Footnote 9 – Anneli Taube
The qualification “polymorphous perverse” which Freud applies to the infantile
libido - referring to the indiscriminate pleasure derived by the child from his
own body or the body of others - has also been accepted by more recent
scholars, like Norman 0. Brown and Herbert Marcuse.
The difference between them and Freud, as already indicated, lies in the fact
at Freud considered it proper
that the libido is sublimated and channeled to an exclusively heterosexual
direction, definitely a genital one, while more recent thinkers approve and even favor a return to polymorphous
perversity and to an eroticization
that goes beyond the merely genital.
In any case,
affirms Fenichel, Western civilization imposes on the girl or boy the models of their own mother or father,
respectively, as the only possible sexual
identities. The probability for a homosexual
orientation, according to Fenichel, is all
the greater the more the child identifies with the progenitor of the opposite sex, instead of what would generally occur. The girl who does not find the model offered by her mother to be satisfactory, and the boy who does not find the model offered by the father to be satisfactory, would as a consequence be prone to homosexuality.
It is appropriate here to not a recent work of the Danish doctor Anneli Taube, Sexuality and Revolution, where it is
suggested that the rejection which a highly sensitive boy experiences towards
an oppressive father – as a symbol of the violently authoritarian, masculine attitude
– is a conscious one. They boy, at the moment when he decides not to adhere to
the world proposed by such a father – use of weapons, violently competitive
sports, disdain for sensitivity as a feminine attribute, etc – is actually
exercising a free and even revolutionary choice inasmuch as he is rejecting the
role of the stronger, the exploitative one. Of course, such a boy could not
suspect on the other hand, that Western civilization, apart from the world of
the father, will not present him with any alternative model for conduct, in
those first dangerously decisive years - above all from
three to five - other than his mother. And the world of the mother -
tenderness, tolerance, and even the arts - will turn out to be much more
attractive to him, especially because of the absence of aggressivity:
but the world of the mother, and here is where his intuition would fall him, is
also the world of submission since the mother is coupled with an authoritarian
male, who only conceive of conjugal union as a subordination of the woman to
the man. In the case of the girl, on the other hand, who decides not to adhere
to the world the of mother, her attitude is due to the fact that she rejects
the role of being submissive, because she intuits it as humiliating and unnatural, without realizing that
once that role has been excluded, Western civilization presents her with no
other role than that of oppressor. But the act of rebellion by such a girl or
boy would be a sign of undeniable strength and dignity.
On the other
hand, Doctor Taube asks why such occurrences are not more common, given that the
Western couple, in general, exemplifies such exploitation. Here she
suggests two factors which act as checks: the first would be present whenever in a home the wife - because of lack of education, intelligence, etc, - is
actually inferior to the husband, which would make the authority of the latter seem more justifiable; the
second factor would depend upon a slow development of the intelligence and
sensitivity of the boy or girl,
which would not permit them to grasp the situation. Implicit in this
observation is the probability that if, on the other hand, the father
is extremely primitive and the mother
quite refined but nonetheless submissive, the extremely sensitive and
precociously intelligent boy almost inevitably will reject the paternal model. And likewise, the girl will
reject maternal model as arbitrary.
As for the question of why in the same home there can be
found homosexual and heterosexual
children, Doctor Taube suggests that in every social cell there
is a tendency toward the division of roles, and for this reason one of
the children will take charge of the parental conflict and keep the other siblings in a rather neutralized field.
Nonetheless, Doctor Taube, after evaluating the primary
impulse toward homosexuality and
pointing out the character of its
revolutionary nonconformity, observes that the absence of other models for
conduct - and in this respect she agrees with Altman and his
thesis concerning the uncommon-ness of bisexual behavior, due to the lack of available bisexual models for conduct - causes the future male homosexual, for example, after
rejecting the defects of the repressive father, to feel anguished about the
necessity for identification with some form of conduct and to “learn” to be submissive like his mother. The process is identical for the girl: she repudiates exploitation, and because of that she hates to be like her submissive mother but social pressures make her slowly “learn” another
role, that of the repressive father.
From five
years of age until adolescence there
occurs in these “different” kinds of children an oscillation in
their original bisexuality. But the “masculinised” girl, for example,
because of her identification with
the father, although feeling
sexually attracted to a male, will not accept the role of passive toy that a conventional male would tend to impose, and will feel uncomfortable and therefore cultivate, as the
only means of overcoming her
anxiety, a different role that will
merely permit play with women. On the
hand, the “feminized” boy, because of his identification with the mother,
although feeling sexually attracted to a girl, will not accept the role
of intrepid assailant that would
tend to be imposed
by a conventional female, will
feel uncomfortable and therefore
cultivate a different role that will only permit play with men.
Anneli Taube thus interprets the imitative
attitude practiced, until very
recently, by a high percentage
of homosexuals, an attitude imitative,
above all of the defects of heterosexuality. What has been characteristic of male homosexuals is
a submissive spirit, a conservative
attitude, a love of peace at any
cost, even the cost of perpetuating their
own marginality; whereas what has been characteristic of female
homosexuals is their anarchical spirit,
violently argumentative, while
at the same time basically disorganized. Yet both attitudes have proven not to be deliberate, but
compulsive, imposed by a slow brainwashing
in which heterosexual bourgeois
models for conduct participate - during infancy and adolescence - and later on, at the point of adopting homosexuality
itself, “bourgeois” models for homosexual conduct.
This prejudice, or
perhaps truthful observation, concerning homosexuals placed them on the periphery of movements for class liberation and political
action in general. The socialist countries’ mistrust of homosexuals is notorious. Much of this - fortunately, suggests Doctor Taube
- began to change throughout the
decade of the sixties, with the emergence
of the woman’s liberation movement,
when the resulting judgments
tended to discredit - in the eyes of such sexual marginals - those unattainable but tenaciously imitated
roles of “strong male” and “weak female.”
The subsequent formation of homosexual liberation fronts is one proof of that.