The Rise and Fall of Gay Culture

by Daniel Harris

Though many in the gay community strive to be accepted into mainstream society, assimilation is watering down a once vibrant culture, rendering it as bland as a production of Streetcar without Blanche Dubois. As corporate America opens its arms and the gay population comes running, the commercialization of gay culture makes it conventional--imagine Valley of the Dolls with M&M's.

In this provocative, brilliantly reasoned book, charged throughout with a penetrating eye and stinging wit, Daniel Harris examines the many shadings of the gay experience as they have evolved over time, including the demise of camp and kink, the evolution of personal ads, the origins of the underwear revolution, the changing face of porn and glossy magazines, the morph of drag queens and leathermen, and the marketing of AIDS as commodity.

Genres: LGBT, History, Queer, Nonfiction, Gay, Queer Studies, Cultural

288 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1997

Reviews

[Dusty Myers · Rating 3 out of 5]

The central claim of this book is that since Stonewall, whatever it is that has formed and shaped gay culture has transformed. Well, of course; such a thing is inevitable when the people that make up a culture move from being hidden and shameful to being public and proud. Harris's argument, though, is that such gay cultural artifacts as diva worship, camp, drag, kink, and pornographic film and literature have become inversions of their former selves. Whereas gay men once worshiped Hollywood divas for the strength and wisdom in their over-the-top performances, now those divas are lampooned. Whereas porn directors edited sex scenes such that the rhythm of the cuts replicated the sexual experience in the point of the view of the men having sex, now video-porn is structured with extended takes that create (rather than replicate) a distant, voyeuristic experience.

These transformations are for Harris lamentations, but complexly so. For much of the book, it seems he's a kid of gay Andy Rooney wondering where the good, simple times of the 50s and 60s went. It's almost as though he's sad we've fought so hard to be assimilated into the mainstream. "[A]s oppression decreases," he writes, "[t]he unfortunate consequence will be that our need to produce art will begin to wane, and we will feel less inclined to assert ourselves as the proverbial tastemakers of our society" (7).

It's a ridiculous claim, but one thing he's right about is that gay culture seems stuck (well, U.S. culture seems stuck; and that's really one of the problems with these essays: how much of porno's POV transformations can be seen as a result of increased gay liberation, and how much are really just a factor of the switch from film to video?) in a kind of perpetual adolescence. Harris twins the coming-out narrative with the coming-of-age narrative, and for him the surplus of such novels since 1980 has kept gay literature in a kind of thematic rut, or as he terms it, "an emotionally stagnant state of euphoria." "Homosexuals," he writes, "are not permanent intellectual convalescents," and while it's a good point to make, Harris doesn't try to locate any means of salvation for gay culture. Re-adopting the poses and practices of our pre-Stonewall culture of fear and exile isn't any kind of solution.

[Heta Rae · Rating 1 out of 5]

I never thought I'd hear gay people pining for the good old days when persecution was the status quo. I get that the author feels that gay society was cooler and more exclusive when we had to use secret handshakes and talk in secret codes, but there's something very beautiful about being able to be ourselves and be accepted for it. Gay people no longer have to adopt lisps or other stereotypes in order to subtly advertise that they are gay in order to get dates. We can now openly acknowledge that there's a wide variety of people out there that happen to be gay, rather than looking like a group of garish and outlandish headline grabbers. Don't get me wrong, I love the people that stood up for themselves in the Stonewall riots and started people talking about gay rights instead of everyone cowering in closets, and I deeply respect the risks that they have taken. I just also used to see people feel the need to alter their personality and interests when coming out of the closet in order to fit in with gay culture, and I hated that. Now I see people who can come out of the closet and still stay the same person they were before if that's who they want to be. I found the author's perspective that persecution helped us to develop this wonderful identity as a people that we were losing to be irritating. Having to adopt different speech patterns, clothing, song preferences and so forth in order to fit into "the height of gay culture" as the author sees it was just another form of having conformity shoved down our throats. The author just hates the fact that now gay people don't have to love Cher in order to get the membership card.

[The Gay Optimist (Chris- He/Him) · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great introduction to queer studies, but it isn't accessible for anyone who is unfamiliar with much of the jargon. It's also easy to get lost in the excessive visual & witty writing style. I gave this a book 4 stars because I was familiar with most of the allusions & references throughout, and appreciated some of the poetic excerpts. However, I was a bit disappointed that the author didn't even explain some of the significant historical contributions, events, or people mentioned. For instance, there was no further explanation or context given to Ryan White or the significance of "the Quilt" even in the footnotes. Overall, this book is a decent introduction for anyone who wants to learn more about queer history. Granted there are some major biases from the author such as his positionality as a cisgender gay white educated middle class man, which were and continue to be those who benefit most in the queer community. I was also disappointed that there was no inclusion of intersectionality on a racial, ethnic, & religious level among other lacking material. Despite the excessive illustrative writing style, author's bias, the lack of historical context, relevance, or explanation; & lack of accessibility for non-academic scholars, I still found it to be a a decent resource for me to compile all my annotations in one place. Hopefully there will be an updated edition in the near future.

[Timothy Frasca]

Thesis: gay men should have less sex. Oh.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is really quite good at analysing the current subsets of gay culture in America and its own tendancy toward self-subversion after (for the most part) Stonewall. It's an ideal observation about the cliches in American gay culture and their relevance/ostensibly understandable application. Not only is it particularly well written but it's also quite catty (no, really?!) and laugh out loud funny at times.

[James Henderson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a personal and fascinating summary of gay culture. Among the cultural topics covered are "camp," pornography, clothes, kink, drag, and the AIDS epidemic. I found the narrative engaging even when, and perhaps because, much of it differed from my personal experience. The breadth of gay culture among different individuals' experiences weakens some of the assumptions underlying the analysis presented in this book.

[Brandon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Greatly enjoyed the thought provoking aspects of many of these essays. The final chapter threw me for a curve: I do not prescribe to the belief that assimilation destroys autonomy. I respect that many generalizations may be made for and about gay stereotypes - but I find that no individual is one dimensional and I resent being reduced to a type of music, movie, or clothing preference just as I resent being reduced to my sexuality.

[Dee · Rating 3 out of 5]

read this for my final paper in soc. of community.

[Alvin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A clear, unsenitmental, objective observation of a cultural shift. Does the absence of oppression make assimilation inevitable? Yeah, probably.

[Brandon · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was good for a hisotorical narrative, but wasn't captivating and was hard to stay engaged.