- Email: [email protected]
Gay and lesbian youth: Expressions of identity
BOOK
REVIEWS
JOHN E. WILLIAMS and DEBORAH L. BEST: Se.r md Ps>,che: Gender und Self bYewed Cross-Culruroll~. f 13.95 Paperback. ISBN o-8039-3770-9.
Sage. London.
2 I2 pp.
Though concerned with human sex differences in personality. this book has no room for the names of Hans Eysenck. Lionel Tiger. Donald Symons or Glenn Wilson; nor do such critics of biological theorizing as Steven Rose and Ruth Bleier earn a mention; and prophets of the middle way such as Herman Witkin and Helen Haste are likewise ignored. Yet. though strange in its conception. this research volume is still stranger in its culmination. The authors (from Wake Forest University in North Carolina) make clear a1 the outset that their enplorarion of self-reported sex differences m I4 countries (involving all chief racial and creedal groups apart from Confucians and extant Communists) was conducted with a presumption of and sensitivity IO the influence of cultural variables on local sex “stereotypes”. After a hundred pages of methodology-never mentioning biological posslblhties or how to test them. yet including a ludicrous uttemp1 IO justify why all their reporters of sex stereotypes were university studenls-they begin 10 issue their “discoveries”. These are that men lend to be seen as ‘strong’ and ‘active’; that such features attract a certain admiration from both men and women: that economically advunccd and Christian countrtes show smaller sex dilferences: fhal Prolcstant countries show more individual variance within each SIX; and (hat the sexes’ self-ideals are a Itllle more diverse than arc their self-descriptions. No banalily is spared repctillon: indeed. the authors. reporting that men think themselves more masculine than femintnc. find 11 “always comforrinp 10 be able 10 prove Ihe obvious”. Yet one expects a( every moment that these drab findings will qomchow be inrcrprsted as vindicaling the aulhors’ scnsilivitics. Surely such 1rlvta are only hcinp wrl11cn up co as IO suhrnit them lo some ‘crilical and cI1~ironnlcnfali’ilic analysis Ihat UIII gladden the heart of J. W. Berry (the editor ul’ the Sage C’~O.I.V-CII/~~IT(I/Rc..\(*tlr(.k u!I~/ .\/<~thr~
This book 1s ;I prrssnla1ion of rhc aufhor’s iniual rrbearch ol’ Ihe \~udy ol’rhc rclalionship bctwccn s&-esteem and various sociodcmographic and acurudin;ll variahlss in “ploy and lebbian youth”. llowcber. I do noI undcrh[and why “Expressions of identlly” IS used as the subtitle ;IS iI dws not seem IO be IO r&cl the CO~IWIS ol‘thc book. There arc 10 chapters. and the JlruL‘Iurc ol’ the book is 11u1 ol’a PhD thesis; rhis is why it is no,t II&( rcadtng. or rsadtng for the layperson. II would habe been informative if Savin-Willi;uns had told us for whom he intended the book: presumably il is only intended Tar acadcrnlcs. There is an inlroduction, follousd by dihcusslon ofthcorctical issues and cmpirlcul research on a varisly of rop~cs (e.g. the alleged sell-hafrcd of pys. coming out and self-crhzcm), a detailed chapter on the aurhor’s own rcscarch methodology and chapters delalling the results ;rnd an;~lyses of his present studlcs. The author says his primary go;tl is 10 assess the psychological well-being of ;I divcrsilicd popula[lon of gay and lesbian yourh and to explore sell-es1crm and sell-dlsclosurc. A reading ol’thc lirs1 ch.lpter shows I~MI homosexual hchaviour cannel be easily equated wirh \cxu;~I idrntily. Some boys and girls indulge in homosexual brhariour whilst reraming a hclcrohcxunl idcntjty. and some who dclins themselves as homosexual habc non ye1 had ;I homosexual aITarr. This leads IO prohlcms of dcllm~ion. Alrhough (his is true for adulrs. the author shows lh;l1 iI IS cvcn more dillicult when discussing fccnagcrs. who arc more vartable. Cilvcn that the dclinilmns of homoscxualify arc so prohlcma~lcal. II is Important IO know H.~;II (he aurhor means by “gay and lesbian youth”. If a responden defined h self .ls a1 IC:IFI “slgnilicanlly homosexual” (a Klnscy rating of 7 6) then s,,hc was included AS 3 sludy participant. The respondenls were noI asked whal “stgnllicanrly homosexual” mcanr 10 them. and Ihe aulhor acknowlcdgcs this as a limiralion of the present srudy. I would have thought a Kinscy ra1ing of 2 meant (hat the respondenrs were much more hercrosexual than homoscxua I t4 raking of 3 generally means “equally homosexual and hclcroscxual” so I doubt 1hc value of including such rcspondcnts under the term “pay and Icshlan”. liowevcr. this of cnurFc is dcbatahlr: there has never been general agreement on issues such as these by workers in this suhjccr area. The aulhor uses several ditTcren1 qucslionnaires (some designed especially (or the present study) IO elicit an enormous amount of informalIon from rhe Ss. There were 317 respondents. 6X”/. of which were men. and the ages ranged from I4 to 13. The aurhor wanted to see which sociodcmographic rarlablcs. and which attlrudcs and interests (e.g. religiosity. 327
3’Y
Book
Reviews
pohtical outlook, feminism. number of children. sports) related to self-esteem. The methodology. procedure and results arc all given in detail-some may think too much detail-including all tables of the various stattsttcal analysts. The author says that the findmgs prcscnt a perspective of lesbian and gay youths who have. for the most part. posttivc self-images and who are coping remarkably well. Overall. the assessed so&demographic variables had relatively little influence on the self-esteem level of the gay and lcsbtan youth. The assessed attitudes and interests were poor predictors of self-esteem. For the males. self-definition as gay at an early stage was statistically unrelated to self-esteem. However. among the lesbians one of the best predictors of self-esteem was an early recognition of homosexual attracttons (p. 105). There arc several differences between the gay males and lesbians. and the author shows that it is important not to generalize from studies of gay malts to lesbians-an observation which cannot be stressed too much. The book ends with a chapter called “Moving the invisible to visibility”. which includes views on the politics of being gay. the diversity of gay people, the evolution of teenage difficulttes and so on. The author says that he presents another stde of being young and gay-a positive and promising period of the life course. A book on gay youth is to be welcomed because there is so little research on sexual orientation in the teenage years, However. this book is a spcctalized reference book. useful only for academics interested in sexual orientation. Laypcrsons or psychologists who want general information on gay youth. or those who are attracted by the interesting title of the book ~111. I’m sure, find little to sustain their attention. This is not because the content is hard to understand. but that each chapter IS densely packed with references, descriptive statistics and tables of analyses. so that fluent reading is not possible. and the formal journal article style of writing will not appeal to a general reader. CHRISTIWE
DAKEY
REVIEWS
JOHN E. WILLIAMS and DEBORAH L. BEST: Se.r md Ps>,che: Gender und Self bYewed Cross-Culruroll~. f 13.95 Paperback. ISBN o-8039-3770-9.
Sage. London.
2 I2 pp.
Though concerned with human sex differences in personality. this book has no room for the names of Hans Eysenck. Lionel Tiger. Donald Symons or Glenn Wilson; nor do such critics of biological theorizing as Steven Rose and Ruth Bleier earn a mention; and prophets of the middle way such as Herman Witkin and Helen Haste are likewise ignored. Yet. though strange in its conception. this research volume is still stranger in its culmination. The authors (from Wake Forest University in North Carolina) make clear a1 the outset that their enplorarion of self-reported sex differences m I4 countries (involving all chief racial and creedal groups apart from Confucians and extant Communists) was conducted with a presumption of and sensitivity IO the influence of cultural variables on local sex “stereotypes”. After a hundred pages of methodology-never mentioning biological posslblhties or how to test them. yet including a ludicrous uttemp1 IO justify why all their reporters of sex stereotypes were university studenls-they begin 10 issue their “discoveries”. These are that men lend to be seen as ‘strong’ and ‘active’; that such features attract a certain admiration from both men and women: that economically advunccd and Christian countrtes show smaller sex dilferences: fhal Prolcstant countries show more individual variance within each SIX; and (hat the sexes’ self-ideals are a Itllle more diverse than arc their self-descriptions. No banalily is spared repctillon: indeed. the authors. reporting that men think themselves more masculine than femintnc. find 11 “always comforrinp 10 be able 10 prove Ihe obvious”. Yet one expects a( every moment that these drab findings will qomchow be inrcrprsted as vindicaling the aulhors’ scnsilivitics. Surely such 1rlvta are only hcinp wrl11cn up co as IO suhrnit them lo some ‘crilical and cI1~ironnlcnfali’ilic analysis Ihat UIII gladden the heart of J. W. Berry (the editor ul’ the Sage C’~O.I.V-CII/~~IT(I/Rc..\(*tlr(.k u!I~/ .\/<~thr~
This book 1s ;I prrssnla1ion of rhc aufhor’s iniual rrbearch ol’ Ihe \~udy ol’rhc rclalionship bctwccn s&-esteem and various sociodcmographic and acurudin;ll variahlss in “ploy and lebbian youth”. llowcber. I do noI undcrh[and why “Expressions of identlly” IS used as the subtitle ;IS iI dws not seem IO be IO r&cl the CO~IWIS ol‘thc book. There arc 10 chapters. and the JlruL‘Iurc ol’ the book is 11u1 ol’a PhD thesis; rhis is why it is no,t II&( rcadtng. or rsadtng for the layperson. II would habe been informative if Savin-Willi;uns had told us for whom he intended the book: presumably il is only intended Tar acadcrnlcs. There is an inlroduction, follousd by dihcusslon ofthcorctical issues and cmpirlcul research on a varisly of rop~cs (e.g. the alleged sell-hafrcd of pys. coming out and self-crhzcm), a detailed chapter on the aurhor’s own rcscarch methodology and chapters delalling the results ;rnd an;~lyses of his present studlcs. The author says his primary go;tl is 10 assess the psychological well-being of ;I divcrsilicd popula[lon of gay and lesbian yourh and to explore sell-es1crm and sell-dlsclosurc. A reading ol’thc lirs1 ch.lpter shows I~MI homosexual hchaviour cannel be easily equated wirh \cxu;~I idrntily. Some boys and girls indulge in homosexual brhariour whilst reraming a hclcrohcxunl idcntjty. and some who dclins themselves as homosexual habc non ye1 had ;I homosexual aITarr. This leads IO prohlcms of dcllm~ion. Alrhough (his is true for adulrs. the author shows lh;l1 iI IS cvcn more dillicult when discussing fccnagcrs. who arc more vartable. Cilvcn that the dclinilmns of homoscxualify arc so prohlcma~lcal. II is Important IO know H.~;II (he aurhor means by “gay and lesbian youth”. If a responden defined h self .ls a1 IC:IFI “slgnilicanlly homosexual” (a Klnscy rating of 7 6) then s,,hc was included AS 3 sludy participant. The respondenls were noI asked whal “stgnllicanrly homosexual” mcanr 10 them. and Ihe aulhor acknowlcdgcs this as a limiralion of the present srudy. I would have thought a Kinscy ra1ing of 2 meant (hat the respondenrs were much more hercrosexual than homoscxua I t4 raking of 3 generally means “equally homosexual and hclcroscxual” so I doubt 1hc value of including such rcspondcnts under the term “pay and Icshlan”. liowevcr. this of cnurFc is dcbatahlr: there has never been general agreement on issues such as these by workers in this suhjccr area. The aulhor uses several ditTcren1 qucslionnaires (some designed especially (or the present study) IO elicit an enormous amount of informalIon from rhe Ss. There were 317 respondents. 6X”/. of which were men. and the ages ranged from I4 to 13. The aurhor wanted to see which sociodcmographic rarlablcs. and which attlrudcs and interests (e.g. religiosity. 327
3’Y
Book
Reviews
pohtical outlook, feminism. number of children. sports) related to self-esteem. The methodology. procedure and results arc all given in detail-some may think too much detail-including all tables of the various stattsttcal analysts. The author says that the findmgs prcscnt a perspective of lesbian and gay youths who have. for the most part. posttivc self-images and who are coping remarkably well. Overall. the assessed so&demographic variables had relatively little influence on the self-esteem level of the gay and lcsbtan youth. The assessed attitudes and interests were poor predictors of self-esteem. For the males. self-definition as gay at an early stage was statistically unrelated to self-esteem. However. among the lesbians one of the best predictors of self-esteem was an early recognition of homosexual attracttons (p. 105). There arc several differences between the gay males and lesbians. and the author shows that it is important not to generalize from studies of gay malts to lesbians-an observation which cannot be stressed too much. The book ends with a chapter called “Moving the invisible to visibility”. which includes views on the politics of being gay. the diversity of gay people, the evolution of teenage difficulttes and so on. The author says that he presents another stde of being young and gay-a positive and promising period of the life course. A book on gay youth is to be welcomed because there is so little research on sexual orientation in the teenage years, However. this book is a spcctalized reference book. useful only for academics interested in sexual orientation. Laypcrsons or psychologists who want general information on gay youth. or those who are attracted by the interesting title of the book ~111. I’m sure, find little to sustain their attention. This is not because the content is hard to understand. but that each chapter IS densely packed with references, descriptive statistics and tables of analyses. so that fluent reading is not possible. and the formal journal article style of writing will not appeal to a general reader. CHRISTIWE
DAKEY