LHMP #468 Bronski 2012 A Queer History of the United States

Introduction

The author points out that this is an inescapably political book and should be read in that context. He points out that the question of “who is queer” is not at all straight-forward [pun intentional] in a historic context, and that queer figures have been silently and invisibly embedded in US history far deeper than most people are aware.

He focuses on two concepts: that queer people have substantially contributed to our understanding of US history (even if we aren’t aware of their queerness), and that ‘LGBT history’ of the US does not exist as something that can be separated (dare I say, segregated) from the mainstream of US history. History should not be viewed as a chronological sequence of people and events, but as a complex interweaving.

LGBT history has its roots in a focus specifically on queer desire and its meaning within specific lives. There was a period when the goal of queer historians was to naturalize queer desire to achieve social and legal acceptance.

The author reviews a chronology of the language used to identify queer people and how it reflected and shaped social attitudes. [Note: as usual, he cites the completely false assertion that words for lesbianism only entered the language in the late 19th century.] He notes the limitations of vocabulary as a path to tracing queer history, and notes the importance of popular entertainment for finding expressions of queer identity.

A key struggle in US queer history is the conflict between “social purity” movements (beginning in the 19th century) and the right of individual self-expression and self-determination (long considered a foundational US principal).

The book is structured roughly chronologically, beginning with the European presence in the Americas and covers up through the 1980s and AIDS activism.

Chapter 1: The Persecuting Society

When European invaders began the project of forcing indigenous Americans into a Western, Christian mold, one aspect that came under attack was gender roles and sexual practices they considered unacceptable. This included people of both sexes taking on gender roles associated with the other sex. These roles varied considerably across various cultures and do not align necessarily with ideas of self-identity. (The examples given all involve assigned-male persons.)

A brief background is given for 16-17th century English attitudes toward sexuality and cross-dressing. (The author asserts “same-sex relationship were illegal” but is either ignorant of, or indifferent to, the fact that this only applied to men.) Legal attitudes toward same-sex activity and other sexual crimes in the colonies derived in part from English legal traditions and in part from Puritan moral attitudes. The author notes two law codes (Rhode Island 1647, New Haven 1655) that explicitly mention female same-sex activity. But law codes didn’t mean that the laws were consistently or universally enforced, and cases can be identified of men known for soliciting and engaging in same-sex activity but not prosecuted due to the specifics of the social context.

The author discusses the problem of how to interpret personal letters and papers that clearly express intense same-sex emotions. To what extent can we know or impute erotic feelings on that basis? If a writer records self-disgust at same-sex erotic desire, given the Puritan context, do we assign the reaction to the same-sex aspect or the erotic aspect?

A great deal of this chapter is an exploration of the general theme of enforcing social conformity and approved morals via persecution of “others.”

Chapter 2: Sexually Ambiguous Revolutions

Political revolution was accompanied by a revolution in ideas about how gender/sex related to “the citizen.” Puritan influence had faded, but while individual regions like Pennsylvania had relatively progressive ideas about religion, abolition, and indigenous relations, this didn’t translate directly to sexual liberty. Pennsylvania law briefly downgraded the official penalty for sodomy from death to mere corporal punishment, hard labor, and fines, but then reverted to the death penalty a generation later.

Overall, the colonies remained a very unequal and persecution-based society. Slavery embedded itself from being temporary indenture to permanent racialized status. There is an extensive discussion of how slavery shaped and affected the entirety of US society, including sexual imagery.  This includes “Indian captive” narratives that helped shape the image of the “innocent white woman in sexual peril from the Other.”

The Enlightenment was an essential foundation of the American experiment but erased and skipped over entire populations. The Continental Enlightenment led to decriminalization of homosexuality in France, whereas this interpretation of individual rights with respect to sexuality did not take root in the US. A new, specifically American, model of masculinity evolved: a rugged, aggressive, independent stereotype specifically developed in opposition to the stereotype of the English man as refined, weak, and effeminate. The American male was also stereotypically white, propertied, and free (it goes without saying).

The development of the ideal image of the American woman was less coherent. Women’s strength and independence were essential to surviving in the early colonies, and many US women adopted Enlightenment principles and applied them to gender, but this was met by strong pushback from men and contrasted with the “vulnerable/innocent white woman” stereotype that was developing.

Strong gender divisions in society give rise to homosocial practices, which in turn could be a breeding ground for same-sex relations of various types. The book moves on to a discussion of “romantic friendship”—the importance, the range of expressions, evidence for its significance to those who participated, and how it developed a political flavor.

The revolutionary spirit in the late 18th century did create a context for some individuals to reject normative ideas of gender. One notable example is Jemima Wilkinson who had a religious revelation that expressed as non-binary (and possibly asexual) identity as “the Publick Universal Friend.” There were also many real and fictional women who took up a masculine role in war time, and sometimes retained it afterward, of whom Deborah Sampson/Robert Shurtliff is probably the best known. Literary examples include The Female Marine, or the Adventures of Miss Lucy Brewer, by Nathanial Hill Wright, and Ormond, or The Secret Witness by Charles Brockden Brown. Although exceptional, these lives and stories created a space in the culture for envisioning non-normative lives for women.

Chapter 3: Imagining a Queer America

In the 19th century, America experiences several significant challenges to its sense of identity, including the abolition of slavery, a vast increase in non-British immigration, and territorial expansion that incorporated areas settled by other cultural groups.

The escape from laws and social rules represented by the frontier also allowed for an escape from sexual/gender norms and expectations. Gender roles were blurred due to simple necessity, and gender presentation often followed. For women, this could mean a greater acceptance of taking on “masculine” professions and adopting male-coded clothing to various degrees. On the flip side, to the extent that gender segregation (and extreme gender imbalances) persisted, it encouraged homosocial bonding and organizing as the expected pattern. Male bonding was valorized in the west, just as women’s romantic friendships were back east. The continuing paradox of American masculinity was being defined simultaneously by prominent heterosexual desire and a rejection of mixed-gender socializing, where men disdained to be constrained by women’s supposed “civilizing” influence. The Wild West was coded as masculine; the urban East as feminine. Women, in the Wild West, either assimilated to masculinity (see, e.g., Calamity Jane) or are seen as the encroaching force of civilization that would eventually destroy “cowboy masculinity.”

San Francisco in the mid 19th century is presented as an example of the cultural effects of severe gender imbalance on practices and norms around gender and sexuality (This discussion is necessarily focused on men’s experiences.)

The discussion now shifts to the urban east and the presence of romanticism in the writing and letters of male intellectuals, such as Walt Whitman. Here “nature,” rather than representing the rugged cowboy, reflects an Enlightenment sensibility of equality and freedom from traditional morals. This was also the heyday of women’s romantic friendships, documented in letters, poetry, and philosophical writing (see e.g., Margaret Fuller, Emily Dickinson). There is a discussion of the American literary tradition of male mixed-race homoerotic relationships.

Chapter 4: A Democracy of Death and Art

This chapter examines the influence of the Civil War on religion and social attitudes (and vice versa)—how wartime violence shaped ideas of masculinity. But intense homosocial bonding among men in wartime also prompted new types of affective behaviors.

There is a discussion of “passing women,” both in the army and afterward in civilian contexts. The combination of the common experience of hard manual labor by women, with the overall young age of soldiers, made gender-crossing more likely to be successful. The motivations of such women were varied. Popular media was fascinated with such stories, when they were made public.

The post-Civil War era also saw a growth in women’s rights activity including the suffrage movement. There was a growth in women’s colleges and this strictly homosocial environment encouraged and supported romantic friendships between women. In reaction, intellectual women were often disparaged as “unwomanly” regardless of their emotional relationships. Feminism encouraged women to see themselves as a community and to see same-sex relationships as a political act.

The life and career of actress Charlotte Cushman is given as an example of women in openly romantic relationships who formed woman-centered communities. The increased potential for economic independence aided resistance to marriage for those who were so inclined and made female couples more viable. Prominent figures like Cushman served as a model and inspiration for such choices. There is a discussion of the rise of the “Boston Marriage”—female couples openly living in marriage-like arrangements and socially recognized and accepted as such. Most of the evidence for these relationships comes from literate middle-class women, but glimpses of more marginalized couples, such as Black working-class women like Rebecca Primus and Addie Brown, show that such relationships were prevalent regardless of class and race. Female same-sex couples were common among the faculty of women’s colleges, in part due to requirements that those women be unmarried. The text discusses too many specific people to list or tag.

Inherited wealth and social position helped women have the privilege of designing their own lives. [Note: There are some relevant consequences for women’s financial independence in the differences in inheritance practices between England and the US.]

There is a comparison of how female and male sculptors differed in how they shaped images of American masculinity in the post-Civil War era. Women chose monumental depictions of progressive American statesmen, while men returned to classical aesthetics.

International conversations began around male homoeroticism and the beginnings of positive sexological models (relatively speaking). This male-focused material treated women as an afterthought and valorized specifically m/m relations, not same-sex relations in general. The author points out that artistic and philosophical celebration of m/m relations did not always translate to an open embracing of men’s own desires.

Chapter 5: A Dangerous Purity

The second half of the 19th century saw rapid social and economic change, including the establishment of a capitalist upper class, characterized as the “Gilded Age.” Social movements were prominent, but not focused on sexuality except in the negative (e.g., misandry among women’s movements). The cause of social problems was sometimes characterized as male lust versus female virtue. This generated “purity” movements such as temperance and anti-masturbation. Such movements made little distinction between same and opposite sex activity.

The Comstock Act of 1874 banned “obscene” material from the US Mail (the only practical distribution system for publications), and covered personal correspondence as well as published material. Although most morality laws focused on heterosexual activity, the tone was anti-sex in general. These morality-centered movements also supported abolition of slavery and promoted women’s suffrage and labor organizing. It is a mistake to try to interpret them in terms of modern progressive politics. The various movements clashed over the question of “protecting” versus “empowering” women, and abolition was not automatically aligned with anti-racism. Feminists could be racists and anti-Semitic. Abolitionists could oppose suffrage. Labor activists could scorn concerns they considered only relevant to the upper class. And women involved in romantic same-sex relationships did not necessarily view that as a revolutionary act that implied support for other revolutionary movements. Indeed, some women in f/f relationships viewed the arrangement as the pinnacle of “purity culture” as long as they could understand their relationships as not involving “sex” by their own definition. Movements to reform racial and sexual attitudes both found themselves struggling against the prevailing “social reform” movements.

European sexological discourse began appearing in the US in the last decade or so of the 19th century, and often followed the trend of linking homosexuality with criminality and mental illness, even when no direct causal relationship was proposed. The anarchist movement was the most compatible with, and supportive of, sexual liberation, and early leaders of the latter often came out of the former. “Free love” when embraced as a principle, necessarily included same-sex relationships. (A lot of this chapter focuses on the general atmosphere of social movements, especially labor and racial movements.)

Sexological theory of the time basically defined everyone as heterosexual, but some as transgender. I.e., gender was defined in opposition to the object of desire. This framing dominated medical discourse (and infiltrated popular imagination) for at least half a century, promulgating the stereotypes of the effeminate gay man and the mannish lesbian.

In contrast to the allegedly sexless image of romantic friendship, the “mannish lesbian” was viewed as inherently sexual. But she was also considered separate from the older image of the “passing woman.” (In actual practice, f/f sexual relations could be part of any of these framings—it is only the stereotypes that make the distinction.)

In the early 20th century, along with medical discourse, we begin to have personal memoirs of people expressing same-sex desire. One of the few authored by a woman mentioned here is Mary Casal’s The Stone Wall (1930).

Rising movements in the early/mid 20th century to separate the connections between sex, pleasure, and reproduction did not necessarily support broad ideas of sexual liberation, often being entangled in purity culture and eugenics. Medical “sex manuals” began to emerge, but were focused on sex within heterosexual marriage and typically condemned other types of activity. Even those with relatively tolerant attitudes attributed lesbianism to “boredom and loneliness” rather than viewing it as a viable option.

Chapter 6: Life on the Stage/Life in the City

This chapter steps back in time a little and shifts from social politics to entertainment and urban contexts, with coverage of the 19th century and later. Examples are given of transgressive gender and sexuality in the theater (both performers and performances) that included bisexuality, cross-dressing, and deliberately mixed-gender costuming. Gender-bending performances parodied dominant attitudes toward homosexuality and normalized the latter in a space set apart from “real life.”

Urban spaces around the turn of the 20th century were shaped by the normalization of unmarried adults of both sexes living apart from their families of origin. Living spaces included boarding houses, rooming houses, and single-gender hotels, as well as independent apartments. In group living situations, gender segregation was most typical, but immigrant communities formed around charitable “settlement houses” that served both families and singles. These settlement houses were often founded by women’s charitable groups, and prominent leaders included female couples, such as the founders of Hull House in Chicago. [Note: The prominence if female couples in charitable work and social activism in the later 19th century can be directly connected to the expectation that married women would focus exclusively on their own families.]

There’s a discussion of how single-sex spaces unintentionally became meeting places for homosexual socializing and networking. This is a vague parallel to how racial segregation contradictorily encouraged the development of vibrant and thriving Black communities and subcultures.

Burlesque and vaudeville theater offered a context for performing diverse gender and sexuality, even when the intent was parody or mockery. Both male and female impersonation were popular genres, though in general the pop culture portrayal of the “mannish lesbian” was less common She was also more often seen as a threatening figure than an entertaining one. In the early decades of the 20th century, theatrical productions with lesbian themes were regularly suppressed for depicting “perversion.”

The overlap between theater and early Hollywood in the 1920s and 30s produced the occasional overt depiction of queer characters, such as Marlene Dietrich’s character in Morocco (1930), but though the sex lives of Hollywood performers were fairly freewheeling, the content of films was more restrained, even before the introduction of the Hayes Code in 1930.

Live stage continued to be the more common performance context where transgressive sexuality was on display to the public. And the stage acting community was full of networks of female same-sex lovers.

Urban centers with a strong tradition of transgressive performance gave rise to a tourist trade in “slumming’ (ostensibly straight, white, upper class visitors looking to be entertained by the Other), just as racialized performance communities in places like Harlem did. (Examples are drawn from the 1920s and 30s.) In the late 1930s, these communities and venues were disrupted by active morality panics and campaigns. By the 1940s, the stereotype of the homosexual child molester was being invented. Homosexual social movements shifted to focusing on a “right to privacy” rather than a right to exist in public.

Both male and female homosexual characters began appearing in novels in the 1920s and 1930s, typically echoing the theories of sexologists, even when relatively sympathetic to the characters.

Even though many homosexuals were prominent in the Harlem Renaissance, there was strong pressure in the Black community to keep sex lives out of public to avoid undermining racial progress.

Overall, this was the era when urban culture made it more viable for a “homosexual culture” to emerge and thrive, even through shifts in the permitted expressions.

Chapter 7 to 10

The rest of the book is solidly focused on the 20th century and—while fascinating—is out of scope for the Project. So in the interests of efficiency, I’m going to skip taking notes.