As an undergrad I had David Halperin for a gay theory seminar and later his infamous “how to be gay” class. I was such a little snot. I wrote a paper arguing that gay history was misguided and one arguing that gay culture doesn’t exist. I scandalized Halperin’s grad student TA when I told him I didn’t think gay people were “born that way”—that same-sex desire was more likely an individualized, idiosyncratic combination of genetic predispositions, psychology, and life experience. (I got As in the classes.)
All these years later, nothing I’ve lived has changed my mind. The essay makes an elegant and well argued case for preserving what it calls “the gay world”. But I suspect it underestimates how many gay people are perfectly content with what it dismisses as “assimilation.” I’m married (26 years together), a father, embedded in Detroit’s social institutions. Being gay is just a fact about us, not the organizing principle of our lives. If others want to maintain specifically gay cultural institutions and literary traditions, more power to them. But for many of us, the Mattachine Society had it exactly right: the goal was never separate culture but for gayness to become incidental and as unremarkable as being left-handed.
Blake, such a fabulous little history of often bastardized parts of our cultural tradition. You are a true gay parrhesiast (before which false parrhesiasts should quake). And funny as f*ck.
Thanks Blake for this capsule history. As someone surviving from the era of gay exuberance (1970s-1990s, even when you factor in the horror of the epidemic), I’m both curious & entertained. Through the 80s I lived in Chicago (Lakeview, or now Boystown); in the 90s in San Francisco. What was taken for granted and fully enjoyed was the vibrant erotic fighting spirit of the gay community, not as a theoretical construction but an untamed living reality. In those decades a gay man could travel to any big or medium or (occasionally!) small city in the US or Europe and be sure of finding a welcome. The community was international. One week in the mid-80s I heard a guy with a British accent at a bar in Chicago and met up with him the next week in London, based on no more than a 15 minute conversation and, naturally, a certain buzz. The social and intellectual history you masterfully summarize was scrutinized and appreciated by the more studious types among us. (As a book reviewer for the various gay papers I read more than my share of the writers you mention, books which often required decoding for the intelligent reader.) But for the most part we took the bounty for granted.
To echo Woolf, gay human reality shifted on or about January 2000. Guys my age lament what we first enthusiastically embraced: the onset of digital media. In the beginning, few sites were more hilarious than the personal ads on Craigslist, soon to splinter into all manner of social media. And this I think is the critical factor, maybe under-stressed in your survey. The gay community flourished because we were all seeing each other face-to-face, body-to-body, all the time. For a time hook-up sites seemed more efficient (although nothing is as efficient as a bathhouse) but that convenience came at the brutal cost of isolation, abstraction, alienation. Gay communities weren’t the only victims, all (daily, ordinary, random) communities discombobulated. Maybe one day we’ll throw down our phones and rediscover what’s been lost. It was one of the most joyful times in human history for gay men — even though too many of our friends left us too soon.
thank you for this kind message--I have actually read some of your book reviews in old issues of the Windy City Times! I do think there's definitely something about these spaces and conversations moving online that has had a big effect, much more so than whatever people mean by "assimilation"... although I remain hopeful that there will be something like a post-online culture!
I think the real question is why do people think there isn’t a gay world, gay spaces, and spaces where gay men meet. Every gay man who is “out” finds these spaces. I appreciate the history. But it’s a retelling of history because the obvious has been academically confused.
Another real question is what purposes does a gay community serve? The recent answer in the last decade has been: basically to fuck with straight culture. Gay culture is a culture of low hanging fruit. It rarely comes together to build or create new things for itself. Gay men do seem to long for more than we have today, yet the community is mostly ashamed of having any abundance, any returns beyond basic needs. When we gather we are told by straight people that we are not inclusive. When we have resources we are pushed to focus on the concerns of society. How many young gay couples would like a shot at reproduction, raising a family, but can’t pull off the six figures surrogacy requires. It could’ve been a cause of our time, to help younger gay men fund their families.
The same gay men who now go by queer are more likely to mimic heterosexual culture by relying on the inclusion and energy of women to make their spaces and the effort of straight men to uphold their rights and world. A generation of gay young adults were told the rights battle had moved on. Rather than use their skill and passion to make their community beautiful they bought into the lie that (as always) other people’s lives mattered more than their own. Sam Smith sings about having something to die for, but how did we shame ourselves into not having community to live for.
We live in a world of gay men cheating each other out of the little heath they have and criticizing each other when they focus on themselves and their community. Gay people focus on what’s “next” like queer or trans because to not do so would be to admit how little they have. Better to lie to yourself about what gay means and keep moving than admitting the near hopeless poverty of your own house.
I loved the essay.
As an undergrad I had David Halperin for a gay theory seminar and later his infamous “how to be gay” class. I was such a little snot. I wrote a paper arguing that gay history was misguided and one arguing that gay culture doesn’t exist. I scandalized Halperin’s grad student TA when I told him I didn’t think gay people were “born that way”—that same-sex desire was more likely an individualized, idiosyncratic combination of genetic predispositions, psychology, and life experience. (I got As in the classes.)
All these years later, nothing I’ve lived has changed my mind. The essay makes an elegant and well argued case for preserving what it calls “the gay world”. But I suspect it underestimates how many gay people are perfectly content with what it dismisses as “assimilation.” I’m married (26 years together), a father, embedded in Detroit’s social institutions. Being gay is just a fact about us, not the organizing principle of our lives. If others want to maintain specifically gay cultural institutions and literary traditions, more power to them. But for many of us, the Mattachine Society had it exactly right: the goal was never separate culture but for gayness to become incidental and as unremarkable as being left-handed.
Blake, such a fabulous little history of often bastardized parts of our cultural tradition. You are a true gay parrhesiast (before which false parrhesiasts should quake). And funny as f*ck.
Arendt as Mother of Gays. Wow.
thank you so much, Gary!!
Thanks Blake for this capsule history. As someone surviving from the era of gay exuberance (1970s-1990s, even when you factor in the horror of the epidemic), I’m both curious & entertained. Through the 80s I lived in Chicago (Lakeview, or now Boystown); in the 90s in San Francisco. What was taken for granted and fully enjoyed was the vibrant erotic fighting spirit of the gay community, not as a theoretical construction but an untamed living reality. In those decades a gay man could travel to any big or medium or (occasionally!) small city in the US or Europe and be sure of finding a welcome. The community was international. One week in the mid-80s I heard a guy with a British accent at a bar in Chicago and met up with him the next week in London, based on no more than a 15 minute conversation and, naturally, a certain buzz. The social and intellectual history you masterfully summarize was scrutinized and appreciated by the more studious types among us. (As a book reviewer for the various gay papers I read more than my share of the writers you mention, books which often required decoding for the intelligent reader.) But for the most part we took the bounty for granted.
To echo Woolf, gay human reality shifted on or about January 2000. Guys my age lament what we first enthusiastically embraced: the onset of digital media. In the beginning, few sites were more hilarious than the personal ads on Craigslist, soon to splinter into all manner of social media. And this I think is the critical factor, maybe under-stressed in your survey. The gay community flourished because we were all seeing each other face-to-face, body-to-body, all the time. For a time hook-up sites seemed more efficient (although nothing is as efficient as a bathhouse) but that convenience came at the brutal cost of isolation, abstraction, alienation. Gay communities weren’t the only victims, all (daily, ordinary, random) communities discombobulated. Maybe one day we’ll throw down our phones and rediscover what’s been lost. It was one of the most joyful times in human history for gay men — even though too many of our friends left us too soon.
thank you for this kind message--I have actually read some of your book reviews in old issues of the Windy City Times! I do think there's definitely something about these spaces and conversations moving online that has had a big effect, much more so than whatever people mean by "assimilation"... although I remain hopeful that there will be something like a post-online culture!
I’m impressed — I have almost nothing of what I wrote for WCT and apparently there’s no archive. I will follow you if I haven’t yet.
J'adore... do I need to get a copy of the book or can I assume I've now read the best it has to offer?
Thanks! I also liked Roger Lancaster's contribution, although that essay is just drawn from his recent book: https://www.ucpress.edu/books/the-struggle-to-be-gay-in-mexico-for-example/paper
What a remarkable, beautifully paced essay.
Thank you!
I think the real question is why do people think there isn’t a gay world, gay spaces, and spaces where gay men meet. Every gay man who is “out” finds these spaces. I appreciate the history. But it’s a retelling of history because the obvious has been academically confused.
Another real question is what purposes does a gay community serve? The recent answer in the last decade has been: basically to fuck with straight culture. Gay culture is a culture of low hanging fruit. It rarely comes together to build or create new things for itself. Gay men do seem to long for more than we have today, yet the community is mostly ashamed of having any abundance, any returns beyond basic needs. When we gather we are told by straight people that we are not inclusive. When we have resources we are pushed to focus on the concerns of society. How many young gay couples would like a shot at reproduction, raising a family, but can’t pull off the six figures surrogacy requires. It could’ve been a cause of our time, to help younger gay men fund their families.
The same gay men who now go by queer are more likely to mimic heterosexual culture by relying on the inclusion and energy of women to make their spaces and the effort of straight men to uphold their rights and world. A generation of gay young adults were told the rights battle had moved on. Rather than use their skill and passion to make their community beautiful they bought into the lie that (as always) other people’s lives mattered more than their own. Sam Smith sings about having something to die for, but how did we shame ourselves into not having community to live for.
We live in a world of gay men cheating each other out of the little heath they have and criticizing each other when they focus on themselves and their community. Gay people focus on what’s “next” like queer or trans because to not do so would be to admit how little they have. Better to lie to yourself about what gay means and keep moving than admitting the near hopeless poverty of your own house.