The Dictionary of Homophobia (106 page)

Finally, very little will be said concerning
anthropological
arguments that reduce homosexuality to a form of “altruicide,” as the extravagance of such arguments is blatantly apparent. For over a century, empirical ethnography has continuously collected reports of homosexuality in various cultures, from the most open societies to the most closed, but it is difficult to see how one could deduce the slightest anthropological constant that would link the sameness of the sexual relationship to the exclusion of the Other. As for structural anthropology—based on Claude Lévi-Strauss’s idea that people think about the world in terms of binary opposites—this concept of homosexuality does not appear to infringe on Lévi-Strauss’s fundamental principle: that the foundation of all culture or civilization does not rest on that which it forbids, but on the fact that it forbids, and on the structure of that forbiddance.

In any case, one can see that there is no serious argument substantiating the reduction of homosexuality to the sphere of sameness. If such a reduction remains in vogue, it would be due to the pure and simple effect of its signifier, produced by the term homosexuality itself, which translates literally as “sexuality of the same.” Important in this regard is the circularity of the signified or the referent, to which almost all homophobic arguments of this kind resort: theology could then claim to represent
psychoanalysis
, psychoanalysis to represent anthropology, anthropology to represent philosophy (it is notably easier to understand the specific homophobia of certain followers of Lévi-Strauss by the allegiance of their teacher to Jean Jacques Rousseau, than by its anthropology proper), and finally, philosophy itself relying on the professions of faith by Savoyard curates. Expressed otherwise, the signified no longer really matters; what matters henceforth is only the signifier, the “as-its-name-states.”

However, perhaps the word “henceforth” is too strong, since from the beginning, homosexuals did not fit into that compartment of nosology to which they are assigned, their supposed “love of the same” reduced to nothing more than an effect of a signifier. An example to this effect is the fact that Richard von Krafft-Ebing, the German psychiatrist and quasi-inventor of the nosological term of homosexuality as an example of sexual deviance, constantly referred to the concept of “true homosexuality” in order to contrast it with the overly vague notion of “psychosexual hermaphroditism.” Thus, otherness is derived from the concept and not from the factual; and the denial of the Other by the homosexual is not a theory, but rather a simple analytical proposition.

From this perspective, it is best to be wary of the pseudo-scientific term of “homosexual,” which is the true crux of all modern homophobic ideas that originate from otherness; as well, we must be equally wary of the concept of homophobia itself that is derived from it. Its proponents may think it is an idea of great strategic value but, when heard literally, always risks legitimizing the very foundation of what it claims to denounce.
—Pierre Zaoui

Freud, Sigmund. “Contributions à la psychologie de la vie amoureuse” and “Pour introduire le narcissisme.” In
La Vie sexuelle
. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1969.

———. “Le Clivage du moi dans le processus de defense.” In
Résultats, idées, problèmes
II. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1985.

———. “Sur la psychogenese d’un cas d’homosexualité feminine.” In
Névrose, psychose et perversion
. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1973.

Krafft-Ebing, Richard von.
Psychopathia sexualis
. Paris: Payot, 1950. [Published in English as
Psychopathia Sexualis
.]

Lacan, Jacques. “La Relation d’objet.” In
Séminaire
IV. Paris: Le Seuil, 1994.

Mendès-Leite, Rommel.
Le Sens de l’altérité. Penser les (homo)sexualités masculines
. Paris: L’Harmattan, 2000.

Sartre, Jean-Paul.
Saint Genet, comédien et martyr
. Paris: Gallimard, 1952.

—Gender Differences; Philosophy; Psychoanalysis; Universalism/Differentialism.

OUTING

The term “outing” appeared in the United States at the beginning of the 1990s to describe the action led and conceived by New York journalist Michelangelo Signorile, who is considered by many to be the father of this practice. Neither the idea nor its application were really a first, but the application benefited then from an unprecedented impact, provoking an important media debate which, in a few months, crossed oceans to reach Australia as well as Europe (including Germany, France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands).

Defining the principle or the practice of outing is not easy, as the conferred meaning can vary widely. According to those who currently use the practice, outing consists of revealing the homosexuality of a public figure who is trying to hide it and, by this, validating the stigma associated with it, while stressing the silence imposed on gays. Certain advocates have preached it or exercised it based on a more precise definition, concerning personalities who not only choose to “remain in the
closet
” but also encourage homophobia by their stated positions or affiliations. In both cases, the partisans of outing think that this is the way to fight homophobia: by fighting the silence and invisibility which play into the hand of oppression, or by making public the contradiction of those who, by their positions, promote the
discrimination
of gays and lesbians. However, there have been numerous opponents who consider outing to be a practice that attacks personal freedom and is thus homophobic. Because homosexuality in our society is stigmatized and the object of discrimination, to reveal the homosexuality of those who wish to remain silent submits them to discrimination. And this ambiguity is the basis for divisions on this subject, which oppose partisans and enemies of outing.

However, this ambiguity is partly removed if one takes into account contexts and intentions that lead to the revelation of the homosexuality of a third party. For many decades, the repression of gays in Western countries has fed on multiple forms of denunciation, including information that made
deportation
of gays possible in Germany and elsewhere, persecutions by McCarthyism in the US, and blackmailing practices which lasted throughout the century in many different countries. In all cases, the informant acted according to a homophobic logic that aims to bring prejudice to the targets. Reciprocally, the advocates of outing are gays who consider that they are acting in the cause of gay liberation. This is why, first at the level of intentions, it is important to distinguish whistle-blowing practices with discriminatory objectives from outing as conceptualized at the end of the 1980s in certain Western countries. One must then take into account the context in which the public revelation is made and the consequences that can result for the persons concerned. In certain cases, the risk taken is of a penal nature, in others, of social nature: denunciation practices are generally made in the first context, and outing in the second.

The practice, which consists of revealing the homosexuality of public figures in order to advance the gay cause found one of its first tenants in Germany at the beginning of the twentieth century in the person of Adolf Brand, founder of what is considered the first gay magazine,
Der Eigene
on different occasions, he revealed the homosexuality of those involved in the implementation of homophobic policies. That said, the context of the era was marked by numerous
scandals
, affairs, and legal actions, which were widely echoed in the press, forcing individuals out of the closet under constraint of imposing legal risks. If it is possible to see there, with certain authors, the ancestor of outing as it will be defined later, one must also take into account the fundamental difference in context.

In its contemporary form, the practice of outing requires the existence of a group who applies and demands the principle of visibility for gays. However, it was not present during the first period of the history of the gay liberation movement. Its rhetorical formulation is surely advanced in an article by the American author Taylor Branch, published in 1982, but it is only at the end of the 80s that it appeared in the US, in the context of
AIDS
. Unquestionably, it is a situation of double jeopardy where gays and lesbians were simultaneously confronted by the epidemic and homophobia, which made the spirit of outing possible. The first to implement it were militants in the fight against AIDS: Larry Kramer in New York; Wayne Harris and Tom Schoedler of ACT UP-Portland regarding Senator Mark Hatfield; Michael Petrelis, who revealed the homosexuality of tens of members of Congress, among them Steven Gunderson; and, naturally, Signorile, who was at the origin of the media storm that outing provoked at the beginning of the 90s.

Born in Brooklyn in 1960, Signorile joined ACT UP-New York at the end of 1987 and quickly integrated its media committee, where he learned activism and familiarized himself with
media
logic. In 1989, after quitting the group, he was invited by Gabriel Rotello (another ex-ACT UP member) to join a new gay magazine,
OutWeek,
where he took charge of a section on the treatment of gays in the media and, particularly, in the entertainment press. Signorile was the first to out someone without having yet conceptualized the practice when he revealed the homosexuality of right-wing millionaire Malcom Forbes after his death in March 1990.
Time
magazine condemned the process, qualifying it as “outing,” thus inventing the term which militant gays would adopt. Certain media saw it as a method worthy of
McCarthy
, but these criticisms were nothing compared to those yet to come. In the spring of 1991, Signorile was again attacked (particularly by the
Village Voice)
when an OutPost poster campaign appeared on New York walls. The posters showed photographs of Hollywood stars, accompanied by the caption: “
ABSOLUTELY QUEER
.” In August 1991, Signorile published in
The Advocate
(
OutWeek
had disappeared) an article that put fire to the powder keg: he revealed the homosexuality of Pete Williams, who was Pentagon spokesman at a time when gays were victims of a veritable witch hunt in the American
army
. While many agree with the unacceptable character of Williams’ position, the practice of outing again provoked true hostility, including in certain gay groups such as the International Lesbian and Gay Association, which officially condemned it. As for the media, there was an angry outcry. If many journalists attacked Signorile with such virulence, it was because some of them were the privileged target of his attacks: those who, according to him, kept the homosexuality of public figures quiet in order to better hide their own.

In France as well, reactions were very quick: articles on outing appeared in both the gay and general press. In less than eighteen months,
Gai-Pied
published three articles on the phenomenon (on November 8, 1990; September 19, 1991; and March 6, 1992). The positions expressed were generally hostile, in spite of Didier Lestrade’s articles that attempted to make this practice comprehensible and acceptable for the French readers. The only
association
to be favorable to the practice was ACT UP-Paris: it officially adopted the principle of outing on March 19, 1991, after three weeks of heavy debate. The definition which it gives of outing is the following: “Outing consists of making public the homosexuality, the sero-prevalence or the illness of a figure in the arts, the media or in political circles. Outing also consists of revealing the real causes of death of a public figure who preferred to keep his or her AIDS secret.” The association justified this choice with the argument that homophobia “was right down AIDS’ alley,” and one can only fight homophobia through visibility (voluntary or forced). In this way, to essential gay visibility, ACT UP-Paris added the visibility of seropositives and the ill, with the main reference to the case of American politician Tom Duane who, under pressure from activists, chose to personally reveal that he was HIV positive. But on this theme, resistance was redoubling (including in the US, where the outing of seropositivity was very rarely preached and never practiced), the respect of medical confidentiality having always been one of the main demands of militants in the fight against AIDS.

It must be noted that, according to the definition it gave, ACT UP-Paris chose not to limit the practice to gays who encouraged homophobia. Nevertheless, the only outing that it attempted (but did not complete) is the case of a gay man who had taken positions that were, at the very least, homophobic (the association voted twice before for the outing of public figures, which it would not act on). This is the case of a Union pour la démocratie française (UDF; Union for French Democracy) member of parliament, reproached for having taken part in an
anti-PaCS
demonstration organized by Christine
Boutin
on January 31, 1999. A few days later, the association wrote to him and demanded that he “publicly announce his homosexuality and condemn homophobia.” When the MP refused, the association informed the media of its doings and promised to reveal the name of the person later. The media were more often unfavorable to outing, talking of “blackmailing” and of “informants” without being embarrassed by the contradiction of invoking “privacy” while breaking this principle on many other occasions, including on the topic of a celebrity’s homosexuality. Even in the gay press, the contradiction is sometimes blatant. So, to give only one example, a journalist wrote in his regular column in gay magazine
Ex aequo
: “Evidently we all are against outing, we also think that it is a serious interference in individual freedom,” (no. 14, January 1998); one year later, on the topic of the producer of a film judged to be despicable, the same journalist wrote, “I could not help but think of the producer’s homosexuality. As, according to converging rumors, [he] would be gay” (no. 26, March 1999).

The ambivalence of journalists who, on one hand, condemn (sometimes violently) outing and, on the other, do not hesitate to describe the intimate activities of heterosexual public figures, from artists to state leaders (whose wives have to face the media in France and the US), reveals, in the end, the inequality of media or social treatment reserved for homosexuality, which precisely motivates the practice of outing initiated by Signorile: it is in opposition to the silence of homosexuality in the entertainment press that he decided to reveal the homosexuality of public figures. The argument that justifies this silence and is put forward by those opposed to outing is that of “respect of privacy.” Because it is part of the private sphere, homosexuality should not be evoked publicly by others than those concerned; outing would then infringe on an individual’s freedom and a basic rights.