GLR September-October 2024

the standard tools of the psychiatric trade. If homosexuals were by definition maladjusted, then surely any competent psychia trist armed with a detailed profile of a patient’s overall level of ad justment could spot a homosexual with ease. § T HE MAJOR DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS at this time were a handful of “projective tests,” of which the Rorschach was the most impor tant, typically supplemented by the TAT (Thematic Appercep tion Test) and MAPS (Make-A-Picture-Story). All three involved the presentation of a standardized set of pictures—ab stract inkblots for the Rorschach, drawings of people alone or in groups (typically in pairs) for the other two—which had been used by thousands of practitioners over the years to assess the mental health of both clinical patients and experimental sub jects. Indeed, one is struck by the authority invested in these tests and the extent to which their meaning was relied upon for highly detailed analyses of psychiatric symptoms. Nor did Hooker question their usefulness, choosing instead to accept the proposition that they were reliable tools with which to assess levels of adjustment. But could this assessment really be used to determine if someone was gay? To find out, Hooker developed a sample of sixty individu als, all men, ranging in age from 26 to 57. She was very careful in her selection of thirty homo- and thirty heterosexual subjects,

clearly is no connection between pathology and homosexual ity.” One reason for her confidence is related to a feature of the Rorschach itself. In addition to revealing a subject’s overall level of mental health, the Rorschach was regarded as the most effective test in the psychiatrist’s quiver to determine if a sub ject was homosexual. Based on a modest body of research, a number of “signs” had been identified, such as the tendency to see buttocks, sex organs (either male or female), or feminine clothing in the inkblots. In her review of this literature, Hooker showed that all past studies were deeply flawed, typically be cause the rater was working with a sample of men who were specifically selected for their homosexual orientation, in some cases men who had been diagnosed as mentally ill. To get a better idea of where these “signs” may be coming from, consider a couple of the cards that were taken to separate the men from the gay men, numbers II and IV. For those unfa miliar with the standard set of fifteen Rorschach images, let it be stated that the inkblots were not just random shapes; they were designed to get a reaction. Card II would seem to show two figures facing each other with certain body parts abutting; their sameness could suggest a same-sex interaction of some kind. Card IV seems tailor-made to elicit a phallic association— which indeed it often did. The only problem was that the gay and straight subjects were equally likely to perceive something along these lines.

avoiding anyone who had ever sought psy chological help or been incarcerated or dis ciplined in the military.* To ensure that the two subsamples were comparable, she set up a system of matched pairs based on age, IQ, and level of education. The sixty subjects were put through the rigors of the three pro jective tests, which called upon them to de scribe in a few sentences what was going on in the ambiguous scenes. These descriptions were fed to three experts in Rorschach in terpretation, who were told in advance that half of the subjects were hetero- and half ho

Rorschach Cards II and IV.

While her statistical analysis of the difference, or lack of one, between the homo- and heterosexual subjects is convinc ing, Hooker’s best evidence is perhaps the lengthy quotations she provided from the judges’ reports. One is struck here by the confidence bordering on arrogance of these psychiatric evalua tions, which flatly affirm that one man has dependency needs, another lacks impulse control, a third is adept at handling ag gression. (The long arm of Freud is clearly visible here.) But when it came to pegging the subjects’ sexuality, their language turns to perplexity. Commented Hooker on these attempts: “As a judge compared the matched protocols, he would frequently comment, ‘There are no clues’; or, ‘These are so similar that you are out to skin us alive’; or, ‘It is a forced choice’; or, ‘I just have to guess.’” These comments are especially revealing of the kinds of stereotypes that supported the assumption of homosexual pathology. Hooker noticed, for example: “When careful exam ination failed to reveal anything distinctive, the judge assumed that the more banal or typical record was that of the heterosex ual, an assumption which was sometimes false.” The tendency to label the less banal profile as homosexual clearly reflects the

mosexual men. Their assignment was twofold: to provide an overall assessment of each subject’s level of adjustment using a standard five-point scale (with 1 the “Top” rating and 5 the “Bottom”); and to determine which subject in each pair was ho mosexual based on these assessments. Not to prolong the suspense, the outcome was striking and clear-cut. While the judges showed a high degree of consensus in rating the sixty men’s level of adjustment based on the five point scale, their ability to identify the hetero- and homosexual subjects was no better than chance. Hooker’s conclusion: “there ______________________ * The critical role of sample selection becomes apparent in a 1958 paper titled “Male Homosexuality in the Rorschach” ( The Journal of Projective Techniques ), which includes a literature search of re search comparing hetero- and homosexual populations. It was com mon practice to use prison populations or men recently arrested for homosexual activity or people in institutions for the mentally ill. Noted Hooker: “It therefore seemed important, when I set out to investigate the adjustment of the homosexual, to obtain a sample of overt homosexuals who did not come from these sources; that is, who had a chance of being individuals who, on the surface at least, seemed to have an average adjustment.” September–October 2024

21