Global Gay Nation > Separatism vs. Assimilation

Gay Essence

(1/4) > >>

Feral:
Gay Essence


--- Quote ---From its nascent days in the Seventies, gay liberation has been divided by those who are "assimilationists" and those who are "anti-integration." The assimilationists want full expression within the mainstreams of society, while the anti-integrationists want as little to do with mainstram society as possible. About a year ago, Andrew Sullivan, writing in the New Republic, argued gays were inexorably evolving toward "the end of gay culture" and inevitably toward assimilation. Sullivan may have been premature, even way off base.

Aaron Hicklin, editor of Out magazine (another PlanetOut franchise), has entered the fray, claiming gays have sacrificed "the attitude, flamboyance, and outrageousness that once defined us" in order to win approval from mainstream society, and those values are too great a compromise for general acceptance. He's also peeved over Lance Bass's statement, when asked if he was gay, responded, "No, I am also gay." The reason Bass's comments raise ire among those opposed to assimilation is that Bass and gays like him do not think being gay is all-defining.

Rather, they believe that sexual orientation and the object of one's affections is but one component of their life, important to be sure, but not the alpha-and-omega of all existence. Clearly, the anti-integrationists hold the opposite view: Sexual orientation defines one's entire being, which is radically different from the heterosexual paradigm, and colors one's queer life in remarkably distinct ways. That Hicklin believes flamboyance and outrageousness are intrinsic to being gay exemplifies this attitude.
--- End quote ---


Stephen Heersink thinks both sides are wrong and launches into a lengthy explanation of his position, which is worth reading. Mr. Hicklin's remarks, which I believe Heersink has misinterpreted, can be read here.

Out Magazine and Aaron Hicklin might not be the best arbiters of what the anti-integrationist view is on the "gay essence." Indeed, they may well be wrong about a great many things without affecting the validity of an essential difference between gays and str8s.

Anyone care to take a shot at it?

vanrozenheim:
Certainly, it was a welcome occasion to kick someone's buttom and bring some ideas to paper. :b I have a lengthy comment to the article on http://gayspecies.blogspot.com/2006/09/gay-essence_24.html, this reads as follows:


--- Quote ---It seems a serious mistake to to me to reduce homosexuality and gay identity to the physiological aspects, neglecting the social aspects of a relationship. It's not like humans were concealing their sexual orientation during the day, their sexuality finding expression solely by secretly "having sex with men" or "having sex with women" and having no imact on their otherwise life. The entire social life is rotating about human sexuality – beginning with the talks on the school yards and finishing with invitations to the Vienna Ball. Sex and love has inspired much of the mankind’s culture, and both are indeed the central issue not only with gays, but with humans in general whereby the „boy meets girl“ being exclusively teached in schools and springing into your eye every 30 seconds from the television screen. How can you seriously claim that gays „will see their being "gay" as all-defining“ instead of seeing „their being "gay" as one of many features“, apparently implying that heterosexuals are not as single-minded? Good man, it is simply in the nature of a human being to prefere stories reflecting his own sexuality – that’s why gays are reading about same-sex love, and straights get nuts about heterosexual romances.  

The political agenda of the gay people is reaching from the „assimilationists“ on one side, and the „isolationists“ on the other side. Somewhere in between the „integrationalists“ and the „separatists“ can be found. One shall not confuse these rather moderate dirictions in the gay thinking with more extreme ones – however comfortable it might appear in a debate to discredit the opponent. Therefore it is downright misleading when, as it happened in your valued article, the gay separatists are wrongly ear-marked as „anti-integrationalists“.

Look where the misunderstanding comes from: assimilation and integration are considered to be the same, whereas they are not. For example, white Americans have successfully assimilated native Americans with the effect that the former „Redskins“ now are enjoying all the achievements of modern science, technology and medicines, at the price of loosing their languages and their cultures being destroyed. Assimilation namely means adoption of the main-stream culture while surrendering one’s own identity. Therefore, whenever we hear suggestions to lay down „gay attitudes“ and „integrate ourselves into society“, we should be aware that the well-sounding „integration“ is indead meant to become the open-hearted assimilation. Lay down your gayness, do not kiss with men in public, open doors to women, avoid commenting on male youth’s good looks, play football, claim being „top“ in bed – then you still might be a faggot, but at least you are „acting straight“, perhapts a „real man“ honoris causa. The true integration means that society accepts the different cultural identity of the people in question and respects it as same-valued. Whereas the assimilating society is trying to eradicate any sign of the diviant culture, the integrating society is encouraging the cultural expression of minor cultures and is supporting it with financial and institutional means necessary. Now, guess how does it stand with gay „integration“?

I also have the impression that Mr. Hicklin’s remarks were slightly misinterpreted. His critique was rather pointing on the another passage in Mr. Bass’s interview describing himself as “one of the straight-acting gays…I love to watch football and drink beer”. Indeed, it is hard to disagree with Mr. Hicklin’s concerns about the obvious fact that „“straight-acting” remains some kind of honorable distinction“. When „straight-looking“ and „straight-acting“ is a positively-loaded self-description worth being mentioned not only in sex contact ads, but also inmids of an intellectual conversation, just what exactly is implied when somebody is „gay-looking“ or „gay-acting“?

For people who do not yet have grasped the outreach of the issue, certain analogies might help. What would we think of some wealthy African American back in the 1950’s describing himself as „white-looking“ and „white-acting“? What would we think of a jewish-born scientist or lawyer in Germany of the 1920’s, claiming having nothing to do with „the Jews“? Attending a university, putting on an expensive jacket and joining an opera performance didn’t make them less black or jewish, no matter how more distinguished they might have felt in comparison to their less fortunate brethren.

The learned and the wealthy of a people have the choice between joining the existing establishment, or forming their own elites. Those from the oppressed group who have managed to escape poverty and marginalization have the option to simply enjoy their newly gained social status, or to become leaders and interceders for others of their people. Forming gay elites would require certain degree of courage, and the readiness to take over responsibility for the fates of the large masses of our people.

In a controversy over the assimilation against isolation, perhaps we shall first agree over the notion that non of these alternatives is possible, nor are they expedient for the well-being of the gay people. Neither are straight people ever going to overlook the differnces between gays and straights, nor would it be smart for us to act as if the straight world were not existing. We are forced therefor to contemplate on how much of the integration and how much of the separation will serve the interests of the gay people the best. Assuming we actually are a people and we indeed do have common interests and values, it seems only naturally to me that we shall be able to take appropriate measures to pursue our common interests and to back up our common values. The best way to achieve enhancement of the situation for a distinctive group of people is to congregate closer, to organize themselves politically and economically and to establish a common public sphere worth of being mentioned. Without a strong group identity, and without effective organizatory structures no group ever was able to secure its interests.

The evil in the assimilationist approach (beyound its in-built impossibility) is that its apologets imply that our common interests are limited to a search for a fuck for the night. What else shall the statement „I am not only gay“ suggest? Of course one is not only gay, the same way as one is „not only black“, „not only a native French speaker“, „not only a diabetic“ and „not only a construction worker“! But being „not only“ is hardly a sufficient reason to refrain from black liberation movement, to stop supporting French-speaking film and literature, to stay away from health issues and to resign from the trade union. But only gays are that stupid to defame their likes for „one-dimensionality“ when they are going to address specifically gay issues.  

So what exactly are our common interests and values? The first (and the most obvious) need of our people worldwide is the need for personal security. This issue will remain adherent to being gay at least for the duration of the existance of the three monoteistic Middle-East originated religions – not a single day passes by without gays being stoned, hanged or stabbed somewhere for no other reason than them being a homo. The second issue is the advancement of gay culture, which is still fundamentally underdeveloped and far from corresponding with out material and intellectual ressources. However greate the „Brokeback Mountain“ might have been, the hyperbolical enthusiasm over this single production is a telling testimonial for the generally sad state of our affairs. Third, there is the question of preservation and transmission of our history and knowledge across gay generations. As a people, we simply can’t afford anymore to let every gay generation re-invent the wheel anew. We have no consequently compiled gay history textbooks, no regular education programs for gay youth, and no research institutions worth mentioning. However noble-spirited the singular attempts in this direction certainly are, they are chronically underfinanced and thus rather limited in scope. Forth, the issue of gay youth suicide and homelessnes is still a serious one even in the progressive countries such as Canada, not to mention the many socially far more ruthless societies. And, last but not least, many of us are missing the simple joys of common activities and public celebrations, and by no way can the anonymous high-priced amusement etablissements be regarded as a sufficient substitute. Indeed, it is not a question of „being more than only gay“, but rather an issue of making more of being gay!

Beyond these solely pragmatic approaches, we shall ascertain that gay men are indeed very different from straight men. Of course, this is not fixed to the foolish prejudices about gay hair-dressers and straight airplane mechanics – no, I am talking here about the way how gay men treat treat eachother. There is one essential difference between gay and straight men, which apparently slipped your attention: Whereas the „real men“ are programmed for a never-ending competetive fight against each others with the aim to get hold of the most fertile female and provide their off-spring with better life chances than other children, we faggots completely lack this trait. The effects are dramatic: while straight men are benevolent towards females and latently aggressive towards other men, gay men are instinctively benevolent towards other males and rather indifferent to cooperative towards females. While straight men are pushing their own sons forwards at expenses of other kids, we are driven by our protective (and other) instincts to help them up. While straight men are instinctively oppressive towards any subordinate male youth, we are rather tempted to give them an extra hug.

It is clear therefore that our gay identity is determined not by the degree of „effiminacy“ or „masculinity“, but by the significantly differnt expression of social interaction. This is the reason why you could not find the „essence“ of gay identity – your were looking at the wrong place for it!
--- End quote ---


Do you know if the blog in question is popular? Otherwise, it might be the right time to write an article on rebirth of gay nationalism. Or does a vibrant gay culture somehow prevent anyone from watching football, drinking beer and spitting on the side-walk – all those elevating occupations, which apparently distinguish the „straight-acting“ MSM from common faggots?

P.S. Edited to repair broken link -- Vicky

Feral:

--- Quote ---Do you know if the blog in question is popular?
--- End quote ---


Based on the number of web logs that referrence Mr. Heersink, I would have to estimate that the blog is not much read, which is unfortunate. He is a thoughtful and articulate writer -- something I find too little of these days.

vanrozenheim:
I hope I was not overly rude by posting such an extended comment. :)

vanrozenheim:
Mr. Heersink was so kind to reply followingly:


--- Quote ---Granted, sexuality is not "just" another feature of our human dynamic, and how we react to our physical attractions affects more than our sexuality alone. Other than our non-aggressiveness, which I did mention, and the attraction between the same sex, I cannot find other properties or characteristics which are in any sense universal. Indeed, I know many gay men who are "straight-acting" without "acting," just as I know many who approximate a stereotype and many who are everywhere else on the human spectrum. Lastly, gay men often have interests other than the purely sexual, and those broad interests do not provide a meaningfully defining common identity.

I'm not sure I have seen "gay culture," except in the sense of gay social networks. Are there "gay" arts, and if so, how do they differ from "non-gay" arts? Is Forester's "Maurice" a part of an elusive gay culture, or ordinary culture with gay characters? Ditto Michaelangelo? If there is a "gay culture" beyond the gay social networks I encourage anyone to identify it with the appropriate examples.

I too appreciate "gay" history and believe it needs to be told and heralded, but even here we encounter "essential" difficulties. The man-boy relationships of Greek, Roman, and Arabic antiquity are very different from man-man relationships that seem to have a more recent past. Indeed, "homosexual" in the sense of man-man in our current linguistic use is only 200 years old. I have no doubt that man-man relationships existed in antiquity along with man-boy, but unfortunately there is very little to document this intuition from the annals of history.

Personal safety affects everyone, and surely gays have borne the hostilities of those who lack tolerance and understanding. Having a larger need for safety because of illiberal intolerance is not necessarily a "gay defining" feature, although clearly the increased violence stems from homophobia.

Other than MSM and non-aggression, I just don't see any other "identity-defining" criteria, although I appreciate no one person can capture all the nuances of every individual. I do see areas where gays have started social practices that have spread through the rest of society, but I would be hard-pressed to identify any of these social practices as exclusively gay.

But above all, I do believe whether one assimilates or integrates or whatever words one chooses for participating in the larger world, that those situations that are unique to each individual and common to many gay men should be preserved as an integrity in itself. And above all, that every individual, gay, straight, bi, or celibate, enjoy the pluralism of our individual uniqueness by being authentic to one's self.

While necessity demands some conformity for social cohesion and order, those requirements should be minimal, and our individual expressions must maximally flourish, with a symphony of different players celebrating the joys of our individual pursuits and our collective humanity.
--- End quote ---


Mr. Heersink's reply encouraged me for some further lengthy comment, even at the danger of becoming a pest:


--- Quote ---You have of course right when you say that humans are all very different, and that we shall celebrate our collective humanity. Most people belong not only to one all-defining category, but to many categories -- males, teenagers, blacks, the wealthy, musicians, sportsmen, Italians, moslems etc. But this plentitude of identities is hardly a reason to deny the existence of these categories at all, or to reduce them to profanities. Italians have more in common then living within the same borders and musicians not simply sit in the same room for a couple of hours torturing an instrument. There is always more connected to this - socialization, history, common knowledge etc, even if in other aspects all these people are very different and unique. Homosexuals existed always and everywhere - only the forms of socialization were of course dependent on particular circumstances. Yes, the habits of homosexuals in antik Greece were slightly different from the habits of Western homosexuals of our days, but the same is true for heterosexuals as well.

What do you think is a NATION as such? One hardly would be able to find another group of people who have actually NOTHING in common, and yet these people have the strong feelings of belonging together. Not because these people are living on the same territory, but because they have the same public space and common practical interests. If you or me wanted to find the unique "American identity", we would encounter no lesser difficulties. But, ignorant of our philosophycal difficulties to grasp the essence of their nature, the Americans exist and flourish, the same as Japanese, Italians and Germans -- and Gays. Every "nation" and every "people" the so-called "thought communities" - and as such always artificial constructs.

There is OF COURSE a gay literature existing, and "Maurice" is one of the most beatifull pieces of it. The fact that some straights find pleasure in reading this book in no way suggests that there were no gay culture at all - the same way that Japanese literature does not cease to be Japanese only because millions of people in the West appreciate it as well. Like always, a piece of art can belong to more than one categories: to the "Japanese literature" as well to the "gay literature" and to the "youth books". It is simply foolish to deny the existence of one of these categories while acceptig the others for granted.

I have been reading recently an excellent book from Konrad Lorenz on the nature of species. He expressed a very interesting notion, that "the norm" and "the typus" are indeed solely ideallised projections from many individual beings of the same species. Say, describing a duck, we invent an image of this species which in this IDEALLIZED form never occurs in nature - some are missing a leg, others are lame, the next are psychotic etc - but nevertheless, when we SEE a duck we RECOGNIZE it as a duck. The same way all our differences do not change the fact of who we are - homosexuals, gays, faggots, whatever - and neither we, nor the straights will ever have difficulties to sort out "us" from "them", when provided with all necessary informations.

To come back to the question of gay culture - it is very well existing, but unfortunately not fully developed. What do you think, WHO watches/reads all the gay movies and books? Do you really believe that large hords of straights are waiting the whole week before the next episode of "Queer as Folk" comes on TV? Or that they enjoy "Maurice" as you and me did? You are mistaken, my friend - most straights feel "uncomfortable" when they are unexpectedly confronted with a romantic gay love story, just read all the comments about "Hidden Frontier" and other films/books with singular gay charakters. Not only do we have our distinct culture, but this culture is also much disliked by the straight culture(s).

The only reason why there is actually so little gay culture visible, is the oppression and the lack of gay public sphere. While we can do little against oppression, we can do a great deal on the common gay public sphere - THEN the gay culture will flourish. As always in history, cultural growth largely depends on favourable conditions, spiritual and material. No gay art can develope in an atmosphere of fear and terror, and also not in the intellectual lazyness of pure materialism. If no gay people will read gay books, there will be no gay literature. Separatism and nationalism are always only the means for achieving particular goals - for example, economical and political liberation and cultural progress. If gay boys permanently hear not only from straights, but also from other gays that they indeed have nothing else in common than sex, they will actually believe it. Good bye social networks, good bye political work, good bye gay culture. For what make efforts to teach gay history, if one can pretend there never was one? We can of course continue to deceive ourselves with the fancy that we can simply become the part of the "general culture", but in truth we will remain without a culture while straight people continue as always to do whatever is in their interests. This is a pretty bad bargain, in particularly considering that we currently have the means to do what is necessary for our further developement as a people.

--- End quote ---


I am afraid, the discussion is the old optimist-pessimist battle as they were so often fighted out on this Earth. Both sides know the same facts, but make fundamentally different conclusions of them.  :wink:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page