Talk:Charles Socarides

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Needs more work

Too much listing of organizations here. This bio should be abridged to focus on the salient facts, i.e., what Socarides was known for. 71.235.202.144 03:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hahahahahaha

"Socarides focused much of his career on the study of homosexuality and whether it can be altered. His son, Richard Socarides (b. 1954) is openly gay."

I'm sorry, but that's just hilarious.

[edit] ISBNs

The books need ISBNs. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] huh

This entry is really, really biased.

"As his wife pointed out at his funeral, "Charles believed..."

"As his wife pointed out" seems to endorse the position.


"He reported that "about a third" of his patients had been cured and were able to lead normal heterosexual lives after treatment."

Cured. Normal. Not NPOV.


"Many of his patients, now free from homosexuality, gathered at his funeral on December 29, 2005, and remembered how much love, compassion, understanding, and healing they had received from this courageous doctor, whose only interest was to defend the right of each individual to choose his or her own gender identity and sexual orientation."

I hope I shouldn't even have to explain this.


Not to mention that earlier on in the article it talks about how he "proved" that homosexuality was a mental disorder. He did no such thing. I don't want to rewrite this article, but it's really dumb.

[edit] Cool

I don't find this entry biased at all but rather interesting, factual and comprehensive. Check out the link for the differing obituaries for him in the NY Times, that's what I call biased, or should I use the word unbelievable. I recommend checking out his books or papers before jumping to conclusions of what he did or did not prove. Maybe some of us could learn more about certain topics we already think we know all about, and why not from someone who seemed to have spent more than 50 years of clinical research on that topic. Let's be tolerant and open our minds.

[edit] Why I have changed the Charles Socarides page

After saying Much of Socarides' career was devoted to studying how homosexuality develops and how it can be "cured", there was a very biased comment (It should be noted that Dr. Socarides has a gay son, Richard, who was an advisor to the Clinton White House on GLBT issues.) This comment is biased because it seems to imply that since Socarides had a gay son, then his theories were wrong and he did not cure anybody. That's not necessarily true. Remember that a psychoanalyst cannot treat his own son. His son's homosexuality could actually have pushed Socarides to study the problem more in depth. We don't know, and we cannot jump to conclusions.

Socarides studied homosexuality for 50 years, published 16 books and over 80 scientific papers. I know we live in the age of "Brokeback Mountain" in which two gay cowboys are celebrated for cheating on their wives and having sex with each other, and it is OK to give people the sexual freedom they want to have, but there are people who are very unhappy being homosexual, and this doctor helped them out and gave them the freedom to be who they wanted to be. Being a scientific encyclopedia, Wikipedia should at least report Socarides' contributions to psychoanalysis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Mark242 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 5 March 2006.

I changed some of the wording around and all that, but I believe that none of the important information you wrote was lost. I believe I am a neutral party in all this; my religion says nothing about homosexuality and I don't really care one way or another. I am doing my best to maintain a NPOV in all this, however. -- 70.36.88.64 00:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I want to be neutral too. It is not a religious thing. I know that people with homosexuality have suffered a lot in their life, not only because they have felt rejected, but most of all because they did not want to be homosexual. Socarides was very compassionate and did not reject anybody. He wanted to give people the sexual freedom to be who they really want to be. That includes homosexual people who want to be gay but also people trapped in an unwanted homosexual orientation who want to be heterosexual. However, he was often attacked by the gay community because claiming that homosexuality can be cured implies that homosexuality is not normal, and nobody likes to hear that he is not normal. Socarides understood the dynamics of homosexuality and how it develops, and helped many unhappy people become who they really wanted to be. Thank you for helping me maintain objectiveness in the article. --M.
M- you are right that implying that his son's homosexuality invalidates his research is wrong. I was the one who first put that in there, and I was wrong. However, I do think it's important to note that he had a gay son, as (according to his Obit) he was often quoted as saying his son's homosexuality deepened his desire to research the subject. I also put back in the bit about The APA removing homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders. Whatever you think of his research, it's definitely relevant to note that he disagreed with the major institutions of his profession. On a side note, whatever his personal views were, Socarides was a co-founder of a movement that is blatantly anti-gay. Five mintue's on NARTH's website will make that obvious. Cabbers 21:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Cabbers, I have studied the theory of Socarides very deeply for my own Ph.D. and just added new elements to his biography. Please let me clarify a few things. (1) I do think that his son's homosexuality should not appear in his Wikipedia page. It is like if we were describing the work of an oncologist who devoted all his life to curing cancer and we added "It should be noted that his son developed brain cancer and died." It would be like implying that the oncologist either was not a good one for not being able to cure his own son (which is unethical anyway) or was a bad person for not having prevented his son from developing brain cancer and dying. Therefore, I think that if we want to stay objective we should remove any statement on Charles Socarides. (2) From what I read on Socarides, I can say that he was not anti-gay or homophobe at all. An anti-gay person would say such things as "Homosexuals are sinners. They will go to hell. Homosexuality is wrong and perverse" and so on. I did not find any such statement in his writings. On the contrary, Socarides was very compassionate with homosexuals and considered them victims of events in their early lives. He understood that a homosexual man is attracted to other men in a desperate attempt to repair his own damaged masculinity through physical incorporation rather than psychological internalization, in a desperate attempt to placate the phallic mother and join the lost father. Socarides helped many troubled people. He founded NARTH in 1992 in an attempt to help homosexual people find theor true identities in a time in which the entire world would declare that homosexuality is fashionable, which prevented them from pursuing the healing they wanted. He wanted also to let other doctors know that change is possible. Homosexuality may be a deeply troubling condition for people who don't want to be homosexual. It is very wrong to discriminate against homosexuals, since they have not chosen their condition, but it is also wrong to tell them that they will never change and rob them of the possibility of a change. Socarides believed that everybody should have a chance. I would like his Wikipedia page to reflect the importance of the findings of this courageous doctor, who dedicated his entire life to understanding the dynamics of homosexuality to help other people. Thank you, M.


M- I disagree with your characterization of the information regarding Socarides' son, and I've put it back in the article. I don't think it's unfair or that it's implies that Socarides is a bad person. It's simply an interesting (to some tragic, to some ironic) sidenote. If I were reading this article without prior knowledge, I would want to know that bit of information. Please just think about it. Maybe there's a different way to phrase it that would make it more palatable to you? On the subject of Socarides' research and treatment of patients, what can I say? To me it's glaringly obvious that he was wrong, to you it's glaringly obvious that he was right. Niether of us is going to convince the other. Cabbers 18:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Cabbers, I appreciate your point of view, but I don't think that Wikipedia, as a scientific encyclopedia, should amuse its readers with "tragic" or "ironic" sidenotes. Again, I really appreciate your point of view, but if you don't mind, I would like to remove that observation for now. I need your help because I would like to give justice to a doctor who spent his whole life to help others and was often misunderstood. I know of many homosexual people who are seeking change and would benefit from knowing the truth. This story of Socarides' son is well known and unfortunately has often been used against him to discredit his work. Maybe we will find another way to phrase it, but for now I think Wikipedia should not report tragic or ironic sidenotes. Please, I am curious to know what makes you believe that it is glaringly obvious that Socarides was wrong. Although I don't want to convince you, I would like to know more about your point of view. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.34.20.19 (talk • contribs) .
Mark, I think we've pretty much hit an impass regarding the information about his son, so I'm putting in a Request for comment. Hopefully some other people will add their views to help us reach consensus! Regarding why I think he's wrong, it doesn't really pertain to this article, so I'm going to leave a comment on your talk page. Thanks for being reasonable and keeping cool about this! Cabbers 17:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Cabbers, thanks for writing to my talk page. How can I reply to you? Should I write to your talk page? (I don't know how to do that). Should I reply in my own talk page? (but then will you be able to read my comment?). Thanks, M.
M- I added your talk page to my watchlist, so if you reply there, I'll see it. Cabbers 17:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not a specifically 'scientific' encyclopedia, and I don't see the sidenote as 'tragic' or 'ironic', just vital to a complete article containing all relevant information, especially since it apparently increased his desire to research the subject. --Fuzzie (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Should paragraph regarding Socarides' son be included?

Should this: Socarides had an openly gay son, Richard Socarides, who served as an advisor to the Clinton White House on GLBT issues. He often declared that his son's homosexuality motivated him to deepen his research on the subject. Be included in the article?

  • This information is probably something all knowledgeables of Socarides know about. Yes I think it should be included. Fred-Chess 14:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree. If we accept to talk about Socarides's son's homosexuality, then I agree with M; if an oncologist had a son who died from cancer we should say that, and if a cardiologist had a daughter who died of heart attack we should say that too. I think that this page should talk about Socarides and not become political. The political discussion should be moved to a dedicated section under Homosexuality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.78.178 (talk • contribs) . 17:21, 12 March 2006
  • Your other examples would be relevant only if, say, the cardiologist were performing advanced research which would have helped the daughter, and they'd often stated that the daughter's death had motivated them to increase their research into the matter. That's generally not the case, but it is in this instance, and so it's clearly relevant to the article, and should be included. --Fuzzie (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "The cardiologist were performing advanced research which would have helped the daughter." It is unethical for a doctor to treat his/her own family members. So even if his/her advanced research would have helped the daughter, that doctor could not help her. It is very unfortunate but ethical rules in medicine are very strict. M.
  • The information regarding his son is verifiable, notable, and interesting. Because it seems to contradict an agenda being forwarded by the article is no reason to remove it. Ifnord 14:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links and links

The method of combining external links with wikilinks within the article text itself is frowned on within Wikipedia. I added a specific cleanup-tag as a reminder. Fred-Chess 14:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't know. I just fixed that and used Wikipedia's standard citation. As a result of the fix, I removed the clean-up tag. I hope it is ok now. M.
There remain a lot of external links imbedded in the text. Ifnord 14:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I'm not sure the comparison to an oncologist and a son with cancer is a valid analogy. The medical community agrees that cancer is an illness. Such is not the case with homosexuality. A neutral statement about his son would be appropriate here. Durova 19:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, so suppose Socarides had been a famous dietologist. Would it be OK, in his biography, to say, "It should be noted that his son was overweight." The medical community agrees that being overweight is not necessarily an illness but there are overweight people who are unhappy and want to be thin. Similarly, the medical community may agree that homosexuality is not an illness but there are homosexual people who are unhappy and want to be heterosexual. There is nothing wrong if a person wants to change his/her sexual orientation. The fact that a famous dietologist has an overweight son may give the false impression that the dietologist failed in addressing his/her own son's issues, but the truth is that it is unethical for any medical practitioner to cure his/her son. M.
If the argument was that the dietologist had repeatedly said that their son's overweightness had encouraged their research into the matter, then yes, I believe it would be appropriate and relevant to place that information on their biography page. You are apparently ignoring that portion of the RfC statement, and basing your arguments around a different matter, one of a simple statement about the son, which is not what we're discussing. --Fuzzie (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Excess weight is generally agreed to be a health problem, which isn't true of homosexuality. The only fair analogy I can think of is rather trivial, but suppose a medical doctor devoted a substantial part of his career to converting left-handed people to right-handedness... Durova 02:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • When did Socarides "repeatedly" say that his son's homosexuality encouraged his research into the matter? I think it would be important to find the source of such a statement before reporting it in the encyclopedia.
An excellent question. I can't find it on Google. --Fuzzie (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family Life?

Honestly, can sombeody explain what is the meaning of a section called Family Life in the scientific biography of a doctor? I was just reading the biography of a mathematician and there they did not say a word about his family. It appears that this obsessive attention to his "family life" (whatever that means) is only a way to diminish the importance of the scientific findings of this man.

Abraham Lincoln, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud . . . each of these articles discusses the marriages, children, family and private lives of these people. I could go on and on in this list. Personal life is a legitimate encyclopedic interest. Cabbers 19:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Per Cabbers, no biographical account is complete without details on their family life. I understand that some wish to promote his anti-gay therapies only, but one could do that on their own webpage not an encyclopedia. Ifnord 17:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Reparative Therapy

Cabbers et al, I like the new structure that you are giving to Socarides page, but I removed the line that said that Socarides practiced reparative therapy because he did not. He founded NARTH but later disagreed with the reparative therapy approach promoted by NARTH. In his opinion, reparative therapy does not work. In none of his books, publications, or speeches can we read that he promoted reparative therapy. He actually did not even like the term "reparative therapy" because in his opinion it created confusion. He was convinced that homosexuality itself is a "reparative process" (the homosexual man or woman inconsciously uses homosexuality to repair a deep wound from childhood). Therefore, calling the healing process itself "reparative" was confusing, in his opinion. Socarides only believed in psychoanalysis. Thanks, M.

The concept of reparative therapy was extraneous to Socarides. He did not believe in the concept of reparative therapy. He believed that only psychoanalysis could bring true and deep healing of the profound traumas that are behind homosexuality. Please let's not put back Reparative Therapy on Charles Socarides' page unless you can prove that he actually supported it.
But why remove the entire section on his family life? Every book he has written is listed but no personal details? That would be an advertisement, not an encyclopedic entry. Ifnord 20:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
He did not believe in Reparative therapy? From the article, "Reparative therapy (also known as "conversion", "reorientation" or "differentiation" therapy), refers to any of several techniques that are aimed at changing a person's sexual orientation from homosexuality to heterosexuality (or ex-gay).(also known as "conversion", "reorientation" or "differentiation" therapy), refers to any of several techniques that are aimed at changing a person's sexual orientation from homosexuality to heterosexuality (or ex-gay)." Ifnord 00:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey Dahmer

I think this article should mention what Socarides wrote about gay serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer in his book Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far. That would be a fascinating addition. Skoojal (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is his opinion on Dahmer notable? Have other people referenced Socarides opinions? Is his writing on Dahmer something that when someone mentions Socarides people who are familiar with Socarides would say, "Oh yes, he is the person that wrote X about Dahmer"? -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, notability does not directly limit the content of articles. And the answer to whether anyone refers to Socarides's views on Dahmer is yes. Andrew Sullivan does so in his book Love Undetectable. Skoojal (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Other people writing about it provides the third party sources that are recommended - rather than WP editors using primary sources (writing from primary sources encourages original research). -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand your point. Skoojal (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that OTHER people have found his views of this topic interesting enough to write about would 1) show that the views are notable and would 2) also provide the secondary sources that help keep Wikipedia editors' from conducting original research - which is a tendancy when writing articles and sections of articles based solely on primary sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The notability guideline says, 'These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles.' I can't see any reason why there shouldn't be a brief mention of Socarides's theory about Dahmer here. Skoojal (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not absolutely opposed, but I think that in general if other people have not considered an idea worthy of writing about/commenting on/or quoting it in their work, that idea is probably not 'encyclopedic' and not worth mentioning in Wikipedia. Why don't you draft what you would propose to include and post it here (or in a sandbox) and editors can then comment on actual text rather than theoreticals.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Socarides's views about Dahmer are interesting, at the very least, because of what they show about Socarides, who tries to use them to prove a point about homosexuality generally. Whether Socarides's views have any inherent merit or not, readers can judge for themselves.
The relevant material that I think the article should quote from is on pages 109 and 110 of Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far. Socarides writes, in a mock interview with himself, 'Remember the case of Jeffrey Dahmer in Milwaukee? Doctors can learn a great deal from extreme examples of pathology like Dahmer's. He was a psychotic who also happened to be a homosexual. In his compulsion to incorporate the bodies of other men after same-sex sex, he ended up eating the body parts of his murder victims.' The interviewer (Socarides himself), then asks, 'This made him feel more male?', and Socarides answers 'In his case, it kept him tied to a piece of reality, at least; he preserved his relationship to an object - part object, part person, so that he would not be completely lost in his psychosis. The payoff was illusory, a kind of pseudo-strengthening.' The next question is, 'And this was a consequence of his homosexuality?', to which Socarides answers, 'Every homosexual who wants to incorporate the body of his male lover is utilizing the same mental mechanism: incorportion. Most homosexuals are content to do this symbolically. Dahmer was psychotic; he took his homosexual disorder beyond the limits.' The article should be able to quote at least some of this, noting how Socarides saw Dahmer's cannibalism as an extreme example of the same kind of desire or motive that in his view is shared by average homosexuals. Skoojal (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see why you might have trouble finding people who would reference that view. Are you suggesting adding something like
Socarides saw Dahmer's cannibalism as an extreme example of the same kind of desire or motive that in his view is shared by average homosexuals. <citation>
Considering the amount that he published, if the only Dahmer remarks he made (or the only comments he made about homosexuality and cannibalism) putting much more detail in an article this size would seem to be giving WP:UNDUE weight to this facet of his work. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not consider it undue to include at least a brief mention of this, because it is obviously helpful to understanding Socarides's theories about homosexuality. I think that there has to be a direct quote from Socarides, so that readers can catch what seems to be his fascination with the goriness of Dahmer's behavior. The tone as well as the content of what he wrote is important. Skoojal (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
He published at least 16 books according to the bibliography, and since the article does not discuss his writings in detail, for us to select one item from one chapter of one book to highlight, is giving it undue weight - unless the particular quote is widely noted, which it aparently his Dahmer view is not. If the article discussed his writing in a more thorough fashion (which would require multiple outside sources) we could include this as part of S's body of work but highlighting it out of context of his other work is not appropriate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't find your objections valid. Obviously an an article that discussed Socarides's theories in more detail is what is wanted. To do this, one needs mainly Socarides's own works. Briefly mentioning Socarides on Dahmer would be a step in the right direction. It seems silly to say that it can't go into the article because numerous other things would have to be there as well - one can't add all this information simultaneously. The article does already say a little about what Socarides wrote in Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far, so there's no reason why this additional detail shouldn't be added. Skoojal (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
And again, Socarides's views have been mentioned and discussed by other writers - Andrew Sullivan, himself a widely noted writer, does so in his book Love Undetectable. I will find the exact reference if needed. Skoojal (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style

It's bad style for the article to say, 'Socarides focused much of his career on the study of homosexuality and whether it can be altered.' That's a mouthful of a sentence that should be broken up into two shorter sentences, which is what I've done. Skoojal (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)