Salvatore Fevola
Response 4 of 5:
George Chauncey, Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, (New York: Basic Books, 1995), Intro and chapter 9.
in Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, George Chauncey gives us a look into the history of the gay community through not only the lens of plain history, but by approaching the history by correcting common misconceptions that people have. Referred to as myths, he brings counters the ideas that the gay community suffered isolation, invisibility, and internalization.
The myth of Isolation comes from the idea that hostility towards the gay community would prevent a subculture from being formed as well as forcing people to live solitary lives. While hostility was a major problem, it didn’t stop gay men as, “they were able to construct spheres of relative cultural autonomy in the interstices of a city governed by hostile powers.” (Chauncey 18). Through the creation of enclaves, and communities, it became easier to overpower hostility through the pride and strength found in groups. Places like Harlem, Times Square, and Greenwich Village became places where gay people could find people within their identity fairly easily. The myth of Invisibility comes from the idea that, due to the hostility towards the gay identity, gay people wanted to keep that part of themselves hidden which made it so that straight people couldn’t recognize gay people, and not even gay people could recognize gay people. Chauncey argues against this by stating that gay men “boldly announced their presence by wearing red ties, bleached hair, and the era’s other insignia of homosexuality” (Chauncey 19). The myth of internalization states that gay men internalized society’s negative views of them and led them to reject their lives and live behind fake fronts. Yet Chauncey counters this with a claim from doctors at the time that “inverts saw nothing wrong with their sexuality and were rather proud” (Chauncey 21).
Enclaves seem to be an important part of making an identity into a group identity which allows for the sharing of experiences, but it also allows for the eventual normalization of the marginalized groups in the broader community. Chauncey presents the the migration of people into and out of areas due to surrounding circumstances almost like the process of immigration, showing its importance to a main theme of our class. The formation of enclaves in places like Harlem, Times Square, and Greenwich Village gave the gay community places of safety, and understanding much like the enclaves that immigrants had made when coming to New York. New York is a place where people can come and be “different” from the “standard” and still end up okay.
The common myths paint the gay community as hidden and fearful when realistically they were relatively open and proud about who they were. I had personally believe in the presented “myths” but Chauncey has been able to enlighten me on the subject. This information is important because I’ve never really thought about the history that gay people have faced and this book made me see why the parade for gay men is called Pride.
Questions
1- Have you ever considered the gay experience before reading Chauncey?
2- Do you think other sections of the LGBT community underwent similar changes in socialization?
2.5- Do you think the LGBT community was conceived so that even less marginalizing could occur? (LGBT is the enclave formed through many separate enclaves, do you think that all groups eventually form enclaves to protect themselves and be surrounded by people who have similar experiences?)
3- Why do groups have self segregation? (coming from the idea of Fairy vs Gay vs trade etc, or even more contemporary is the idea of Light-skin vs Dark skin)
4- After learning of the marginalization of immigrants during the same time period, what would the experience of a gay immigrant be like? Would this experience be closer to the myths that Chauncey countered?
