Perversions and Murky Conclusions

This weeks reading was really fascinating and the topics discussed in Peiss’ book sparked a lot of thought for me. In particular two things really struck me, both from chapter 6. First I was interested in Document 5 because it reminded me of our discussion last week about the notion of science and Scienta Sexualis in the Victorian period. I was also interested in Rosenberg’s article, primarily because I found it so incredibly frustrating. I’d like to discuss my reactions to each mentioned section, but I’m most interested in hearing what others thought about the same portions, or these portions in relation to other sections from the reading.

First, “Alice Mitchell as a “Case of Sexual Perversion,” 1892 was interesting to me, like I said, because it reminded me of our discussion last week. Peter expressed his frustration at the obvious lack of empirical data backing up the sexual diagnoses made by “scientists.” I can see how this is frustrating, and again recognized an example of the obvious blend between science and religion that drove many examples of medical research. In the case of Alice Mitchell, there’s no doubt in my mind that there was some kind of psychological disturbance for Alice to slit the throat of someone who was once a close companion. I did not, however, see the logic in the actual diagnosis. I found it fascinating that such a distinction was made between the “researchers” and “common” people. For example when the author states, “It is a revolting subject for the laity, for they have no toleration for anything of that kind. It is strictly a scientific matter of professional interest and of great importance to the medical expert”(199). This is interesting because for one, scientists or researchers are considered in some way above lay people, which almost exalts them to a place of spiritual power over others. It is also interesting because the notion of science is so clearly different from our largely secular understanding of the field. As the article goes on to discuss the various kinds of perversions one might encounter there was an interesting moment in which Nature (capital N and clearly tied to a higher power) is said to have agency in controlling the moral decisions of the people: “Nature will certainly avenge herself upon the offender. Mental disturbance and insanity will often follow”(200). I thought it was quite interesting that in this article, science and the religious institution are one in the same, holding the invaluable knowledge that Nature has the power of an almost karmic retribution over decisions that demonstrate weak morals-and that Nature’s vengeance for the weakness of perverts is the one and only cause for insanity.

The field of “medicine” and of Scientia Sexualis is quite fascinating because there is a clear obsession with the notion of having one true cause for each and every medical, social, or sexual “abnormality.” I would definitely argue that this deep need for control still pervades society, if in a different way. In many of the other articles worlds like “only” demonstrate that there is always a definite answer for every social ailment. It seems to me as though people were more unsure than ever and simply hoped to demonstrate control when they feared they were losing it. This need might have been of particular interest to medical or scientific professionals who were so revered in society. If their theories proved unreliable, then the people might turn their trust (and perhaps their money) away from them.

I mentioned that I was quite interested but also quite frustrated by Rosenberg’s article, which immediately follows the above report of scientific “fact.” Interestingly enough, though she does give room for error and acknowledges that there are things she doesn’t know, Rosenberg’s article felt, to me, driven by a similar need for a definitive answer to women’s sexuality in the Victorian period. My major frustration with the article, though, was that it ultimately provided evidence that she claimed supported her argument, but the scope of her argument quickly became to broad to signify anything important to me. At first, and after last weeks readings, I was interested in learning more about this notion of more intimate female relationships and the rise of something like a lesbian culture, but Rosenberg’s article missed the mark for me here. Though she does provide interesting examples of correspondence and behavior, I didn’t feel as though the relationships she described were remarkably different from todays female friendships other than the fact that there was a particular sense of longing in each correspondence. My reaction to this was that perhaps female relationships were closer but the “yearning” for one another was probably fueled by the fact that many of these women were separated after many years of close friendship and correspondence even via letter only emphasized distance. So, as far as I was concerned it’s no surprise that these women were notably aware of each others’ distance.

I also struggled a lot with Rosenberg’s conclusion. Her notion that sexuality (particularly homosexuality vs. heterosexuality) lies on a spectrum and is decided by cultural values (213). I have a strong personal opinion that sexuality is not chosen in any direct way, and it’s certainly not a product of it’s level of acceptability, but I feel as though the pervading ideal of sexuality, especially in historical accounts is easier to single out as having been a particular way because, like Rosenberg, historians are limited to only snippets of certain perspectives on reality. There is no way to say that these letters meant anything more than friendly affection and there is certainly no concrete evidence here, as far as my reading suggested, that homosexuality was any more active or acceptable. I think those who are considered “abnormal” in society are less likely to showcase or document their exchanges and therefore it is difficult to asses whether or not openly homosexual relationships (particularly among women as it pertains to this document) were more acceptable because of the fact that women were brought up among women. (Last time I checked strong circles of strictly female or strictly male friendships are still encouraged today from a very young age).

My frustrations/thoughts have me ready to discuss with everyone on Tuesday! I am, of course, eager for feedback about each of your responses to the documents in the comments on this post.

Tags: Female Friendship, Homosexuality, Identity, Peiss, Rosenberg, Sexuality

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 11th, 2012 at 8:53 pm and is filed under March 13, Whitney Porter. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.