Inventing Fallacy--Parts I and II

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

This posting is in response to John Crary's original posting in which he asked Don Nathanson if he would want to rewrite at least two quotations (written by Don) that Crary cited and took as possible evidence of a heterosexist bias on Don's part. Crary found these quotations used as possible evidence of heterosexism in the footnote of an article, by Eve Kosofky Sedgwick and Adam Frank, titled "Shame in the Cybernetic Fold: Reading Silvan Tomkins" (Critical Inquiry 21:2, Winter 1995). Are these quotations evidence of a heterosexist bias? I don't believe they are, as elaborately explained below. ...............

INVENTING FALLACY--Part I: Wagon Fallacies Are Hard to Invent But Conceptual Fallacies Are Easier

You know those little red wagons many kids have? They're called Radio Flyers for reasons unknown to me. They've been around a long time. Well, I like to refer to little red wagons to illustrate one of the most important logical fallacies in all of psychological science.

Consider this major premise: Every little red wagon has four wheels. Now consider that there is a mystery object before me, and the only datum I am given to help me identify the object is that I am told the mystery object has four wheels.

Of course not. The mystery object could be any number of other objects that also have four wheels.

This example illustrates a logical error that nobody makes when talking about little red wagons and mystery objects with four wheels.

But I estimate that at least half of all arguments and misunderstandings in the social/behavioral/psychological sciences are likely to be based on disputes mired in some variation of the very same error of believing the mystery object must be a little red wagon because it has four wheels and since everyone knows that all little red wagons have four wheels.

For instance, a similar logical error (with a little more fallacious reasoning added for good measure) occurs in supposing (a) one must be claiming that any couple is or ought to be heterosexual whenever the partners enjoy mutually gratifying sexual attraction and fulfillment IF (b) one earlier made the commonplace observation that human sexual reproduction refers to sexual intercourse between a sexually mature male and female who may be passionately attracted to each other partly because of their gender difference.

But back to little red wagons for a moment. In order to be able to correctly conclude that the mystery object MUST be a little red wagon whenever my datum consists of just knowing that the object has four wheels, the major premise would have to be different. The major premise would have to be as follows: ONLY little red wagons have four wheels. Note that if little red wagons, and ONLY little red wagons, have four wheels, then I would be correct to say the mystery object must be a little red wagon when I'm given just the datum telling me the object has four wheels.

Saying ONLY little red wagons have four wheels is a whole lot different from saying little red wagons have four wheels. Little words like "only," spoken or implied, can make a big difference in what is meant.

The tendency to read the word ONLY when it isn't there is a strong tendency made by almost everyone at some time or other. But there are other ways to read-in important words that aren't there and then invent other fallacies. Thus, one can be drawn into fallacy by seeing the word "tend" and reading it as if it meant "must." "Tend" can also refer to "some," as explained below. And fallacy can occur by reading "all" or "every" where actually "some" is meant.

Consider next the following statement by Don Nathanson, a statement referred to in Crary's posting inquiring about Don's supposed heterosexism:

"Just as most life forms can be divided into groups by their gender, mature individuals tend to form couples because of these sexual differences."

The word TEND is important. Here the word "tend" means "some" as in "...[among] mature individuals[,] SOME...form couples because of these sexual differences." Less awkwardly stated: Among mature individuals there are some who form couples because of sexual differences.

In fact, some do not form couples at all. Some form couples because of sex similarity. Some do both. Some do both at the same time or at different times in one's life. As I understand the work of Don Nathanson, he would be among the first persons in the mental-health field to be glad to live in a society wherein persons are able to successfully discover the sexual coupling arrangements, or absence thereof, they find most suited to achieving their goal of a good life.

In this quotation from Nathanson, the word "mature" refers, as I understand the context, to sexual maturity--as in maturity due to the age and biological development of the reproductive system. I think it is clear from the context that Don is not referring to anything like "emotional maturity." So, as I understand it, then, this segment of the first quotation cited by Crary from a footnote he read is really the commonplace observation that some persons, when sexually mature, form opposite-gender couples. If this were not so, none of us would be here today except for the minutely small proportion of persons conceived from artificial insemination. So this little piece of writing is really common knowledge and can hardly be considered inflamatory or disparaging of any group of persons.

If Don had written that EVERY person who reaches sexual maturity becomes part of an opposite-gender couple or that everyone SHOULD do so, then that would have been a different matter. But he wrote neither of these things, nor do I see any reason to believe these things were implied here.

Returning to the quote by Nathanson cited by John Crary, Eve Kosofky Sedgwick and Adam Frank:

"Inherent in the system that causes us to be different on the basis of gender is also the force that creates attraction...."

This assertion could be used to conclude that ONE force that MAY join two persons in an opposite-gender coupling is THE force of attraction arising from gender difference.

I see no implication that the ONLY force that could or should attract persons to couple (for the sake of mutual sexual pleasure and satisfaction, for mutual love and affection, or for any other reason) is the attraction that exists, when it exists, based on gender difference. This portion of the quotation asserts the noncontroversial commonplace observation that attraction based on gender difference is one part of the species' generative SYSTEM.

"Sex refers to the passionate attraction between two opposites, to the active process that begins as the coupling of male and female, unites them in sexual intercourse, and results in procreation and the maintenance of the species." [P. 260]

Note carefully the verb after the first word "Sex." The verb is REFERS.

Remember the author of this quote is an endocrinologist, a biological scientist, as well as a psychiatrist, who titled the chapter in which this quote appears "The Generative System." He is discussing the reproductive system, which is, in human beings, sexual reproduction.

The sexual reproductive system, or "sex" for short, REFERS to a passionate attraction of two opposites. One thing we can, that is, REFER TO, when discussing human sexuality, is the passionate union of opposite-gender persons.

Very prosaically I could paraphrase this last segment of Don's quotation to say something no more provocative than this: When we think of sexuality as entailed in the generative system, one of the topics we REFER to is the process wherein a male and a female are passionately attracted to each other, have intercourse, and reproduce. Again, this is not the ONLY thing a discussion of sex-as-generative-system or of sex in general can refer to. But a discussion of sex as a part of the generative system will AT LEAST need to refer to sexual intercourse between a male and female who are attracted to each other.

We could also refer to the fact that sexual reproduction in humans could occur by artificial insemination, without passion and without significant interpersonal coupling. And everyone knows that procreative sexual intercourse can occur without passionate attraction and yet result in pregnancy, as in rape, for example.

And when speaking of sexuality in general, it is important to refer to the fact that same-sex partners can engage in mutually satisfying sexual pleasures and do so without thereby procreating. This nonprocreative aspect to same-gender sexual coupling is no small advantage for human survival in an era of overpopulation. So if we include survival of the species as well as its reproduction in a discussion of sexuality in general, then same-gender sexual unions also play a part in helping the species to REMAIN generative.

We can refer to all of these things and many more when discussing sexuality in general or when discussing sexuality as part of the generative system.

Thus, a comprehensive discussion of human sexuality does not limit itself to a discussion of ONLY this reference to opposite-gender reproductive-passionate attraction. And going to the next chapter in Don's book, one learns many more of such interesting things. In particular we learn about sexuality and its relation to the affect system. And in the human adult, the affect system clearly dominates the generative system. Thus, from Nathanson (personal communication): "...the generative system comprises a constellation of hardware and firmware that can be used for any purpose made important by whatever affect seems salient at the moment. In the adult human, nearly every use of the sexual equipment seems more a matter of affect than drive."

However, even everything in Don's book, or in any book, could hardly be a comprehensive treatment of the entire subject of human sexuality, nor of affect-based sexual coupling, nor of a whole range of other relationship topics one may wish to explore.

...................................................

The following quotation from Don Nathanson's book SHAME AND PRIDE was cited tendentiously disregarding its context. That is, this quotation selection ignores information in the very sentence that follows it. And by ignoring the next sentence as well as the theme of the whole paragraph and chapter from which this quotation is culled, there results an unstated but implied misrepresentation of Don's purpose in using this evocative reference. Don's purpose is opposite to that which may be implied by using this quotation in isolation.

Thus in the second quotation alleging Don's ostensible heterosexism, we are reminded that Don wrote:

"These are adults whose inner lives are the screaming face of an Edvard Munch painting, the hell of Picasso's Guernica, the nightmarish agitation of Leonard Bernstein's Age of Anxiety. These are the tortured men who sought surcease in the bath houses that served as homosexual brothels but died horribly of AIDS. [P. 426]" (P. 503)

What is Don's point in making this evocative comment? Well, notice the very next sentence in SHAME AND PRIDE: "This is the doomed heroine of the film looking for Mr. Goodbar, whose last masochistic sexual flings brought her death at the hands of an equally overloaded maurading lover."

What do the heroine in Mr. Goodbar and men visiting bath houses have in common? The theme that ties the Mr. Goodbar heroine and the perils of bath houses is affective overload and the problematic means some persons of either gender (with partners of the same or opposite gender) may use to try to find comfort but instead get tragically little comfort and even more affective burden later.

There is no differential treatment of persons who would choose an other-gender partner or same-gender partner. The point being made by Nathanson is that it is tragically unfortunate when ANYONE is driven to ANY SORT of dangerous behavior for the sake of finding SURCEASE FOR OVERWHELMING AFFECT but then fails to find relief and instead finds more anguish.

Some persons may not be harmed who take grave risks in search of surcease. But the plight of persons who ARE harmed is surely tragic insofar as THEIR encounter with danger turns out to be an unsuccessful means of finding surcease and instead brings anguish. Surely this observation, too, is not controversial.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

INVENTING FALLACY--Part II: Uses of Opposition to Conceal an Inexplicit Affirmative Position

I applaud opposition to heterosexism or homophobia. In this regard I admire and endorse the spirit of any critic who would object to any form of ostracism for ANY form of responsible and honest sexual coupling in which the partners are equal. I believe it is not too hard to find agreement on what we oppose in the battle against sexual prejudice.

But what are we in favor of?

I, with Ira Reiss (author of SOLVING AMERICA'S SEXUAL CRISES), am in favor of sexual pluralism. Sexual pluralism endorses any form of sexual expression or sexual coupling that is (a) honest (for instance, absence of instrumental deceit intended to gain sexual partners not available without deception), (b) responsible (for instance, using reasonable care in respect of STDs, unwanted pregnancy, potentially dangerous partners, and unwilling to harm anyone, etc.), and (c) equal (for instance, there is no exploitation of another's vulnerability nor use of coercion).

At the end of Reiss's careful consideration of what sexual pluralists would be in favor of, he cites another renowned Tomkinsian scholar, Donald Mosher, who also is a past president of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. Mosher wrote: "Most Americans favor sexual variations and lifestyles. Yet they remain confused about their moral grounds, cowed into a spiral of silence. Sexual freedom is justified by the universal ethical principle of concern and respect for persons." (In Reiss, p. 233)

For reasons explicated in Part I, I do not believe that the quotations referenced by Crary and others are evidence that Nathanson's views would contradict those of either Mosher or Reiss. Moreover, Don's thinking is broad and inclusive and also subtle and complex. And this characteristic of comprehensive and complex thinking is in keeping with the best features of Silvan Tomkins's example as an intellectual giant whose works also must be studied comprehensively in order to be best appreciated for the compassionate humanism they express.

Consider next the following perceptive observation made by Silvan S. Tomkins himself: "When one is certain what one is fighting against, one can afford to believe that one knows precisely what one is fighting for. But like revolutionary movements in general, the defeat of the oppressor characteristically reveals the fragility and ambiguity of the consensus previously cemented by opposition." (AIC IV, pp. 1-2)

In general, then, it is often possible to be on safer grounds to avoid fallacy when one just criticizes another's evidence or rationale educed on behalf of an affirmative position. But in this case, the attempted criticism of Nathanson, as an author espousing heterosexist bias, founders. This is because the putative evidence educed in support of assertions of Nathanson's alleged heterosexist bias consists of intimation by reference to unexplained quotations culled tendentously out of context--quotations shown to be logically irrelevant as probative on behalf of heterosexism. Although without logical probative relevance to support assertions of heterosexist bias, the quotations cited by Crary and others from SHAME AND PRIDE nonetheless do serve the purposes their author intended--as (1) references to commonplace observations about the human generative system or (2) illustrations of tragedy afflicting persons seeking surcease for affective overwhelm but finding instead a burden of worsening affect.

My reading of SHAME AND PRIDE did not leave me with either the belief or the impression that its author disparages any group of persons but, on the contrary, that he presents original and useful ideas about human sexuality--and ideas that can serve on behalf of the cause of evolving an ethical sexual pluralism. But like Tomkins, Nathanson must be read carefully and thoroughly to be best appreciated. Unlike Tomkins, Don makes his work accessible for everyone's benefit. What gifts Tomkins and Nathanson have both given us all in their own ways!

............................................................

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." Ludwig Witgenstein

No Replies