Pretty clear expression of the constructionist perspective on homosexuality from Britisher Peter Tatchell.
23 thoughts on “Peter Tatchell on gay identity”
Comments are closed.
A college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues
Pretty clear expression of the constructionist perspective on homosexuality from Britisher Peter Tatchell.
Comments are closed.
Timothy Kinkaid wrote:
I don’t personally know anyone who engages in coprophagia, golden showers, sexual torture, or nightly orgies. And I’ve never heard of anyone who insisted that others “celebrate†these things. To say that the “gay community†insists that you celebrate this stuff suggests that you are not being intellectually honest.
I have dared to contest that hyper-sexuality is harmful to gay people and that I resent it representing me as a “gay man”. In response, I have been called “Stepford”, “conservative”, and a “control freak”. So for you to insist that the “gay community” does NOT insist that I accept (or even celebrate) all forms of human sexuality suggest that you are living in denial. Have you ever heard the phrases “sex negative” or “afraid of sex”? Those were slurs that were flung against Bruce Bawer’s book _A Place at the Table_ for his suggestion that gay men integrate into straight society.
It seems that you define “gay culture†to be those things which you find unpleasant.
Wrong. I define “gay culture” as I see it and it is a topic open for discussion. I only object to those things that I dislike. I particularly dislike the fact that the “gay pride” parade claims to speak for ALL gay people and portrays ALL gay people as being accepting (or even celebrating) of cross-dressers, leather freaks, and hyper-sexual gym bunnies. The other, more normal, gay people who march in the “gay pride” parade don’t offend me at all, but I don’t understand why they choose to march with the cross-dressers, leather freaks, and hyper-sexual gym bunnies.
Labels shape our perception of reality, but they don’t touch the thing itself.
Self-perception theory proposes that during attitude formation, labels and the social context may indeed shape the thing itself.
I can’t speak with 100% certainty, of course, but I have to think that even if the culture undergoes some dramatic seismic shift, penises and body hair just aren’t suddenly going to start turning me on.
And this has led me to be suspicious of anyone who holds too tightly to a theory, or a viewpoint, or a definition. It keeps you from seeing the much larger picture, one that cannot be contained by theories, viewpoints, or labels.
Although I do believe some things are objectively good and true, for the most part about many issues, I think this stance seems right.
Thinking just a little further, I would add that I am also suspicious of those who believe that if labels are made obsolete, the things behind them disappear. That, to me, is still clinging to the idea that the label holds the power to reality. Labels shape our perception of reality, but they don’t touch the thing itself. Ceci n’est pas un pipe.
Jimmy,
American culture is NOT analogous to “gay cultureâ€, which seeks to prescribe a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices among those who are part of it.
Only in your mind, my friend.
I don’t personally know anyone who engages in coprophagia, golden showers, sexual torture, or nightly orgies. And I’ve never heard of anyone who insisted that others “celebrate” these things. To say that the “gay community” insists that you celebrate this stuff suggests that you are not being intellectually honest.
It seems that you define “gay culture” to be those things which you find unpleasant. Then you define “the gay community” to be those who do such things.
Yet your argument ignores the fact that the overwhelming vast thundering majority of people who identify as gay have never at any time engaged in those acts nor do they approve of them.
Jimmy, for the record, I did object. The paper chose not to print my letter. I don’t know where you live; maybe life — and “gay culture” — is very different here in Tucson. We did, after all, manage to defeat the proposed marriage amendment for the first time in history, and Pima County led the way with the widest margin. And yet, I think if Warren visited and looked around, he would find it “boring” here as well. “Gay culture” is as “gay culture” does.
I agree with Jimmy Gatt and Peter when they say, “‘gay’ comes from culture, not from biology or even behavior.” I guess in my mind, I have two different words that I use.
When I speak of culture, I use the word “gay”. When I sepak of attractions to the same sex, I am more likely to describe them as homosexual attractions — using homosexual in its more literal and clinical sense. But as clinical labels are inadequate for describing the whole person or the culture in which he/she lives, I don’t use the term “homosexual” in place of a pronoun.
I also agree with Michael. I think Tatachell takes his constructionist ideas to a rather illogical conclusion. True, maybe someday nobody will care who I love, but I most surely will be just as discerning as I am now. I don’t see that changing. Let’s just say that when it comes to attractions, I don’t even think twice. And that was true even before I was willing to acknowledge it to anyone else — even when I lived in a “lifestyle” that actively encouraged that I see things differently. That’s where I think Tatchell’s conclusions fall apart, in my experience anyway.
I think it is true that too many people cling to their own labels too tightly — part of Tatchell’s thesis. Whether it is a narrowly defined idea of what “gay culture” is or a broader one, or whether it is a narrowly defined idea of what it means to be gay, or homosexual. All too often, labels drive who we are and what we think, but that is true only if we let them.
I’m not a zen practitioner by any means, but I gotta tell you, I learned more about the limits of thought and labels from reading Suzuki than anywhere else. And this has led me to be suspicious of anyone who holds too tightly to a theory, or a viewpoint, or a definition. It keeps you from seeing the much larger picture, one that cannot be contained by theories, viewpoints, or labels.
I agree with Mr. Gatt — up to a point. “Gay” is defined BY culture, but I don’t believe it comes FROM culture. Homosexuality is a natural variant of the basic attachment drive — our inate need to be bonded to others.
It seems that some people are not attracted sexually to members of the opposite sex — but ARE attracted to the same sex. That basic biological drive or instinct is found in all cultures and even among other species.
I don’t agree with Tatchell’s implication that we are all essentially polymorphous perverse and would all be bisexual if labels, contructs and judgements became ancient history. Not me, Mr. Tatchell. I am homosexual through and through.
I always like to think of the Samurai in feudal Japan when I think about a separate gay identity.
During feudal Japan, Samurai, merchants, farmers, and untouchables all inhabited separate and rigid social classes. Samurai followed bushido, the moral code of the warrior, and were considered to be above all of the other classes. Samurai had wives who were also samurai (a fact usually unknown to many westerners). Samurai also considered male-male love to be superior, “more pure”, than male-female love (a fact usually unknown to many westerners). The notion of a “gay man” was completely alien, as just such a notion is entirely rooted in modern Western culture.
In other words, “gay” comes from culture, not from biology or even behavior.
I wonder if Tatchell’s considered that he might have it exactly backwards? That it was really cultural influences such as the extremely strong social imperative to marriage for the purpose of continuing family bloodlines and forming alliances that compelled gay men in earlier times to marry women? (To say nothing of the fact that women, being treated as property, would have had no opportunity at all to form partnerships with other women) And now in the western world that social imperative has relaxed enough to allow people to follow their innate orientations?
The suggestion that “the absence of sexual categories and culture would have no bearing on the internal experience of some people” is, of course, unanswerable, unprovable. It is like asking whether or not a falling tree would make sound if no one was nearby to hear it.
Of course, our cultural experience colors and shapes our sexual behavior and sexual indentity in many ways. What I don’t think it influences much is our sexual orientataion. That seems to be an essential aspect of being human — and not a social construct.
Thanks for all the comments; I have been quite interested in the discussion of gay culture. I have thought for awhile that there are several gay cultures just like there are several evangelical cultures. I teach about stereotyping in social psychology – to wit, humans seem to have this tendency to categorize based on limited data. I think we all do it and it is very hard to suspend judgment based on limited data (harder for MBTI Js to do than for Ps but that’s another post).
One experience that helped influence my thinking here was a visit to a More Light Presbyterian Church group where I spoke about reorientation therapy. About 30 people came and none of them went to gay bars, believe multiple partners were proper, etc. Pretty boring group really, if you were looking for action.
However, I also think identity can be constructed and have an influence on the development of sexual feelings. So I would not be as confident as Timothy that the absence of sexual categories and culture would have no bearing on the internal experience of some people. True, for some, they feel whatever they feel no matter where they are and who they are with. For others though and from my vantage point teaching social psych, perhaps many, the inner world is powerfully impacted by context and the interplay of context and the inner search for meaning. One of my favorite theorists is Daryl Bem who developed not only EBE theory but also self-perception theory by which we develop attitudes and certainty via inference from context. In my view, the brain self-wires during many critical periods and one of those periods is early adolescence when awareness of sexuality is constructed. During this phase, the awareness of attractions to the same sex can have multiple trajectories. One is the certainty of a gay identity but others can occur as well depending on the inference about the meaning of these internal states. So I do think that there are times in development where constructionist thinking is relevant to the development of sexuality.
Jim Burroway:
So, this whole nonsense about “gay culture†in the singular? I’m not buying it. Not at all.
I never talked about “gay culture in the singular”, as I don’t even know what that means. A culture is a set of shared beliefs, practices, and attitudes that define a group or tribe of people. Gay people routinely talk about “gay culture”, so it is entirely fair to talk about what “gay culture” is.
This whole thing reminds me of the addage: Whatever you are looking for, you are sure to find it.
Your story was a good one because I think it illustrates my point of view more than it does yours. Allow me to tell a story of my own.
The last time I went to the “gay pride” parade, my mom went with me and my partner and our newly-adopted son (who was one at the time). My mom wanted to support us and celebrate our relationship, and we all thought that going to the “gay pride” parade would be a great way to do that. So we’re watching the parade, and a group of leather people go marching by, one of whom is wearing a saddle and a bit and bridle, his genitals barely covered. The person behind him is driving him. I was repulsed. My mom sees this too, and nervously turns to me and says, “We know that you are some of the normal gay people.”
I told my partner that I would never want to march in a “gay pride” parade because the saddled leather freaks also march in it. The reason for this was that if I am marching proudly behind the saddled leather freaks, marching together in solidarity, then what I am saying to the world by doing that is: “That’s me! Those saddled leather freaks are me!”
We gay people have known for a long time that media organizations LOVE to photograph and videotape the most outrageous gay people that they can find. If it bleeds, it leads. It happens every year, at every event, every time. Does this fact bother gay people (besides me, of course)? No way! The “gay community” loves this kind of attention! Gay people have protested many things over time, but I have never, ever seen gay people protest a media’s choice to portray all gay people as being represented by drag queens and radical faeries.
So, in relation to your story, did any gay people object to the media choosing to portray gay people as being represented by the most extreme elements? Did you object to it? It sounds like you’re doing the very gay thing by BLAMING THE MEDIA.
I will object to it on your behalf. It is wrong and disgusting that the media chooses to protray all gay people as being represented by the saddled leather freaks and the popper-sniffing gym bunnines, personally because I share nothing in common with those people and object to being associated with their lifestyle simply because I am a gay man.
Now your story reminds me of an adage: “By their fruits you shall know them.”
(P.S. I am NOT a Christian. The Gospel is evil.)
Timothy Kincaid:
I appreciate your relating the story about American culture, as I think it will help us in our discussion about what “gay culture” is. You identify fast food, sitcoms, and rap music as American. I think this is true, but I also think it is very American to reject those things. This is because American culture is essentially having many choices at our disposal and being able to choose what is best for us as we see fit. It is a culture that follows the desires of the individual, not the group. If you want to watch sitcoms and eat fast food, knock yourself out. If you want to live on a hippie commune, go for it. One is just as American as the other. You can be a Democrat or a Republican. One is just as American as the other. You can be gay or straight. One is just as American as the other. And so on.
American culture is NOT analogous to “gay culture”, which seeks to prescribe a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices among those who are part of it. And that is my question: what is “gay culture”? I have had gay men deride me because I live in the suburb. Is that unacceptable to “gay culture”? I have been insulted deeply by gay men because I’m not a Leftist. Is that unacceptable to “gay culture”? I think those questions are fair.
And he doesn’t even see the irony.
That’s because there is no irony to be seen. Why don’t you explain to me why it is ironic that I find it wrong that I am condemned for being a gay man who does not fully and unflinchingly celebrate coprophagia, golden showers, sexual torture, and nightly orgies? Try to be less snarky next time.
We can toss around terms like “Gay culture” and “gay community” as though they were homogeneous entities, when in fact, they are not. What’s more, I think it is grammatically incorrect to describe them in the singular.
If you don’t want to be a part of a “community” which practices things you don’t condone, well, I’m with you there 100%. Maybe I’m “Stepford” too, but I doubt it.
I hope you’ll indulge me this story…
This conversation reminds me of what I observed at Tucson’s Gay Pride this year. Our tiny little parade (dubbed “The Little Parade That Could”) featured gay student groups, local politicians, a group of gay military veterans going all the way back to WWII, PFLAG, members of the local community center, AIDS-Walk, and the grand marshall was the sister of Richard Heakin, who was murdered in 1975, prompting Tucson to become one of the first cities in America to enact anti-discrimination ordinances in the nation for sexual orientation that year.
Oh, yeah. There were two drag queens and one float of go-go dancers.
Guess which photos made the newspaper the next day? I’ll give you a hint: It wasn’t Lori Ryan, Richard Heakin’s sister.
After the parade, my partner and I went to the stage to hear Lori Ryan speak. She offered a few words of appreciation, but I had trouble hearing. Two local press photographers were jostling about 10 feet away from me trying to cajole two male go-go dancers to strike some poses. One photographer suddenly stopped and turned to the other one and asked, “What about the woman up on stage. Isn’t that important?” The other one responded, “Yeah, but that’s not what we’re here for” before returning his attention to the go-go dancers.
So, this whole nonsense about “gay culture” in the singular? I’m not buying it. Not at all. This whole thing reminds me of the addage: Whatever you are looking for, you are sure to find it.
“…I have been condemned harshly for being disapproving…”
And he doesn’t even see the irony.
Jim Burroway wrote:
Jimmy, I get where you’re coming from. Really I do. But I would challenge your view of the totality of “gay cultureâ€. I think perhaps you mistake the most visibly shocking aspects of it for its essence.
That is precisely what the conversation is about. What is “gay community”? What is “gay culture”? Opinions abound, but I tend to agree that the “gay culture” is what is practiced by the “gay community”, and, in that sense, I see little distinction between the two. I think that is a very common conception among folks in the “gay community”, which includes the people who go to gay bars, gay bookstores, gay hangouts, gay fundraisers, “gay pride”, and all those things as well as the people who go there.
I don’t go to any of those places. I don’t sit in restaurants with a gaggle of gay men with their sculpted hair flips. I think “gay pride” sucks big time. Hence, I don’t consider myself part of the “gay community” at all. I consider myself integrated into the suburban community where I live as a gay man and a gay adoptive parent.
And, most importantly, I have been condemned harshly for being disapproving of some of the sex acts that gay men do, some of which earn their own floats in the “gay pride” parade. I’ve been called a “Stepford” gay. In other words, if I don’t fully and unflinchingly accept and support all sexual acts no matter how disgusting I think they are, then I am a gay traitor. I think that’s a common belief among gay men, especially among the gay Left. Is it any small wonder why I don’t want to be part of that community?
So this isn’t just an issue of defining “gay culture” by its most shocking elements. This is an issue of defining what “gay culture” actually is.
The problem with constructionist arguments is that they tend to dismiss objective reality. Should there be no constructed gay identity tomorrow, that would have little to no impact on the same-sex attractions resident in the non-gay-constructively-identified men.
Just as there is little societal distinction between left and right handed persons and no cultural identity based on such, people still write with the hand that is most natural to them. But unlike orientation, handedness does not have heavy religious condemnations.
Tatchell envisions a false theoretical utopia. He ignores the reality that there are, and will continue to be, people who are attracted only to the same sex or only to the opposite sex and who act accordingly. He imagines that without cultural constraints people would be bisexual, randomly careening from sex partner to sex partner without notice of their gender. While this may fit well with Tatchell’s socialist ideologies, it’s not realistic. As anyone who has looked at reorientation – from any side – knows, the direction of attractions is strong and fiercely independant and is not easily swayed by cultural influences or the lack thereof.
Tatchell further ignores the reality that there are, and will continue to be, people who believe that Leviticus and Romans condemn same-sex activity and those who engage in it. And he ignores the fact that as long as there is a minority sub-set of people who engage in a specific behavior that is considered by others to be sinful and destructive, there will be some identifier that labels those people. Whether gay, sodomite, invert, homosexual, or some new identifier, something will be used.
In order for Tatchell’s predictions to be true, same-sex attraction would have to be homogenous within people. It’s not.
And in order for a distinct identity as gay to disappear, the importance of this observable characteristic would have to become a non-issue. That isn’t likely to happen any time soon.
Even “lefties” (handed, not politics) are so identified when observed. It just isn’t considered an important distinction. Even without cultural pressures, those people so oriented know that they are left-handed and that this makes them distinct in some small ways. “Handedness” as a socially constructed identification may not be readily observed, but nonetheless those who reach for left-handed scissors know who they are.
I don’t appreciate American culture. I think fast food is mostly disgusting, sitcoms make me leave the room, and I don’t believe I have a God-given right to tell the rest of the world (or country) what to do. When traveling I don’t insist that everyone else speak English or recognize American supremacy. I think rap and hip-hop are vile and insulting to nearly everyone (including those who listen to it).
And that begs the question: if I’m an America man who is NOT part of American culutre (and, in fact, dislikes it), then am I really “American�
Well obviously the things I described above are not the totality of “American culture”. Other parts also include charity and freedoms of religion and speech (which I think are distinctly “American” – sorry, other folks) as well as many values that are shared with Western society. I am an American man because I live in America – not because I share all of the values that are demonstrated by her worst qualities.
So I guess my answer would be that the things that make one “gay” are not the things that you find unpleasant. And there is no monolithic “gay community”. If you are primarily (or soley) same-sex attracted, then you are gay (setting aside for the moment arguments about struggling, or former, or unwanted, or whatever). The rest are simply the attributes of people with whom you surround yourself. If you don’t like queeny junk, don’t immerse yourself in it.
I recently got into an ugly fight with a bunch of other gay men on a gay message board. I mentioned that I didn’t consider myself part of “gay communityâ€, that I did not appreciate “gay cultureâ€, and that I was generally repulsed by the in-your-face licentiousness, cross-dressing, feminization of gay men who identified those things as “gayâ€. I’m a gay man, and I don’t like any of that queeny junk.
You insulted a bunch of people and it led to a fight?! On a message board?! Surely not!
If you don’t like anything about gay culture or gay identity or gay whatever, then maybe don’t hang around gay message boards? Or at least not the ones where the queeny junkies congregate?
Personally I think queeny gay men are awesome, but that may just be cause they make great shopping companions.
Warren,
I would argue that Peter Tatchell’s description is of a constructionist perspective on homosexuality as it relates to culture (i.e., “gay”). I understand that constructionist arguments are almost always presented and understood as being in opposition to essentialist arguments. Maybe I’m dense here, but I just don’t see it that way. To me, they are arguing about two completely different things.
“Essentially”, I have same-sex attractions. But much more than that, “essentially” my relationships are far more naturally drawn toward other men, in that very particular way in which most men experience toward women.
Given that, I have joined the culture that has been “constructed” of like individuals. That, and that only, was my choice. There was a time when I did not chose that route. (May I never be so miserable again! In today’s “construction” of sexual identity, I have found this constructed culture to be invaluable.)
…I mentioned that I didn’t consider myself part of “gay communityâ€, that I did not appreciate “gay cultureâ€, and that I was generally repulsed by the in-your-face licentiousness, cross-dressing, feminization of gay men who identified those things as “gayâ€. I’m a gay man, and I don’t like any of that queeny junk.
Well, I don’t identify with any of the “queeny junk” that is a part of “gay culture” either. And note: I intentionally described it as a part of “gay culture.” But I do indentify strongly as a member of the gay community.
I guess it comes down to who one chooses associate with. I associate with gay co-workers at work and after hours. We work in the defense industry, which is generally conservative. We go to parties, occasionally meet for dinner, out for drinks, volunteer at local gay organizations and charities, etc. etc. etc.
I think we are all quite well plugged into the gay community. We are comfortable with it, and we have never felt alienated from it. And, as far as I know, none of us slut around or wear dresses. Or any other of the queeny junk.
Jimmy, I get where you’re coming from. Really I do. But I would challenge your view of the totality of “gay culture”. I think perhaps you mistake the most visibly shocking aspects of it for its essence. The same mistake can be made of other cultures as well (race springs to mind very quickly).
I also agree with Peter Tatchell. I think “we” are gay because we are forced to be separated from “them”. That’s just fundamentally how cultural identifications work. If race can be a social construct, why can’t gay be? As Peter says, “In the absence of straight supremacism and privilege, the need (and desire) to differentiate between the two sexual orientations will decline and become irrelevant. No one will care who is gay or heterosexual. It won’t matter any more. People will be accepted, whoever they love.”
I recently got into an ugly fight with a bunch of other gay men on a gay message board. I mentioned that I didn’t consider myself part of “gay community”, that I did not appreciate “gay culture”, and that I was generally repulsed by the in-your-face licentiousness, cross-dressing, feminization of gay men who identified those things as “gay”. I’m a gay man, and I don’t like any of that queeny junk.
And that begs the question: if I’m a gay man who is NOT part of gay culutre (and, in fact, dislikes it), then am I really “gay”? This is a question that most of them couldn’t wrap their brains around.
In any case, I totally agree with what Peter Tatchell wrote.