By Aman Chain

Abstract

The following article delves into the disturbing world of conversion therapy, an unethical practice that attempts to alter the sexual orientations of LGBTQ+ communities through pseudoscientific methods. Drawing from the recent revelations made by India’s first openly gay prince, Manvendra Singh Gohil, the article inquires into the distressing intersection of religion, science, and power that perpetuates such practices. Additionally, it explores philosopher Michele Foucault’s insights into the power dynamics underlying conversion therapy by tracing its historical trajectory from its dark origins to its evolution in response to LGBTQ+ rights activism.

Every now and then, we hear about atrocities and humiliations suffered by LGBTQ people who are forced to convert. A recent revelation from India’s first openly gay prince, Manvendra Singh Gohil, underscores the distressing nature of such practices. In a recent interview, Gohil disclosed his parents’ disturbing endeavours to seek medical interventions aimed at “converting” and “correcting” his sexual orientation after he came out to them. Regrettably, such occurrences are not anomalous but recurrent. This unethical practice, rooted at the intersection of religion and science, is reinforced by certain medical professionals and religious leaders. Gohil’s revelation, recounting his parents’ attempts at brain surgery and electroshock therapy as corrective measures, vividly illustrates the grim reality of conversion therapy in India. Having been imported from the West, conversion therapy encompasses a gamut of pseudoscientific techniques, encompassing behaviour modification, psychoanalysis, and spiritual counselling, all designed to suppress the sexual orientations and desires of LGBTQ+ individuals in order to forcibly align them with the heteronormative constructs of society.

Unmasking the Shadows

Looking back, historical terminology lacked the familiar categorizations of ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ that we employ today. The very concept of same-sex relations was deeply stigmatized, being perceived as a communicable disease requiring medical attention. In 1899, German psychiatrist Albert Von Schrenck-Notzing claimed to have successfully transformed a man’s homosexual desire into a “lasting” desire for women, with several hypnosis sessions and visits to brothels. This early practice by Schrenck-Notzing laid the foundation for what is now known as “conversion therapy.” As part of efforts to reverse the perceived sexual proclivities of homosexuals, diverse theories were formulated, and different experts attributed homosexuality to distinct origins linked to their respective fields of research. Endocrinologists proposed that homosexuality was embedded in a man’s testicles. This became the basis for transplantation experiments in which, after chemically castrating the testicles of gay men, “homosexual” testicles were replaced by “heterosexual” testicles in an attempt to cure gay people. This troubling history also witnessed the imposition of other cruel therapies, including ‘electroconvulsive therapy’, administered through diverse means, such as by giving brief electrical stimulations to the brain or administering shock through “electrodes” directly implanted into the brain. Another one was the extremely painful technique of lobotomy, which included several torturous brain surgeries. These interventions were often accompanied by exposure to ‘heterosexual pornography’ and the involvement of young prostitutes, all aimed at reorienting the desires of gay men towards women.

Aversion Therapy and Liberation

Later, a different but equally sadistic and torturous technique was employed. Historian Elise Chenier defines ‘aversion therapy’ as a form of behaviour modification that employs “unpleasant” and sometimes painful stimuli in an effort to help a patient “unlearn” socially unacceptable or harmful behaviour. This was initially used for alcohol addicts in the 1930s, but later in the 1960s, it was used as the best and the permanent way to ‘cure’ the sinful desires and sexual deviations of the ‘sinners.’ It was performed by instilling disgust and hatred in gay men by administering medicated chemicals that caused them to vomit and feel uneasy whenever they saw belongings or photographs of their lovers. Based on the idea that if gay men began to despise homosexuality, they would “unlearn” homosexual desires and may also divert their feelings toward a woman. Few homosexual men who underwent aversion therapy experienced serious long-term psychological effects such as depression, and rates of attempted suicide increased. Many scientists and doctors claimed that the techniques were highly effective and had high “cue rates,” but no real data was ever “documented.”

Things started to change in the late 1960s and early 1970s, catalysed by the Stonewall uprising and the resolute activism of LGBTQ+ rights advocates. Evelyn Hooker, an American Psychologist published a paper titled “The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual” in 1956, wherein she conducted research on “normal homosexuals,” which involved several psychological tests on homosexual and heterosexual males having equal IQ. Her pioneering research debunked any association between homosexuality and “psychological maladjustment.” This ground-breaking research led to the Hooker’s Award in 1992 for Distinguished Contribution to Psychology in the Public Interest from the APA. In 1970, the Gay Liberation Front protested against the APA for their increasingly inhumane psychiatric mistreatment of gay men and lesbians, including the use of aversion therapy. Psychologist Henry Minton says that a burgeoning realization within the APA and increasing pressure from outside, that homosexuality was not an abnormality but rather a facet of human diversity led to its removal from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973. However, this pathologization of homosexuality did not end with the removal of homosexuality from the manual. Several unauthorized and unscientific psychiatric and medical means, including aversion therapy, continued to be used to regulate non-conforming sexual identities.  

Prince Manvendra Singh Gohil’s recent testimony serves as a poignant reminder of the enduring prevalence of conversion practices. Despite the Supreme Court’s decriminalization of homosexuality in India, instances like the 2020 suicide case of a Kerala student reveal the malevolent realities of conversion therapies. The 21-year-old queer woman was forced to go to several “de-addiction” centres for three months after she came out as bisexual to her parents. As Prince Gohil opined in his interview,  “It was an absolute case of discrimination and violation of human rights. Whether I’m a prince or not a prince, parents have no right to put their children through this kind of torture.” This brings to light the pervasive societal homophobia that even education and professionalism have failed to eradicate. The irony lies in the involvement of medical professionals, to whom we entrust our well-being, contributing to such inhumane practices. Support for conversion therapy, by some medical practitioners within the current Indian legal framework, remains a disheartening reality. While the Indian Supreme Court has attempted to curtail these aberrant practices through judicial intervention, the country has yet not ‘criminalised’ the practice of conversion therapy. Despite the National Medical Commission’s September 2, 2022 directive prohibiting professionals from engaging in conversion therapy, the law’s restrictive scope remains confined to civil liabilities, largely focused on monetary compensation, as also held by the apex court in the case of Laxman Balkrishna Joshi. In the case of Navtej Singh Johar, the court in detail interpreted the definition of “mental illness” under Section 2(s) of the Mental Health Act, 2017, and pulled homosexuality out of the scope of mental illness. This lack of criminalization of such practices within the limited punitive framework highlights the ongoing struggle for legal redress.

Repression and Homosexuality

Philosophers such as Michele Foucault and Judith Butler believed in the idea that human beings lack a core essential self. Rather, our identity is a product of discourse and material. But, in order to claim rights and privileges humans strategically acquire an essential identity (essentiality), which is more of a political identity than a self-identity. Among the dominant narratives of male and female identity, homosexuality was inextricably linked to power and ‘repression.’ Foucault believed that when psychiatrists began to understand homosexuality from a medical standpoint, it signalled the start of a new set of interventions and controls. This established a link between two distinct groups, ‘homosexual’ and ‘insane,’ both scrutinized through a shared lens of deviance. “Homosexuality became one of the figures of sexuality when it was downgraded from the practice of sodomy to a type of interior androgyny, of hermaphroditism of the soul. Whereas the sodomite was a deviant, the homosexual was now a species.” The performativity of the queer identity then operates as a practice whose purpose has been shaming the subjects it names, or rather, producing a subject to be shamed. By this approach of shaming and pathologizing certain sexual behaviour, they are pushed out of the Charmed Circle necessitating a need for conversion by placing the ‘abnormals’ in the realm of psychiatry. Foucault was interested in understanding how people express their ‘sexualities’ and what kinds of sex-related actions are acceptable when people make their own decisions and interact with others. This includes things like having sexual pleasure and being in romantic relationships involving love and passion. In comparison to other existing sexualities, he investigated the manner in which people defined and experienced their own sexual desires and connections. He contended that the critical facet was not the existence of homosexuality as a form of ‘sexuality’, but rather the ultimate objectives and consequences of that sexuality, which should not be negated by medical practitioners labelling it as unnatural or ill.

Prince Gohil, also an LGBT activist, is fighting a legal battle at the Supreme Court of India to get conversion therapy banned and penalised by the law. The disconcerting reality persists despite the explicit prohibition on conversion therapy by the Indian Psychiatric Society and the American Psychological Association. The prevalence of such reprehensible practices underscores the imperative for the expeditious establishment of stringent legal measures. Furthermore, equal emphasis should be directed towards gender and sexuality studies, facilitating a comprehensive understanding of desire and identity.

Author’s Bio

Aman Chain is a third-year law student at Jindal Global Law School. His areas of interest are Constitutional law, queer studies and intersections of religion and law.

Image Source: https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/11/16/have-you-considered-your-parents-happiness/conversion-therapy-against-lgbt-people