Originally appeared January 17, 2001, in the Chicago Free Press.
One of the recurring concerns for those of us who want to promote liberty and equality for gays is the well-attested fact of popular ignorance about politics, public policy and political issues.
Writing in a special issue of Critical Review devoted to "Public Ignorance" (Fall, 1998), editor Jeffrey Friedman pointed out:
"That the public is overwhelmingly ignorant when it comes to politics ... is a discovery that has been replicated unfailingly by political scientists; indeed, it is one of the strongest findings that have been produced by any social science - possibly the strongest."
Most people do not follow public policy debates, do not know politicians' positions on issues and misstate them when asked. For instance, the vast majority of Americans had never heard of the 1994 "Contract with America" that supposedly won Congress for the Republicans.
Rather, Friedman says, "Most people's political opinions are based not on attention to high-flown political debate, but instead on extremely ill-informed judgments about 'the nature of the times' (prosperity? peace?) and about the interests of the group with which they identify."
If so, then most people are similarly unaware of the reasons we offer to insisting that we be treated as citizens with equal rights and dignity.
But what does it mean for us if, despite our best efforts, the general public does not hear or does not pay attention to our arguments, our concerns and our legitimate claims?
This is particularly troubling for those of us who follow public discussion and try to contribute to it by formulating thoughtful arguments in favor of gay equality.
There is no easy reply, but here are three considerations.
One is that writing and making our arguments may have some effect on the "intellectuals," the few people who do take arguments seriously and have some sense of when an argument is reasonable and when it is not.
It certainly seems that after 40 years of developing and repeating gay-affirming arguments, we have largely convinced most serious intellectuals of the legitimacy of our claims to equality,
Even if most of the public do not follow the details of public issues from year to year, there is some reason to think that over time, as the intellectuals go about their work, there is some "trickle down" effect from their generally supportive attitudes.
No doubt, our ideas do not get transmitted except in the coarsest form - gays feel aggrieved, gays are treated unequally, gays are not going to change - but a generally more positive attitude toward gays does get transmitted: Gays are not so bad, there are lots of gays, gays are not going to change. That in itself is a gain.
A second possibility is that by taking every possible opportunity to present our views, no matter what we say, we at least make ourselves visible to more people. That helps people get used to us and helps counter hostility based on fear and ignorance.
Many years ago, a lesbian and I used to give talks to college classes for a gay student group. We would do a 50 minutes routine full of fascinating facts about the gay community, rigorous arguments for gay normality and insightful analyses of homophobia. We did more than 100 of these.
One time after a class ended, an athletic looking young man came up and announced, "I have a question." "Sure," I said, bracing myself for hostile assumptions. "You look like you work out," he said. "How much can you bench?"
I am convinced now that little we said had any effect. What did have an effect was that we were real, live gay people. The students were not listening to what we said; they were watching us to see what sort of people we were, whether we were likable, whether they could relate to us. The young man had found a way.
Marshall McLuhan became famous for his slogan "The Medium is the Message." I would say instead that often "The Messenger is the Message." But we would never have been invited to classes if we had not had interesting, cogent, intellectually solid ideas to present.
A third reason for trying to offer arguments in the face of thoroughgoing "public ignorance," at least for those of us in the gay press, is that we hope to give readers the information and tools to become more effective advocates for themselves.
One of our goals is to give readers some sense of the value of their lives and the moral legitimacy of their political and social claims to help them resist the solar wind of deprecation that blows unceasingly against most gays and lesbians.
This task includes setting out the rationale for our various ethical, political and social claims as well as examining and explaining the flaws in the various anti-gay views readers are likely to encounter in their lives.
The person who reads these analyses may not remember them in detail, but may at least remember whether the argument seemed convincing at the time and it may help him avoid being hurt or inhibited by anti-gay hostility.
These may be modest results for the use of reason in public discussion, but perhaps they are not without value.