Rethinking phobia

Have you ever called someone xenophobic, Islamophobic, or homophobic? We use these labels all the time and hear them every day. But do we really understand the meaning of these “phobias,” and do they deserve a place in our vocabulary?

Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign has been, without a doubt, the most politically incorrect in recent history. For the various policies he has proposed, Trump has been slapped with a few of these phobia labels, particularly the words “xenophobic” and “Islamophobic.” Articles in high profile papers and magazines like The Huffington Post and The Guardian have embraced these epithets for Trump. Even the presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders has called out Donald Trump for his xenophobia. But are these labels truly precise? Do they properly convey their intended meaning, or do they inadvertently rationalize Trump’s ideas?

To answer that question, it is necessary to examine the definition of “phobia” and compare it to instances of its modern usage. The abbreviated medical definition of a “phobia” is “a persistent, irrational, intense fear of a specific object, activity, or situation (the phobic stimulus), fear that is recognized as being excessive or unreasonable by the individual himself.” An example of a medical phobia is acrophobia, which is a fear of heights. In recent years, however, we have begun to refer to social beliefs as phobias.

In an article written for The New York Times Magazine, Amanda Hess writes of how the “-phobic” suffix became a weapon of the culture war. She recounts the history of the term “Homophobic,” informing the reader that the term was coined by the psychotherapist and gay activist George Weinberg to describe people averse to homosexuality. “Homophobic” was a smash hit, and, according to Hess, “the ‘-phobic’ suffix has emerged as the activist’s most trusted term of art for pinning prejudice on an opponent.”

The etymological claim that these words make is inconsistent with their purpose, however. David Minthorn, the Associated Press Deputy Standards Editor, writes that the term “homophobia” “[is] ascribing a mental disability to someone, and suggests a knowledge that we don't have.” To claim that someone has a psychological condition that causes him to act a certain way, just like my acrophobia causes me to fear heights, is to subtract the moral responsibility from that person’s behavior. This forms the very premise of the insanity plea, which is to claim that a psychological condition caused Person A to commit a crime against Person B, and thus Person A has an excuse for committing the crime. A similar defense, called a “panic” defense, has been appealed to by criminal defendants who had assaulted or murdered LGBTQ persons.

Put simply, “prejudice” is a moral and rational category. “Phobia” is not. The pioneers of the moral revolution desire to raise a moral accusation against those who disagree with them, but the very labels they use to condemn their opponents remove morality from the equation. The very notion of “phobia” to this end is functionally inconsistent.

For instance, in the case of Donald Trump’s alleged “xenophobia,” we must ask, “Is this an example of fear-mongering, or is it truly a phobia?” Fear mongering implies a rational fear that arises from ideas and is spread through communication, while the other indicates an irrational fear that is caused by a psychological condition. According to the former, Donald Trump logically and rhetorically persuades people and himself to be afraid, providing basis for action out of fear. According to the latter, Donald Trump is psychologically defective and triggers psychological defectiveness in all his followers. Which is the more accurate description, and which best fits the moral indictment to be brought against him?

Amanda Hess closes her article with this warning: “‘Phobia’ is now so embedded in our language that it’s easy to forget that it is a metaphor comparing bigots to the mentally ill…It’s not your fault if you get sick. But hating people is a choice.” I consider this conclusion fascinating. By linking “hating people” to phobias while also claiming “hating people is a choice,” Hess inadvertently exposes the “phobia” labels as part of a falsely constructed, amoral category.