Homophobia
The origin of
Homophobia
After an article written
by John Hudson
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Personal
story
At around the age of
12 to 13, I began to understand that I was much more interested
in boys than girls. Shortly thereafter, I learned that
there were words for someone like me: “gay,”
“fag/faggot,” “queer,” and
“pervert,” just to name a few of the terms that I heard
in those early days of realization. I knew intuitively that
my attraction for other boys was something I had to keep hidden,
though I didn’t understand why. My feelings seemed so
natural to me. Yet, I knew all too well that being
different in this way was unnatural and unacceptable to
others. I only needed to hear those terms and listen to the
ways in which they were used to be reminded of what I already
knew instinctively.
“Gay,” “faggot,” “queer,” and
the like were terms of denigration, words used to inflict pain
and humiliation, words of attack and violence. These were
words that other boys would spit venomously, even if they were
intended in fun. The words held power which was
unmistakable to me; they were threatening, stabbing at me
whenever I heard them uttered. I knew they would all hate
me if they knew.
Why this hatred and anger?
This hatred is
something that I have spent most of my life puzzling over.
Why would people, often otherwise very rational people, harbor
such an intense hatred of anyone GLBT? What had anyone GLBT
done to them to earn such malice? Why would so many in
church…people who would preach and teach love and
forgiveness…preach and teach hatred of homosexuals?
Why would other boys speak of beating up fags as if it were a
sport? Why would some go so far as to boast that they
wanted to kill gays, whether they made such boasts seriously or
in jest (as if ending another’s life could ever be something
to joke about!)? This hatred, which I eventually learned
was called “homophobia,” seemed aptly named, since it
seemed so devoid of any kind of logic or rationality.
Homophobia always seemed to me intensely inhuman, and it has
always sickened me to see or hear overt homophobia expressed by
those who I call my friends.
Not normal
The usual explanation
that I encountered for homophobia, including homophobia in its
more brutal forms, was, to summarize how it generally gets
presented, that people hate homosexuals because they are not
normal.This explanation has always seemed terribly inadequate to
me.For one thing, there are many identities and orientations
which are not “normal,” and yet are accorded a great
measure of tolerance. In addition, growing up gay and
coming to terms with the consequences of being gay in a
homophobic culture taught me to question the very notion of
“normal.” After all, my feelings of attraction to
men seemed quite normal for me. Why couldn’t they, in
a better society, be accepted as an alternative
“normal”?
Not irrational fear
It was not until I
began doing research for this project that I began to see that
homophobia is not the irrational fear that it’s name
suggests, and that it is not just a simple, visceral reaction to
what is considered “abnormal.” On the contrary,
homophobia is a vital cultural construct which systematically
helps to maintain important structures of patriarchal,
heterosexist culture. Queer theory offers insightful ways
of understanding the role and function of homophobia by
deconstructing a fundamental binary of society: heterosexuality
versus homosexuality. This binary, which the vast majority
of Americans would take as a “natural” given, is a
powerful construct which not only defines who people are, but has
a role in shaping how people think and behave (Sedgwick 1),
setting the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is taboo in
regards to sexual identity, thus regulating identities (Nelson
376). Sexual identities are essentialized into two
categories: the dominant, and therefore “normalized,”
heterosexual, and the minority, and therefore deviant,
homosexual.
Are people always either/or, heterosexual or
homosexual?
Queer theory, with
the influence of post-structuralism, questions the very notion of
the essential poles of the binary, recognizing the
“polyvocal or dialogic nature of any defining label or
category” (Alexander 212). Are people always
either/or, heterosexual or homosexual? Or is sexual
identity more complex than the cultural binary allows? This
question points toward one of the vital functions of a binary,
that of defining one axis of the binary in opposition to the
other; in this case, heterosexuality is defined “in critical
opposition to that which it is not: homosexuality” (Fuss
1). The identity “heterosexual” requires its
opposite, “homosexual,” in order to define itself and
to delimit the boundaries of behavior that receives
society’s sanction and behavior that is demonized. One
identity cannot exist without the other. And while society
takes for granted that heterosexuality is the “default”
setting for everyone, it wasn’t until the latter half of the
nineteenth century that the concept of heterosexuality and
homosexuality were created, with the concept of homosexuality
actually preceding that of heterosexuality by a number of years,
prompting one writer to remark that heterosexuality emerged from
homosexuality like “Eve from Adam’s rib” (Halperin
17).
Of several explanations for Western culture’s
“need” for the hetero/homosexual binary, the argument
offered by John D’Emilio (1), and summarized in Malinowitz,
is one of the more plausible. According to D’Emilio,
as industrialization took hold in the 19th century,
individuals were no longer tied to family life out of economic
necessity. Wage earners began to have the
“freedom” to cultivate alternative sexual identities
which were not possible under the preindustrial regime in which
the family was the most important economic unit.The capitalist
system, however,
’push[es] men and women into families, at least long enough to reproduce the next generation of workers. The elevation of the family to ideological preeminence guarantees that capitalist society will reproduce not just children, but heterosexism and homophobia.’ (D’Emilio quoted in Malinowitz 50)
Thus, homosexuality constitutes a threat to capitalism’s labor supply. If men and women (read: breeding stock) cultivate alternative sexual identities, there will be fewer children (read: future laborers) to feed the capitalist machine in the next generation.
Sexual identity is more like a work in
progress
While the
binary hetero/homosexual seeks to bring order to sexual identity
and delimit normativity, the problem of the “polyvocal and
dialogic” nature of identity and categories remains,
resisting essentialization by the binary. Rather than being
an inherent, essential state, sexual identity is more like a work
in progress, a condition Judith Butler describes as
“performative” (136). Sexual identity is in a
constant state of development, performance, interpretation, and
negotiation as individuals interact “socially and
discursively” (Nelson 375).The result, particularly for men
(2), is confusion and insecurity about one’s sexual
identity. The socialization of men is extraordinarily
heterosexist, rigidly in conformity with the hetero/homosexual
binary. But the reality for men is that their sexual
identities are not nearly as simple and clear-cut as their
socialization demands. In fact, as Gary David Comstock
points out in his study of violence committed against gays and
lesbians, by the age of 20, nearly one out of two males has had
some kind of homoerotic experience (115). The result of
this confusion is homophobia, which all too often is externalized
in the form of physical violence. Comstock goes on to
explain that:
Many teenage males, therefore, face a serious conflict of (1) their socially constructed and sexually felt similarity with a socially powerless, deviant, and feminized category of people and (2) the socially constructed expectation that they be powerful, masculine, and heterosexual. (115-16).
Gay bashers are confused
A teenage gay basher
whom Comstock interviews admits that, when he and his friends
attacked someone, they “’were probably attacking
something within ourselves’” and that they
“’were actually attracted’” to the victim
(172). The seriousness of this inner confusion…the
clash of one’s homoerotic feelings and attractions with the
social demands of heterosexist society…is often expressed in
the “rage and extreme mutilation” common in gay bashing
(Comstock 116). More often, the confusion and identity
conflict of the questioning (3) individual is interiorized in the
form of self-hatred characteristic of internalized homophobia. An
openly gay teacher captures this inner hatred as he recalls a boy
in his junior high gym class to whom he was attracted: “Gary
entranced me, even though I hated him and, more importantly,
myself, for his doing so. I could barely take my eyes off
him” (Jennings 19). This young man never expressed his
conflict through violence, though he admits “hating”
the boy who “entranced” him. Instead, he
internalized his homophobia, directing his anger and hatred upon
himself rather than upon others. But there is a fine line
between the young person who secretly tortures him/herself
because of her/his conflicted sexual identity and the young
person who directs his rage outward, choosing a perceived
homosexual target upon which to vent his anger and
frustration. Comstock pessimistically concludes that:
Given the prevalence of homosexual contact, the pervasiveness and rigidity of prohibitions against it, the tendency for teenagers to want to conform to social norms, compensating for one’s own socially unacceptable behavior by physically attacking others who engage in it cannot be viewed as either unusual, anti-social, or the result of being psychologically disturbed (by the perpetrators). (116)
Comstock’s study shows that his findings concerning teenage men apply also to men through their mid to late twenties. The intense difficulties of dealing with a conflicted sexual identity do not end with adolescence.
Heterosexuals are projecting negative images
on homosexuals
In terms of the
demonization of homosexuality in general, Diana Fuss describes
how the heterosexual majority attempts to understand homosexuals
by projecting onto them a negative image, an image which is made
up of the “contaminated and expurgated insides of the
heterosexual subject” (3), rather than anything inherent in
homosexuals themselves. This does much to explain some of
the common myths and misconceptions about homosexuals that
heterosexual society holds: that homosexuals are hypersexual;
that homosexual men are pedophiles; that homosexuals are
constantly seeking new “recruits” by
“converting” young people to homosexuality; and so
on.
Fuss goes on to show that the binary further feeds homophobia due
to the very narrow band separating hetero and homo and the
“ever-present threat of a collapse of boundaries, an
effacing of limits, and a radical confusion of identities”.
At the individual level,
homophobia is not so much a personal hatred of the GLBT
individual as it is a paranoid reaction to the confusion and
conflicting impulses within the heterosexual individual who is
not meeting the identity requirements of heteronormative society.
The conflicted individual first feels homophobia toward his/her
(usually his) own unstable sexual identity. As a means of
demonstrating heterosexual status, and also of venting his
self-hatred and fear, the homophobe externalizes his homophobia
by targeting a perceived homosexual. The victim becomes
objectified, no longer a subject in the eyes of his/her attacker,
but a fetish for a ritual cleansing of the attacker’s
conflicted sexual identity.
By venting such hatred at GLBT targets, the homophobe may or may
not gain some feeling of inner peace with his own
confusion. Most importantly, though, by externalizing his
homophobia, a gay basher has “proven” his
heterosexuality to society, showing that he does indeed measure
up to the heterosexist standards of the culture. Individual
acts of homophobia collectively enact the program of homophobia
at the societal level: the maintenance of the boundaries of
heteronormativity and the perpetuation of the hetero/homosexual
binary. Homophobia thus functions as a cultural mechanism
by which the heterosexist status quo can be maintained and
affirmed.
Homo-hostile is maybe
a better word for homophobia
In the Netherlands university professor dr. Rob Tielman
said we have to be careful to use the word 'homophobia'. Why?
Because by doing so we label others with a 'disease'. Especially
the LGTB movement with her struggle against homosexuality as a
disease should be carefull by labelling a certain behaviour as a
disease. It might be better to use to word homo-hostile.
(1) See D’Emilio, John. “Capitalism and Gay Identity.” Eds. Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Tompson. New York: Montly Review Press, 1983. 103-110.
(2) Much of my discussion of homophobia will focus on men because men are overwhelmingly both the victims and perpetrators of homophobic violence, with male perpetrators indicating that the conflict between social pressures to conform to masculine norms and their conflicted sexual identities plays a role in motivating their attacks (see Comstock). Women, while often victims, are more seldom perpetrators of homophobic violence. Norms for “appropriate” female sexual identity allow for more “overt closeness (between women). . . than between men” (Benesch 578).
(3) A “questioning” individual is one who is unsure of his or her sexual identity, in that his or her sexual identity does not fit the heterosexist demand of society that he or she be either privileged heterosexual or demonized homosexual. To be considered “questioning,” an individual does not have to be consciously seeking alternative lifestyles under this definition, but needs only to experience the confusion of sexual identity conflict.
