Why the attack mode?

• Affect Theory and Homophobia by John R. Crary, 5/27/98
  
  

Don,

I've been reading this forum for quite some time and I'm a little embarrassed that this is my first public post since my intention is to take you to task. Before I do that, I want to make it perfectly clear that I have great respect for you and have learned a great deal reading here. I am deeply appreciative of your response to my private e-mails asking about affect theory, requesting information when I was involved in writing a research grant proposal looking at the effect on kids of treating mom's depression, and the request for information that I made recently for personal reasons.

Your response to the article posted by John Crary seems to be coming from the "attack other" pole but I'm having trouble understanding why this is the case.

Given the existence of this forum, I would certainly be inclined to go straight to the source (yourself) to request an explanation of quoted material on a specific subject that was of interest to me and that I'd seen negatively interpreted in print.

Even if, as you seem to think, John reacted emotionally to the article he read and allowed the negative interpretion made by the authors to influence the wording of his post, the general tone was respectful and did not, in my opinion, merit a disrespectful and confrontational response. All John did was bring the negative interpretation to your attention and ask you whether you felt the authors had treated you fairly and whether you would have rewritten those passages in light of this criticism.

In your response, you imply that in order to even ask a question about a passage quoted from your book, "Shame and Pride", one should first buy and read the whole book. Is this reasonable?

As a matter of fact, I did read your book a couple of months ago and I recall being struck by those very same passages. I didn't understand the first passage in terms of affect theory and I thought the second passage was anti-homosexual. I would also be interested in a clarification of your meaning and your views on homosexuality.

Did you actually go so far as to ask John if he is gay? Must he be gay or have a "relation to this population" in order to ask you to clarify your statements about it? Although I didn't go check, I don't recall that you described your personal knowledge of "tortured men" and "homosexual brothels" before making that statement in your book.

Finally, I think you deliberately mistook the meaning of "therapeutically responsive" so you'd have one more jab you could make at John. I think you knew that he was not implying that you did, should, or would provide therapy to anyone other than your own patients. He was referring to the teaching aspect of books such as yours and the impact they can have on readers.

I hope that I haven't offended you (or other readers) by posting this criticism of your response to John. My intention is to support John's right to post an appropriate question to this forum without being attacked and to encourage you to provide a better discussion of this issue to the forum.

Sharon

• Serious questions by Don Nathanson, 6/2/98