Becoming Bourgeois

It has been only 56 years since the 1951 publication of Edward Sagarin's pseudonymous "The Homosexual in America," which can be said to mark the beginnings of the American gay rights movement. And it has been only 38 years since the Stonewall events of 1969 that gave the movement a valuable boost.

Gays and lesbians have made remarkably fast progress in the intervening years, although viewed on a day-to-day basis it seems painfully slow. Millions of gays are now out of the closet, public support for the acceptance of gays is growing, substantial majorities favor ending the military ban on gays, gay marriage or full civil unions enjoy majority support, and more.

The combined effect of our everyday visibility and the cogency of our arguments continue to undermine long-standing and deeply rooted prejudice. That is something to celebrate in the run-up to our late June festivities.

Think how frustrated the zealots of the religious/social right wing must be at this progress. They endlessly criticize us as "radical homosexual activists"--enemies of family, church, and nation. No doubt there is a lingering handful of old gay Marxists and Marxian lesbian feminists, but don't forget that for the religious right, "radical homosexual activist" is their term for any person who is open about his sexual orientation. In their view, that is "radical" because our very visibility constitutes an argument "in the flesh" for our benignity and the legitimacy of our claim to equality.

Far from being radicals of any sort, most of us are just plain ol' bourgeois. How much more bourgeois can you be than wanting to marry the person you love and wanting to serve in the military? What we want, in short, is full inclusion in society--something we had (at considerable psychological cost) when we were all in the closet, and something we still deserve now that we are out.

Interestingly this same inclusion is feared by the radical left as well as the religious right. The radical left scorns our full inclusion as "assimilation," with that word's implication that, once included, gays will somehow lose all those unique qualities they have--qualities that could not survive without the continued pressure of hostility, discrimination and exclusion. I don't know if gays have any unique qualities, but I doubt if any such would be lost if we achieved equality.

Consider how bourgeois we really are. Much of the early "gay liberation" polemics seemed heavily focused on sexual liberation--the liberating of the libido (a la Herbert Marcuse). Certainly the legitimacy of gay sex needed to be vigorously asserted in the face of harsh state sodomy laws and discomfort among many gays about their sexual desires.

But sexual liberation is now much less an issue and more of a background assumption. It is an availability rather than a mandate. The task for most gays has become not so much one of obtaining more sex with more partners, but that of finding a way to integrate their sexual desires with their emotional longings. In this gays are no different from most heterosexual Americans.

More gays are even procreating children or adopting them through U.S. adoption agencies or from abroad. One couple I know adopted a baby from China, another from Russia. As one male friend explained to me, "The biological clock was ticking."

I have never heard the ticking of that particular clock, but I can accept it as a metaphor for some people's nagging sense that something is incomplete in their lives as a gay or lesbian couple. Only polemicists for the religious could argue that it is better for a child to have no parents rather than one parent or two parents of the same sex.

The gay neighborhoods of many of our largest cities seem to be slowly losing their gay density as more gay men move to other areas of large cities or to the suburbs. San Francisco and Chicago are good examples. Often this follows finding a partner and their desire to have a house of their own.

Sometimes they move to find lower living costs but equally often they move to find peace and quiet. I have not seen sociological research on this, and we probably won't have a clear idea until a new edition of Gary Gates' valuable "Gay and Lesbian Atlas" based on the 2010 census data. But that population drift could also have an impact on gay business.

And finally, let's point out that "queer" is pretty dead. It never really caught on. Longtime gay writer and activist Gabriel Rotello called it "the word that failed." It was floated as a generic term for gays (etc.) on the assumption that adopting a term of opprobrium would somehow reduce the hostility of homophobes among whom it originally arose. To paraphrase Orwell, that is a belief so absurd that only an intellectual could believe it.

13 Comments for “Becoming Bourgeois”

  1. posted by Brian Miller on

    Actually, we are queer. Some of us are.

    Some of us aren’t.

    Some of us are some other appellation, or none at all.

    We’re married old lesbian couples living in the country, and single young gay guys living in the middle of the city.

    We’re raising kids, or living the bachelor’s life.

    We’re professionals who work hard, and stay-at-home partners and parents.

    We’re all accepted or excluded by society to varying degrees, for varying reasons, all growing out of our common root of being “different” than the majority. That creates some common challenges, some cultural (and subcultural) commonalities, but like everything else in our country, it also creates incredible diversity in the populace in every conceivable way.

    This is a good thing — long may it continue!

  2. posted by Lori Heine on

    One of the reasons our portion of the population seems to be becoming less “queer” is, indeed, that more and more of us are coming out.

    In the early days, only the bravest, and those most willing to stand out and be unconventional, were likely to come out. If you were religious, or politlcally/socially conservative, there was little chance you would take such a huge step.

    When I came out ten years ago, I knew I’d be able to find a church that would accept me. I also knew that most of my family and friends would stand firmly beside me. And these things turned out to be true. There was nothing about it that required exceptional boldness or bravery. Many of the people I told I was gay responded by saying, “Well, why did you wait so long to tell us? We figured that out years ago.”

    This is why more defiantly-revolutionary GLBT folks get angry with those of us who are more conservative. They don’t realize that great, dramatic stands — which might have been necessary in the past — are not only unnecessary now, but often counterproductive.

  3. posted by Brian Miller on

    But Lori, drama is FUN!

    *tosses hair with a flourish*

  4. posted by Editer on

    vive la difference!

    I don’t like talking about sports.

    I like camp euro-pop.

    Songs make me tear up.

    I can design news pages, unlike my str8 co-workers

    Im offended by strip malls and mcmansions.

    I like guys…

  5. posted by Lori Heine on

    “But Lori, drama is FUN!”

    Brian, I’m with you. And really, do I seem like somebody who DOESN’T like drama?

    I’m a playwright, so drama is a necessary part of life for me. I also must admit that when I came out ten years ago, there was an unexpected fringe benefit:

    My social life improved about a thousand percent!

    At the risk of being controversial, I find the company of gay people, in general, a lot more interesting and enjoyable than I do that of straights.

    We’re more fun.

    That having been said, I know a few straight folks who are lots of fun. (All, without exception, are gay-friendly.)

    Are homophobes fun? I think few could honestly say so!

    No matter how “normal” we become, we will always have more friends than those who dislike us. Homophobes are mudpies in the bake-shop of humanity.

  6. posted by Xeno on

    Are homophobes fun? I think few could honestly say so!

    Well Fred Phelps and is merry bunch are fun to watch. Some of the things he says are hilarious and over the top (though I think some of their act is too biblical). It’s like watching a ranting derelict without feeling sorry for.

  7. posted by Craig2 on

    Lori…remember, within fundiedom, it is de rigeur to have bad coiffure, awful dress sense (and an overabundance on

    polyester), and behave as if you either consume worrying amounts of Ecstacy or are having a bad bipolar depressive episode. Added to which, it is also compulsory to possess a profound hatred for them dastardly “elite

    intellectuals” (which is a synonym for anyone who finished high school, unlike most of them).

    What’s not to mercilessly parody?

    Craig2

    Wellington

    New Zealand

  8. posted by Lori Heine on

    Xeno and Craig2, I suppose you’re right.

    Mudpies can still be fun. I, personally, have had lots of fun with them. (Not that I will elaborate here.)

  9. posted by Kyle on

    Mr. Varbell says: “And it has been only 38 years since the Stonewall events of 1969 that gave the movement a valuable boost.”

    One has become bourgeois indeed when one is reluctant to call a riot a ‘riot,’ and yet remain well-pleased that it happened. I wonder, do bourgeois Frenchmen nowadays speak of the ‘events at the Bastille’? *wink*

  10. posted by MMMM on

    OK, Paul, you raise some very interesting questions about the dynamics of societal change but at the same time dismiss them too quickly, sometimes with a strawman argument. First, I’m not sure those of us outside the coterie of queer writers know that the term queer is dead yet. Second, legal and political enfranchisement may be the best term for “what we really want.” Your words “full inclusion” say that well enough, but why write off the argument against assimilation? It really is a different animal. Enfranchised but unassimilated is a core American democratic value. Finally, I’m not sure the hypothetical effects of the so-called social revolutions that have taken place in the past have completely played themselves out yet either. Relatedly, there are bellwethers of public opinion, more or less informed by those past movements, lined up and ready to sieze the day any moment now. Disaffectation with the values you now call bourgeois – a term whose meaning you seem to have also reinvented – is palpable and reasonably sound, because 90s neoliberalization has proven as empty and alienating as the values of the current reactionary political right. A vacuum exists for alternative values – pioneered in part by past movements – and queers – that forefront creative expression and invention. The next generation needs that now.

  11. posted by Bobby on

    Gays aren’t more fun, straights aren’t more fun.

    This gay or straight mentality is nonsense. People don’t choose each other based on sexual orientation. A white man and a black man aren’t going to be friends just because they’re straight, they need something in common, like sports, politics, or a willingness to like their differences.

    “I find the company of gay people, in general, a lot more interesting and enjoyable than I do that of straights. ”

    —And yet there’s so many gay men who claim to be straight-acting and brag about not being part of the gay scene. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? I think your feelings will change eventually. A lot of people get burnout with the gay community, I did very quickly.

  12. posted by Brian Miller on

    People don’t choose each other based on sexual orientation

    No, but one’s sexual orientation does shape his character.

    Gay people are often more fun to hang around with than average straight people since they’ve lived lives as “others” and thus often have the ability to empathize — they’ve had to in order to survive. They also tend to be a bit more open-minded in many cases because of their own personal experiences.

    That’s far from universal, but it is my experience in many situations.

    Further, lots of people do choose their friends based on sexual orientation. The whole “straight-acting” thing you’re talking about is a great example — gay men who believe they have to act a certain way in order to be accepted by heterosexual society.

    there’s so many gay men who claim to be straight-acting and brag about not being part of the gay scene

    And they’re all bottoms — which sorta gives lie to the whole “straight acting” thing. Bottoming for another man is pretty darn gay, if you ask me! 😉

    A lot of people get burnout with the gay community

    Depends on where you go. If you view the gay community as the gayborhood and its associated bars and clubs, yeah, I can see you’d get burnt out (especially having to be polite to all of those “straight acting” guys who cling to you and spill their neuroses upon you). However, the gay community goes way beyond a few clubs and bars, just like the straight community goes beyond singles clubs and sports bars.

  13. posted by Bobby on

    “Further, lots of people do choose their friends based on sexual orientation.”

    —That’s where I disagree. I was in the closet for many years, and few straight people wanted to be friends wtih me. At my school we had cliques for nerds, jocks, drama, popular kids, etc. It’s not enough to be straight to be picked by other straights. You have to be something else other than that. True, coming out can get you rejected, but so can being fat, being ugly, being different. A woman can be treated like garbage for having small tits or made fun off for having big tits. We’re not that special.

    Besides, what about gays who treat straights better than they treat gays? Doesn’t that show that sexual orientation is not enough? I’ve seen this happen all the time. That’s why I have no loyalty towards gays or anyone.

    “The whole “straight-acting” thing you’re talking about is a great example — gay men who believe they have to act a certain way in order to be accepted by heterosexual society.”

    —Sure, and that’s why I don’t generalize gays as open minded and fun to hang around with. They’re just as cliquish as straight people. And like most groups, they need to affirm themselves as open minded and cool just to feel good about themselves.

    But to me, straight-acting doens’t mean you’re acting a certain way. If a man comes out of the closet and he becomes a flamer, wears a t-shirt that says “queer” and lisps on purpose, woudln’t you say he’s the one acting? You woudln’t, you’d say he’s being himself. Well, straight-acting men are being himself. We’re men who love men but don’t want to be queens. To me it’s not about being accepted by society, although I admit that part of it is simply that I don’t want to stick out like a sore thumb. People know I’m gay, but that doesn’t mean I have to wear a freaking rainbow t-shirt or make a seen holding hands in a mostly straight area. Among jews for example, some of us look down at jews that wear the star of David, or dress jewish, or stick out with orthodox attire. Jews that dress normal call themselves “assimilated.” Every group has that.

    ” just like the straight community goes beyond singles clubs and sports bars.”

    —Well, you’re right about that. Although here in South Beach, there’s more gay bars than gay social groups, we don’t even have a GLCC.

Comments are closed.