The Dictionary of Homophobia (4 page)
It is in these extreme cases, more numerous than we would want to believe, that homophobia’s symbolic violence is best measured; it does not need to be expressed to be committed. Silence is its home. Cursing and condemnations are often useless. Parents, friends, neighbors, television shows, films, children’s books, and magazines, all repeatedly celebrate the heterosexual couple. As they grow up all children understand, said or unsaid, consciously or unconsciously, that the alternative is impossible—homosexuality is outside of language, if it isn’t against the law. It remains only in the basest of insults, “fag,” “cocksucker,” and other charming words, whose homophobic charge isn’t even understood by those who use them, thereby relegating male homosexuality to the level of ignominy and female homosexuality to being beyond thought.
Consequently, even in silence, this symbolic violence imposes itself upon the minds of its victims. Far from arousing their revolt, it often succeeds in ensuring their collaboration in exchange for some eventual tolerance. As Erving Goffman so rightly explained, “We ask, therefore, the stigmatized to show some manners and not take too much advantage of their luck. It is unacceptable for them to test the limits of the acceptance they’ve been given, nor that they take advantage of it for new demands. Tolerance is almost always part of the bargain.” Thus, the more a homosexual gives proof of proper conduct, the more a homosexual believes that he or she will receive acceptance by others. This type of condescending homophobia with its liberal, tolerant façade encourages gays and lesbians to multiply the pretences and honorable lies that, even when they deceive no one, appear to be the prerequisites for an always precarious recognition, whose limitations always surprise those who so naively believed in a definitive “integration.”
This logic of social acceptance at any cost drives those who submit to it to adopt, in their position of being dominated, the dominant point of view, which is a source of immeasurable heartbreak and psychological disorder. It creates within them a sense of internalized homophobia, a veritable self-loathing, which may be the cause of the greatest violence. The necessity to prove their perfect “normalcy” pushes certain individuals to assault or persecute those whom they perceive as homosexuals. Of this, contemporary history has offered a blatant example. It is unknown to many that the American “witch hunts” were largely aimed at homosexuals. But it is also believed that one of the primary players, J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI, was gay or bisexual and the purpose of his homophobic, patriotic, and strong-armed internal policies was to prove, especially to himself, his infallible virility. This mental disposition—a profound split between a desire for the other and the denial of self—may also lead to rape. Frequently in non-mixed environments, such as prisons, barracks, or boarding schools, where masculinity is exacerbated, the practice of rape—to the degree that it teaches a lesson to a victim who is perceived as less “virile”—offers a double advantage of satisfying a secretly homosexual libido while proving to others an incontestable sexual power that is, in this paradoxical logic, completely heterosexual.
Nonetheless, this internalized homophobia, whose violence is vented against other homosexuals or, more often, against the subject himself, is without a doubt one of the most appalling aspects of the symbolic order, since it acts without having been seen to do so. The shame that it arouses and fuels exempts it from visibility—so much so that many reasonable people do not believe that homophobia actually exists and suspect, rather, that those who complain about it suffer from some form of paranoia. By refusing to see precisely this characteristic of symbolic violence—that it can be committed without any apparent constraints— they become the allies of a system which they refuse to recognize. In this way, the relentless machine that is homophobia of the symbolic order, anonymous and collective, seems particularly formidable: those who submit to it, by internalizing its principles, contribute implicitly to its legitimization; those who denounce it, by questioning its violence, discredit themselves, especially since they appear, like Don Quixote, to be tilting at windmills.
That being the case, the fight against homophobia, whose causes are profound and whose methods so effective, appears to be a difficult venture. Inasmuch as laws that condemn or discriminate against homosexuality are the effect rather than the cause of rampant homophobia, the simple act of abolishing them appears to be a necessary, if not sufficient, measure. It would be necessary to go further in order to create the conditions that would permit a true evolution of thought. However, minds cannot be so easily changed, and the necessary work requires time, energy, and clear-headedness.
To contribute to this long-term project, it is useful to compile a summary as overview of the problematics associated with homophobia. In order to do that, it seems appropriate to revive the tradition of critical dictionaries of the Age of Enlightenment: long ago, philosophers Bayle, Diderot, d’Alembert, and Voltaire resorted to this format in order to fight prejudice and other forms of intolerance.
The dictionary format offers entries on every aspect of the subject matter. They are independent, detachable, reusable elements able to feed new development. Clearly displaying both a scientific and political vocation, this dictionary of homophobia is, as a result, a work of knowledge and of battle.
The articles here, presented in the alphabetical order expected of any dictionary, can nonetheless be divided into five categories whose titles made up the generative principles for the definition of the various entries. Firstly, consideration was given to the theories that may have been used to justify homophobic acts, attitudes, or discourses—from theology to psychoanalysis by way of medicine, biology, or anthropology. Historical agents of homophobia, such as Joseph McCarthy and Anita Bryant, for example, were also included, as were the historical victims of homophobia, such as Radclyffe Hall or Oscar Wilde. Next, many articles focus on different countries (France, Germany, India, China, etc.) or regions (Maghreb or Central and Eastern Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Latin America, etc.) creating a panorama which, without being exhaustive, allows us to think about homophobia geographically and historically. Another group of articles concerns environments and institutions, such as family, school, the armed forces, or workplace, where social homophobia engenders very specific practices and thought that are of interest to study. And finally, the everyday themes of homophobic rhetoric—such as debauchery, sterility, proselytism, and AIDS—have also justified a group of articles.
In total, more than seventy people from over fifteen countries have worked on this book. It has many voices, not only for the sake of plurality, but also, and fundamentally, because homophobia is a collective violence. When it targets one individual, it always targets him as a supposed element of a group that it seeks to stigmatize. Consequently, faced with this collective violence, it is necessary to respond collectively. For all that, gathering these articles in one book does not suppose a unified thought; but if there is a lesson to be had, it can be none other than the need to fight against homophobia is essential.
Beyond this, the subject’s complexity and diversity do not permit us to draw any general conclusions. Furthermore, homophobia does not always present the same face. Indeed, it may seem problematic to use the term for cultures in which the concept of homosexuality does not exist
per se
. But in truth, it is not necessary to conceive of the existence of a social and sexual system, such as ours, in order to use the notion of homophobia. Whether homosexuality exists or not as a category in different societies, homophobia may be thought of as a tool for analysis and can be defined as the totality of physical, mental, or symbolic violence targeting sexual relations between persons of the same gender, regardless of the significance given to these relations. Each entry is composed by authors who, conscious of the term’s limits, attempt to highlight different details, while avoiding the dangers of anachronism or ethnocentrism.
However, though the authors worked alone, it is clear that the various articles blend with, complete, and respond to one other, inviting the reader to explore according to his or her whim. And in order to simplify the book’s use, keywords have been listed at the end of each article. Furthermore, the bolded words indicate words that have their own specific entry. These comments are sufficient operating instructions for any book whose goal is to clarify, in the general sense, an issue whose topicality reveals its crucial importance. Also, this dictionary should be considered a synthesis rather than a whole. It will seem incomplete to those who wish to go further into one aspect or another. For them, the bibliographical entries will suggest some additional avenues to explore. For all others, it will without a doubt constitute a true basis of reflection and, possibly, action.
—Louis-Georges Tin
2003
Borrillo, Daniel, and Pierre Lascoumes, eds.
L’Homophobie: comment la définir, comment la combattre
. Paris: Ed. Prochoix, 1999.
Eribon, Didier. “Ce que l’injure me dit. Quelques remarques sur le racisme et la discrimination.” In
L’Homophobie, comment la définir, comment la combattre
. Paris: Editions ProChoix, 1999.
Fassin, Eric. “Le Outing de l’homophobie est-il de bonne politique?.” In
L’Homophobie, comment la définir, comment la combattre
. Paris: Editions ProChoix, 1999.
Goffman, Erving.
Stigma
. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998.
Rich, Adrienne. “La Contrainte à l’hétérosexualité et l’existence lesbienne.”
Nouvelles questions féministes
, no. 1 (1981). [Published in the US as “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Experience,”
Signs
5, no. 4 (Summer 1980).]
Smith, Kenneth. “Homophobia: A Tentative Personality Profile,”
Psychological Report
, no. 29 (1971).
Weinberg, George.
Society and the Healthy Homosexual
. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1972.
Welzer-Lang, Daniel. “La Face cachée du masculin.” In
La Peur de l’autre en soi
. Edited by Michel Dorais, Pierre Dutcy, and Welzer-Lang. Montreal: VLB, 1994.
An anthology? Not really. The term “anthology,” from the root word “antho,” which means flower, usually defines a collection of writing chosen for its beauty and grace. But here, we deal with homophobic discourse, which is ugly and spiteful. So it is perhaps more appropriate to call this book an “anti-anthology.” The objective of this selection, however, is not merely to produce a formal catalog of hatred, but rather to give voice to opinions and protests, as an illustration of homophobia, before proceeding with analysis, which is the core of this book. Here you will find people as sinister as Himmler and as honorable as Saint Paul. The inclusion of such different individuals is not to suggest that they are in any way equal, in a sort of shared and dark ignominy, but rather to show that homophobic discourses can be found in extremely varied contexts, crossing the ages and divides, each time taking on very different meanings that the dictionary entries examine.
However, this selection cannot hope to be a representative sample, for beyond open and public statements, homophobia is also expressed through silence: by night, in unreported physical aggression or police brutality; by day, in curt words and unspoken thoughts. And in most countries in the world, acts of physical, moral, or symbolic violence are the most prevalent expressions of homophobia, ones that words do not reveal…
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
—Lv 20:13
Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality; nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
—St
Paul
, I Cor 6:9–10
Truly, there is no way to compare this
vice
to any other vice, because it surpasses the scope of all vices. In effect, this vice means the death of the body, and the destruction of the soul. It pollutes the flesh; it extinguishes the light of the spirit, it opens the door to Hell, and closes the gates of Heaven.… This vice can tumble men from the heart of the ecclesiastical community, and forces them to pray alongside the possessed and those who work for the Devil.
—St Peter Damian,
Liber Gomorrhianus
(
Book of Gomorrah
), c. 1050
He who is a proven sodomite, must lose his balls, and if he does it a second time, he must lose his member; and if he does it a third time, he must be burned”; “The woman who does it must each time lose a member, and the third time must be burned. And all their belongings belong to the king.
—
Justice et Plet
, ancient customs of Orléans, c. 1260
Who errs against faith, as like heathenism, from which he does not want to come to the voice of truth, or if he commits sodomy, he must be burned.
—Philippe de Beaumanoir,
Les Coutumes de Beauvaisis
(
The Costumes de Beauvaisis
), c. 1285
In each temple or important place of worship, they have one or two men, if not more, dressed as women since childhood, and who speak like them and imitate their habits, their dress and all. The men—and the chiefs in particular—have immoral carnal relations with them on feast or holy days, as if it were a rite or a ceremony. I know because I punished two of them.
—Pedro Cieza de Léon,
Crónica del Peru
, 1533
During the time I was among these people [Native Americans in what is now Florida], I saw a diabolical thing: a man married to another man.
—Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca,
La Relacion o naufragios,
1542
If a man consents to being sodomized, the guilty will be condemned to wearing the cang for a month and to 100 strikes of the stick.
