ogy, Anthropology, and Sociology by saying that he has no such standards to offer. This is not to say that the notion of neurosis is foolish or that Dr. Ellis' definition of it is entirely unusable. We can shorten and paraphrase his second definition (p. 11) as follows: Neurotic behavior is a specialized form of activity which is compulsively or obsessively fixed in one pattern. "Compulsively" and "obsessively" imply strong emotional support for the behavior pattern, coupled with a resistance to rational consideration of the pattern. Nobody can say that the behavior is or is not irrational. The point is that the neurotic refuses to consider the matter.

With this, we can put the concept of neurosis into some sort of perspective; as Dr. Ellis uses it. it is absolute. He equates neurosis with perversion and concludes that persons with a homosexual perversion should rush to the nearest doctor. The fact is that the various philosophies and sciences are only just beginning to come to grips with the problem of neurosis. There are those who argue that all of culture is an essentially neurotic phenomenon (though not for that reason dispensable). A culfure pattern, such as one's native language. for example, is certainly neurotically "specialized" in the sense that the people on whom it is impressed in childhood "arbitrarily narrow down a potentially wide field of action into a very limited act which they feel, out of irrational fear, that they must perform if they are to be comfortable or satisfied." (p. 10). This neurotic side to language, for example, becomes very evident when we consider the tremendous importance which we attribute to certain phrases and words in our political and religious life or the

sacred aura with which we invest our own language. One could enlarge this line of argument at great length. Suffice it to say that for better or worse, neurosis plays a very large role in our lives, and there is as yet no science which can tell us what we can and should do about it. When we demonstrate that a particular bit of human behavior is neurotic, we have not said very much,

Given this understanding, it seems to me that Dr. Ellis' main point is sound: an exclusive sexual orientation, either homosexual or heterosexual, probably has a neurotic origin and is probably maintained by neurotic fears. I think that the invidious term "pervert," however, is misleading when applied to a person with

such a neurosis.

He has not willfully and evilly turned from some "true" path, but finds, rather, that for him some paths are neurotically blocked. The paths that remain open to him become reinforced (whether by a channelling of sexual energy. or by the developing of a set of social ties and obligations, is a problem which we need not attempt to settle here). We can also agree with Dr. Ellis when he says that, as such, a neurosis is a bad thing. It is not, however, an evil of absolute proportions. It is by no means immediately obvious what should be done about a particular perceived neurosis, either in oneself or in someone else.

Dr. Ellis is downright misleading when he implies that all exclusive homosexuals can be released from their neurotic blockages by psychotherapy as it exists today. He knows very well that, with respect to the exclusive homosexuals about whom he writes, the prospects for a change through psychotherapy are poor. Like

5