"Gay Community" is not an oxymoron...

[Boston Guy]

Thunderbuns created an excellent thread entitled "A Lurker no more" -- his first here at M4M. In it he suggested a need for more civility among the participants here and I applaud him for saying so.

 

In that thread, Will stated that he thought that the term "gay community" is an oxymoron. It's the second time he has posted this thought here at M4M and, for the second time, I was surprised and a bit disappointed to read it.

 

I'll be up-front by saying right off that I like and respect Will. I like his straightforwardness and I admire the way he uses language; more importantly, I like him as a person and a fellow human being. But, in this case, I think he's wrong.

 

First, on a technical note, I really don't see how "gay" and "community" can form an oxymoron. I don't see any internal contradiction or incongruity between these terms and I don't even see any irony in the term "gay community". More to the point, though, Will seems to be implying that the notion of a "gay community" is a false one and to this I must object.

 

I originally thought to add this post as a reply to "A Lurker No More", but the issue here ('is there a "gay community"?')is different from and larger than the subject there ('should we be more civil with each other?') and I think it deserves its own thread.

 

There are many kinds of communities: geographical communities, both large and small (our local towns and villages and the US are all communities); groups of people with common interests, such as a community of priests or a community of retired people; or even people with similar skills or backgrounds, such as the community of ocularists.

 

The fact that people are part of or participate in a community does not mean that they are all the same or that they share the same set of views. On the contrary, most communities are composed of members with widely varying opinions. But the members of a community share certain common characteristics and needs and interests and act together, from time to time, for the common good.

 

I believe it was Pickwick who recently asked one poster if he felt like he was a member of his community (meaning city or town). He asked if he knew his neighbors, shared their concerns, supported the town, etc. I don't remember the replies, but I thought the questions were right on target.

 

A person who lives in a community but doesn't particpate in it may not in fact be part of that community, even though they may be supported by it (i.e., the person who doesn't know his neighbors but wants the fire department to respond when his house is on fire). And I think that notion can extend to other kinds of communities as well.

 

I believe that there is a real gay community. Furthermore, I believe it extends beyond the US and is today international in nature. I believe this because I have seen it in action countless times over the last twenty years.

 

Members of the gay community share a certain common set of interests. We have many other interests, interests that at times may well be in conflict with our shared interests, but those other interests do not negate our shared interests. On this basis alone, one could claim a "gay community". But, on a local, state, national and international level, gay organizations act in a loosely-organized way to further our common interests. This is one hallmark of a community.

 

On a more local scale, the larger gay community is partially comprised of many gay neighborhoods, large and small, in countries around the world. Any gay man who wants to can go to West Hollywood or the Castro or Chelsea and walk down the street and smile at the men there and be smiled back at. On a very real level, a gay man can be instantly accepted as a member of the community almost immediately. He may not be liked or respected or admired, but he won't be considered an outsider. That's another hallmark of a community.

 

And on a personal level, many of us see it on a daily basis. Our friends and lovers and neighbors may well be gay; the people we choose to spend our free time with may well be gay. When we travel, we may go to gay resorts -- who among us has traveled to P-Town or Key West and not felt a real sense of the gay community there?

 

And more importantly, even though we can bicker and argue and stab each other in the back with the best of them, the gay community has demonstrated many times that it can pull together and make a difference. Not every person and not every time, but often enough and well enough to be a community.

 

I have seen it in good times, in celebration. And I have seen it in bad times, in death, for months and years on end when our friends were dying of AIDS. I saw the survivors comforting them, volunteering to help men they didn't know and wouldn't know, helping them die with dignity and helping the survivors learn to grieve. I saw men coming together to fight a common enemy, men who were as different as different can be, but all of whom were members of the gay community.

 

Perhaps we have come far enough that some may think there is no longer a need for a gay community. Perhaps that is fashionable now. But I do not think that and I am proud to be a member of the gay community.

 

For those who think there is no gay community, perhaps you are too far removed from it. Or perhaps you are like the person living in a neighborhood but not knowing the names of his neighbors, living among a community but apart from it. I do not know. But that you are unaware of it or not a part of it does not mean it does not exist.

 

I have wondered all day if perhaps some of the men who come here, men who hire escorts, might be more likely to feel alienated from the gay community than gay men in general? I have wondered if hiring escorts is sometimes a result of a lack of identification with the gay community or even a sense of alienation from it. Again, I do not know.

 

And, finally, I will say once again that I believe that there is a community here at M4M as well. Like all communities, it's made up of members who share a common interest and who otherwise are as different from each other as any group of people -- except that all of us come here and post our thoughts.

 

Some people come here for the exchange of ideas and try to support the others here. Other people seem to come to act out some kind of domination game by rediculing and belittling others and use tactics that would simply not be acceptable in any other kind of conversation. It seems that they either forget that there are real people on the other end of their caustic remarks or that they simply do not care who they wound. Why this kind of behavior is not more widely condemned on the Internet, as it would immediately be in 'real' life, is one of the mysteries of the Internet and a topic for an entirely different thread.

 

BG

[Guest Viewmaster]

It never ceases to amaze me how we can all read the same words and yet come away with such different interpretations of what we read. I read the same comment re:Oxymoron/Gay Community, and simply chuckled and thought to myself, "No, we are not such a Gay(as in happy and harmonious)Community after all." That said, and despite your articulate arguments otherwise, I still am not pursuaded that a common sexual interest is enough to form a community, and certainly not a harmonious one.

[+ Charlie]

The problem with such a discussion is the vagueness of the terminology. If a "community" is simply a collection of people who have some shared common interest, then of course there is a "gay community". But then there is an endless number of communities, such as the "inner city car parkers" community or the "moviegoers" community. When I am at a concert, I realize that I am part of a "symphony lovers" community, but I don't feel any strong impetus to interact with the other people in the hall. When most people think of the word "community", they expect some stronger sense of common identity and commitment.

 

On this board there is a kind of "client community" that mingles with an "escort community" with different but overlapping interests. In these commmunities there are also core groups who are intensely concerned with the shared interests and who wish to network with other members of the group, and there are others whose affiliation is casual or only activated at certain moments, such as when they are about to hire an escort or need advice about a problem. There are also "lurkers" who are uncertain whether they want to be identified as members of the community at all. There are also those who participate but regularly trash other participants and even tell them to leave.

 

The larger "gay community" has the same dynamics. Some homosexuals identify very strongly with others who share their sexual orientation, and work to create a functioning communal organization. Others feel some connection, but rarely act on it in any overt way, except when some crisis or special event energizes their self-identification (such as those who will attend an annual gay pride festival, but won't participate in an AIDS fundraising activity unless a close friend is ill). Others do not want to be identified as part of the community at all, out of either fear or self-denial. Many will only identify with a restricted sub-set and refuse to recognize others (lesbians, Log Cabin Republicans, those who are physically unattractive, drag queens, etc.) as legitimate parts of the community.

 

I think that you and Will are both right, but you are looking at different aspects of the amorphous whole.

[marc anthony]

Charlie: Great post! I think you hit it on the head. It is all a matter of perspective.

 

BG: Just a technical note... although many of your points are well taken. There are really two kinds of oxymorons. The legitimate ones, and the ones that are created for fun because the whole phrase somehow stands in conflict with perception. For example, icy heat is a true oxyomoron, but military intelligence is a "let's have some fun" one. Although I think Will knows that there is no inherent contradiction between "gay" and "community", he was creating an oxymoron of the latter type to emphasize some of the contentiousness that underlines some of the interactions between gay groups or individuals. This is not unique to the "gay community," but there is no denying that it does exist.

[phage]

RE:

 

>The fact that people are part of or participate in a

>community does not mean that they are all the same or that

>they share the same set of views. On the contrary, most

>communities are composed of members with widely varying

>opinions. But the members of a community share certain

>common characteristics and needs and interests and act

>together, from time to time, for the common good.

 

I believe there is undoubtedly a gay community comprised of men who live in gay neighborhoods, belong to gay organizations, have all gay friends, etc. They have chosen to make their sexual orientation a very defining characteristic of their life and form what is clearly a community.

 

There are also people like myself who live on the periphery of that community. Most all of my friends are gay, most belong to some kind of political organization, we occasionally attend gay events, and that’s about where it ends. I have no desire to partake of the hardcore (maybe “focussed” is a better word) gay community, but I certainly don’t deny its existence.

 

The problem occurs when someone makes a call for certain behavior that is based on a gay orthodoxy. It is unrealistic to expect or demand any kind of behavior because people in a group share a common sexual orientation that is expressed in so many different ways.

 

>Members of the gay community share a certain common set of

>interests. We have many other interests, interests that at

>times may well be in conflict with our shared interests, but

>those other interests do not negate our shared interests.

>On this basis alone, one could claim a "gay community".

 

I think this is the key…the “common set of interests.” I would think that it varies from one to many. There is at least one – sexual orientation – and I can probably find more than that with any particular gay man, but I can also probably do the same with any person – gay or straight.

 

I believe it takes more than shared interests to form a community. It takes shared beliefs and similar outlooks on life. It takes similar concerns and a vision for the future. Many gay men share all these things and are part of a gay “community” but many, many do not.

[Boston Guy]

Yes, you're probably right. When I read Charlie's post, his use of the word gay as in "happy" suggested the same thing.

 

And that's why I added the "technical" note... for the life of me I didn't see "gay community" as an oxymoron but figured there had to be something I was missing. As you point out, with the use of 'gay' in its other context, it makes more sense.

 

A classic case of not seeing something perfectly obvious because you're looking at it from the wrong point of view...

 

Thanks for pointing it out. :-)

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE:

 

”I have wondered all day if perhaps some of the men who come here, men who hire escorts, might be more likely to feel alienated from the gay community than gay men in general? I have wondered if hiring escorts is sometimes a result of a lack of identification with the gay community or even a sense of alienation from it. Again, I do not know”.

 

Interesting... so have I wondered on occasion in response to posts of this subject -- emphasis on some. I think it likely that ‘some’ of us are uncomfortable with ‘some’ characteristics and trappings of the overt gay community and disassociate ourselves from the community at large. I know I’m going to piss off some but I believe that this really is internalized homophobia -- and I'm not the first to make this remark in this forum. What difference is there from the straight guy who finds that a friend is gay and proceeds to drop him like a rock because ‘he doesn’t want to be associated with gays’ or put differently, he is uncomfortable with gays and doesn't want to be mistaken for one. You don’t have to be a flaming queen to accept them for who they are and want to be. Having said that, I am not without some shortcoming myself in that I just haven’t ‘gotten over the hump’ regarding big Butch leather guys with lilting speech patterns and exquisite needlework craftsmanship -- just too much contrast for me for now.

[+ Charlie]

RE:

 

Men hire escorts for a variety of reasons. Some are undoubtedly leery of dealing with the "gay community" to satisfy their sexual needs, so they hire escorts to avoid some kind of contamination by association. That certainly is internalized homophobia. Others have practical reasons for not wanting to find their sex partners in the "community", such as closeted celebrities or married men. However, there are many clients like myself who are or have been actively involved in the community, who are no longer able to find satisfactory sex partners there. Finally, there are those who seem to actually use sex with an escort as a first step into the gay community. As usual, it is dangerous to make any strong generalizations about a group as varied as the clients who visit this site.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE:

 

As usual, it is dangerous to make

>any strong generalizations about a group as varied as the

>clients who visit this site.

 

Couldn't agree more with you Charlie... hence my hilight of some.

 

I agree with the rest of your post too, it being broader in scope than mine.

 

You certainly have me nailed...

 

"Finally, there are those who seem to actually use sex with an escort as a first step into the gay community. "

 

Not a bad way to get one's feet wet, at least for me. Like having your own personal expert guide to some of the places you most wanted to go and hadn't the courage to seek out, or the lilkelihood of finding on your own.

[Guest Viewmaster]

RE:

 

>I think it

>likely that ‘some’ of us are uncomfortable with ‘some’

>characteristics and trappings of the overt gay community and

>disassociate ourselves from the community at large. I know

>I’m going to piss off some but I believe that this really is

>internalized homophobia -- and I'm not the first to make

>this remark in this forum.

 

I would fit into that classification, but definately not because of any internalized homophobia. It boils down to this - I do not want to be lumped into any category wherein the characteristics of the category overshadow my personal characteristics. I do not want to be seen as a category first, and me second. I have spent my whole life becoming the person I am and want to be; to be seen as anything else undermines the efforts I have made to become a self defining and self respecting individual.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

RE:

 

>Men hire escorts for a variety of reasons. Some are

>undoubtedly leery of dealing with the "gay community" to

>satisfy their sexual needs, so they hire escorts to avoid

>some kind of contamination by association. That certainly is

>internalized homophobia. Others have practical reasons for

>not wanting to find their sex partners in the "community",

>such as closeted celebrities or married men. However, there

>are many clients like myself who are or have been actively

>involved in the community, who are no longer able to find

>satisfactory sex partners there. Finally, there are those

>who seem to actually use sex with an escort as a first step

>into the gay community. As usual, it is dangerous to make

>any strong generalizations about a group as varied as the

>clients who visit this site.

 

BG and TY did say "some," but of course your point is right. I don't know if my experience matches up with that of other escorts, but if I were going to make any generalizations about clients based on the ones I've met, I'd say that they were remarkably free of self-loathing (including internalized homophobia), and I've also been amazed at how few of them had seemed to have a secret to keep (of course, their secret could be a secret they were keeping from me, too). In many cases it seemed to be a matter of convenience (being horny but not having time for a relationship nor any interest in going through the bar/chat room crap shoot), a desire to try something different from their usual sexual menu, or a case of "what the heck, I could use a massage anyway; why not have a little fun as well" -- in addition to the examples you cite.

 

In other words, hiring escorts isn't necessarily a sign that anything is wrong, any more than dining out a lot is a sign that someone can't cook. It's kind of like therapy: people used to think that only fucked up people saw therapists; nowadays it's often taken as a sign that a person is healthy and in touch with their emotional needs.

[Bilbo]

RE: Mentorship

 

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear."

[DaninWA]

RE:

 

>

>In other words, hiring escorts isn't necessarily a sign that

>anything is wrong, any more than dining out a lot is a sign

>that someone can't cook.

 

I dine out almost every day. I can cook. It's just that the food tastes so bad after I get done cooking it. :'(

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE:

 

Viewmaster,

 

>I would fit into that classification, but definately not

>because of any internalized homophobia.

 

Respectfully, I remain to be convinced based on this post. Of course it is unimportant to you that I should be convinced, as it would be for me wearing your shoes in this discussion, but for the sake of discussion...

 

>It boils down to

>this - I do not want to be lumped into any category wherein

>the characteristics of the category overshadow my personal

>characteristics.

 

This happens everyday to all of us, you included. And though I don't know your personal circumstances I submit that if you travel in a straight crowd without standing out then your are allowing that to overshadown one of your personal characteristics -- a very major one I would surmise.

 

>I do not want to be seen as a category

>first, and me second.

 

Nor do I but let's face it, many facets of our society see us just that way -- it's just a matter of WHICH group(s) you are lumped into and those groups in which you are comfortable.

 

I have spent my whole life becoming

>the person I am and want to be; to be seen as anything else

>undermines the efforts I have made to become a self defining

>and self respecting individual.

 

The question is who is the person we really want to be seen as and why -- for me it was the ideal family man, the good father, the cutting edge professional in my peer group, etc -- everything that mainstream society expected of the exemplary. Today I settle for the good father, a honest man with a modicum of honor and someone who is comfortable in his own skin. Others may accept me for who I am or they may not. That is one of my filters for who is worth my time and effort to know. I don't flaunt my sexuality, neither do I avoid immersing myself in the 'community' because it might identify me.

 

Again, I don't know your circumstances and I don't judge you or seek justification from you, but I think the discussion interesting and useful.

[Will]

RE:

 

As mine was the turn of phrase that gave rise to this thread, I suppose I ought to check in. I'm not entirely certain how urgent this issue really is,nor do I have much commitment to one side or the other of the argument. But I do have a few thoughts and observations and offer them for what they're worth.

 

First, when I said that "gay community" is an oxymoron, I was not speaking as a lexicographer. I was using the word "oxymoron" ironically to signal what I still believe to be a non-existent entity, namely, "gay community." It surprises me that my purpose wasn't transparent. Certainly, I'd intended it to be.

 

Second, I would like to support my argument that the term "gay community" is an oxymoron, in my sense of the word, by examining each of the terms.

 

Yes, there are various kinds of communities, and depending on what kind of community it is, one will find various degrees of differentiation among members. This is certainly true of the "community" where I live. It is less true of the professional "community" in which I work. Still less is it true of the religious "community" in which I worship. Therefore, neither variety nor uniformity is necessarily consituent of a community.

 

What these groups do share in common is the fact that they are collective entities whose members choose to be members. That choice may be as vague as living in a town; but even there one pays income taxes, supports the schools, and so on, because in a genuine community the individual benefits from the common welfare. Furthermore, these voluntaristic associations have political shapes derived from some form of legislation, and also have political clout when it comes to regulating the behavior of members of that community.

 

I could go on, but I think you see my point: not every collective is a community. Thus, there can be no community based solely on involuntary commonalities. Just as there is no "gay" community, there is no "left-handed" community and no "tone-deaf" community.

 

As regards the qualifier "gay" there is just as much ambiguity. Who is "gay" anyhow? Can you be a homosexual man but not a gay man? Do bisexuals belong to the "gay" community or do they have their own? Are both men and women who are same-sex oriented "gay," or is there a reason why we distinguish between women ("lesbians") and men ("gay")? And even if I am gay, am I a member of the "gay community" whether I want to be or not? Who says so?

 

Finally -- and to me, this is the crucial point -- no community is without its leaders and its spokesmen. In democratic communities, such as U.S. townships, they are elected. In hierarchical communities, such as monarchical governments and the Orthodox Church, they are appointed by someone who either inherits that authority or has it conferred upon him/her. And in all of those situations, both those who confer authority and those over whom authority is exercised have some voice in the process. Most of all, they have voice in declaring who is and who is not a member of that community.

 

If every gay man is a member of the "gay community," then the "gay community" has no authoritative voice because it cannot in any way regulate even its membership.

 

Whether for political, economic, or social gain, various communities of gay men and/or lesbians may form. And in that sense they are indeed "gay communities." But I am not persuaded that there is some vast supra-community rooted in the ontological uniqueness of being "gay." On the contrary, the more I think about it, the more I tend to think that the term "gay community" is a wish-projection, warm-hearted and well-intentioned, but fuzzy-headed as well.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE:

 

Will,

 

A few questions--

 

If I read your discussion right then:

 

Jews don't constitute a community but the Lobovich do?

 

If there is no gay community are there gay communities?

 

Does the existence of a ghetto provide prima facie evidence of a community?

 

(Castro in SFO and even SFO itself, Chelsea and the Village in NYC, SOBE in Miami, So. Boston,...)

 

Does the existence of a group of communities with similar constituent makeup and similar practices, and the used capacity for irregular and informal intercommunity communication among them argue for a greater community although not necessiarly a formal entity?

 

Is the existence of a large number of potential constituents who fail to identify with a community prima facie evidence that there is really is no community because it fails to attract that large unorganized group?

 

Help me to integrate these issues with your thesis. Some are less difficult for me than others but interesting nevetheless.

 

Finally, in your opinion would Will Rogers have considered the Democratic Party a community?? :-)

 

TY

[Guest Viewmaster]

RE:

 

>Viewmaster,

>

>>I would fit into that classification, but definately not

>>because of any internalized homophobia.

>

>Respectfully, I remain to be convinced based on this post.

 

Convinced of what?

 

 

>This happens everyday to all of us, you included. And

>though I don't know your personal circumstances I submit

>that if you travel in a straight crowd without standing out

>then your are allowing that to overshadown one of your

>personal characteristics -- a very major one I would

>surmise.

 

A little history is probably appropriate. My entire sexual life has been as a gay boy and then man, and I have never had a moment of not being out. I was out to all, family included, from HS, through college, and into the workplace. I have done nationally recognized work for the Human Rights Campaign. I move easily back and forth from situations that are mostly gay to those that are mostly straight, and the reason I can do it with so much ease is simply that I am open and do not ever have to attempt to fit in or hide. There is no denying any part of me at any time.

 

 

>Nor do I but let's face it, many facets of our society see

>us just that way -- it's just a matter of WHICH group(s) you

>are lumped into and those groups in which you are

>comfortable.

 

I cannot control how others see me and if they put me into certain categories in their minds, then so be it. But that does not mean that I have to buy into it and let outside perceptions dictate my internal sense of self. I never have and never will.

[Bilbo]

RE: inclusion, mostly

 

I don't think that every gay person (and I myself include women here) automatically becomes a part of the gay community. (I don't think all homosexuals are automatically gay, but I have said that recently in more detail.) It amuses me that all of the gay men living in their own private Waldens keep saying that there is no gay community. Just because you don't live there doesn't mean that others don't, either. (I want to say "Thorough never said that there was no Boston." but I'm not absolutely sure I'm spelling that correctly, have my geography in order and that he actually didn't.) In fact, bothering to say that you are not a part of a thing seems to imply that there is that thing, you're just not part of it.

 

And, yes, at least here in Houston, we do have gay leaders. Some of them the gay community of Houston elects, others choose themselves. And it is easier for most gay people to become leading gay politicos than to become social leaders. There is less competition. You just have to do a shit load of work. We don't seem to have, yet, any leading gay politicos who got there just because they were rich. Social leaders, yes, though, of course. In our city, the rich have taken over the place at the cutting edge of charitable fundraising which used to be occupied by the entertainers.

[Will]

RE:

 

TY, thank you for your thoughtful questions. Some of them occurred to me -- AFTER I wrote that post, of course -- and others I'll not be able to answer as satisfactorily. However, I'll try them, one by one, in the order you pose:

 

>Jews don't constitute a community but the Lobovich do?

 

This is the after-thought biggie. Yes, in my view Jews constitute a community, as do Hindus and other birth-right collectives, for two reasons. First, they have an ancient history as a community; they share a religious, philosophical, and political past. Second the community inculcates new members into it by means of these traditions; they have rites of initiation, continuation, and finality; individual members of the community acquiesce in a larger tradition. Although such a community is not strictly voluntaristic, because one is born a Jew or a Hindu, it is one characteristic of Judaism and Hinduism that voluntarism itself has a low priority. Yes, you're a Hindu whether you like it or not, but at the same time you cannot become a Hindu no matter how much you want to. It's very difficult, usually, to convert to Judaism. Furthermore, while an individual may renounce and live apart from the community, the community rarely expells an individual member. So, yes, I would say that Jews constitute a community.

 

>If there is no gay community are there gay communities?

 

Oh, yes. I thought I'd said that. Any time a group of, say, gay men come together because of their common gayness, form some kind of political unit, and set up some guidelines, in my sense of the word they become a community. That's why I don't disagree with Bilbo's point. There are lots of gay communities. But the thing about communities, it seems to me, is that they must be made up of people and not of a "community" of ideas. That's a different kind of collective to the one I think of as a "community."

 

>Does the existence of a ghetto provide prima facie evidence

>of a community?

 

I wouldn't think so. There are two kinds of ghettos. A genuine ghetto is a place of confinement, in which the dominant political authority segregates some kind of minority. Once that happens, I suppose that the people who live in the ghetto may become a community. But if in some diabolical turn of events the U.S. were to round up everybody who is HIV+ and put them behind walls in a ghetto, I would not say that that group of people are already a community. They might become one, but that would be after the fact.

 

As regards ghetto in the more commonplace sense of the word, that is, neighborhoods made up of people who live there because of what they share with their neighbors, I'd say, yes, the ghetto is a community. In many Midwestern and Northeastern cities there are various ethnically-based "ghettos" that are true communities.

 

>Does the existence of a group of communities with similar

>constituent makeup and similar practices, and the used

>capacity for irregular and informal intercommunity

>communication among them argue for a greater community

>although not necessiarly a formal entity?

 

I don't quite understand this question. Will you spin it out a bit?

 

>Is the existence of a large number of potential constituents

>who fail to identify with a community prima facie evidence

>that there is really is no community because it fails to

>attract that large unorganized group?

 

I'd say that such numbers provide some evidence of a community's health at the moment, but not, prima facie, that no such community exists. Any number of failed grassroots organizations provide ample testimony to the difficulties of forming new communities. But just because many Jews, for example, don't call themselves Jews, live as Jews, or associate self-consciously with other Jews doesn't mean that there is no Jewish community. For ancient communities, duration in time and the stability of traditions, it seems to me, gainsays the fortunes of adherence in a particular time and place.

 

By the way, something else that occurred to me after the fact is that, in future, we may discover that there is indeed a "gay community" that began to form in German- and English-speaking societies towards the end of the nineteenth century and that gained strong characteristics of community, particularly in the United States, in the second half of the twentieth. To say that there is no such thing as "the" gay community is not to say that there can never be one. I can't predict the future.

 

After all, there was a time -- however remote that may be -- when there was no Jewish community. Furthermore, one of the great testimonies of the Torah, read in its entirety, is the long process by which a rather disparate group of nomads gradually became "the Jews." I think it's of supreme importance to notice in this case that the Torah presents the formation of this community as an act of God's free choice. In other words, the community didn't just "happen." And certainly it did not somehow pre-exist its constituent members.

 

>Finally, in your opinion would Will Rogers have considered

>the Democratic Party a community?? :-)

 

Do you mean the Democratic Party of his day or of ours? I can't speak for the past; but if anybody -- Will Rogers or not -- were to call the Democratic Party in 2001-02 a "community" I'd say they didn't know what they were talking about. On the other hand, I think one might make an argument that there is, in fact, a community of people who all themselves Republicans.

 

Thanks again for the questions. I'm complemented that you took my remarks so seriously and hope that I've not disappointed you here.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

I think community's one of those nebulous, hard to define things like obscenity -- "I know it when I see it." Some of the examples BG cites of "community in action" speak to those occasions when the idea of gay community seems palpable and can be said to be "real" in some way that seems to belie the well reasoned individualistic points people have made on this board. "Gay community" may just be the inadequate handle we put on the experience of "community in action" in order to describe what it evokes in us. Its vagueness and its ephemeral quality, though, are what make it a dangerous thing to appeal to as a means of encouraging or discouraging a certain type of behavior.

 

I tend to think of being part of the international "gay community" -- the big "supracommunity" as I think Will put it -- as being something comparable to being American. Americans are often rightly described as being an ahistorical people -- people with a limited, at times non-existent connection to the past, for better and for worse (and who, because of this lack of connection, may sometimes be obsessed with constructing a past and/or bonds that they can feel unite us all). The United States is a nation of ideas rather than blood -- it is ethnically meaningful to speak about "French people" (even though there are French citizens who aren't ethnically French), but when we talk about "the American people" we mean something different. So we are more invidualistic from the get-go. When Margaret Thatcher said "There is no such thing as society; there are only individuals," that was hard for many of the British to take because they saw that she was talking about Americanizing Britain, for better and for worse. It's not that there really is no American society, but the idea of society and is looser and less enforced across the board than in other countries. The emphasis on an individual's freedom to chart his/her own course is much stronger in the US, which makes it harder to enforce truly American norms (San Franciscans are distinctly American, but so are Peorians). It also makes it harder to appeal to a sense of obligation to the group. And people, from ACLU members to 700 Club viewers will tend to describe their values as American values -- even a lot of people who opposed the US acting militarily in response to an attack on our largest city and our capitol (and who, in my opinion, showed incredible moral myopia in doing so) claimed they were "honoring" American values by dissenting, etc.

 

So it is, I think, with what is called "the gay community" -- mores are not really enforced across the board the way they are with heterosexuals (who I'm saying, for the purposes of my analogy, are more like Europeans), who have their marriage laws and family courts and churches with a longer history of supporting their relationships, etc. There are so many ways to be gay. And it's not that there actually any fewer ways to be straight, but more straights are kept within the normative bounds of "family values," the expectation of marriage, etc. (This, of course, is changing as gays gain more influence over the culture at large, to the discomfort of some straight people.) When politicians say we should do something because we're Americans, everyone who disagrees with the proposed course of action (and even some who agree) rolls their eyes. The same is true when an appeal is made "because we're the gay community." It's not that it doesn't exist, or that it isn't beautiful, it's that it exists in such a unbounded state that it mysteriously becomes slippery to talk meaningfully about it.

 

I have no idea if any of that made sense. I'm kind of hungover...

[Will]

RE:

 

Until I got to the last word, I'd never have known that you were hungover. You've presented a whole set of arguments that I find compelling and largely persuasive. Although I'm still not comfortable with the term "gay community," your post helps me to see that my discomfort has more to do with the ways in which that term gets deployed than with the concept itself.

 

I have a strong sense that there's not a whole lot of interest in this topic at M4M. Indeed, I myself admitted to limited concern in my first post. But it has elicited some extremely interesting and thoughtful responses, and so I'm grateful to Boston Guy for having brought it up in the first place. And I'm grateful to you for having shown me a side of the question that I'm not sure I'd have come to on my own.

[duke37]

RE:

 

I have found the discussion very interesting. Devon may be onto something there though. Jeff

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE:

 

 Will,

 

I apologize for not responding sooner but it has been a busy week what with New Years, the poll and work. That last one really does cut into my time occasionally. I need to do something about that... hmmm, maybe a belated New Year’s resolution for me. :-)

 

Thanks for your thoughtful response to my questions. I haven’t been disappointed and, as always, I find them interesting not only in content but also in expression.

 

”So, yes, I would say that Jews constitute a community”.

 

One of my biggies for you.. and we come down on the same side.

 

>If there is no gay community are there gay communities?

 

”Oh, yes. I thought I'd said that”.

 

You did and I overlooked that... but I was also laying a path for argument...

 

”There are lots of gay communities. But the thing about communities, it seems to me, is that they must be made up of people and not of a "community" of ideas. That's a different kind of collective to the one I think of as a "community."”

 

So, you are addressing the existence of a community of common ideas and not community of people with shared common experiences but not necessarily shared ideas??

 

>Does the existence of a ghetto provide prima facie evidence

>of a community?

 

I agree with where you ultimately come down on this. And there is no need to elaborate because you recognize ‘gay communities’ -- which was my destination.

 

>Does the existence of a group of communities with similar

>constituent makeup and similar practices, and the used

>capacity for irregular and informal inter community

>communication among them argue for a greater community

>although not necessarily a formal entity?

 

”I don't quite understand this question. Will you spin it out a bit?

 

My goal was the construction of an overarching, if informal, national or international community based on the existence of these constituent local communities and some loosely recognized informal communication among them. But if your community is a community of shared ideas, then this argument becomes a little more tenuous (though not prohibitively so) especially at the international level.

 

>Is the existence of a large number of potential constituents

>who fail to identify with a community prima facie evidence

>that there is really is no community because it fails to

>attract that large unorganized group?

 

”I'd say that such numbers provide some evidence of a community's health at the moment, but not, prima facie, that no such community exists....

 

By the way, something else that occurred to me after the fact is that, in future, we may discover that there is indeed a "gay community" that began to form in German- and English-speaking societies towards the end of the nineteenth century and that gained strong characteristics of community, particularly in the United States, in the second half of the twentieth. To say that there is no such thing as "the" gay community is not to say that there can never be one. I can't predict the future.”

 

I found your complete response to this question most interesting and thought provoking -- thank you.

 

Where I was ultimately headed in this particular question and the whole post in a follow-up was overtaken by DevonSFescort... He formulated and expressed the salient issue much better than I had at the moment and I see no improvement to offer on it. I think he makes a strong argument I wholeheartedly support. And I note that it has prompted some reconsideration on your part too.

 

I also agree with you that there is probably little interest in this subject at M4M. even if there was it seems, for me anyway, to have been put to bed... the burner under this pot extinguished. But I did want to get back to you and thank you once again for your response.

 

TY