for more than that. Just as the evil inclination comes little by little, starting with a little and continuing with much, so too, “the measure of good is greater” – it goes and shines ever brighter until the fullness of day!
E. Keep oneself occupied with interesting pursuits.
Study, work, music, volunteering, and the like. Did not Pharaoh king of Egypt teach us this: “Let heavier work be laid upon the men, and let them not regard false words,” and by contrast our Sages taught us: “Excellent is Torah study together with an occupation, for the toil of both makes sin forgotten.”
F. Do not sink all the time into the “problem.”
That is how the “problem” truly becomes an “identity.” One should understand that everyone has his impulses and his falls, and against them—since “the measure of good is greater”—peaks and successes in overflowing measure. Just as one grieves over the failures, one should rejoice many times more over life’s successes and good deeds, which precisely because they come with pain and difficulty are exceedingly precious in the eyes of Heaven.
G. “For the joy of the Lord is your strength.”
The more one feels God’s presence in the world – the greater one’s joy in Him. “I have set the Lord always before me; because He is at my right hand, I shall not be moved,” and as the Hasidim expounded: “For with joy shall you go out” – by means of joy. To share with the Holy One, blessed be He, all the courses of life, in gratitude for all the good and in request for what is lacking, for the person himself and for the collective as a whole. When one approaches life with joy and lightness – one blows all the obstacles to the winds.
These are some of the foundations of confronting matters with courage, and presumably each person can find from his own experience and from the experience of others more good advice: “Give to the wise, and he will grow wiser still.”
Regards, S. Z. Levinger
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Greetings. I did not agree with a single sentence of what you wrote. But when I began responding to them (the repeated confusion between morality and halakha, a completely distorted conception of morality, and more and more), at some point I realized that this is not mere disagreement. The things are simply outrageous. If you will permit me, I think the following story, which I once heard from Rabbi Shalom Schwadron, clarifies the point very well. He said that he once saw a child who fell in the street and was injured, picked him up, and began running to the hospital. All along the way people from the windows and passersby shouted wishes to him like “Rabbi Shalom, a complete recovery” (in Yiddish-accented speech, of course). And so he ran and ran and everyone kept wishing him well. After a few minutes he saw a woman walking toward him from a distance and, of course, she too shouted to him, like everyone else, “Rabbi Shalom, a complete recovery.” Gradually he got closer to her and her voice weakened somewhat. In the end, when she finally saw who it was (= her son, of course), she began to scream in horror. At that point her wishes and advice came to an end. Freely translated: once I saw a person suffering all his life because of a congenital defect. Along the course of his life, as he trudged heavily under his burden, everyone said to him: “You must turn the difficulty into a challenge,” or “gain insights into your personality.” Others even generously offered free advice: “You will be built from the hardship.” They quoted him Gemaras about “sufferings atone.” They added, “Know how to give yourself credit for every success, even a partial one.” Others went further and told him: “Have compassion on us, who do not suffer and have not merited purifying afflictions” (= lucky you!). Or: “Keep yourself occupied with interesting pursuits, instead of sinking all the time into the problem.” And of course, how could it be otherwise, “the joy of the Lord is your strength.” The most punctilious of all would add here: “True, almost no one really succeeds, but I heard that in the cities overseas there are people who take four hundred gold pieces as their fee, and their patients (if they are endowed with true fear of Heaven, of course, and if they went to real professionals, of course) did succeed. May God help, Rabbi Shalom.” I am not sure what you would feel if you were in such a situation and someone gave you all this good advice. I do know what I would feel. You concluded by saying that everyone can, from his experience, find yet more good advice. I will tell you the only good advice I derive from my experience regarding such a situation: that the last thing such a person needs is advice of this sort and the like. I think it is better for him if we acknowledge the truth and say that we have no advice—but what can I do? My Father in Heaven has decreed it upon me (a religious decree, not a moral one).
——————————————————————————————
Tomer:
Rabbi Michi,
It may be that Rabbi Levinger’s words are said in a relaxed tone because he is far from the problem. It may be that he and others do not feel like the mother of that son. That does not mean it is not the correct answer. After all the compassion and the problematic nature of the situation, his words summarize fairly well what is expected of a religious homosexual to do. More than that – his words summarize fairly well what is expected of every Jew to do. One can have compassion for every person (compassion is, as is known, a relative matter), we all have problems and troubles, and this is exactly how a Jew should deal with them.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Greetings.
First, the fact that someone is far from the problem ought to make him draw nearer, or else not speak with such alienation and such sloganizing.
I was speaking not only about the answers but about the tone in which they were said. But the answers themselves are also incorrect. First, there is no moral problem here, and after all that is how the whole discussion began. Second, most of this advice is not helpful. Some of it presents reality in a selective and biased way. Another part consoles him with empty consolation. The person who suffers can decide to be strong as a lion, and perhaps he will succeed, but you cannot give him advice from the sidelines to be strong as a lion and that the joy of the Lord is his strength. And then add that he is immoral because he disappoints his parents and his Creator.
And besides, most likely he will not manage to cope, just as any one of us would not manage in his situation. I would expect some acknowledgment of that as well. To tell him that it is not terrible, because this is an extremely difficult and almost impossible task. That instead of quoting empty verses to him and vague experts chosen with tweezers who do not help him (unless they are “professionals,” unlike all the psychiatrists in the world, and unless he is believing and determined. And by definition, anyone who did not succeed is not believing and not determined. QED).
If you are a close friend of such a person and you have the ability to move him to more resolute action and support him – that may be possible. But not as a general classroom piece of advice for dealing with such a terrible situation.
A continuation of my remarks will soon appear here, and there it will become a bit clearer.
——————————————————————————————
So-and-so:
With God’s help, the 9th of Elul, 5776
My dear gentlemen,
Last Thursday Rabbi Michael Abraham, may his light shine, asked me, “What should the person do” in order to emerge from his situation. And I sprang to do the will of the righteous man, and answered his question according to my knowledge and my experience.
As a 58-year-old Jew, who like everyone else has had “many adventures pass over him,” has gone through and still goes through crises and waves, ups and downs, etc. etc. – I was able to summarize ways of acting and thinking that were of help to me in dealing with my problems, and perhaps they may help others too in dealing with theirs.
In truth I forgot an additional point, which came up in your words, and it may perhaps be first and foremost:
H. Keep calm and presence of mind in the most pressured situations.
What will losing your composure give or add to you? If you act מתוך anxiety, confusion, and “stress” – you will only get more entangled and sink deeper and deeper into the mud.
Therefore pull yourself together, and analyze the situation calmly. Study the issue, from books and from professionals; and no less important, study yourself: know what makes you fall and what lifts you up. What disturbs you and what calms you?
In truth, this is what psychologists and counselors do: they sit with you and make a “soul-accounting” with you, and from that you arrive at insights about the roots of the problem and ways to solve it.
Regards, S. Z. Levinger
Your comment about the “child’s mother” who takes her son’s situation hard is correct. I too noted the terrible distress of parents confronting their son’s problem, a distress that exists even if they suppress their cry in their hearts.
Even Isaac, who goes by God’s command to the binding, his heart is moved by compassion for his mother’s pain, “whose joy has turned away; the son who was born at ninety years became destined for fire and knife; I grieve for the mother who will weep and wail.” Would that we might merit, like Joseph, that the image of our parents stand before us at the moment of severe trial.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Greetings.
First, although when I look around me I do not find here a righteous man whose will you wished to fulfill, I must apologize for the sharpness of the things I wrote in the heat of the discussion. As is his way, sir remarks by hint and with courtesy, whereas I, for my sins, am a stormy man.
I think that in the background stood the assertions with which you opened, about the immorality of the matter, with which I strongly disagreed, and they left an impression and stamp even on the rest of your remarks that came afterward. In my opinion there was also a one-sidedness in the presentation, and it struck me as somewhat alienated.
In the end, perhaps one may find in your words assistance for a person who is struggling, but I still think it is preferable to place them in a somewhat different context, as I noted throughout the discussion.
All the best, and again apologies.
——————————————————————————————
S. Z. Levinger:
To say to the sufferer: You are lost. You have no chance. There is no point at all in going to the hospital. Go straight to the cemetery.
And afterward people complain about suicidality. Perhaps the fine fellows of your sort are the ones who bring sufferers to despair and suicidality?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
There is another way as well. One can give them practical advice (though unfortunately there is very little of it, and it is proper to make that clear honestly and not whitewash), but without this pseudo-advice, and without the problematic consolations you offered, which will only deepen the frustration even more (all while their strength lies in the joy of the Lord).
And certainly it is not right to paint them a rosy and unreliable picture (as if those who fail merely had unprofessional therapists, and as if the believer succeeds).
And even less right is it to explain to them that they are immoral, because their parents invested in them and their Creator expects things of them, and they are simply failing and betraying their trust. Are you serious? Is this how one answers the anguished? (See Bereishit Rabbah, Vayetzei 71:7.)
And also regarding the conception of morality that you presented: if my parents wanted me to carry a weight of 100 kilograms on my back all my life, would I have to do it because of gratitude? Is there such a moral obligation? I already mentioned to you Maharik on the choice of a son’s/daughter’s spouse. I remind you that we are discussing morality, not halakha. There is certainly such a halakhic obligation. But to say that there is a moral obligation? With all due respect, that is simply crooked. And in general, gratitude toward the Holy One, blessed be He, is itself far from simple, and in my opinion belongs not to morality but to philosophy. See my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%98%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%94/מעבר Beyond all this, it is very important to comfort them also by saying that even if they fail, almost anyone else would also not withstand this. We already found in Ketubot 33a that had Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah been beaten, they would have worshipped the idol—see there carefully regarding the difference between light but ongoing suffering and great but local and momentary suffering.
——————————————————————————————
S. Z. Levinger:
The remarks about the possibilities of success are the words of Dr. Zvi Moses, director of the Shiloh Institute, one of the senior professionals in our sector. And he says explicitly that when the inclination is pronounced, change is very difficult, but highly determined people with strong faith can succeed with suitable professional guidance.
The rest of my remarks are clear enough. In your opinion, did Mahari Kolon intend to permit a man to marry a male? 🙂 Who permitted a person to sacrifice his parents on the altar of his desires? If he cannot subdue his impulse, “let him wear black and wrap himself in black,” etc., but let him not destroy his parents’ lives with terrible heartache.
No one was ever redeemed from his troubles by self-pity. Ask any social worker and he will tell you
that the foundation of foundations is to get a person out of a victim mentality. The moment a person takes responsibility for his fate – he will already find the way to be redeemed. And if that is outrageous – then it is also uplifting, language of standing tall..
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
With all due respect to “our sector,” you are ignoring entirely different positions that today are almost a professional consensus (I am not an expert, and I too have certain suspicions about this consensus, and still you brush it aside with the wave of a pen just because Dr. So-and-so said otherwise). Moreover, even his own words, at least as you quoted them, are very qualified. I too can say that if you are very believing and very determined, and your inclination is not complete, you can overcome it. How many such people are there? And how many others? How many of them succeeded? Did he give numbers? Science works with quantitative estimates, not with slogans (perhaps he brought all of this, but from your words I saw nothing of the sort).
The rest of your remarks are indeed clear, just like their predecessors. Who here said that Maharik intended to permit homosexual intercourse? Are we dealing with fools?! If you did not understand, I will explain my claim. According to your view, there is a moral obligation to obey parental expectations because they gave birth to me and invested in me. So if they ask me to marry this woman and not that one – according to your view I should obey them, no? Obviously yes. But what can one do—he says not (and so too it was ruled by the Rema). Where is the morality here? Meaning: there is no moral obligation whatsoever to obey parents in the choice of a spouse. They have no right whatsoever to place demands on my own life. So what difference does it make whether the issue is a male or not? The difference between them is halakhic, but you were speaking about a moral obligation to meet parental demands, and as far as that is concerned there is no difference at all. On the contrary, choosing a woman instead of a man is great suffering and nearly impossible for the son, but replacing one female partner with another is the easiest thing in the world. So why is he not obligated to do that? In your own language: who permitted a person to sacrifice his parents and cause them terrible anguish on the altar of his impulses, which merely lead him to the female partner he wants? Let him sacrifice his impulses and take another spouse, and give his dear parents abundant holy satisfaction. And in general, if he dislikes it and it is hard for him – let him be determined and believing and go to Dr. Moses, and he will help him overcome it. What is the problem?
And as for the end of your remarks, a person with cancer will find his own way to redemption if only we let him believe in himself. And so with any other chronic patient. These are slogans that are somewhere between indifference and foolish New Age. They take me back to the story of Rabbi Shalom Schwadron. It is easy to say them when you are talking about other people you do not care about. Ask any social worker and he will tell you that.
——————————————————————————————
S. Z. Levinger:
Let us begin from the end:
I did not say that a person with cancer will necessarily be redeemed. I said that a person suffering from a serious illness that appears incurable looks for a remedy. He goes to this expert, not to that one, they look for another, check the internet, increase prayer and charity, for “even if a sharp sword is placed on a person’s neck, he should not refrain from mercy.” King Hezekiah, to whom the prophet of God says, “For you shall die and not live,” says to the prophet: “Finish your prophecy and leave.” You searched and searched; in the end one accepts the decree of Heaven with love. Permission was given to the physician to heal – not to cause despair.
(There is a dear Jew, Mr. Cohen-Melamed, who was stricken with muscular degeneration more than 15 years ago, and one of the doctors then informed him categorically that he had only a few months left to live. Dr. Melamed did not listen to him and is alive to this day, writing books while able only to move an eyelid, and that is how he communicates. In the meantime he even managed to attend the funeral of the doctor who had promised him his imminent death):
As for the inclination –
I did not come to conduct philosophical and scientific discussions—possible, impossible? – I see before my eyes only one figure: the confused and perplexed young man torn between his inclination and his faith. There is no possible way in the world to satisfy both his Creator and his impulse. His only chance of emerging from the tear is to find a solution, and I am trying to find the address at which there is the greatest chance of solving the problem.
I am a bit afraid of Atzat Nefesh, for several reasons: they are too optimistic, and a young man who comes with a high level of expectation, especially an expectation of immediate success, can fall into despair. Besides that, some of the therapists there are volunteers who are not professionals. In my humble opinion, their “reparative method,” which tries to “strengthen masculinity,” is good only for some cases, and it does not seem to me that this is the cause in all cases.
Therefore I directed toward Dr. Zvi Moses, whom I do not know personally, but his optimistic yet very cautious style inspires in me cautious optimism. In your case I quoted only briefly from his words. In my comments on Yoav Sorek’s two articles, I made the effort and copied two central paragraphs from his words clarifying the possibilities and their chances (because I do not know how to make a “link”; for now I am an incurable “link-phobe” :).
The experience of a veteran therapist in the field is not to be taken lightly… and it is our duty to inform those who are wavering of its existence and of the possibility of trying to be helped by it.
Regards, S. Z. Levinger
Your interpretation of Maharik—that the son owes his parents nothing—is completely unclear. As I recall, some understand it שם as involving honoring one’s father being set aside before the son’s commandment to marry a woman, for if he has found a worthy, God-fearing woman whom he loves, who can guarantee he will find one like her? Dr. Moses can help a young man who wants to do his Creator’s will detach from a forbidden pairing, but to detach from a pairing that is good in the eyes of Heaven and of people – Heaven forbid.
At any rate, even when the young man is permitted and commanded to marry the choice of his heart against his parents’ wishes, he is obligated to speak good, comforting words to them, with all gentleness and respect. To say to them: “Dear parents, I love and cherish all that you have done for me, and I am sure you will have holy satisfaction from this righteous young woman, a woman of valor.” And generally, even if they are not immediately reconciled – they will be reconciled when the grandchild is born.
What satisfaction will they get from a karet-level prohibition that his Creator called an “abomination”?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Greetings.
I posted an apology on the site for the sharpness of my remarks, and I repeat it here as well (I did not understand why this was being conducted in two channels. I do not see here things that require greater privacy. I understood that by mistake part of the discussion was diverted here to email).
As for the matter itself, what bothered me was mainly the context, though also in content I very much disagreed. And from your own words the Most High is praised.
Regarding Maharik and the conception of respecting another’s territory, see my remarks in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%93-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%AA/בכל In any case, it is clear that the manner of speaking to parents should be respectful.
All the best, and again apologies.
——————————————————————————————
Ein HaKoreh:
With God’s help, the 10th of Elul, 5776
Clarification:
My remarks in my give-and-take with Rabbi M. Abraham, which took place between us in private email and were uploaded to the site this evening – were not originally intended by me for publication on the site, and should be regarded as a “draft,” not necessarily reflecting a fully formed conclusion.
Regards, S. Z. Levinger
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I apologize for the misunderstanding. As I wrote, I thought that by mistake the remarks had gone to regular email instead of to the site, and I saw in them nothing that departed from the discussion that had taken place here on the site, and so I forwarded them (in real time) for uploading to the site. They only went up now because only now did the discussion end. And indeed, the last messages between us—once I understood that they were not intended for here—I did not upload. In any case, again apologies.
——————————————————————————————
Ein HaKoreh:
With God’s help, the 10th of Elul, 5776
To the sage Rabbi M.D.A., full of wisdom and knowledge, faithful like Calcol and Darda, clothed in learning, to study Torah and teach it, and crowned with every proper and honorable virtue – may his peace greatly increase, and may Torah and testimony abound, to enlighten the eyes of the community! – abundant greetings and salvation,
I would ask further regarding what you properly noted about the problem that professional psychological treatments involve serious financial expense, which sometimes deters those who need them and makes it difficult for them to persist with them.
In Kokhav HaShachar and its surroundings they found a solution by establishing a fund called “Lives of Goodness” (managed by Rabbi Natan Shalev, rabbi of the community of Mavo’ot Yericho), which assists in financing emotional, family, and marital therapy for those in need.
In my humble opinion, it would be worthwhile to adopt this course of action in every neighborhood and settlement, and establish similar funds that would encourage and assist professional mental-health treatment for the individual and the family.
Declares the youngest among the thousands of Judah, according to his due measure, who bows in respect, with blessing and thanks, S. Z. Levinger
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Abundant greetings and salvation to you, sir; many thanks for your wishes and comments.
May there be fulfilled in both of us, “And Hav in Suphah”; may the staff of binders become a wave offering. If a man tells you Rome is ruined and where is she—know that Jerusalem stands built upon her mound.
May we merit illumination from the Light of lights, and be saved from all cruel decrees. Let each man say to his brother: be strong, sons of the blameless one who wrestled with a prince. And I conclude with an appeal to the One who dwells on high, that He may seal us for good in this year.
Ein HaKoreh:
A discussion of the subject may be found by the interested reader in the articles:
Roni Shor, “It Is Possible to Change (On Treatment for Same-Sex Inclinations in ‘Atzat Nefesh’),” Tzohar 21 (2005), on the Asif website;
Rabbi Azriel Ariel, “Can Everyone Change? (A Response),” ibid.;
Dr. Baruch Kahane, “Religion, Society, and Same-Sex Inclinations,” Tzohar 22 (2005), on the Asif website.
Dr. Zvi Moses, “Is Treatment for Same-Sex Inclinations Psychologically Effective,” on the Shoresh website.
A detailed summary of the kinds of treatments and the positions of those who support and oppose them – on Wikipedia, under the entry “Conversion Therapy.”
Regards, S. Z. Levinger
Rabbi:
I have just now received the response of the Israel Psychoanalytic Society to the “words of the rabbis”:
As psychoanalysts dedicated to a deep understanding of the human psyche and to helping people in distress through psychotherapy, we see it as our duty to protest the offensive statements recently voiced by rabbis regarding the LGBT community. Claims as though homosexuality is a mental disorder, a “deviation,” a “disability requiring psychological treatment,” constitute a grave violation of human dignity and liberty – and contradict the accepted modern position and current professional knowledge regarding sexual orientation and sexual identity. The giving of “psychological diagnoses” by rabbis and educators not trained for this is invalid from the outset, and we see in the very expression of views of this kind a real danger to the souls and even the lives of youths and their families.
Yossi Triest (Chairman) – on behalf of the Israel Psychoanalytic Society
And I wonder whether the man is an idiot or a liar. What he writes is complete nonsense, of course. He may have this or that position on the question whether homosexuality is a deviation or not, but that has not the slightest connection to any professional knowledge he may have. So it seems that he is an idiot. Though it is possible that this is a deliberate exploitation of his professional hat in order to advance a value agenda, in which case he is a liar. I leave it to the reader to choose between the options.
I do not think he is necessarily an idiot. There is a troubling lack of awareness there, and it appears even among intelligent people. If they wash your brain with something long enough, you begin to think it is true and that there is nothing else. Unfortunately, that happens not infrequently.
I responded there to the pingback
Yariv:
Hello,
First, I want to note that I very much enjoyed and also learned from the correspondence and the discussion—its depth, and even the conclusions that in principle the two of you agree on.
That said, I still don’t feel I understood why you insist on defining deviance as a tendency toward criminality rather than simply as deviation from the norm. The degree of deviation from the norm that warrants intervention or treatment is indeed value-laden, but the very deviation from the normal is legitimate.
I apologize for bringing Foucault back into the discussion, but in Madness and Civilization, Foucault addressed exactly this, and as I understand it we would arrive at the same conclusions and the same theme of distinguishing between facts (the very deviation from the normal curve) and values (we all deviate in one way or another from the norm; the degree of deviation that requires intervention or classification is value-laden).
Thanks,
Yariv
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Hello Yariv.
There is no impediment to defining deviance in that way. Definitions are up to you. But I think that is not the accepted definition, and certainly not what Rabbi Levinstein meant, which is what we are discussing here. Therefore Yoram Yovel and I agreed not to define it in a mathematical and neutral way. In everyday usage, "deviance" has a clearly negative connotation. According to your suggestion, Rabbi Levinstein simply said something trivial and worthless, so why have a discussion about it at all?! No one disputes that, factually, homosexual inclination characterizes a minority in the population. The dispute (with Rabbi Levinstein) is about the proper attitude toward it (and here too Yovel and I agree, except about the terminology and the relevance of professional authority to the discussion). One way or another, all the arguments here are on the value plane, not the factual-mathematical one.
I did not understand your comment about Foucault. We ourselves brought Foucault back into the discussion (after agreeing on our generally negative attitude toward him), because here he really is right (a stopped clock, etc.). We both agreed with Foucault’s determination (in the book you mentioned) that psychiatric diagnostics are based on value and cultural assumptions. But in my opinion, precisely because of that, the psychiatrist cannot wear his professional hat in this debate (since this is about values, not facts).
That is the dispute between us, and only that, as of now. An exactly identical dispute exists regarding the relevance of a physician’s professional authority to determining the moment of death. But it is the very same dispute.