Via the New York Times, Historic Day for Gays, but Twinge of Loss for an Outsider Culture:
“There is something wonderful about being part of an oppressed community,” [gay historian Eric Marcus] said. But he warned against too much nostalgia. The most vocal gay rights activists may have celebrated being outsiders, but the vast majority of gay people just wanted “what everyone else had,” he said — the ability to fall in love, have families, pursue their careers and “just live their lives.”
I think the overwhelming majority of gay people are happy to trade outsider culture and community for legal equality and social inclusion. But the conflict between those who would celebrate transgressiveness and those who aspire to assimilation goes back a long way, and one of the milestones in favor of assimilation and inclusion was our friend Bruce Bawer’s seminal A Place at the Table.
20 Comments for “Outsiders No More?”
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. Arnold’s supports marriage equality (possible one of the few big name Republicans in Hollywood to do so, other then Clint Eastwood) did a great social media reply to some troll.
2. If anyone in the LGBT community has “fallen in love with” being a part of a downtrodden community it is probably a select few. and they are probably driven less by politics and probably more so by career and class.
3. Before Bawer published his book, their two books titled “After The Ball” (1989) and another book, ‘in Search OF Gay America” dealt with many of the same sort of issues that he would later write about.
“After The Ball” makes suggestions for how the gay community should live and campaign for equality. “In Search Of Gay America” has interviews with lots of “ordinary, everyday’ people who are gay or lesbian (and is not limited to the large ‘blue’ cities).
Now “A Place At The Table” is not a bad book by any means, and its title invokes the New Democrats-style of then President Clinton. I have more complaints with “Beyond Queer” and his later comments about race and immigration.
Also, Bawer was in a position to relocate to not just a city, but a nation that (since the 1970s) has had very left-libertarian views on LGBT issues.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Before Bawer published his book …
Marriage equality was the subject of articles in gay publications before Stonewall, let alone before Bruce Bawer started writing. Marriage equality was in the courts (and dismissed for “want of a federal question” in the mid-1970’s. The first gay couple to actually get a marriage license did so (in Colorado) a few years later. The nation’s first marriage equality decision was handed down in Hawaii in 1993. By the time Bawer wrote, the push for marriage equality was well underway, if still thought to be an “impossible dream” by most of us.
I don’t mean to demean or diminish the writing of men like Bawer and Rauch, but I think that an observation is in order.
Rauch’s 2003 book, “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America” was an inspiration for many of us, and moved me off the “civil unions” dime and into a full-blown push for marriage equality. Bawer’s work was solid enough, albeit narrowly focused.
But none of the writing from men like Bawer and Rauch (including the writing of the incredibly self-absorbed and self-promoting Andrew Sullivan, who seems to think that he invented the drive for marriage equality) accomplished a practical result on the right, and certainly did nothing to bring around the religious conservatives that Bawer, in particular, hoped to influence.
Bawer, Rauch and other conservative gay writers of the time hoped that conservatives would embrace marriage equality, if for other reason that a marriage norm would bring a measure of social control to gay culture. It didn’t happen.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
BTW, Nice to see Arnold supports marriage equality, again. It is interesting that two of major Republicans to back marriage equality are two Hollywood actors; Arnold S., and Clint Eastwood. Anyways,
I read books from the 1980s that cover much of what Bruce Bawer said in his “A Place At The Table Book”. I am not saying that it is a terrible book, just a continuation of what other people were saying in other books and papers.
“A Place At The Table” is more third way/New Democrats in its outlook. In fact, the title of the book comes from a quote by then President Clinton. I have more complaints with what he said later about race and immigration.
Bruce Bawer was able to “go Dutch”, as it were. Just like a good many gay Republicans seem to live in “blue” or “purple” cities were civil rights protections exist and where the religious right has less influence over party politics
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think the overwhelming majority of gay people are happy to trade outsider culture and community for legal equality and social inclusion.
I don’t think that a desire for “social inclusion” is what drove the movement for marriage equality, no matter what the social conservatives say about it. The drive to marry, which was a ground-up movement rather than a top-down movement, was not driven by a desire to be “accepted” or to “normalize homosexuality” or to “find a place at the table”.
It was driven by a deep desire to live as the human beings we are are meant to live, tying love and commitment.
The culture in which I grew up told me, in a thousand ways, that the only possible destination for love in my case was sex, the more furtive and hidden the better, and that I was incapable of commitment. In so doing, the culture in which I grew up told me that I was not fully human, and could not live in a way that was fully himan.
Jon Rauch put it well in an article you cited in another post:
I’ve been baffled over the years about why the homolibs were so successful in moving the left, center-left and center toward acceptance of marriage equality, while the homocons were so spectacularly unsuccessful in moving the right and center-right. I used to think that the failure of homocons to convince conservatives to accept an essentially conservative idea was the result of a Faustian bargain with religious conservatives, a cynical trade for power.
I still think that the Faustian bargain took place, and I think that the bargain was a significant factor, but I am starting to understand that homocons failed so spectacularly for another, more fundamental reason — homocons saw the goal as “acceptance” (or “social inclusion” or “normalization” or “being granted a place at the table”) rather than “self-actualization” — allowing gays and lesbians to live as human beings, living in ways that fulfilled their deepest human desires — to love and be loved, to be committed, and to live self-integrated lives, openly and honestly with ourselves and with others.
I’ll grant you that it took those of us on the left a while to “get it” — we talked about “equal rights” rather than “love is love” longer than we should have done — but eventually, we came to understand what was important to us and began to talk about the drive toward marriage equality in deeply human, rather than social or cultural or legal terms, in terms that straights of good will could understand based on their own experience.
I don’t think that many homocons “get it” still. Rausch does, but most of what I read from homocons still views marriage equality as a path to “social inclusion”, rather than a path to “self-actualization”, and as a path to social control rather than as a path to fulfillment of our basic humanity.
I don’t know why this apparent blindness to the driving force behind the marriage movement is so pervasive among homocons, but I wonder if it isn’t self-inflicted. Homocons seem stuck on the idea that the homolibs are determined to tear down marriage rather than to be married, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
I don’t know what is behind that conviction, but I see evidence of it all the time — the constant drum-pounding about “progressive LGBT’s” who were determined to reject marriage as a model for gays and lesbians, and so on, long after that idea ran its course and disappeared from sight, kept alive primarily in academic journals that nobody reads or cases about.
That is not to say that legal equality (“equal means equal”, if you will) isn’t important. Legal equality is important, because it fundamental to our social compact and our Constitution.
That is not to say that “social inclusion” (or “normalization” or “being granted a place at the table”, what have you) is not important.. It is, because life is a lot easier when you don’t have to live in an environment where you are off-handedly treated like dirt, don’t have to worry about random violence, and don’t have to worry about keeping your job, and so on.
But neither are at the root of the marriage equality movement, and neither was responsible for the incredible speed with which marriage equality became accepted within our society. What made the difference — and everyone who doesn’t doggedly keep their eyes wide shut know this — is that many thousands upon thousands of ordinary gays and lesbians came out to family, friends, co-workers and neighbors, becoming known and allowing Americans who otherwise would have had to way to move beyond the picture of gays and lesbians as dangerous, different, and living in the shadows, to know better.
“Social inclusion” may emerge as a useful byproduct of marriage equality. I hope that it will. I hope that Rauch is right, and that in another generation, a gay high school student will be, for the most part, just another high school student. But “social inclusion” is a byproduct, not a goal.
posted by jerrel towery on
My husband of three years asked me Friday, “Does this mean we aren’t gay married any more? We are just married? How boring.”
In the coming years it will be interesting to see what happens with the gay community. Will it cease to exist? I think it will continue at least for my generation; among the baby boomers. Perhaps there will be no need for a gay community among the younger generations. It will be interesting to see what happens as we move closer and closer to non discrimination; a point not yet reached. It is ironic that the next issues will be over discrimination when most people in the US are unaware that many of us live in areas and states with no legal protection.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
The ‘gay community’ has always been lots of different communities with lots of different cultural heritages, religious beliefs, class interests, philosophical world views and party politics. I doubt that will change.
Some things will probably change, I.e. “gay bars” are harder to be profitable in parts of America unless they can appeal to a larger audience. Although they still have use in many other parts of the nation.
I suspect faith based groups like the Metropolitan Community Church and similar groups will still exist.
posted by jerrel towery on
True about gay bars and gay bookstores unfortunately. The disappearance of gay bookstores is one of the saddest of gay institutions to lose. I think every gay hookstore I have ever been in has closed from dc, to ny, tampa, denver, and key west to name a few. I hope you are correct about other “niche” gay communities.
posted by Houndentenor on
And other gay or gay-friendly groups and activities. But the need for gay-only spaces will diminish (as it has in more progressive countries) as there is less and less danger of being out among a group of straight people. People with similar interests will always want to associate and always will but the need for a place where it’s safe to be gay will be less of a necessity and that’s a good thing.
posted by Houndentenor on
The part of the gay community that wanted to remain outsiders was always small, it’s just that they were at one time providing the few people who would are show their faces on tv to talk about gay issues. If you are old enough to remember the freak show that was gay representation on talk shows in the 70s and 80s, it was quite embarrassing most of the time. Gay people with careers in fields that were not gay friends (meaning, almost all of them) couldn’t take the risk of being fired or alienated from family by speaking freely. It’s the very reason that so many urged everyone to come out knowing that we were never going to get our rights while hiding. And they were right.
This idea that anti-assimilationists represent a majority of gay people is absurd. Most of us just want to live and work and love just like everyone else. We always did.
posted by Lori Heine on
Great literary artifacts of “the community,” like the fiction series Tales of the City, by Armistead Maupin, and the “Buddies” stories, by Ethan Mordden, are wonderful to read. They take us into a time when solidarity was crucial for survival. All I need to do is read books like those, and I get as close to that period as I ever care to come.
posted by Mike in Houston on
^^ what Lori said
posted by jerrel towery on
A line from one of my favorite joni mitchell songs comes to mind, the bittersweet “Something’s lost but something’s gained.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Sadly, gay and feminist bookstores have gone the way off many “Independent” bookstores.
For better or for the worse, people increasingly bought books via Barnes and Noble or Amazon or downloaded the book onto their Android.
For people who could not go into a bar or did not really like the smoke/boozy atmosphere of most bars in that period, a gay or feminist or otherwise Independent bookstore could be a really nice place to be. You could go read a book, drink some coffee, read a local gay or “Independent” magazine and meet some local people.
posted by Lori Heine on
Coffeehouses are sort of filling the function, today, of being havens of inclusiveness. I love them, because they’re almost always very welcoming, and there’s a special sort of atmosphere in them.
Some do serve beer or wine, but that’s not their primary function and people don’t go there to get drunk. People play board games, they work on their laptops, they get to hear live musical performances or poetry readings, and there’s always a ton of information about what’s going on in the wider community.
I’m in a writers’ group that meets in one on Wednesday evenings. It’s almost always a high point in the week.
They’re not strictly LGBT, but in every coffeehouse I’ve ever been in, we’re always made to feel at home.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Stephen: “But the conflict between those who would celebrate transgressiveness and those who aspire to assimilation goes back a long way, and one of the milestones in favor of assimilation and inclusion was our friend Bruce Bawer’s seminal A Place at the Table.”
Houndentenor: “This idea that anti-assimilationists represent a majority of gay people is absurd. Most of us just want to live and work and love just like everyone else. We always did.”
I’ve thought about his for a couple of days, on and off, and it occurs to me that we’ve managed to gain marriage equality without “assimilation”, in the sense that gays and lesbians did not have to give up our “transgressiveness” (per Oxford dictionary, “involving a violation of accepted or imposed boundaries, especially those of social acceptability”) in order to achieve marriage equality.
Bawer’s book, as did quite a few other conservative writings of the period (late 1980’s and early 1990’s), harshly criticizes gay culture (“flamboyant” gays, drag queens, gay bars, baths, Pride parades, nellie/butch stereotypes, and in-your-face “radical activists”), arguing that gays and lesbians, in order to successfully navigate the journey to equality, should become as much like straights as possible, toning down our “excess”, in order to defuse the prejudices of the “silent majority”.
It didn’t turn out that way. We managed to win marriage equality without putting a damper on gays and lesbians who are “flamboyant”, or shutting down the “radical activists” who pushed and shoved, often obnoxiously, or doing much of anything else to change “gay culture” in order to make it more acceptable to conservatives, specifically religious conservatives.
We won the culture battle for marriage equality simply by showing ourselves to be who we are, in all our glory, by coming out to family, friends, neighbors and co-workers. We won the legal battle using standard “equal protection” arguments. We didn’t have to throw anyone under the bus. And we will go forward and see what happens.
posted by Houndentenor on
The idea that everyone would fall in line after SCOTUS ruled on Obergefell was (as predicted) naive:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20150629-interactive-map-how-texas-counties-are-handling-same-sex-marriage-licenses.ece
posted by Houndentenor on
Meanwhile in neighboring Louisiana…
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/07/bobby_jindal_says_state_govern.html
posted by tom jefferson Iii on
I think as more and more people came out, the “outragous” and “radicals” could no longer dominate what it meant being LGBT or how straight people saw the LGBT community.
Look at how films, T V. shows and video games often had similar modes or troupes when dealing with LGBT people gay rights or identity.
As more people came out, the people who create the media gradually took gay news more seriously, and gradually saw LGBT fictional characters as worthy of depth and development.
As mo
posted by Lori Heine on
There are loud, flamboyant, perhaps even obnoxious straight people all over the place. I meet some real characters nearly every day.
They wear silly t-shirts and play horrifyingly bad music at stadium volume. They bring assault rifles into Wal-Mart. They get married and divorced every two weeks. They have kids out of wedlock, then get on “reality” TV and lecture America about the evils of “homosexuality.”
What a lovable bunch! Yet they all managed to get equal treatment under the law, and nobody has questioned whether they ought to be banned from living their lives.
posted by Jorge on
A Place at the Table came highly recommended by one of the Independent Gay Forum commentators, and I ordered it. I didn’t just agree with nearly every word in it, I found it incredibly redundant with my most basic political beliefs. It was very boring. It was a book of a different time, and that time had passed. I believe we all make a difference, so I honor that book for its… place at the table. I’m sure it had its “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon” effect on someone important.
I am sad. Since before I realized I was gay, I have always considered being gay to mean one is a part of this generation’s civil right’s cause. Perhaps it is because I am part of a racial minority that is appreciative of the heroes of a previous generation. To be gay is, to me, to be part of a divine undertaking and responsibility. There are things that only I see, and I can do something with that.
It is part of the human condition to want to be great, to want to be important. That wistfulness this post cites reminds me of one day when my mother questioned… whether her life was a great one. It is not unreasonable for people to think this way when they think they have accomplished that which they set out to do, and realize they still have a few good years left. But there is something false about it.
I went to church on Sunday for the first time in a couple of years. I would go the day of the gay rights parade. For the first time ever, the priest spoke of gay-anything. And being that it was a Catholic church, I cannot say it was not difficult. But I heard something else. The church had so much else to say to me. I read in a magazine that years ago, blacks were segregated in Catholic churches in the south, yet some still stayed. Now, there are needs among African American Catholics that it takes African American church leaders to point the way to.
There is still a need for the passion and the conviction that the gay rights movement and their supporters have brought. This country and this world have provided for us, and they still need us. To stop believing in that which brought accomplishment is a folly. Take the mid-life crisis impulse and choose something worthwhile with it.