Oμοφυλοφιλία: Καταπίεση και απελευθέρωση

by Dennis Altman, Λουκάς Θεοδωρακόπουλος (Translator)

Ποια υπήρξε, ποια είναι, ποια θα μπορούσε και θα έπρεπε να είναι η θέση του ομοφυλόφιλου στην κοινωνία; Για πολύ καιρό τον θεωρούσαν σαν παρία ακόμα και σαν εγκληματία. Τον μεταχειρίζονται πάντα σαν έναν "απόβλητο", θύμα μιας διάκρισης που μερικές φορές μεταμφιέζεται σε ανεκτικότητα ή σε οίκτο. Ο ίδιος "εσωτερικεύει" αυτή την καταπίεση και γίνεται ο ίδιος του ο καταπιεστής. Αλλά βρισκόμαστε σήμερα μπροστά σ' ένα κίνημα "απελευθέρωσης" του ομοφυλόφιλου που δεν είναι άσχετο με το κίνημα απελευθέρωσης των γυναικών. Σ' αυτό το βιβλίο, ο Ντένις Άλτμαν δείχνει πώς γεννήθηκε αυτό το κίνημα στην Αμερική, πώς εκδηλώνεται και αναπτύσσεται, πώς συνδυάζει τη δράση του με εκείνη των άλλων κινημάτων απελευθέρωσης - των γυναικών και των μαύρων, ιδιαίτερα - ποιες είναι οι σχέσεις του με την "αντικουλτούρα" και τη "νέα αριστερά", κι ακόμα πώς σημαδεύτηκε από το έργο και τη σκέψη διάφορων συγγραφέων όπως ο Μαρκούζε, ο Γκίνσμπεργκ, ο Μπώλντουιν, ιδιαίτερα. Η ομοφυλοφιλία είναι μια μορφή της αμφισεξουαλικότητας που ενυπάρχει στον καθένα μας; Μια επανάσταση των ηθών, περισσότερο ψυχολογική παρά πολιτική, δεν είναι αναγκαία για την ανάδειξη μιας νέας "συνείδησης" που βάζει τέλος σε απλοϊκούς προσδιορισμούς και διακρίσεις; Να μερικές από τις ερωτήσεις που βάζει -και προσπαθεί να απαντήσει- ένα έργο πολεμικής βέβαια, αλλά χωρίς εμπάθεια, που θα έπρεπε να ενδιαφέρει όσους οραματίζονται την απελευθέρωση του ανθρώπου στα πλαίσια μιας νέας κοινωνίας.

Genres: LGBT, Nonfiction, Queer, History, Gay, Social Justice, Politics

256 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1971

About the author

Dennis Altman is a Professorial Fellow in Human Security at La Trobe University, Melbourne, and was Visiting Professor of Australian Studies at Harvard.

He has written eleven books exploring sexuality and politics, and their inter-relationship in Australia, the United States, and now globally. These include The Homosexualization of America, AIDS and the New Puritanism, Rehearsals for Change, The Comfort of Men (a novel), and his memoir Defying Gravity. His book Global Sex (Chicago University Press) has been translated into five languages. Most recently he published Gore Vidal’s America (Polity), 51st State? (Scribe)and The End of the Homosexual? (UQP).

In 2008, Altman was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia.

Reviews

[Nikolas Koutsodontis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ιστορικό κινηματικό βιβλίο, γραμμένο από τον κοινωνιολόγο Dennis Altman, με τον ενθουσιασμό και την αισιοδοξία ενός συμμετέχοντα στα βρεφικά βήματα του σύγχρονου πια ομοφυλόφιλου κινήματος, όντας παρόν στο Stownwall riot το 1969, αλλά και στο σχηματισμό του Gay Liberation Front.

Διαβάζοντας το αναρωτιόμουν πόσους από τους στόχους που έθετε το βιβλίο έχουμε σήμερα ως δυτικές κοινωνίες επιτεύξει ακριβώς πενήντα χρόνια από την έκδοση του (1971).

Αρχικά ο Άλτμαν προσεγγίζει τον όρο "Ομοφυλοφιλία".

Κάνει πολύ και ενδιαφέρουσα χρήση λογοτεχνικών πηγών της εποχής του (την αμερικάνικη λογοτεχνία του ομοφυλόφιλου ως "απόβλητου σε αντίθεση με τη βρετανική όπου συμμετέχει κανονικά στο περίπλοκο σύμπαν των κοινωνικών σχέσεων 18 -και άρα πιο ευτυχισμένων), ορίζει ως σημαντικότατη υπόθεση την αναγνώριση και προβολή τη ομοφυλοφιλίας των ατόμων (30),

αναλύει τον ομοφυλόφιλο κόσμο, μέσω των μπαρ γνωριμίας, αλλά κυρίως των πάρκων, λουτρών, ακρογυαλιών, λεσχών όπου οι άντρες βρίσκονταν για ψωνιστήρι και ευκαιριακό σεξ. Εδώ, μίλησε για τους παντρεμένους γκέυ και τους "πόρνους", βασισμένος και στο έργο του Laud Humphreys (στο Tearoom trade έδωσε κοινωνιολογικά τον κόσμο του αντρικού ευκαιριακού δημόσιου σεξ). Ο Άλτμαν απορρίτει τον κόσμο αυτόν, ως ψευτοκοινότητα βασισμένη πάνω στις σεξουαλικές ανταλλαγές (53)

προσεγγίζει το φαινόμενο του συντηρητισμού των γκέυ, το σκέφτεται ως ένα τύπο υπεραναπληρωσης , εκείνων που έχοντας αποκτήσει μια θέση στην κοινωνία καταφέρονται με πίκρα ενάντια σε όσους αμφισβητούν τη θέση τους (41), μιλά για την οικογένεια, που ακόμα δεν είχε καταπιαστεί με το θέμα η queer λογοτεχνία.


Έπειτα μιλά για την καταπίεση.

Οι ομοφυλόφιλοι υφίστανται τριών ειδών καταπίεση: διώξεις, διακρίσεις και ανοχή (59). Όταν γράφτηκε η ομοφυλοφιλία ήταν ημιμόνιμη στις ΗΠΑ, με την αστυνομία να κυνηγά ακόμα κόσμο στα στέκια των ομοφυλόφιλων. Πιάνει την εκκλησία, τους ψυχιάτρους (74), την εσωτερικευμένη ενοχή (υπόδειγμα οι ήρωες του Boys in the band), την πραγμοποίηση των ατόμων (αυτό που λένε οι αμερικάνοι objectification, το να μετατρέπεται το άτομο σε σεξουαλικό αντικείμενο), προτάσσει από τότε την υιοθεσία παιδιών (83), και τη διαφορετικότητα, την αίσθηση του απέξω (queer) 87.


Τα δυο πρώτα μέρη δεν έχουν τόσο ενδιαφέρον όσο το τρίτο, της Απελευθέρωσης.

Εδώ δείχνει και το βιβλίο την εποχή του και την ηλικία του, κυρίως σε ο,τι αφορά την υιοθέτηση Φρουδικών και Μαρκουζικών θεωριών. Η αμφισεξουαλική φύση του ανθρώπου που είναι θέση που υιοθετεί ο Άλτμαν βασίζεται πιο πολύ στον Φρόυντ παρά στον Κίνσευ (ίσως έπαιξε ρόλο και το γεγονός πως τα δείγματα μελέτης του Κίνσευ ήταν αποκλειστικά λευκοί άντρες). Έτσι μιλά για τη Μαρκουζική "μεγάλη άρνηση", τον "ορφικό" έρωτα που στρέφεται ενάντια στην αναπαραγωγή 97

Μια πολύ έξυπνη διαπίστωση του Άλτμαν αφορά στην πυρηνική οικογένεια. Η γνωστή αξιοποίηση της από την αστική τάξη για την εξυπηρέτηση της εκβιομηχάνισης, ώστε να περιοριστεί η ελεύθερη σεξουαλικότητα της εργατικής τάξης και να παράγεται πιο σίγουρα το αυριανό εργατικό δυναμικό, αφορά και στην ΕΣΣΔ της εποχής του Στάλιν με την εκεί εκβιομηχάνιση και κολλεκτιβοποίηση (96). Είναι μια πολύ λογική εξήγηση του πως τα πρώτα 15 χρόνια της ΕΣΣΔ -με τους πρώτους γκέυ γάμους, τις πρώτες φυλομεταβάσεις, τον κομισάριο Μπάτκινς να μιλά για τη φυσιολογικότητα της ομοφυλοφιλίας- τα ακολούθησε η επαναποινικοποίηση της ομοφυλοφιλίας το 1934, μαζί με τις αμβλώσεις. Προφανώς δεν υπήρχε κοινωνική βάση ακόμα να υποστηρίξει αυτές τις επαναστατικές αλλαγές.

Ο Άλτμαν χρησιμοποιεί την αμφιλεγόμενη φρουδική θεωρία, που υιοθετεί με τον τρόπο του και ο Μαρκούζε, του πολιτισμού ως αποτέλεσμα της απώθησης των σεξουαλικών παρορμήσεων για να μιλήσει για τον αντρικό δεσμό και την απαγόρευση τρυφερότητας (103), χρησιμοποιώντας και το έργο του Μαίηλερ. Εδώ βασίζει και τη θέση που υιοθετεί για τη βία ως ανικανότητα των αντρών να δώσουν διέξοδο στη σεξουαλικότητα 106). Επειδή το βιβλίο γράφτηκε καταμεσής του αντιπολεμικού κινήματος για το Βιετνάμ η θέση αυτή προεκτείνεται στο να ερμηνεύσει το πολεμικό φαινόμενο συνολικά σαν σεξουαλική απώθηση 121. Θέση που βιολογικοποιεί κοινωνικά φαινόμενα είναι μάλλον ασόβαρη, ενώ μαρξιστές όπως ο Στάιγκερβαλντ, έχουν κριτικάρει τις θεωρήσεις των Φρόυντ/Μαρκούζε για τις ορμές ως φαντασία σκέτη αφού αν ίσχυε πως προέρχεται ο πολιτισμός από την καταπίεση τότε στην αρχαία Ρώμη η τέχνη δεν θα ήταν προιόν των Πατρικίων, αλλά των σκλάβων.

Έπειτα η χρήση της φρουδικής "πολύμορφης ηδονής" των μωρών, με την επιστροφή της κοινωνίας σε αυτή και την ερωτικοποίηση της ζωής 111 η πίστη στην ελευθερία που παρέχει η τεχνολογία είναι απλώς η χίπικη αισιοδοξία της εποχής του βιβλίου. Παρόλα αυτά αναγνωρίζει οτι η αστική κοινωνία δεν μπορεί να επιτρέψει ολική προσωπική απελευθέρωση 112, αλλά δεν το αναλύει φυσικά καθώς ο Άλτμαν αποφεύγει την πολιτική και θα ήταν αρκούντως μαρξιστικό να ανέπτυσσε τέτοιες ιδέες.

Με τον Μαρκουζικό όρο "απεξιδανικευμένη καταπίεση" ο Άλτμαν ερμηνεύει τους τρόπους που διοχετεύει η αστική τάξη την ανοχή της στους ομοφυλόφιλους και αυτοί είναι τα προιόντα της καπιταλιστικής παραγωγής, από κρέμες ομορφιάς ως λουτρά και μπαρ. 112

Ο Αλτμαν πιστεύει στις ανθρώπινες σχέσεις ερωτικές και μή, μιλά (όπως και σε όλο το βιβλίο δίνοντας προσωπικά του βιώματα) για τις προσπάθειες τότε της γκέυ κοινοβιακής ζωής με την πολυγαμία 119. Τελικά ο Άλτμαν υποστηρίζει ένα σοσιαλισμό με έντονες αναρχικές αποχρώσεις.

Σημαντική και πρώιμη είναι η εκτίμηση της διαφοράς των προγενέστερων ομοφυλόφιλων οργανώσεων με το Gay Liberation Front: συνίσταται στο οτι προσπαθούσαν να ενσωματωθούν στην υπάρχουσα τότε κοινωνία, ενώ το Gay Liberation Front στόχευε ριζοσπαστικά στον μετασχηματισμό της κοινωνίας (137). Εννοείται η επιλογή του ριζοσπαστισμού αυτού ήταν φυσική συνέπεια της εποχής και η σημερινή κοινωνία του οφείλει πολλά.

Εξίσου σημαντική είναι η λογική που καταγράφει ο Άλτμαν στο γιατί το ομοφυλόφιλο κίνημα δεν ήταν πολιτικό όπως η πολιτική ορίζονταν ως τότε. Πρωταρχικής σημασίας ήταν η ανάγκη να επανακαθοριστεί ο εαυτός 138

Ουσιαστικά το ομοφυλόφιλο κίνημα στόχευε στον μετασχηματισμό αξιών και συνείδησης, μια πιο ψυχολογικής φύσεως σημασία της πολιτικής και διεύρυνση του πεδίου της 139.

Η θέση αυτή καθιστά το κίνημα ουσιαστικά πολιτιστικό, καθώς μιλάμε για διαταξική κατηγορία πολιτών και, σε αντίθεση με τους Πάνθηρες, η ταξική εκμετάλλευση δε σχετίζεται αιτιωδώς με την καταπίεση.

Οι παρατηρήσεις του Άλτμαν για τα μπαρ της μοναξιάς στέκουν και σήμερα, εκείνος υποστηρίζει έναν νέο άνθρωπο και νέες επαφές με χοροεσπεριδες, ώστε να αποφευχθεί η σεξουαλική κραιπάλη. 141

μιλά για τον θυμό των καταπιεσμένων που οδηγεί σε διαχωρισμούς 146, πράγμα που όπως και η μοναξιά των μπαρ και η σεξουαλική κραιπάλη ακόμα απαντώνται στο σήμερα και είναι το ζητούμενο να απαλλαγούμε από αυτά.

Ο Άλτμαν δίνει ενδιαφέρουσες σελίδες περιγράφοντας την πολιτιστική ηγεμονία, κατά Γκράμσι, των λευκών στρέιτ αμερικανών με την προτεσταντική ηθική και -πολύ σημαντικό- παραδέχεται εν τέλει οτι δεν αμφισβητούν την πολιτική και οικονομική εξουσία των ελίτ οι ομοφυλόφιλοι με τον επαναστατικό τους μετασχηματισμό των αξιών 157

Χρησιμοποιεί τον Άλβιν Τόφλερ, ειδικά στη θέση του για το σβήσιμο του μυστικισμού της μητρότητας 161, πράγμα που θα επιτρέπει άντρες να μεγαλώνουν παιδιά

επισημαίνει σαν πρόβλημα την αγνόηση των φυλετικών και ταξικών ανισοτήτων από τις ομοφυλόφιλες οργανώσεις (185 και πιστεύει οτι η διαίρεση οφείλει το κατεστημένο.

Έπειτα αναγνωρίζει στους Μαύρους Πάνθηρες και στο φεμινιστικό κίνημα τη σημαντική συμβολή τους ως παράδειγμα για το ομοφυλόφιλο κίνημα. Μάλιστα στις φεμινίστριες είναι η χαλαρή δομή και η προσωπική στράτευση (πέρα από την αυστηρή δομή της Αριστεράς) που τους ενέπνευσε 201

Η απόρριψη της ανατρεπτικής πολιτικής στάσης, που τελικά δεν αμφισβητούν την ηγεμονία της ελίτ, οφείλεται και στο οτι χρειαζόταν τότε να εκφραστούν και να συμβάλλουν και οι συντηρητικοί ομοφυλόφιλοι (ο Άλτμαν τους λέει πλειοψηφία) στην αλλαγή των αξιών και της συνείδησης, στην πολιτιστική και ψυχολογική αλλαγή προς όφελος μιας ευρύτερης σεξουαλικής απελευθέρωσης. Και αυτό γιατί η ανατροπή της άρχουσας τάξης είχε σαν εναλλακτική τότε μια σοβιετική εξουσία που εξίσου δίωκε τους ομοφυλόφιλους. Οπότε μιλάμε για φόβο. 219

Συνοπτικά ο Άλτμαν καταλήγει στο ότι η αποδοχή της ομοφυλοφιλίας απαιτεί μείζονα μετασχηματισμό της κοινωνικής δομής229 αποδοχή στο ότι είναι πλευρά της ανθώπινης φύσης συνολικά και ουσιαστικό κομμάτι της ύπαρξης.


Γραμμένο πριν την εποχή του AIDS, στην εποχή του ελεύθερου έρωτα, το βιβλίο είναι τεκμήριο ενός παρελθόντος και ενός μέλλοντος τελικά, καθώς μέσα βλέπουμε όσα σήμερα έχουμε κατακτήσει και όσα ακόμα απαιτούμε. Αυτός ο μετασχηματισμός της κοινωνικής δομής, αυτό το πολιτιστικό κίνημα που σπάει την εξουσία της πυρηνικής οικογένειας, δεν έχει ολοκληρωθεί ακόμα. Η ευρύτερη αποδοχή της ομοφυλοφιλίας ως φυσιολογικής παραλλαγής της ανθρώπινης σεξουαλικότητας δεν έχει αποστερήσει την κοινωνία από την ακόμα ισχυρή προπαγάνδα της εκκλησίας. Ακόμα οικογένειες απορρίπτουν τα παιδιά τους, ακόμα ο "ομοφυλόφιλος κόσμος" έχει τον χαρακτήρα του ευκαιριακού, του απρόσωπου, ακόμα είναι δύσκολη η αποδοχή στον εαυτό μας της σεξουαλικότητας μας, ακόμα τα μπαρ είναι τόποι μοναξιάς.

Διαβάζοντας το βιβλίο το 2021, από πολύ καλύτερες θέσεις κοινωνικά απ ό,τι το 1971, μπορούμε πια να μην χρειαζόμαστε την προσέγγιση των συντηρητικών ομοφυλόφιλων για την αλλαγή των αξιών και της συνείδησης. Μπορούμε να συνεχίσουμε την πολιτιστική αλλαγή αμφισβητώντας πια και την πολιτική και οικονομική εξουσία της ελίτ και αποδεχόμενοι ότι η ομοφυλοφιλία είναι κομμάτι του εαυτού μας. Μπορούμε πιο έτοιμοι να συνδυάσουμε τον πολιτιστικό με τον πολιτικό, ταξικό αγώνα.

[Carlos · Rating 5 out of 5]

This 1971 book gives the reader a deeper understanding of the LGBT person than almost any other book since. Through the historical lens of the emerging gay liberation movements across the world, Altman manages to give a penetrating look at the LGBT person and its community with its strengths, challenges and future. He manages to discuss, quite in depth, about a number of issues that, I believe, are central to the understanding of the end goal of the initial gay rights groups; issues like the false dichotomy of hetero-/homosexuality as well as the uniqueness – without implying any superiority – of the gay stigma in comparison to the one carried by other oppressed minorities. In this last aspect, Altman also manages to give the reader the best discussion on the intersection of African-American and LGBT politics that I’ve ever read and, while acknowledging his shortcomings, also giving a detailed look at the intersection with Women’s politics. This is a definite must-read for anyone who wishes to understand the role of the gay person/movements in the larger scheme of civil rights.

[Luke McCarthy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Worthwhile as a glimpse into what gay liberation was talking about and thinking through in the early moments of its formation. Particularly astute when it touches on the difficult work of building solidarity amongst other minority groups. Unfortunately, there is a kind of New Left morality here which has aged poorly. Altman proposes that the ideal society would necessarily be genderless and bisexual. This leads him to some odious, condescending and plainly transphobic conclusions. I really have no time for this kind of speculative theory.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Genuinely fascinating to read this cornerstone key text (Vito Russo in The Celluloid Closet argues it might be THE gay text of his time). I had to keep reminding myself that this was written pre-AIDS crisis, full of hopes and dreams of a future that was soon to be ripped asunder. Altman argues that in order for there to be total acceptance of the homosexual, the world would have to move past simple homo- and heterosexual definitions into a new kind of human, a kind of radical change. This is a constant throughout the work, the end point of many of the discussions he raises and the literature he engages with. But those radical changes never occured.

In a recent article on Dale Peck's criticism of Pete Buttigieg, Rich Juzwiak referred to an article by Fenton Johnson which argued that gay culture was divided into two camps; the radicals (who fought for a new kind of consciousness around sexuality, a "radical change") and the assimiliationists (who simply wished to fit in). This divide is also in evidence in Altman's work, even if it is less prominent. Johnson argued that the radicals changed in the AIDS crisis; "we died or lost ourselves to grief", a weakness the assimilationists used to gain prominence: "the assimilarionists have won, those men and women whose highest aspiration was to be like everyone else." This divide is still in evidence today, but it's interesting to read Altman's work and to note how different the world could've been (for more on this, I would reccomend href="https://www.iftheylived.org/home"... Herrera's FATHERS Project).

It's also worth noting that Altman's view on transgender people (that they will be made redundant when the 'new human' is revealed because their existence is primarily defined by gender) is complicated and very much of the period. It will be interesting to see if Altman's perspective has changed in his 2016 follow-up The End Of The Homosexual?.

But even ignoring its importance as a historical artefact, Dennis Altman's book is still shockingly relevant, exploring what it means to be a homosexual within Western society in an insightful and accesible manner. I will finish with the most poignant quote from Altman's book:

"We are freeing ourselves through the way we live, and as long as homosexuals are oppressed, walking arm-in-arm with one's lover down the street is as much a political act as campaigning for legal reform."

[✩☽ · Rating 2 out of 5]

Tolerance can be achieved by liberal means; acceptance however demands a major change in our social framework.

personally, i think this book would've been better titled 'bisexual'.

(i get that altman didn't choose the title but the original publisher has long been defunct and at least that way the title would've aligned better with the book's thesis.)

in his foreword, altman is incredulous that today's queer academics refer to his generation as "essentialists" given that he was saying sexuality is "fluid, malleable and created" and criticizing the "the essentialist views of some sort of ahistorical inborn gay spirit which underlie bunch of early gay liberation writing" long before those academics ever existed.

in other words, altman was queer theorying before the cool kids started calling it that.

so it comes as no surprise that altman doubts the existence of exclusive homosexuality several times throughout the book (how many of us are in fact exclusively homosexual, he asks) and suggests people are socialized from a bisexual potential into homosexuality even as he paradoxically admits he has no explanation for how exactly this might occur, given that society is incredibly and violently homophobic. at one point he proposes that black women are more likely to be homosexual due to violence from men — an insane claim to make, considering lesbians face the dual burden of both sexism and homophobia, which is a point he makes in his own damn book.

had the pervasive liberal homophobia of the last decade not stripped me of any and all charitable good will, i'd be less irritable about this book; i admit that irritation has heavily colored my reading experience simply because i'm so fed up and on guard against certain strains of argument. but let me compartmentalize for a hot second and allow for some more grace and nuance: i'm not entirely against social constructionist arguments, certainly there are elements i agree with. i wholly concur that the extreme stigma attached to homosexuality causes people who might experience same-sex attraction to either not recognize that attraction or repress it; in a world where this stigma did not exist, this would not be the case (see: the women's movement in the 70s). ergo presenting same-sex attraction as something everyone is either innately aware of or incapable of creates as sense of otherness around same-sex attraction that might lead people to not recognize their own potential for it. i get it! i agree! it's when theorists apply this argument in reverse that i have to wonder what kind of alternate reality the writer is living in. be for real mate, in what world was anyone socializing me into repress the supposed heterosexual elements of my personality. au contraire, people are more than willing to hallucinate it despite the clear fact of its non-existence. "you too might be attracted to the same sex" is a radical statement in a heterosexist society, whereas "you too might be attracted to the opposite sex" is just insane old-school homophobia.

i get the broad strokes of altman's vision, i do — it's just the homophobic devil in the details and the way elements of that vision are playing out right now in a manner that is to the complete and utter detriment of homosexuals. but that's not fair, now is not 1973 when this was published and i don't want to be wholly disparaging of altman who came out in what was an incredibly difficult time to be out, let alone on such a public level.

disagreements with the book's thesis aside, altman is an astute writer and i did really enjoy reading about the origins of gay liberation movement and its connections and relation to other radical leftist movements of the time (well, specifically in the US). both for the historical perspective, but also for its present day relevance. progress made through liberal means has warped into a new kind of homophobia - gay activists (as distinct from queer activists) have once again been reduced to asking for tolerance of same-sex attraction. altman envisions moving beyond pleas for tolerance, "beyond the liberal hope that the homosexual will megre imperceptibly into society" and articulates clearly how true acceptance of homosexuality can only come with a radical transformation of society. those demands of the gay liberation movement were never really fulfilled; with liberal and conservative homophobia fencing us in, i suspect that vision will be vital for the fight ahead.

[Emmaby Barton Grace · Rating 4 out of 5]

echoing everyone else, the fascinating thing about reading this book is how many of its questions/discussions are relevant today - and seeing how the thought process behind them has evolved over time - over a period of 50+ years!! getting an understanding of the reasoning behind conclusions in the 70s….

really interesting revisiting these ideas that i remember studying in my first year of my degree and struggling to get my head around - and now i am developing my own thoughts around them etc etc. yay progression haha

and in a fun coincidence, i ran into the author while reading this book and got it signed! woohoo he was absolutely lovely

identity
- can someone choose to be homosexual?
- ‘i suspect… that there is at least sometimes an element of deliberate choice in the adoption of homosexuality’

oppression - the tolerance trap
- oppression is not just outright/most extreme things you could think of (not just persecution and discrimination - also tolerance etc)
- ‘it takes an act of imagination to realise that racism rests on a certain set of assumptions that permeate virtually all of western society, and whose effect is felt even by those who disavow it’
- the tolerance trap is one of the most fundamental books i read at uni - interesting to be reading an early discussion of the same
- ‘the patronising tolerance of liberals... the difference between tolerance and acceptance is very considerable, for tolerance is a gift extended by the superior to the inferior’ - tolerance implies pity etc.
- ‘tolerance, too, tends to result from an ideological position which overrides an emotional attitude; that is, most intelligent heterosexuals reject, intellectually, their hostility to homosexuals while unable to conquer their emotional repugnance’
- ‘to be viewed as ill rather than evil is not much consolation, for it represents an attempt to destroy an individual’s identity that is as brutal in a subtle way as is imprisonment’
- ‘the most destructive aspect of oppression, the fact that it becomes internalised and affects the self-image of the oppressed. you can only be destroyed, james baldwin wrote to his nephew, by believing that you really are what the white world calls a [n-word]’
- internalised homophobia spreads to others: ‘guilt, in turn, produces self-hatred, and those who hate themselves will find it difficult not to despite others who share their guilt’
- [activist in 1969 - president of the society of individual rights] - ’tolerance, as i have already suggested, can be achieved by liberal means, and within the framework of existing liberal society, and for the achievement of certain very necessary legislative changes… acceptance, however, demands a major change in our social framework; only those who, as in the movement, are prepared to question the basis on which society is organised, are likely to fully accept homosexuality as part of the human condition rather than a discrete and foreign phenomenon. it has been said that a liberal is someone who wants to help others; a radical is someone who knows that he or she needs help. the liberal sees homosexuals as a minority to be assisted into a full place in society. the radical sees homosexuality as a component of all people including her - or himself’

gay liberation movement - history, problems, objectives etc.
- really liked the poem ‘blatant is beautiful’ - beautiful to be obviously gay etc.
- interesting learning about how initially because homosexuality viewed as individual deviance meant gays didn’t realise their collective oppression - something that seems so obvious now and makes me really think just how hard and how much self-hatred must have existed when you weren’t even aware of these broader societal oppressions?: ’while we began as more isolated, alienated people, we have become a group politicised by the study of our experience. we found that our problems are not individual illnesses, but are generated by our oppression as a class. this discovery negated one of the most effective weapons of our oppressors, the false division between the personal and the political’ [from on our own - a NY CR group in 1970]
- already quite aware of the history of the movements and the problems with them (why is our fatal flaw always our fragmentation, lack of inclusivity/intersectionality, and inability to work together lol) - ‘the word of ‘divide and rule’ is thus done of the establishment by the movement itself’ !!!
- i liked this description of consciousness-raising: ‘there is a deadly seriousness to it, a straining to comprehend other people’s experiences and fantasies and fears…. there are wounds opened in such exchanges that have rarely been opened before, but there is as well a real feeling for each other, a common sense of belonging and identity’
- the difference in the origins of the movement in different countries e.g., in the UK, pressure for reform came more from the elite and thus was more around tolerance than acceptance
- ‘the essential quality of gay liberation, it seems to me, lies in its assertion of gayness, its refusal to feel shame or guilt at being homosexual’
- ‘we must face the fact that in the past what we have called the movement has not really questioned the middle class values and institutions of this country. if anything, it has accepted these values and institutions without fully realising their racist nature’ (not altman’s words)
- ‘[changing laws] does not add up to liberation. we are freeing ourselves through the way we live, and as long as homosexuals are oppressed, walking arm-in-arm with one’s lover down the street is as much a political act as campaigning for legal reform’
- ‘a reporter asked why we considered a gay picnic political… tearing off the mask of anonymity is the first step in our liberation’ [from marchers at the christopher street liberation day]’
- always obsessed with the concept of kiss-ins/love-ins: ‘our salute will be a kiss’
- ‘a common sense of oppression does not dissolve other lines of division’
- ‘homosexuals can win acceptance as distinct from tolerance only by a transformation of society, one that is based on a new human who is abled to accept the multi-faceted and varied nature of his or her sexual identity. that such a society can be founded is the gamble upon which gay and women liberations are based; like all radical movements they hold to an optimistic view of human nature, above all to its mutability’
- ‘it is not irrelevant to ask what can be learnt from the early history of gay liberation’

counterculture
- liberation threatens the identity of the oppressor
- counterculture = rejecting/challenging hegemony/heteronormativity
- ’the demand for new definitions and new identities is corroding the hegemony of the ruling elite, while as yet leaving relatively untouched its political and economic control’
- ‘a constant process of assimilation of contradictions’
- recognising that ‘no movement, no society ever breaks completely with its past’
- an interesting pov: ‘gay liberation is a social and cultural revolution… it is not political… gay liberation is based on love, peace, and freedom… the old left has fallen into disrepute. gay liberation needs nothing from these elderly gentleman’ - history really repeats itself over and over lol young reject the elders lol

intersectionality with other movements

poc
- discussion of sexual stereotypes around poc
- ‘little wonder that many black men, conscious of their oppression and frightened of emasculation, are particularly hostile to homosexuality, or that some blacks ascribe their own homosexuality to white racism’
- baldwin: ‘when i was little i despised myself, i did not know any better. and this meant, albeit unconsciously, or against my will, or in great pain, that i also despised my father. and my mother. and my brothers. and my sisters’
- ‘in the eyes of many blacks to be a fag is to opt out of being black, to quite deliberately move into the white world’
- ‘an inability of the panthers to really recognise the extent of women’s and gay oppression; most of the women walked out of the meeting’

lesbians/queer men/womens movement - inclusion of women in the queer movement
- interesting pov’s of lesbianism: she may not be fully conscious of the political implications of what for her began as personal necessity, but on some level she has not been able to accept the limitations and oppressions laid on her by the most basic role of her society - the female role’
- gay men may be more macho/sexist as trying to compensate/prove gay men are still men
- simone de beauvoir: ‘argued that it is to escape this oppression the some women chose homosexuality’
- men are more openly discriminated against which meant a lot of the focus was on addressing these issues: ‘what, one wonders, must a female homosexual think when she was asked to devote her energies to worrying about men caught in baths and johns where she wouldn’t go away’

the big questions: gay culture/ethnicity
the dilemma remains: any vision of our full liberations involves at the same time an end to our special status and any claims that can be based upon it for an intrinsically gay culture… homosexuals in the gay liberation movement are now beginning to suspect that in eliminating their status as outlaws they may be limiting the consciousness... if we finally transcend the divide between hetero- and homosexual do we also lose our identity?’

so excited to re-read ‘the end of the homosexual?’ and other more recent related works (i read this in 2020 when i first got into queer theory and i am so keen to reread and see what my/others opinions are!). currently, i just find it so hard to comprehend this is something the movement will eventually result in getting rid of - but i understand logically the argument behind it but idk. how does gay culture differ from other sorts of cultural heritage that we have recognised ought be protected/inherently valuable? it’s not good if we all become the same. can’t our differences be recognised whilst also recognising that we are not less than because of them? towards the end, altman does recognise the differences between gays/straights but argues this is because of social ostracism - but doesn’t this come from a feeling of shame/respectability politics/assimilation? there is nothing wrong if we have our own culture/some things different. i always come back to becky chambers’ wayfarers series (specially book #3) in this context hahah - where it makes the possibility of a society without labels seem possible. but i also just don’t think this is possible - as said somewhere in the book, our movement/society is always going to be rooted in our history on some level. also, is something not lost if we lose our identity/uniqueness? can we not maintain our community without oppression? it’s so hard and i don’t know the answer! because i agree/can see where the logic of not having identities/labels anymore shows we have overcome oppression etc. - but i don’t necessarily agree with it…..

- the idea of a gay culture/ethnicity: ‘gays regard themselves as a people: a cultural minority with their own traditions, customs, folkways, way of thinking and an ancient cultural heritage… with a three thousand year history… a tradition going back to the dawn of recorded history’ [bob martin from the homophile movement]
- ‘i would content that it is a culture produced exclusively by social ostracism’
- ‘gay liberation will have achieved its full potential when it is no longer needed, when we see each other neither as men or women, gay and straight, but purely as people with varied possibilities’
- ‘it seems a mark of our oppression that each assertion of the validity of homosexuality is regarded as an attack on heterosexuality’
- ‘many whites perceived black power as racism in reverse, when in fact i only appeared as such because the whole structure of our culture and our language is so weighted in favour of white supremacy that any attempt to rectify it is seen as a move to create a new dominance/subordination’

recognising the differences between gays and straights
- ‘we come also to see that our oppression has made us different from other people and that this has its strengths as well as its weaknesses’
- ‘to see that society has so defined us that homosexuality becomes a constant part of us rather than a role we can take up and discard when convenient
- ‘on one level, to love someone of the same sex is remarkably inconsequential… yet society has made it something portentous, and we must expect homosexuals to accept this importance in stressing their identity’
- identity of gays will not decrease until society stops making it a big deal, until then is a self-fulfilling prophecy. -> creates unique experience, culture, identity, community etc.
- ‘the liberal hope that homosexuals will come to merge imperceptibility into society’ - really interested in this perspective - this sounds like assimilation but he has acknowledged that he doesn’t want tolerance/assimilation?

the importance of the queer community/culture
- ‘but this experience has made me glad to be a homosexual, for it has given me an insight into the human condition and the human potential i had perviously lacked’
- ‘the gay community in new york has become for me just that; i walk through the village and i see people whom i know, even if only by sight, and i feel i belong. moreover, my contacts with gay people are far richer and more diverse than ever before, for they are no longer restricted by sex as the sole motivating factor; i know women and transvestites and i find myself struggling to understand them and their experience in a way i never could before’
- ‘i am… more in sympathy with the black cause than ever before, and in fact with all causes, for it has recently occurred to me that all causes are the same’ [jill johnson]

other
- goodman is a mood: ‘i am all for community because it is a human thing, only i seem doomed to be left out’
- ‘one cannot assume people are static. to expect non homosexuals to have had a heightened consciousness about us before we had developed our own is absurd’
- ‘change will not come easily or smoothly or without casualties, even if we opt for a change in consciousness. without such a change, however, it will come with greater casualties, and it is unlikely to take us any further toward human liberation which ultimately may mean human survival’
- ‘which is not to deny there are situations where violence may be necessary, only to suggest that the choice to use violence is almost always a corrupting one, and that human liberation depends on the ability to control our aggression’
- ‘at the risk of sounding cute, i think of books as like children: after they are published they need to live lives of their own, and they become increasingly distant from the author, who will have moved onto different, maybe contradictory preoccupations’

some parts i would be interesting to see how altman’s thoughts have evolved
- ‘it is this vulnerability that both binds and separates the gayworld and helps explain why it is no more than a pseudo-community’
- [on his internalised homophobia] ‘however much i try, i doubt if i shall ever totally lose that’
- definitely dated in some of the views about trans people, the use of the n-word, lack of lesbian/women etc consideration - but the author acknowledged this in part - interesting to see how many of these thoughts have changed now
- ‘for that to happen, however, we shall all have to recognise our bisexual potential’
- ‘everyone is gay, everyone is straight’

a part that lost me
- ‘the polymorphous whole’ (ch. 3) - key points being that there is a level of sexual repression not just in regards to homosexuality - but especially re homosexuality bc gay sex can’t be justified by procreation - we won’t be able to be free of homophobia without addressing the sexual oppression in society more broadly (is it basically just talking about harmony amongst society?)
- ‘western societies rely on very considerably hypocrisy about sexual behaviour, preferring epidemics of venereal disease and crippling backyard abortions to any honest acceptance of the realities of sexual life’

[Domenico Francesco · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probabilmente il saggio più importante sull'omosessualità insieme a Elementi di critica omosessuale di Mario Mieli. Sono rimasto davvero scconvolto da questo libro, dalla sua attualità sulla maggior parte delle questioni sulla liberazione omosessuale e sull'arrivare decisamente al punto della questione. Interessante anche l'ultimo capitolo in cui si analizza a parte il rapporto tra i gruppi LGBT+ e gli altri gruppi e controculture americane. Essenziale, da ristampare subito.

[Robert Drake · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was very informative, well written, and useful for sociological research purposes.