The Dictionary of Homophobia (119 page)

But starting in the nineteenth century, the religious and moral paradigm making sodomy a sin or
vice
was increasingly challenged by the medical and psychiatric discourse that views homosexuality as pathological (a concept whose historical development was analyzed by Michel Foucault). Under such conditions, these new
medical
theories in which homosexuality was considered innate could have undermined old moral and religious beliefs which construed homosexuality as an acquired disposition under pernicious and proselyte influences. But in reality, both views were able to coexist, whereby homosexuals were now paradoxically perceived as ill and perverted individuals seeking to “teach” their illness to others. In fact, far from being dismissed by the “scientific” discourse, the accusation of proselytism seemed to be confirmed by certain medical theories that clearly distinguished the inversion, mental pathology, or congenital defect from the
perversion
, which would be a type of voluntary illness, a deliberate inversion of the self, and of others. But where the inverts should be pitied, the perverts—who are future corrupters—are the real threat by virtue of their proselytism. With this medicalization of the notion of perversion—soon to be assumed (though not without ambiguity) by
psychoanalysis
—gay proselytism was thus disqualified by both religious morality and medical discourse, which mutually reinforced each other in the construction of a new homophobic rhetoric.

In France, this new rhetoric was expressed emblematically in
literature
, which has historically often been criticized as one of the principle vehicles for gay proselytism. In a vehement essay, Paul Souday, literary critic for
Les Temps
, railed against André
Gide
’s
Les Faux Monnayeurs
(
The Counterfeiters
) and this increasingly intolerable “tendency”; and in 1926, the French magazine
Les Marges
launched a general inquiry into the “homosexual preoccupation” in French literature of the time, to which many authors, such as François Mauriac, Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, Henri Barbusse, and Willy (pseud.), responded. For many of them, this growing “preoccupation” was in fact a form of proselytism. Barbusse, for example, spoke of a “phalanx of decadent homosexuals.” Gérard Bauer said, “It cannot be denied that homosexuals have currently become more assured and have adopted an audacious proselytism,” which he attributed for the most part to the influence of Proust. Others pointed to other areas as the cause of this problem. Thus, according to Pierre Dominique, “the extreme freedom of modern morals, and the weakness or nonexistence of religious morals, either natural or civic, open the way to this proselytism. As a result, many people who are physiologically normal become, under the actions of the odd apostles, homosexuals by curiosity.” Camille Mauclair denounced these “apostles of vice obeying a desire for a public ministry concomitant with their mental and sexual state. The invert wants to convert; for this, (he needs) a special literature.” For this reason, according to Charles-Henry Hirsch, “Doctors and legislators should work together in order to stave off the propagation of this disgusting aberration: a mental home for the irresponsible,
prison
for the conscious corruptors.” These few examples, which accurately reflect the mindset on this question and, notably, the link between
inversion
, perversion, and conversion, illuminate the vividness of social discourse surrounding gay proselytism, as well as the singular expression of moral and medical conceptions on this issue.

This vision continued into the twentieth century, giving way to terrible persecutions, notably under the Third Reich. In fact, in its medico-moral formulation, the homosexual question constitutes a significant preoccupation for SS leader Heinrich
Himmler
, who intended to save Aryan youth from a proselytism whose insidious audacity threatened to debase the entire nation: as a result, he attempted to “cure” those who could have been gay, and sent the others to concentration
camps
. This concept arose in Communist ideology as well, often with formulations that were comparable in their
violence
and their consequences, as well as in numerous speeches during the
McCarthy
years in the US. Of course, the idea is not to compare entirely different regimes, but to underline the remarkable recurrence of the same argument in completely different contexts, each of them linked by an exacerbated, imperious nationalism that was concerned with preserving and increasing, at any expense, the power of the nation, even if this meant the sacrifice of individual freedoms on the altar of
ratio sexualis
.

However, in addition to nationalist, authoritarian, or dictatorial regimes, accusations of gay proselytism have also been heard in more liberal nations, which had the effect of extending the reach of homophobic condemnations that were already present. This tendency is premised on the idea that homosexual practices are often difficult to prove and condemn, especially where they are not officially outlawed. By suggesting the existence of gay proselytism, however, many pro-homosexual actions and views, notably in gay newspapers, can be condemned in complete legality, thus relativizing the degree of liberty enjoyed by
de facto
homosexuality in many countries where it is legal.

In France, although the
army
no longer forbids homosexual practices, any soldier accused of gay “proselytism” is excluded from the possibility of promotion. Similarly, though homosexual practices have been progressively decriminalized in England since 1967, Section 28, passed into law in 1988 and repealed in 2000, forbid the “promotion” of homosexuality in schools (“promotion” here means any view on the subject that does not
a priori
underline the reprehensible character of this practice). In the same vein, in 1996, under European pressure, the Parliament of the new Romanian democracy voted to
decriminalize
homosexual relations. However, Article 200 stipulated that “any person having incited, by seduction or any other method, another to have homosexual relations with them, having formed propaganda
associations
or having, in any way whatsoever, proselytized to this end,” is subject to imprisonment for up to five years. This law was potentially more repressive than before, as even if it no longer condemned the acts, it punished incitement, seduction, associations, views, intentions—in short, any semblance of gay life. Article 200 was repealed in 2001.

Under these conditions, accusations of proselytism work in the same way as accusations of indecency, sexual assault, and indecent offense, resulting in the criminalization of homosexuality when in fact it is not legally criminalized. Though,
a priori
, they appear as a euphemized form of homophobic rhetoric, these repressive views are in reality even more harsh, as they allow for a vague and arbitrary legal interpretation, whereby an overzealous police force could interpret any and all examples of homosexuality as being a form of proselytism, and therefore criminal.

Given this problem of interpretation, the very definition of gay proselytism comes into question. Moreover, during the last twenty years, a new front has appeared in the rhetoric of proselytism: in addition to the notion of sexual proselytism, there is now also the concept of cultural proselytism as a result of the increasing visibility and self-confidence of gay and lesbian culture. It is by no means a fluke that such accusations often crystallize around Gay and Lesbian Pride parades. From this perspective, it is not just sexuality that is being condemned, but also political opinions and a particular
philosophy
.

This new proselytism appears to its critics as more dangerous than its predecessor. At least “back then,” gay propaganda was shameful and miserable, originating in the slums and the shady districts, limiting itself to sex. Today, it is displayed in the full light of day, on the streets, on television and in movies…. In short, “Sodom claims the right of the city,” according to Hervé Lécuyer in a 1998 article published in
Economica
. This new form of gay proselytism is thus even more effective in that this culture looks happy; therein lies the rub. It is this concept that some Christian movements find the most difficult of all, particularly those in the American
ex-gay
movement, as Tim LaHaye expressed in his evocatively titled book
The Unhappy Gays
. According to STRAIGHT (Society To Remove All Immoral Godless Homosexual Trash), a Christian association that promotes
heterosexism
and fights homosexuality, gays are in fact SAD (Sodomites Against Decency), i.e. fundamentally miserable (in every sense of the word). Similarly, in France, in an essay entitled “Ne deviens pas gay, tu finiras triste” (Don’t become gay, you’ll end up sad), the anonymous author, a “repentant” homosexual, concludes by affirming, “I am talking about the strangers who protect the illusion that homosexuality is a road like any other towards happiness and, more than protecting it, seek to spread it.” In this manner, gay proselytism that spreads the idea of pride and happiness is thus deceitful and wholly intolerable. Beyond then the question of sexual “recruitment”—which today is generally regarded as absurd—if by affirming their freedom, rights, and culture, gays and lesbians are proselytizing, then yes, it is necessary to recognize the existence of gay proselytism, which is fully comparable to every cultural, social, or political movement in general. In this sense, the affirmations of every minority—be it regional, black, Jewish, Arabic— can naturally be construed as proselyte actions. The dominant culture enjoys the epistemological privilege of self-transparency, which allows that culture to denounce any alternative, heterodoxy, or minority proposition as propaganda; by the same token, its own majority position is considered “natural,” obvious, and self-evident. Consequently, the argument of gay proselytism reveals that those who use it wish to impose a
symbolic order
laced with obvious yet hidden heterosexist commands. At the same time, the same argument obscures the undeniable fact of heterosexual proselytism, an inconsistency which André Gide revealed in
Corydon
:

Just think how in our society, in our behavior, everything predestines one sex to the other; everything teaches heterosexuality, everything urges it upon us, everything provokes us to it; theater, literature, newspapers, paraded examples provided by our elders, the ritual of our drawing rooms and our street corners.
Given all that, failing to fall in love is a sign of ill breeding!
crows Dumas
fils
in his preface to
La Question d’argent
. Yet if a young man finally succumbs to so much collusion in the world around him, he refused to grant that his decision was influenced, his desire manipulated if he ends up making his choice in the “right” direction! And if, in spite of advice, invitations, provocations of all kinds, he should manifest a homosexual tendency, you immediately blame his reading or some other influence (and you argue in the same way for an entire nation, an entire people); it has to be an acquired taste, you insist; he must have been taught it; you refuse to admit that he might have invented it all by himself.

Therefore, in the idea that heterosexuals are in fact unconscious proselytizers, the accusation of proselytism could equally be laid against both parties: yes, gays and lesbians are proselytizers, but heterosexuals are even more so, without knowing it. In reality, however, the issue is not who proselytizes the most, because proselytism does not designate an objective, but a value judgment. Through the argument of proselytism, there is a symbolic struggle for dominance whose legitimacy is the fundamental question. The pejorative connotations tied to the term presuppose an illegitimate content. Therefore, there are two possibilities: either homosexuality is legitimate, and its social, cultural, and political expression is as well, or homosexuality is illegitimate, and its social, cultural, and political expression is in fact nothing but abusive proselytism. And that, generally, is what conservatives such as Christine Boutin stumble over when they affirm, rather symptomatically, that “A right to homosexuality … does not legitimize gay proselytism.” In reality, however, it is clear that Boutin’s concept of this “right to homosexuality” is based on a logic of
tolerance
; that is to say, she does not recognize it at all as a right. Therein is the rub. If homosexuality is merely tolerated, gay and lesbian rhetoric will always appear to be a form of proselytism, necessarily abusive and condemnable, as Jean-Marie Le Pen would have it. If homosexuality is a legitimate disposition, the very idea of gay proselytism must be taken for what it is: a concept that is politically dangerous, but intellectually ridiculous.
—Louis-Georges Tin

Boutin, Christine.
Le “Mariage” des homosexuels? CUCS, PIC, PACS et autres projets législatifs
. Paris: Critérion, 1998.

Foucault, Michel.
Les Anormaux, Cours au Collège de France
. Paris: Gallimard, Le Seuil, 1999. [Published in the US as
Abnormal: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1974–1975
. New York: Picador, 2003.]

Fourest, Caroline.
Foi contre choix, la droite religieuse et le mouvement “prolife” aux Etats-Unis
. Paris: Ed. Golias, 2001.

Gide, André.
Corydon
. Paris. Gallimard, 1926. [Published in the US as
Corydon
. Urbana, IL: Univ. of Illinois Press, 2003.]

Herman, Didi.
The Antigay Agenda
. Chicago/London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1997.

Himmler, Heinrich.
Discours secrets
. Paris: Gallimard, 1978.

Krinsky, Charles. “Recruitment Myth.” In
Gay Histories and Cultures
. Edited by Georges E. Haggerty. New York/ London: Garland, 2000.

Lever, Maurice.
Les Bûchers de Sodome
. Paris: Fayard, 1985.

Les Marges,
Mar–Apr 1926. Re-edited in
Cahiers GaiKitschCamp
. Lille, no. 19 (1993).

Rich, Adrienne. “La Contrainte à l’hétérosexualité et l’existence lesbienne.”
Nouvelles questions féministes
, no. 1 (1981). [Published in the US as “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Experience,”
Signs
5, no. 4 (Summer 1980).]