Tuesday, March 31, 2015

"Capitalism and Gay Identity": Reflections Regarding the Rise of Gay Culture in the 20th Century

In his essay, John D’Emilio has created an argument regarding the rise of gay and lesbian identity and the growth of capitalism in 20th century American culture.  His main discussion centers on the family unit, specifically comparing families from the 17th century to those of the 20th century and beyond.  

In the early years of the United States, a “family” was usually defined as having a typical patriarchal structure:  father, mother and children. They operated as a self-contained unit, eating, sleeping and working together to sustain their lifestyle.  Everyone in this family unit had a job, and together the family reaped the benefits of their individual labors.  

D’Emilio theorizes that because of this family structure, there were no time for activities outside of the house which would permit an opportunity for someone to have a personal life.  Furthermore, sex, within this system, was largely purely for procreation as well as carrying on a family name or trade. The birthrate for women in colonial New England averaged seven per woman of childbearing age. (p. 469). 


"Mom, when we're done with this, I'd like to talk to you about the possibility of me becoming a lesbian."
"Oh, I'm so sorry Susie, but until someone invents a machine that will milk these cows, you'll have no time for that."

As time progressed and we entered the early 20th century, more goods and services were produced away from the home.  D’Emilio contends that as consumerism rose, the family unit began to shift away from that of the patriarchy into a family life not centered in the home, yet in the outside world where individuals could find social situations outside.  In essence, the family unit began to fall apart in relation to the need and interdependence on one another.  

D’Emilio states that “by the 1920s among the white middle class, the ideology surrounding the family described it as the means through which men and women formed satisfying, mutually enhancing relationships and created an environment that nurtured children. The family became the setting for a personal life sharply distinguished from the public world of work and production.” (p. 469) With the onslaught people moving to a free labor system, individuals were free to create bonds outside of their household and have the time to devote to finding others with a like-mindedness regarding sexual preferences. These individuals eventually began to create their own communities based upon their identities.

D’Emilio also points to World War II as a catalyst for those who choose to identify with the homosexual lifestyle.   Specifically, he states that the war was responsible for “…disrupt[ing] traditional patterns of gender relations and sexuality, and temporarily created a new erotic situation conducive to homosexual expression.” (p. 471). He discusses individuals leaving Midwestern towns during this period, and not returning when the war was over because their sense of self and their non-belief in the “traditional” family was not supported.  He expands further on this thought, addressing the communities created by GIs remaining in port cities after the war, calling the men and women of that era “pioneers” for the gay lifestyle.  He explains his views by stating that the war “created a new erotic situation conducive to homosexual expression….plucking millions of young men and women, whose sexual identities were just forming, out of their homes…small towns and cities and out of the heterosexual environment of the family and dropped them into segregated situations” (p. 471-472). Far away from their small towns and family centered lives, these individuals were free to explore their sexuality. 
Sailors giving new meaning to "stand at attention"

The armed forces, however, were not in support of these individuals identifying with and expressing their sexual identities. From the 1910s to the 1940s, while there was no firm policy on homosexuality, the Articles of War of 1916 included an article stating that any person subject to military law who committed assault with the intent to commit sodomy could be punished as a court-martial directed. (Wikepedia, 2015). In 1949, the Department of Defense standardized anti-homosexual regulations across all branches of the armed services, and on January 20, 1950 – Army Regulation 600-443 is published, identifying three categories of homosexuals. Those deemed to be aggressive are placed in Class I and are subjected to general court-martial. Homosexuals considered active but non-aggressive are placed in Class II and can avoid a court-martial by accepting a dishonorable discharge – or resigning, if they are officers. Personnel professing or exhibiting homosexual tendencies without committing a violation of the sodomy statute are designated "Class III," and can be removed from service under general or honorable discharge. (USNI.org, 2015).


On the TV show M*A*S*H, Jamie Farr played Klinger, a serviceman who continually tried to be kicked out of the service by pretending to violate AR600-443.

The city of San Francisco is considered one of the largest cities with a gay population, primarily in the Castro district. From 1941 to 1945, more than 9,000 gay servicemen and women were discharged and many were processed out in San Francisco.  (Wikepedia, 2015)  Many decided to put down roots rather than return to their small towns where their lifestyles would be stigmatized.       

Ironic that the most popular gay district carries the same name as an oppressive dictator, isn't it?

In the 1950s, the gay community in San Francisco continued to grow as the “beatnik” generation – prelude to the hippies of the late 1960s and early 1970s – began to rise.  This group’s beliefs aligned with the already “outcast” gay and lesbian communities as their attitudes reflected a disdain for the typical American values surrounding family and the ideal suburban lifestyle  (Carlsson, 1995).   The gay community continued to challenge society’s views surrounding a heteronormative lifestyle, one that involves alignment of biological sex, gender identity and gender roles to a traditional standard.   In deference to this standard, they adopted a homonormative stance where gender roles and the traditions of biological sex and gender identity were challenged.

Today, we still see the battle between hetero- and homonormative families. Recently, high profile designers Dolce & Gabbana made a statement against gay couples raising families.  The pair criticized in vitro fertilization and nontraditional families in an interview with  the Italian magazine Panorama.  “I am not convinced  by those I call children of chemicals, synthetic children, “ Mr. Dolce told the magazine.  “Rented uterus, semen chosen from a catalog.” (NYTimes.com, 2015) 


Shhhhh, stop trying to apply common sense to the argument

D’Emilio’s essay, although delivered in 1979 and 1980, provides a rather narrow view of the gay community of yesterday and today.  He addresses how capitalism has changed the ideal of the security of the patriarchial familial construct, essentially "weakening the bonds that once kept families together" (p. 473).  He discusses how as the family structure has changed, capitalism has created the opportunity for homosexual love to become center in an individual's life, and in turn, challenge the ideal that there is no one type of family.  Interestingly though, D'Emilio does not address gay and lesbians as having families, rather "affectional communities" in which they can campaign for their right to be accepted.  


Works Cited:

D’Emilio, John. “Capitalism and Gay Identity”.  The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader.  Ed. Abelove, Henry. Barale, Michele. Halperin, David. New York, NY: Routledge, 1993. Pages 467-476. Print.

“Sexual Orientation and the United States Military”.  Wikipedia.  n.d. Web. 29 Mar 2015.

“Key Dates in U. S. Policy  on Gay Men and Women in Military Service”  US Naval Institute:  usni.org.  n.d. Web. 29 Mar 2015.

“History of San Francisco”.  Wikipedia. n.d. Web. 31 Mar 2015.

Carlsson, Chris.  The Castro: The Rise of a Gay Community. FoundSF.com. 1995. Web. 31 Mar 2015.

Ember, Sydney.  “Remarks on Family  by Dolce and Gabbana Bring Swell of Criticism”.  NYTimes.com.  16 Mar 2015.  Web.  31 Mar. 2015.   

Peer Review for Robin Piach's summary on "Capitalism and Gay Identity"

For this assignment, the Ms. Piach chose essay “Capitalism and the Gay Identity” by John D’Emilio.   
In the summary, Ms. Piach begins by pointing out that the main argument of the author has is the classification of the “eternal homosexual”.    In the first paragraph, she broaches the concept that “D’Emilio proposes this challenge because he fears momentum from the 1970s successful political achievements will not carry into the future” because of a lack of gay history. Next, she makes an excellent point that “without knowing one’s history, how can provisions be made to insure a proper future?”

Later in the summary, the topic of family comparisons are made; specifically that of the 17th century patriarchal unit to those of the post-capitalist 1920s era and how the introduction of goods and services produced out of the home essentially weakened the bond that once held families together as a cohesive, loving unit. 

When discussing the formation of communities and rise of gay culture surrounding World War II, Ms. Piach does a succinct wrap up of D’Emilios views on why those communities were able to come to fruition.  She points out “as a capitalistic society expanded, so did the availability of independence for self-discovery of identity, sexuality and social experiences.”  Ms. Piach further supports the direction of her summary by touching on the gay and women’s liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s.

Overall, I feel that Ms. Piach does an excellent job of summing up D’Emilio’s essay.  Her thought process is cohesive and she makes good use of the text, quoting key passages from the article.  My only suggestion for improvement would be to go back and expand a bit more to add her own thoughts on what D’Emilio is presenting.  While it doesn’t have to be an entire new paragraph or two, a few sentences expanding on the summary a bit and adding her own translation of what D’Emilio is trying to convey would only add to an already well written summary.  It would allow the reader to see what Ms. Piach herself took away from D’Emilio’s article and offer more of a stance on whether she agreed with his views or not and why, which would in turn lend itself to an easier application.  

Source: Piach, Robin. “Summary”. ENGL121. Eastern Michigan University.30 Mar 2015.  

"Capitalism and Gay Identity" by John D'Emilio: A Summary


In his essay, D’Emilio has created an argument regarding the rise of gay and lesbian identity and the growth of capitalism in 20th century American culture.  His main discussion centers on the family unit, specifically comparing families from the 17th century to those of the 20th century and beyond.  

In the early years of the United States, a “family” was a typical patriarchal structure:  father, mother and children. They operated as a self-contained unit, eating, sleeping and working together to sustain their lifestyle.  Everyone in this family unit had a job, and together the family reaped the benefits of their individual labors.  

D’Emilio theorizes that because of this family setup, there was no time for activities outside of the house which would permit an opportunity for someone to have a personal life.  Therefore, sex, within this system, was largely purely for procreation as well as carrying on a family name or trade. The birthrate for women in colonial New England averaged seven per woman of childbearing age. (p. 469). 


As time progressed and we entered the early 20th century, more goods and services were produced away from the home.  D’Emilio argues that as consumerism rose, the family unit began to shift away from that of the patriarchy into a family life not centered in the home, yet in the outside world where individuals could find social situations outside.  In essence, the family unit began to fall apart in relation to the need and interdependence on one another.  


D’Emilio also points to World War II as a catalyst for those who choose to identify with the homosexual lifestyle.   Specifically, he states that the war was responsible for “…disrupt[ing] traditional patterns of gender relations and sexuality, and temporarily created a new erotic situation conducive to homosexual expression.” (p. 471). He discusses individuals leaving Midwestern towns during this period, and not returning when the war was over because their sense of self and their non-belief in the “traditional” family was not supported.  He expands further on this thought, addressing the communities created by GIs remaining in port cities such as San Francisco after the war, calling the men and women of that era “pioneers” for the gay lifestyle.    

 D'Emilio addresses how capitalism has changed the ideal of the security of the patriarchial familial construct, essentially "weakening the bonds that once kept families together" (p. 473).  He discusses how as the family structure has changed, capitalism has created the opportunity for homosexual love to become center in an individual's life, and in turn, challenge the ideal that there is no one type of family.  Interestingly enough, D'Emilio does not address gay and lesbians as having families, rather "affectional communities" in which they can campaign for their right to be accepted. 


Source:  D'Emilio, John.  "Capitalism and Gay Identity".  The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Ed. Abelove, Henry. Barale, Michele. Halperin, David. New York, NY: Routledge, 1993.  Pages 467-476. Print.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Welcome...

In the words of my favorite Main Player from Cabaret:

Wilkommen, bienvenue, welcome
Fremde, etranger, stranger
Gluklich zu sehen, je suis enchente, 
Happy to see you, bliebe, reste, stay...

Ah, musical theater, how you do have my heart.  I'd love to say that this blog will be filled with musical quotes at every turn, but we have a more pressing question at the moment:


In this case, it's to blog.  Mainly because my grade is depending on it; however, I usually have something to say, so it shouldn't be that large of a challenge.  For those of you familiar with my normal screeds on life,  this will be a bit of a switch.  Academic writing, creative writing, essays on poetry sprinkled with topical events and a bit of humor if the piece lends itself.

If you find that this is not your cup of tea, you're in luck as the handbasket will remain in business. For those of you interested in critical thinking essays and other writing associated with my journey to become a college graduate, you've found the right place.

However you've arrived: welcome.