💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › gusselsprouts-on-the-internalization-of-homophobia.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:38:01. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: On the Internalization of Homophobia
Author: GusselSprouts
Date: October 18, 2013
Language: en
Topics: homophobia, Queer
Source: Retrieved on 9th December 2021 from https://theexpropriationist.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/on-the-internalization-of-homophobia-understanding-the-little-boy-with-the-big-secret/

GusselSprouts

On the Internalization of Homophobia

I was “out” for several years before I found a book which reflected the

way I was socialized with homophobia, and had internalized that

homophobia. When I was handed a copy of “The Velvet Rage: Overcoming the

Pain of Growing up Gay in the Straight Man’s World” by a therapist, I

felt a bit of what I can only describe as awkwardly offended. I expected

to be given a number of self-help guides, although I still believed we

were in need of much advancement in society, I also believed my personal

struggle with my sexuality to be a non-issue, something dismissible.

The book identifies a certain self-loathing that manifests through our

socialization as children in our relationships ranging with our fathers

and mothers, to our playground experiences. The book makes a shocking

omission of our socialization through media, although I will attempt to

do such myself. It goes lengths to identify some of the common ways that

this self-loathing, the internalized homophobia of which I am writing

about, can manifest in our adulthood. In becoming overwhelmed by this

shame, we find ourselves relentlessly trying to compensate for it. This

cycle often reveals itself in self-destruction:

“What is being said is that the trauma from growing up gay is a world

primarily run by straight men is deeply wounding in a unique and

profound way. Straight men have issues and struggles that are no less

wounding but quite different from those of gay men.”

Downs goes on to describe a “little boy with a big secret” and an adult

who takes the shame from their childhood, and seeks validation (at any

cost, even if it’s inauthentic) to compensate for this shame. He

discusses the high substance abuse and suicide rates of gay men, and the

tendencies of gay men to decorate our lives as if we’re trying to

compensate for something. Suddenly, it became very clear to me that I

was absolutely wrong about not having issues with myself. I was very

much the “little boy with a big secret”, and I still exhibit all the

behaviors of someone trying to protect a secret that isn’t even there

anymore.

Unfortunately, the social analysis falls very short. Perhaps that is due

to his limitations within clinical psychology, but I find it impossible

to talk about “cultivating authenticity” in our lives as gay men without

talking about social empowerment. I also find it impossible to talk

about gay shame without understanding it as internalized homophobia, and

therefore a symptom of hetero-supremacy. He may signify this with his

title, but he leaves us with few solutions (most of which are self-care)

to the systemic issues which we suffer, only therapeutic strategies.

I certainly do not blame Dr. Downs for having a more narrow focus on the

subject. However, the problems he describes and addresses in the title

of the book, cannot be solved by therapy. Likewise, those of us read his

book, learning so much about ourselves, and put it down feeling defeated

still. We still live in the same conditions that produced us. The book

fails to empower us to win our struggle, only helps us understand the

way in which navigate through the “straight man’s world”.

What I cannot look past is that this is written from a somewhat critical

of what can be interpreted as “Queerness within Gayness”. That is. the

things we often associated with, but may or may not actually identify

with. Polyamory (and what Downs describes as “hypersexuality”) are

described as a part of the “over-compensation” stage. I don’t think it

serves us to be sex-negative in any way whatsoever. We need to have our

sexualities affirmed and empowered before we dissent upon them as

products of homophobia.

Stages of Shame: Life in a Constantly Evolving Heteronormativity

Downs also believes that our fulfillment entails navigating through a

world that “affords us our share of joy, happiness, fulfillment and

love” and “isn’t about ‘not being Gay’”. There’s a lot of problems with

this. The most obvious being that we do not live in that world. Dr. Alan

Downs, being a white male in the first world, might certainly live in

such a reality, but is unfair to everyone who doesn’t get their share.

That worldview falls victim to the naive notion that we are isolated

individuals on an equal playing field. A book about homophobia can’t

afford that perspective.

“The stages are arranged by the primary manner in which the gay man

handles shame. The first stage is “Overwhelmed by Shame” and includes

the period of time when he remained “in the closet” and fearful of his

own sexuality. The second stage is “Compensating for Shame” and

describes the gay man’s attempt to neutralize his shame by being more

successful, outrageous, beautiful or masculine. During this stage he may

take on many sexual partners in his attempt to feel attractive, sexy and

loved – in short, less shameful.

The final stage is “Discovering Authenticity”. Not all men progress out

of the previous two stages, but those who do begin to build a life that

is based upon their own passions and values, rather than proving to

themselves that they are desirable and lovable.”

I would propose the idea that upon navigating through our

heteronormative world, we are likely to find ourselves living in each of

these stages based on our various different interpersonal exchanges.

This means we never exclusively live in any of these stages, but rather

all of them at once in various proportions. I can be closeted in a

scenario where I still seek inauthentic validation and overcompensate

again, then expressing my queerness, and once again may begin

overcompensating for it out of fear and shame, possibly obtaining some

authentic validation at some point. However, the “little boy with the

big secret” isn’t something I believe to be completely inalienable,

there’s some experiences that we have as a child that are difficult to

disassociate from.

Rather, we exist and live our lives going through these “stages of

shame” not simply once in a lifetime, but constantly. Regardless of what

our lifestyle is, we find ourselves forced into situations that revert

us all the way back to the beginning. Understanding these stages is only

a tool to help us live and assimilate to a world not built for us.

That’s not the world I want to live in either. Understanding the world

we live in currently only goes so far to reconcile the problems in my

life. There’s no dissociating and taming the “little boy with the big

secret” inside of me. Faced with this contradiction, I’m faced with the

difficult choice of letting it destroy me, or subvert the social order

which created it.

The Social Construction of the Gay Identity under Capitalism

Homosexuality exists objectively in history. This much is true, and

while we haven’t yet been able to reach a consensus of the biological

(genetic) basis for homosexuality, it’s widely considered to be

possible. A great advancement thus far in the academic community in

regards to homosexuality, is that we’re starting to find more legitimacy

granted from psychologists, who used to classify us as suffering from a

mental illness, but now recognizes it almost universally as absolutely

natural, the most significant result of this has been the APA’s

(American Psychological Association) resolution denouncing “conversion

therapy” as psychologically harmful, anti-scientific, and ineffective

and traumatic. This had a large influence in California, where last year

they conversion therapy for minors. This is probably the first time

rights have been granted in the name of queer youth, breaking a silence

that had lingered for too long. Generally, it can be thought that people

are being to see homosexuality as something as inalienable from our

society as heterosexuality, because it is.

Being Gay is much different. Being Gay is new. Our identity formed as a

direct result of Capitalism:

“I want to argue that gay men and lesbians have not always existed.

Instead, they are a product of history, and have come into existence in

a specific historical era. Their emergence is associated with the

relations of capitalism – more specifically, it’s free labor system –

that has allowed large numbers of men and women in the late twentieth

century to call themselves gay, to see themselves as a community of

similar men and women, and to organize politically on the basis of that

identity”

– John D’emilio in Capitalism and the Gay Identity

So this makes Capitalism seem rather empowering for Gay people. I assure

you this, it is neither my intention nor that of D’emilio. It is

important though, to recognize this very important distinction and

creation of the Gay identity. It is the very marginalization of the

alienated-labor system that created our identity, by reaction to the

material conditions on my own. Tolerance for homosexuality is much more

independent than that, it manifests itself in different points in

history based on a number of variables, of which the system under which

material goods are produced is simply one variable. While I am skeptical

of most claims which paint the early USSR as some sort of Gay paradise,

it is worth noting that they did bring some sort of legitimacy to us

when Lenin legalized homosexuality, and decriminalized sodomy. This was

some 50 years before the Gay identity formed in the Capitalist west.

Almost a century later, we’re actually still behind Lenin in some

places, in terms of our legal status with the state.

Judith Butler has a very interesting way of describing this. I suspect

she didn’t title this herself. She speaks of the idea of the existence

the of Gay culture being a phenomenon of “possibility”. At the end she

specifies how society doesn’t “produce” homosexuals.

When we designate things as “social constructs” in social justice

contexts, we’re quick to become abolitionists. I’m guilty of this as a

relatively cisgendered “gender abolitionist“. I often have to clarify

that by this I mean the dismantling and de-institutionalization of

gender. “Gay abolitionist” sounds awfully reactionary, and I don’t think

this is needed to understand what Gayness is in relation to both

Capitalism and it’s difference from our Queerness and homosexuality.

Perhaps a certain of buck-stopping should be done in regards to identity

abolitionism. I have absolutely no interests in abolishing or erasing

the elements of my culture which I identify with, much less anyone

elses. The problems with this are numerous however, and they won’t be

resolved here.

So what does this actually reveal about homophobia, the systemic

oppression of homosexuality under capitalism? The spaces we have deemed

as “gay spaces” are not exactly places in which we are safe from

homophobia. In fact, homophobia is rather rampant within our community.

The “possibility to be Gay” as Butler describes, doesn’t negate the

possibility re-enforce and reproduce homophobia.

Male Self-awareness, Gay Patriarchy, and Cultural Homophobia

Gay men are hyper-aware of masculinity, and also have a heighten sense

of self-awareness in regards to masculinity. We fetishize displays of

power and dominion, sometimes subtle, sometimes overt. Some of us are

insecure of our masculinity, some of us seek the validation of others in

regards to our masculinity. We may even embrace misogyny in an attempt

to reinforce our patriarchy.

We are greatest fanatics of the “Cult of Masculinity”, worshipers of the

male body and everything there is to know about “men”. You can say we

are amongst its biggest supporters. It’s doors remain shut to us, as a

single portion of this Cult alienates us, the part concerning the

objectification of women and heterosexuality. This has a painful ripple

that I would say has a striking effect on Gay socialization.

This cult doesn’t actually exist in any material manner, it’s more a

spectacle that gay men exhibit though our behaviors, a phenomenon for

which I don’t have a word for yet. I would say this Cult of Masculinity

is an entirely separate institution than patriarchy. In many ways, we

may attempt to reproduce or replicate patriarchy, in an attempt to

appease the Cult. Some of us grow distant from our fathers and our

heterosexual male role models, feeling like a disappointment to them,

regardless of how they express their tolerance. The manner in which this

can affect these kinds of interpersonal relationships is astonishing.

Feeling inadequately male amongst my straight male friends is something

rather consistent in my life.

This is because we only know what most people seem to know about gender.

We undergo the same patriarchal socialization that all men do. We

certainly may internalize it differently, we may not have some of the

behaviors, but this does little to actually negate our patriarchy. John

David wrote this in an article called “Gay Patriarchy” for an old

magazine for Gay youth:

“The answer is that gay men are men with the same conditioned

patriarchal upbringing in the same coercive structures. As boys, the

apprentice men, we are taught:

to expect to be the rulers of the world;

to view all people as objects and services (sex, work, leisure,

nurturing);

that men are competitors and there is no sympathy or celebration if

you lose;

that men cannot talk about their feelings or be intimate without sex;

that there are immovable hierarchies of power and influence based on

looks, money, class, education, and employment.

Very young homosexual boys get the same conditioning as all boys. We

avoid, just as straight boys do, the name calling and bashing “in case

we’re gay”. Our general society, family, peers and educators see us only

as boys, and to avoid the punishment of not being “normal” (read

patriarchal) we have to react as boys. Our dismissiveness and disdain of

women and girls becomes installed successfully.”

Homonormativity

Homonormativity is the capitalist reconciliation of the hetero-normative

class and queerness. It is the mechanism in which we assimilate, and

form our culture within the heteronormative world as a reflection. It is

also the source of devaluation of genderqueer and trans* people, over

the elevated concerns of cisgendered homosexuals. It is the way we have

found a sort of “detente” with heteronormativity.

Our success as queers is often measured by how well we can live as

cisgendered/heteronormative people, or how they believe we should. This

is our push for marriage and military equality, but on the other side of

the coin, it’s also terming our weddings as “commitment ceremonies”.

Homonormativity is the entire embodiment of the liberal LGBT platform. I

do not understand the means or measure of these alphabet soup

conglomerations. I don’t know where exactly I decided they weren’t

speaking for me, but it was definitely affirmed the moment I saw

QUILTBAG. If you are that desperate to identify exactly what we are that

brings us together, then we clearly need a departure in our political

discourse from fixed identities. I don’t (in any way whatsoever) endorse

that we abandon identity politics altogether, but I’m not “LGBT”, I’m

one of those letters, but never can I be the others, and at this point I

am staunchly opposed to using that platform for that reason alone. It is

not our identities that brings us together, as we vary so much naturally

in our beautiful species. What brings us together is our queer

experience in the world of the heterosexual gender binary.

Alan Downs directly addresses Gay men and not other gender/sexual

minorities, as he feels he cannot do them justice, and that his

experience has not been theirs. For that reason, I think my ability to

identify with the subject(s) begins with the shared experience I have

with other gay men, but does little to reconcile my actual queerness

(because reconciliation is not the idea anyways).

My primary issue with homonormativity, and our replication of some very

oppressive bullshit, is the shit you will see on Grindr. Yes, I said

Grindr. A lot can be learned about Gay men by giving them a radar app to

which they use to whatever ends they choose (usually casual sex). Upon

your introduction to Grindr, whether you like it or not, you will be

assigned an animal or creature. You’re a “Bear”, or a “Seal”, maybe an

“Otter”, perhaps a “Pig”, or “Twink”, eventually you’ll be “Daddy”. I

didn’t even consent to being Gay, but apparently I’ll be a couple of

different animals in my lifetime too.

Don’t even get me started with the things people put in their profiles

as “preferences”. This almost always is related to race, masculinity,

size or HIV status. It’s not uncommon at all to see “White masculine

male here. Fit and HIV negative. UB2”. Apparently if you’re a

douche-bag, we can work something out. But if you don’t fit their idea

of what it means to be masculine (as if we don’t struggle enough with

that as it is), you’re screwed. You better have it straightened out by

the time you meet them, because “masculine” is a range of things of

which you can’t occupy all at once.

Hard as I try, and as objectively I understand Queerness, I cannot

entirely remove myself from Gay culture, because that is what society

designates as the place for homosexual behaviors is. You can’t really go

“cruising” at a punk show, as much as Limp Wrist would like you to

believe that you can. We also have to remember we’re mostly living in

the same historical context that produced us. People have fought and

died for my ability to be Gay, and while some of us have agreed to fight

on more, I can’t pretend like the current state of things for me at the

moment could be worse.

But being “Gay” comes with being associated with other Gay men, and

often we find homophobia from each other. I grow exhausted trying to

live up to the expectations of other Gay men, to be hyper-masculine

sex-god and a ton of other things that can be difficult to perform. I’m

also tired of trying to fit this juggling act of assimilating to the

straight world and fulfilling my obligations to the Gay world.

Apparently having a wedding stylized like a straight persons, but

calling it a “commitment ceremony” is a win-win for everyone, and

“progressive”.

Conclusions

When I finished with Down’s book, I did feel a sense of individual

strength in my ability to navigate through capitalism, but I also looked

to my queerness with a certain disempowerment. Once identified, the pain

of being “little boy with the big secret” doesn’t really go away. In

fact, you start to see it more. I realized that my life had been the

accumulation of a lot of Gay shame. I saw this pain in other gay men as

well. In short, the whole world and my whole life made a bit more sense

to me.

Making a bit more sense doesn’t really change the fact that we are

deeply damaged lot. The wounds are dug deeper at times, quite often we

cannot even rely on each other to not do this. We can’t even find refuge

in our heads from this. It can be difficult to love yourself, after you

lose the love your father or grandfather. It’s an everyday battle to not

shame ones self in a world hell-bent on shaming you.

This was during a time where I was undergoing a period of deep

self-reflection and reflection of my worldview as well, which continues

to this very day. I came out of that with a few things, all of which are

both personal and political:

1.) Everyone (regardless of identity of lack thereof) is socialized with

homophobia.

2.) My life (at the time of finding the discussed pieces from Downs and

Butler) is being ruled by gay shame and internalized homophobia, and the

source of a lot of self-destruction.

3.) The primary contradiction in my life thus far has been with

hetero-normativity and capitalism.

I think there are certainly unique manifestations of social repression

within and amongst Gay men. I would like to take Radical Queer

perspective and explore these issues. Sociologists can be as fascinated

by us as they want, the truth is only we know the things we know. These

issues shouldn’t be elevated over trans*, genderqueer, intersex and

lesbian issues, that is absolutely not my intention.

From here I am given a unique set of choices of what to do with the pain

of the “little boy with the big secret”. The “pain” has matured into a

Queer rage. I cannot say I see a future for myself by doing what Dr.

Downs would have me do, which is to constantly deconstruct this shame

and anger with therapeutic methods. Sure, these may make it easier for

me to live my life, but I still think (despite his efforts to say

otherwise) Dr. Downs still plays the game of “let’s be like the hets!”.

So instead of discarding my “Velvet Rage”, I’ll make use of it, and take

my chances with plan B, the negation of normativity through a Queer

revolution:

In a Capitalist society, there can be no reconciliation of Queerness and

Normativity, and that’s what the Gay identity seeks to do, was meant to

do. I normally don’t mind being Gay, but I have to objectively

understand what it means. The only reconciliation can be the total

negation of normativity by Queerness under Full Communism. Until then

(most of us) are hopelessly “identified”, navigating through a

capitalist world that isn’t meant for us.

Position regarding “Homosexuality”, “Gay” and “Queer” and the difference

between them.

1.) Homosexuality is a fixed and material condition. I am attracted to

those with a similar gender identity as I. This is objective.

2.) Being Gay is my identity. I never consented to this, society came up

with it for me long before I was born. My identity as a Gay man is more

or less comfortable for me, which backfires into conflicts with both

homonormativity and assimilationism.

Gayness is a social construct, and is usually used to signify a culture.

The materialist term for being “Gay” is that I’m homosexual, and my

homosexuality is objective and a part of my essential self. However, I

am not biologically linked to a “culture”, yet I simultaneously often

find myself unable to navigate away from Gay society.

Lastly, being Gay might manifest in my personal life and social life,

but I have little use for it in a socio-political context, but I cannot

fail to recognize that my personal struggle has been overwhelming “gay”

(internalized homophobia, HIV/AIDS, substance abuse/mental health),

3.) Being Queer is not my identity. While also being something I never

consented to, it’s a social condition which is an unstable place to

inhabit. The evolution of Queerness is constantly ongoing, as

normativity is constantly changing as well. The Queer perspective is the

understanding of Gender and Sexual minorities as social constructions

having material manifestations in identities, and regards the historical

objectivity of these identities to be intrinsically tied to social

construction.

It means analyzing from the perspective of a person objectively

homosexual, yet “Gay” in a social and historical context.