Towards a brief history of homosexuality

[MadArchitect]

The debate between Frank and Asana has started me thinking about a topic that I revisit from time to time, and I thought I'd throw it out there to you guys and see what you think.Specifically, I'm interested in the development of the notion of homosexuality as a kind of trait rather than a particular category of action. Because it seems to me that, historically, no one put much stock in the idea that someone could be a homosexual -- all homosexual acts were seen as distinct instances, and the person was just a person.I don't even mean that everyone was assumed to be, at root, heterosexual. It seems likely to me that heterosexual as a category of identity is as recent a social construction as homosexual. In Plato's Symposium, for instance, both heterosexual and homosexual acts are considered (and considered valid), and it is noted that some people tend to prefer the latter while some prefer the former, but those preferences are never, in the work, resolved into hard and fast identities. The whole range of a person's sex life is taken, by the characters, to be something of a spectrum, varying at every given moment, and preference is merely the distillation of all those individual moments into a tendency that is viewable in retrospect, but not necessarily given at the moment.The Bible -- which is at the center of the storm in most debates about the morality of homosexuality -- also seems to consider homosexuality in terms of behavior rather than identity. So far as I know, there are essentially two sections in the Bible that deal with homosexuality; one in Leviticus, the other in Romans. And both, so far as I know, deal specifically with an act, and have nothing to say about identity or desire. That's left a lot of gray area, precisely because the text itself doesn't anticipate the modern definition of homosexuality as a kind of mantle, character or identity. So within the Catholic tradition, you can witness some people who want to remain faithful to their religion reconciling the disparity by finding some level of comfort with their identity as a homosexual, but restricting themselves from any sort of homosexual behavior.Which all brings me to the a series of related questions. The first, and most obvious, is: how did our culture get to the point of regarding homosexuality as a kind of fixed identity? I think it's likely that the development of psychology in the late Victorian era, particularly the psychological theory of Freud, played a large role in setting the foundation for this new idea of homosexuality. We have it on Michael Foucault's authority that the notion of sexuality didn't appear in print until the 19th century ("A History of Sexuality", Vol 1.). And it looks to me as though, to some large degree, we've constructed our view of sexuality on the model of our view of race.The second question, perhaps less obvious, is: Cui bono? Are we better off regarding sexuality -- and particularly homosexuality -- as a kind of identity? If so, what are the benefits? What are the disadvantages?

[MadArchitect]

Incidentally, I want to head some of you off at the pass. Let's try, for the moment, to not think about homosexuality and heterosexuality in strictly moralistic terms. I'm not really interested, here, in debating whether or not homosexual behavior or homosexual identity is a sin or immoral. Don't we see enough of that debate elsewhere? I think it would be worthwhile to take a breather from that debate, and consider the topic from another viewpoint -- that of why our idea of homosexuality has taken the particular form that it has, and the role that idea plays in modern life.

[Federika22]

Quote:The Bible -- which is at the center of the storm in most debates about the morality of homosexuality -- also seems to consider homosexuality in terms of behavior rather than identity. So far as I know, there are essentially two sections in the Bible that deal with homosexuality; one in Leviticus, the other in Romans. And both, so far as I know, deal specifically with an act, and have nothing to say about identity or desire.I don't know about this. In 1 Cor 6:9 the bible states: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor catamites, nor sodomites.The bible is not saying "one who commits sodomy" but "sodomites" therefore identifying the behavior as a type of person, as with all the types of 'unrighteous people" listed in this quote. I've heard people (fundies) using these terms comfortably today, and in the tone of further separating homosexuals from the "normal" Christian humans, as if they are a subhuman group. Quote:The second question, perhaps less obvious, is: Cui bono? Are we better off regarding sexuality -- and particularly homosexuality -- as a kind of identity? If so, what are the benefits? What are the disadvantages?As a quick-thought answer, I would say that it would be better to regard sexuality as one LARGE spectrum of possiblities. Obviously within our own culture's designated groupings of homos and heteros there is so much variance and so many shades of grey that this seems to be a very limited viewpoint, one that causes, and will continue to cause confusion and hinder understanding of human sexuality. I also think that expecting people to fall into one of the main categories causes inward shame and turmoil when they don't. What categories do we currently have? Gay, Straight, Bi, TS, TG? And, I would guess that in the minds of many there are still only 2- Straight or Gay. This seems devisive (which causes violence), limiting, and extremely inept at emcompassing the range of behaviors and feelings that make up human sexuality.

[MadArchitect]

Federika22: In 1 Cor 6:9 the bible states: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor catamites, nor sodomites.My understanding of the actual tradition is that translation counts for a lot. The actual term usually translated "sodomites" is presumably a little vague, and lacks a 1:1 analogue in English. For instance, the King James Version as printed on Bartleby lacks the word "sodomites", replacing it with "effiminates". (Bartleby, incidentally, is a great resource, and BookTalk as a community might do well to make it their standard resource for Biblical quotations, at least so long as we're content to use the KJV.)At any rate, it serves us well to recall that the term Sodomite is, itself, draw from, but not really defined in, the Bible. Sodomites were simply citizens of the city of Sodom -- the redefining of the word to connote a particular sex act comes later on. But when? When did people start using the term Sodomite to mean anal sex? I'd be willing to bet that the usage is originally medieval, if not later. Either way, it would be interesting to see it's original usage tracked down.But getting back to the original point, my memory may be faulty on this point. If I remember it, I'll try to check some of my reference works back home and see if I can figure out precisely what Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words are usually translated from the Bible into English terms connoting homosexuality.The bible is not saying "one who commits sodomy" but "sodomites" therefore identifying the behavior as a type of person, as with all the types of 'unrighteous people" listed in this quote.I'm not sure that interpretation is warranted -- at least, it isn't clear to me that they mean sodomites in the same sense that we mean homosexual. To illustrate, do you think they'd have meant or accepted the term "fornicator" or "adulterer" in the same sense that we mean "homosexual" -- as a kind of identity? It looks clear to me that they're taking behavior as a kind of mark on a person's permanent record, so to speak, but it's a mark that pertains to a person's history, not their consistent identity.By way of contrast, think about the differences in our view of "homosexuals" versus our view of "felons". We don't think of a felon as someone who is necessarily bound to any particular behavior as a mode of life. A felon has behaved in a particular way in the past, and they may behave in that way again, but they might just as easily live out the rest of their life untempted by the thought of committing another felony. But that view doesn't hold true of the common perception of a homosexual -- at least, in as much as we think of homosexuality as an aspect of identity. A homosexual, in common usage, need not have ever engaged in homosexual activity, and they need never do so in the future, and yet can still self-identify as a homosexual. It looks to me like the 1 Corinthians passage you cited is using "sodomite" more in the stigmatizing sense of "felon" than in the modern identity sense in which we typically use the term "homosexual".Obviously within our own culture's designated groupings of homos and heteros there is so much variance and so many shades of grey that this seems to be a very limited viewpoint, one that causes, and will continue to cause confusion and hinder understanding of human sexuality.It also seems doomed to entail greater and greater degrees of categorization and compartmentalization, which makes it difficult to arrive at any sort of understanding of the social responses that are expected. That's so pragmattic a point that it might seem rather crass, but I think that's one aspect of the question. The almost silly, quasi-practical example that leaps to mind is, which public restroom ought a transsexual to use? Another is, which pronoun do you use when a person identifies themselves as a variation of trans-identity that you're not terribly familiar with? And the more variations on transsexuality that crop up, the more complicated that question becomes. Social behavior requires some ingrained sense of propriety, and the more complicated we make our categories of identity, the more difficult it becomes to sort out what, in any given scenario, is the proper response.What categories do we currently have? Gay, Straight, Bi, TS, TG? And, I would guess that in the minds of many there are still only 2- Straight or Gay.I'd say that in terms of self-identification, gay and straight are just the tip of the ice-berg. And adding TS and TG doesn't get us much further down the ice-berg. Just breaking down gay a little bit, there have been divisions in the gay community that complicate the question, the most obvious being the cultural and social division of gay male to lesbian. The more politically inclined they become, the more those two groups are discovering that they don't have everything in common, and thus are looking for some standing as their own, distinct categories. And then those two groups break down into sub-groups on their own. And so on, and so forth.So I think the point that Federika and I are getting at is that there is at least one blatant social drawback to the insistence upon sexuality as a form of identity. But realizing that doesn't really account for the history of that idea. It seems obvious that there must have been some advantage to making homosexuality a kind of identity. I'm just not sure what it is. Any suggestions?

[Asana Bodhitharta]

Quote:Which all brings me to the a series of related questions. The first, and most obvious, is: how did our culture get to the point of regarding homosexuality as a kind of fixed identity?Regarding Homosexuality as a fixed identity lends social compassion to a highly unpopular segment of society. When Homosexuals fix this identity to themselves as a group they use a cunning device by comparing their unfair treatment with other legitimately opressed groups. You will hear them speaking of "Gay rights" as opposed to simple Human or Civil rights. They will compare their oppression to women or black people but these differences can not be appropriately compared.Quote:And it looks to me as though, to some large degree, we've constructed our view of sexuality on the model of our view of race.I have viewed this as mixing apples with oranges.Quote:The second question, perhaps less obvious, is: Cui bono? Are we better off regarding sexuality -- and particularly homosexuality -- as a kind of identity? If so, what are the benefits? What are the disadvantages? Since you have requested that this be a non-morality based answer, I would have to say to some extent it allows a preference to be an identity which is a slippery slope. While all people should be treated equally with respect and civility under the law, this type of preferential identity could very well lead to such things as we have already seen with Obesity becoming a preferential identity.

[MadArchitect]

Well, the resource I intended to check I have apparantly loaned out to someone. I'm trying to track it down, but it may be a while before I get it back. I'll try to check a few other avenues, but it'll probably be a few days before I can back to you guys on the question of the original language concerning homosexuality in the Bible.Asana Bodhitharta: Regarding Homosexuality as a fixed identity lends social compassion to a highly unpopular segment of society.That doesn't quite explain for me. The catch here is, prior to regarding homosexuality as a form of identity, you couldn't really point to a "segment of society". Identity is the basis for demarcation in a society. So it seems to me that the very notion of homosexuals as a social group is one of the results of construing homosexuality as a fixed facet of identity.If I'm right about that, then it doesn't quite follow that making an identity of homosexuality served as a bid to increase sympathy for homosexuals. Strengthening and influencing perceptions about that identity might serve that purpose, though, and I think we see a lot of PR for the gay community, just as we see a lot of PR for any sort of minority group.You will hear them speaking of "Gay rights" as opposed to simple Human or Civil rights. They will compare their oppression to women or black people but these differences can not be appropriately compared.I agree that race and gender as developed in the civil rights movement of the last 100 or so years seems to have been the conscious model for the turns taken by the gay community in attempting to better their standing as a group, but that still leaves room for two questions.The first is, what criteria do we use for determining whether or not the comparison is appropriate? If the criteria is simply that some aspect of their social persona is being used as a basis for discrimination, then I'd say they've got a pretty good argument on their side. If the criteria is that of whether or not that social persona is voluntary, then the jury's still out. People argue for both sides -- that homosexuality is a choice, or that it's socially or biologically ingrained. That debate doesn't really interest me here, and I'm content to assume that some self-identified homosexuals do choose their appelation, just as I'm content to assume that, even if biological determinism isn't at play, some people's homosexuality is so bound up in other aspects of their life and experience as to reduce any aspect of choice involved. As I said, for the purposes of this discussion, I think it's kind of a moot point.The other question is, how far back does that comparison extend. The notion of homosexuality as a fixed identity is about a hundred years older than the modern civil rights movement, so it doesn't seem likely to me that the reconceptualization of homosexuality as an identity originated with some desire to equate homosexuality with race or gender.Since you have requested that this be a non-morality based answer, I would have to say to some extent it allows a preference to be an identity which is a slippery slope.And I do appreciate you making an effort to meet that request.

[Asana Bodhitharta]

Quote:The first is, what criteria do we use for determining whether or not the comparison is appropriate?The comparison is inappropriate simply because being black or being a women are not issues of "social activity" they are visual and actual states of being. For instance a woman is a woman regardless if she is gay or not. A black person is black whether they are gay or not. So being gay is a social identity. For instance you have no actual way of identifying a gay person. Anyone can be gay without you recognizing it. Quote:If the criteria is simply that some aspect of their social persona is being used as a basis for discrimination, then I'd say they've got a pretty good argument on their side.The fact is their is no real basis for claiming discrimination.Quote:If the criteria is that of whether or not that social persona is voluntary, then the jury's still out. People argue for both sides -- that homosexuality is a choice, or that it's socially or biologically ingrained.It really doesn't matter how or why someone is homosexual the point is it need not be a socially acceptable behaviour. What I mean is that it is a behaviour. What if there is a group who are driven by porn. perhaps porn dominates certain individuals lives to the point that they feel as a group they want masturbators rights. Masturbation is a behaviour and some people would argue whether to masturbate is a choice or not. I know people who say they have never masturbated or even desired to do so and I know others who masturbate so much they can barely get through the day without a few sessions. Should they push for rights if they come out of the closet.

[Saint Gasoline]

Quote:The first, and most obvious, is: how did our culture get to the point of regarding homosexuality as a kind of fixed identity?I think that it has only come to be regarded as a type of "identity" as a result of its newfound importance. For instance, I think it is reasonable to believe that "male/female" identity distinctions have been around for as long as we had language, and possibly even before that in a more intuitive sense. This is because, obviously, the distinction between genders is quite important on a biological level. Race has become a method of identification because of its newfound importance once people started organizing themselves into tribes and societies (which usually consisted of people of the same race with similar physical characteristics, naturally). Knowing your group from the other group was vitally important in this era of human history. In a similar vein, we've developed sexuality into identity because it has come to be seen as something important, mostly because of various religious and moral injunctions against various forms of sexuality, as well as psychology, as you mention. It seems clear to me that if society ever put a value upon toenail length or nose shape, we would soon find ourselves identifying people as "Hispanic, female, long-nails" or perhaps "Caucasian, male, roman-noses".I think the problem with sexuality as an identifying characteristic is that it leads to more stereotyping and generalizations.

[Federika22]

I really think Mad brought up some great questions, ones that are difficult to find easy answers to. I've been searching online for some background information when I have a little extra time. Unfortunately, I don't have as much time as I'd like to devote to this subject. Mad, I do see your point about the bible and I've been thinking about it quite a bit. Out of curiosity I'm going to reread all parts pertaining to homosexual behavior. I think there are 8 or 9, but can't remember for certain. Perhaps it is our recent understanding of "homosexual" as identity that lends to the modern fundamentalist's interpretation of the text to be one that subhumanizes "sodomites," by taking a behavior that was "sinful" and turning it into a person. According to something I read on Wikipedia, the word "homosexual" was not substituted into some bible translations (for sodomite) until the 1940s. (can't remember exactly what year). What would be an interesting digression to me is to study the impact the bible has had on homosexuality, and sexuality in general. The ancient Hebrews really set quite the course for the future, sexuality-wise, in their establishment of themselves as separate from the cultures that surrounded them.

[Federika22]

Quote:In a similar vein, we've developed sexuality into identity because it has come to be seen as something important, mostly because of various religious and moral injunctions against various forms of sexuality, as well as psychology, as you mention. SG, I am wondering if you could explain this in a little more detail? I'm interested to know your take on sexuality as indentity, but I'm not understanding exactly why you think sexuality has come to be seen as something important, or why that would lead to development of an identity. Quote:It seems clear to me that if society ever put a value upon toenail length or nose shape, we would soon find ourselves identifying people as "Hispanic, female, long-nails" or perhaps "Caucasian, male, roman-noses".I think we are already there in many ways. Maybe we don't say "roman-noses" or "long-nails", but we do say words like "pretty," and "ugly." Or "hispanic, attractive, male," or "caucasian, unattractive, female." As an individual we may not always know what specifics of what feature constitute attractiveness, but as a culture we can readily discriminate between what is beautiful and what is not. And there is great value to be found in being beautiful. Why else would plastic surgery be such a lucrative business? Why do fat people complain of being poorly represented in the media, entertainment business, in fashion? Why do studies show that taller people make more money than shorter people, or that out of an equally qualified pair of applicants, the more attractive one is more likely to get the job?