I am making a plea for strategic political alliances, and I would especially apply this to the somewhat recalcitrant case of psychoanalysis, where I have always felt that it is the liberal middle ground, rather than the out-and-out homophobes, towards whom it is most worthwhile directing our arguments, within the prevailing terms of professional discourse as well as more radically. The critiques of psychoanalysis in relation to homosexuality, that in the 80s and 90s were being made from the margins (e.g. O’Connor and Ryan, 1993) are now much more a part of mainstream discussions and publications. There have been significant shifts in access to most forms of training. To take only a few examples: a book published under the auspices of the International Psychoanalytic Association contains a chapter critical of traditional psychoanalytic beliefs about homosexuality (Fonagy et al., 2006); a recent issue of the International Journal of Psychoanalysis contains a closely-argued article offering a critique in theoretical and clinical detail of the psychoanalytic pathologisation of homosexuality (Phillips, 2003); and in one issue of the British Journal of Psychotherapy in 2006, there are three articles which put forward different ways of working with gay and lesbian patients, including an important consideration of countertransference issues. Such a degree of diversity, albeit modest, was not evident 10 years ago, and this is only a sample of the many publications that can be found. In the recent debates in the House of Lords about adoption rights for lesbians and gay men, all the same old spectres and chestnuts were raised, but the countervailing voices are now significantly stronger and better supported.
To return to the intersections of classical liberalism and psychoanalysis, it is of interest that Freud himself, when visiting England as a young man, was apparently very taken by the philosophy of J.S. Mill and the ideas of utilitarianism; he subsequently translated some of Mill’s writings into German. There are parallels between utilitarian ideas about maximising happiness and avoiding harm, and Freud’s theories concerning the primacy of seeking pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Both early Freudian theory and utilitarianism conceptualise these emotions in quantitative and economic terms (Govrin, 2004). Philip Rieff emphasises the ways in which the liberal defence of the individual against the incursions of the state was formative in the beginnings of Freudian psychology, and how for Freud, society and social norms demanded a sacrifice of individuality (Rieff 1959).