John Semanduyev
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.
Chauncey delves into the history of gay New York before World War 2. He restores gay history by falsifying three significant myths about gay culture and how gay people lived in general. One of the myths focused on the isolationism gay men supposedly endured. According to Chauncey, gay men were often vocal about who they were and built a healthy community within themselves. This leads to Chauncey’s discussion of gay enclaves that formed during the 1920s such as Greenwich Village. These enclaves served as a safety net for the gay community.
This opens up to the discussion about enclaves as a whole. Through our many talks in class, immigrant enclaves seemed to come up each time repeatedly. I found it fascinating that the gay community formed enclaves of their own. Perhaps it isn’t too farfetched to connect the gay experience with the immigrant experience in the early 1900s. The formation of enclaves is the result of a marginalized group of people coming together to build a place where they are surrounded by people similar to them. One difference between a gay enclave and an immigrant enclave is the motives for forming one. Immigrant enclaves were the result of fear in a chaotic new world. There is no doubt in my mind, which if I were to put myself in an immigrant’s shoes I would be attracted to live in areas where people are similar to me. I would be terrified to move to an entirely new place where no one knew my language. I believe gay enclaves were motivated by the presence of real immediate danger. Homophobia was rampant during the times and crimes against gays were very common. The gay community needed an escape from the constant day-by-day hatred they undoubtedly experienced.
Even the motives for forming enclaves by the two groups themselves are very similar. We can connect the history of what happened to the psychology of how marginalized groups behave when placed in a dangerous situation. The psychology can then be linked to the biology of natural selection that codes the instincts we depend on in our everyday lives. All in all, there is little distinction between types of marginalized groups and how they attempt to escape oppression; this implies a more significant “likeness” present in humanity.
Questions:
- Have other marginalized groups in other countries acted similarly?
- Is the formation of an enclave counterproductive?
