Development of the Homosexual Identity

Course work within the class has been progressing with readings largely pertaining to the early historical development of the Gay and Lesbian Identity in the United States. One of our earliest reading topics, the “Socio-Historical Bases of Heteronormative Society” began with John D’Emilio’s “Homosexuality and American Society: An Overview”. Although it may seem a little late to be commenting on this reading, it’s been over a week since class discussion, I think that overall, it’s a reading that’s base assumptions warrants consideration for the framework of this class.

To begin, D’Emilio lays the groundwork for the development of the homosexual identity as one linked partially to an economically oriented cultural shift in America from the familial structure to capitalism. D’Emilio argues that during colonial America, the importance to procreate dominated the American social frontier, with the organization and attitudes towards sexuality mainly centered on the economics of sex and children. In other words, family units were what sustained life at the time, and the more children one had, the more workers one had. From a statistical perspective, the importance society placed on procreation at the time can be said to be supported by the abnormally high birth rates. At the time, it could be said that issues like sexuality, like heterosexuality was undefined because at the time, it was the only way of life due to the importance of self-sustenance. Note that it has nothing to do with a “natural law”, rather directly link to the economics of survival at the time.

So where does the social emphasis of the time leave “homosexuality”? Historical records of random and sporadic homoerotic behavior at the time exist, but there is no historical evidence that men nor women at the time considered themselves “homosexual”. Here, D’Emilio begins to elude to the fact that at the time, homoerotic behavior was seen as an act, not necessarily an all-encompassing identity that a person would ascribe themselves to being.

It was during the second half of the 19th century, with the shift towards industrial capitalism that the social forefront for most Americans began to change and created an environment conducive to the creation of the “homosexual” identity. To begin, the fairly abrupt move to the free market labor system and capitalism in America pulled both men and women from the independent household units straight into the working marketplace. Suddenly, families were no longer the self-sustenance economic units, but rather an entity meant to raise, nurture and promote happiness among its members. Birth rates declined, people began the move to urbanize, cities sprang up, and people began socializing outside of the household, which led to the development of the autonomous personal life.

The development of the personal life included sexuality moving to the realm of personal choice that was disconnected with the societal organization of basic survival. Now, people had individual lives that no longer depended on the society’s previously held conception of the family functioning as an entity assisting in basic “survival” needs. This major change in circumstances allowed men and women who had strong erotic attractions to homoerotic behavior to fashion out their own personal identity and ways of life that were separate from the heteronormative. In American cities, people that recognized their own personal sexual desires began distinguishing themselves from the majority and began finding comfort in their “own”. Soon, an entire subculture of gay men and women emerged that also differentiated itself amongst “types,” “specialties,” social backgrounds and styles. In urban areas, entire city blocks and certain areas were camped out. Both men and women began to identify with this collective sense of consciousness, where homosexuality was no longer just seen as “homoerotic” behavior, but rather and identity category in and of itself.

Although, this new subculture of the gay man and woman was not completely independent of the heterodominant society of its time in any way. To a large extent, even today, aspects of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition has had a monumentally jaded impact on the homosexual identity through its influence in the developed and executed ways of the heteronormative that extends itself through religion, to law, to science and western medicine.

The idea of the heteronormative, and influences from Judeo-Christian thought has been so ingrained in American social thought for ages, that few are even able to recognize that heterosexuality not an absolute truth, the only “option,” or even the “natural” thing. Gay men and women faced discrimination and brutality both from Judeo-Christian religion, which considered it a sin, to laws still filtered on those thoughts, that defined sodomy as a heinous, unnatural sex act, to medicine and science considered it unnatural due to ideas of “biology is destiny”.

D’Emilio’s analysis of the early development of the homosexual identity is important to consider in the debate today over issues of sexuality because it is removing the discussion out of the realm of Judeo-Christian thought and its perversion of religion, medicine, and law into the area of economics. D’Emilio’s analysis of the social economics of family, sex and marriage are compelling because it hints to the very basis that many hold true, that homosexuality is unnatural, has nothing to do with “truth”, but rather a cultural form of relativism.

Ideas of the normative that aren't so normal....

Lately I’ve been on one of my many “introspective trips” where I consider my own identity and how it fits into the “space” of places like Carleton. For those of you who don’t know me, I come from the Jicarilla Apache reservation. Born and raised in Indian Country. For those Natives reading this, you understand what I’m talking about. I grew up without running water, electricity; in one of the few states in the U.S. where the minority is the majority and finding someone who speaks English, as a first language is rare. Hard to believe for some I know, but this is the social framework that I come from. I grew up in an extremely traditional Jicarilla background, which for some, is even harder to believe because majority rumor has it that all Indians died when John Wayne killed them in the movies. My first “real” interactions with people, cultures, and ideas of the majority culture have only recently occurred in my later teenage years and a lot of that has come during my time at Carleton.

Now here, you may be wondering what this has anything to do with my “American Queer” class and even more, why am I mentioning all of this now. For those of you who remain puzzled, here’s why: I come from a very different culture than mainstream American majority culture. Yet I am still American. My culture and language also addresses issues of gender and sexuality and if you want to talk about ideas of the “normative”, perhaps you should also consider that your perspective of the “normative” may not be that normal to many.

Discussion of language, cultural interpretation, socioeconomic differences do pertain to LGBT studies. I do acknowledge that as an LGBT community, we do need to consider the impact of the “majority,” but as a community, we should also acknowledge the wonderfully diverse groups within what encompasses LGBT. Just as we demand the majority community to acknowledge, respect and affirm issues sexual/gender diversity, to overcome “heteronormativity”, we too should ease on the side of caution and also not develop a “homonormativity” for ourselves.

Not every person of the LGBT community enjoys the same socioeconomic privilege. Not every person of the LGBT community functions in majority culture. Not every person in the LGBT community enjoys certain privileges of race.

Yet silencing the minority within the LGBT minority by not acknowledging, affirming and respecting our difference is parallel to the oppression that the whole LGBT undergoes in functioning in a stifling heteronormative world.

Introduction and other nitty gritty formalities.

Welcome everyone to my first blog posting for the “American Queer: An Introduction to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Studies”. For those of you who are unfamiliar with what the class entails, I have listed the course description from Carleton College’s Course Catalog below:

“This course focuses on the emergence and development of LGBT identities in the United States from World War II to the present moment. The course considers the consolidation of lesbian and gay identities before 1969, the Stonewall Rebellion, the divergence of lesbian and gay male subcultures in the 1970s, the AIDS crisis and sexualized lesbian feminisms of the 1980s, new queer activism and commercialization of lesbian and gay identity in the 1990s, and the importance and visibility of transgender identities in the new century. This course functions as a foundational interdisciplinary introduction to LGBT experience in the United States."

Beginning thoughts on the class are a mix of curiosity of the subject matter, thoughts on personal identity, excitement regarding the material and class discussions. I am also thrilled to be in one of Carleton College’s first classes offered in LGBT studies and experiences. Personally, I think that it’s about time for Carleton, which tends to pride itself on “diversity,” to take a good look at it’s curriculum and to consider whether or not it is recognizing and affirming diversity, including sexual diversity, in its academia.

As we have briefly discussed in class today, the public discussion surrounding the emergence of LGBT identities is fairly recent in the United States, with Queer Studies first developing into a set curriculum in the late 1980s. One may argue that the importance of even having Queer Studies, or LGBT studies is that the LGBT identities, as well as any other forms of identity, push thoughts of convention as to what is the "normative". Little is paid to it by way of history and for the most part, it remains a controversial topic for many. By academia beginning to approach it from its human aspect, divergent from the traditional “scientific” approach on sexuality, as a society, we are beginning to develop theories of identity that are apart from the apparent race and sex. As a society, we are beginning to question not what we initially see, but the intricacies of the human being and its many layers, including sexuality. Queer Studies, or LGBT studies, however one chooses to label the coursework, is important because for both homosexual and heterosexual, and everything in between, the coursework is considering what it means to be a human being in its most dynamic entity. It is pushing conventional thought to what one considers the natural to consider the possibility that it’s a relative state of being.