The Dictionary of Homophobia (54 page)
The ex-gays constitute what is probably one of the most pathetic chapters in the history of homophobia in North America. The stories told by “ex-ex-gays” attest to how destructive this self-hatred can be when it is experienced collectively. The best defense against these practices can be found in the work of some gay
associations
and churches that aim to reconcile religious faith with homosexuality. And despite Exodus having established chapters in many countries, it remains for the time being a North American phenomenon. However, the growth of evangelical sects in
Latin
America
,
Africa
,
Eastern Europe
, and
Southeast
Asia
raises the uncomfortable possibility that the ex-gay movement may be able to extend its influence worldwide.
—Pierre-Olivier de Busscher
Cameron, Paul.
What Causes Homosexual Desire and Can It Be Changed?
Washington, DC: Family Research Institute, 1992.
Human Rights Campaign website. “Finally Free: How Love and Acceptance Saved Us From the Ex-Gay Ministries” PDF. HRC (2000)
http://www.hrc.org/publications
(accessed February 12, 2008.)
———. “Mission Impossible: Why Reparative Therapy and Ex-Gay Ministries Fail.” PDF. HRC (1998)
http://www.hrc.org/publications
(accessed February 12, 2008.)
http://www.truluck.com/html/sexual_orientation_and_theex.html
(site now discontinued).
Murphy, Timothy. “Redirecting Sexual Orientation Techniques and Justifications,”
The Journal of Sex Research
29. no. 4 (1992).
Pennington, Sylvia.
Ex-Gays? There Are None
. Hawthorne: Lambda Christina Fellowship, 1989.
Sébastien.
Ne deviens pas gay, tu finiras triste
. Paris: Ed. François-Xavier de Guibert, 1998.
—Heterosexism; Medicine; North America; Protestantism; Psychiatry; Theology; Treatment.
EXHIBITIONISM
In French society, which distinguishes itself by its Republican attitude (and which even looks down on the concept of “community”), it is sometimes difficult to reveal one’s true colors. In this way, the history of gays and lesbians does not differ greatly from that of feminist movements, or the struggles against racism and
AIDS
. A crucial question has long been at the heart of the gay and lesbian community’s struggle to assert its identity: just how much should be revealed in order to change society’s prevailing attitude toward it? For many, attesting to one’s homosexuality is itself a form of exhibitionism: “
on s’affiche
,” to use the French term. The dictionary’s definition of the exhibitionism denotes a lapse in morals: “The act of publicly displaying one’s feelings, one’s
private
life,
that which should remain hidden
[author’s emphasis].” On closer inspection, however, the rules that govern the separation of the public and the private do not seem to work equally for everyone. Heterosexuals enjoy the social privilege of being permitted to display all the outward signs of their heterosexuality (from wedding rings to open displays of affection) without ever being accused of exhibitionism. Conversely, the mention or manifestation of homosexuality, whether individual or collective, is often seen as inappropriate; it is sometimes perceived as being in poor taste (“Why are you divulging this information?”), and also suggests some kind of moral fault. Any homosexual discourse is considered excessive if it goes beyond the limits of the
discretion
that society demands of it. In short, for many, exhibitionism begins where the
closet
ends.
Homosexual exhibitionism, at least as it appears in homophobic
rhetoric
, has a long history. Truth be told, in the beginning, the very idea of homosexual exhibitionism would have been completely improbable. During the Ancien Régime, the social perception of “sodomites” was so extreme as to link them with occult sects, secret societies, and invisible networks—a virtual underworld of
vice
, the shadowy depths of which Marcel Proust would still hint at even as late as the early twentieth century. In these conditions, far from being incorrigible exhibitionists, sodomites were seen instead as masters of dissimulation. Naturally, there were some sodomites who were notoriously open, but in general, homosexuality was shrouded in silence (or at least whispers) which corresponded to a sort of tacit agreement that was in the mutual public interest. To avoid prosecution by the law, “sexual deviants” kept themselves hidden from view wherever possible. The authorities preferred to look the other way; they tried to keep prosecutors from drawing too much public attention to affairs that might compromise certain highly-placed individuals, and to prevent the corruption of young innocents by ensuring that they remained unaware of such practices. Whether it came to the moralists or the debauchees, everyone preferred to stay quiet for fear of saying too much.
By the end of the nineteenth century, however, homosexual exhibitionism had become a common topic of discussion. But this did not mean there was a sudden change in attitude. This new theme did not replace the old; rather, it was superimposed over the old in a paradoxical way, like an indissoluble photographic negative, depicting the homosexual as an exhibitionist who liked to hide, or perhaps a secretive person who liked to expose himself. So did this new portrayal translate into a rising tide of visible homosexuality in Europe? While not impossible, it has yet to be proven. Regardless, it became common for people to pine for the good old days, when at least the vice was kept hidden from public view.
In the 1926 issue of
Les Marges
, dedicated to the literary preoccupation with homosexuality, François Mauriac, writing on the influence of André
Gide
and Marcel Proust, commented on the matter in the same way; that henceforth, “
many who were hidden would stop keeping themselves hidden
” (Mauriac’s emphasis). In the same issue, the French author Rachilde (Marguerite Vallette-Eymery) states, “Almost all homosexuals are exhibitionists, and when they are artists or writers, they feel the need to tell their story.” The words used here are important. At the time, the descriptive noun “exhibitionist” was a recent lexicological creation, dating back to 1880, and belonged to the vocabulary of medical science, more precisely,
psychiatry
. In the works of Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Jean-Martin Charcot, or Valentin Magnan, the word designates a pathology similar to homosexuality. Both are often associated together, given that homosexuality is frequently associated with all sorts of
perversions
. The concept of homosexual exhibitionism is then part of a pseudo-scientific vernacular, which reveals how the old, immoral image of the “sodomite” was systematically medicalized. In this sense, the simple transition from a moral vocabulary to a medical one becomes clear—previously, where one would speak of homosexuality in terms of vice, now it was in the context of pathological exhibitionism. This new formulation gave this concept of homosexuality a kind of incontestable scientific legitimacy, as suggested by the quasi-apodictic character of Rachilde’s comments. This psychiatric vernacular would appear again in the commentary of French writer Thomas Raucat, to whom the new homosexual fashion in literature was tied to a Freudian-inspired exhibitionistic and narcissistic ecstasy: “Ever since an eminent Austrian psychiatrist made the discovery that the human soul is really a cesspool, these gentlemen writers seem to have gotten together to organize, just as they do in Bois de Boulogne [a park in Paris] on summer nights, pleasure parties lit by dark lanterns.” In short, it seems clear: by adding one perversion to another, all homosexuals must be exhibitionists (the worst of these being writers, of course).
Today, the idea of homosexuality as a sickness is less popular, though it was very much in vogue only thirty or forty years ago. Under these conditions, it is easy to imagine that the idea of homosexual exhibitionism should have fallen apart on its own, given the link to this medical and psychiatric concept. In reality, though, it endured, and in fact shifted to the realm of the political. Today, several decades after what was considered the beginning of the real struggle for gay and lesbian rights, the concept is still around. For homophobes, the increased visibility of homosexuals—be it sexual, social, political, or health-related—is perceived as if it were an intolerable breach of some invisible boundary. Further, the word “exhibitionism” is associated with the concepts of pleasure, pride, and ego; in this sense, if gays and lesbians express themselves with a sense of joy and identity, it is somehow perceived as “exhibitionist” by homophobes and thus unacceptable. Lesbian and gay “pride” is thus often associated with exhibitionism: according to this view, all those naked homosexuals, all those drag queens, paint a bad picture of homosexuality (despite the fact that no one ever talks about a poor image of heterosexuality as a result of the Carnival in Rio de Janeiro); even the simple act of homosexuals walking in the street is considered exhibitionism. This fear, it seems, dates back to the earliest gay and lesbian
associations
. Historians have shown that during the 1950s, gays and lesbians who tried to respond to the
discrimination
expressed against them encountered not only opposition from homophobes, but also the incomprehension of their peers. For some homosexuals, when faced with the dangerous prospect of
scandal
if exposed, it was preferable to stay hidden. To come out of hiding—to assert oneself as human—was to risk a backlash, even exclusion, from mainstream society, their unnamable identity plunging them into infamy. Homophobia is thus the keystone to this issue: external homophobia from society, and internalized homophobia from other gays and lesbians.
Many gay and lesbian writers still refuse to allude to their homosexuality, even though it is often at the heart of their creative process. This refusal of exhibitionism is fed by a feeling of fear, which may or may not be acknowledged but is common all the same, even in members of the intelligentsia. The desired goal of gays and lesbians who feel this way is to obtain the best of what society has to offer (legal recognition and rights, marriage,
parenting
, etc.) without ever having to reveal oneself for who one really is. The reticence of many homosexuals to come out, to the point of contorting the truth about themselves on a daily basis, is a form of perpetual shame. Therein lies the problem—it is obvious that any real improvement to the lives of gays and lesbians comes through the direct promotion of their culture, which requires a certain degree of courage that, according to some, is really just a form of exhibitionism. Gay-positive actions such as directing a film about homosexuality, opening a gay or lesbian bar, or even identifying oneself in the street by way of certain social signals or attire, can only be accomplished through the affirmation not only of oneself, but also of others. It is true that many “natural” heterosexual social habits—such as holding hands in public, or talking about one’s partner with colleagues—are considered exhibitionist when undertaken by gays and lesbians. But if homosexuality is to be truly legitimate, as many recognize it to be (at least officially), then this exhibitionism must be viewed as an exercise, pure and simple, of the same freedom of expression enjoyed by heterosexuals.
—Didier Lestrade
Adam, Barry D., Jan Willem Duyvendak, and André Krouwel, eds.
The Global Emergence of Gay and Lesbian Politics: National Imprints of a Worldwide Movement
. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 1999.
Guillemaut, Françoise. “Images invisibles: les lesbiennes.” In
La Peur de l’autre en soi, du sexisme à l’homophobie
. Edited by Michel Dorais, Pierre Dutey, and Daniel Welzer-Lang. Montreal: VLB Editeur, 1994.
Krafft-Ebing, Richard von.
Psychopathia sexualis
. Paris: G. Carré, 1895. [Published in English as
Psychopathia Sexualis
.]
Lever, Maurice.
Les Bûchers de Sodome
. Paris: Fayard, 1985.
Les Marges
35, no. 141 (March 1926). New edition by Patrick Cardon, Cahiers GaiKitschCamp, no. 19. Lille, France: 1993.
Tamagne, Florence.
Histoire de l’homosexualité en Europe, Berlin, Londres, Paris, 1919–1939
. Paris: Le Seuil, 2000. [Published in the US as
A History of Homosexuality in Europe: Berlin, London, Paris, 1919–1939
. New York: Algora, 2004.]
Thompson, Mark, ed.
The Long Road to Freedom: The Advocate History of the Gay and Lesbian Movement
. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1994.
—Associations; Communitarianism; Closet, the; Gide, André; Heterosexism; Literature; Outing; Pol
i
tics; Rhetoric; Scandal; Shame; Wilde, Oscar.
FAMILY
For many homosexuals, the family is the first source of what may be referred to as the “homophobic experience.” Familial homophobia is so common and destructive, in fact, that many homosexuals would rather fight for better social and political rights for themselves and others than deal with the very personal issue of family. Like the state,
school
, and the church, the family is a key institution in the fabric of society, but compared to other institutions, it has a more profound and damaging impact on gays and lesbians when it comes to instance of homophobia.
Over the last thirty years, the political struggle for gay and lesbian rights has advanced in many domains, such as spousal rights, gay
marriage
, and gay
parenting
. In the effort to combat familial homophobia, however, two aspects of the subject must be identified: homophobia within the family, and the homophobic usage of the idea of the family.
Homophobia Within Family
The impact of familial homophobia is based on the role the family, as an institution, plays in society and the lives of gay and lesbian children. Children are taught from the outset that the family is the only place where one can develop an acceptable and healthy identity. As French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has written, the family is “dedicated to offering a model for all social bodies,” and it is “the place for the naturalization of the social arbitrariness.” As it stands, even society and the state recognize the family’s great power over its members. Starting very early in life, children take in messages about what is proper behavior for girls and boys. These messages may be direct or indirect. A boy who is not masculine enough or a girl who is too masculine is quickly brought under control. The message, however, is just as strong when a child witnesses members of his or her own family issue homophobic
insults
or perform acts of homophobic
violence
against others. These insults, this violence, immediately establish a standard of acceptable behavior within the family.