Introduction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
11 INTRODUCTION been officially reported during the last twenty years, without having prompted any real action from either The problem is not so much homosexual desire as police or legal authorities. In such conditions, it is dif- the fear of homosexuality: why does the mere men- ficult to imagine that the world’s “tolerance” of gays, tion of the word trigger off reactions of hate? We lesbians, and transgenders has gained much ground, if must therefore question how the heterosexual world at all. On the contrary, in the majority of these nations, conceives and fantasizes about “homosexuality.” homophobia appears to be more violent than ever. —Guy Hocquenghem, Homosexual Desire, 1972 This brief overview of the situation seems even more sinister as it belies the naïve impression of those who According to widespread opinion, homosexual- would believe that the overall acceptance of gays and ity is more liberated today than it has ever been: it is lesbians in society is growing. But in reality, pessimism present and visible everywhere, in the streets, in the and blind optimism constitute two symmetric pitfalls newspapers, on televisions, in the movies. It is even for both thought and action, inasmuch as both of these completely accepted, as witnessed by recent legisla- attitudes rest upon completely illusory presuppositions: tive advances in North America and Europe regard- one, that homophobia has and always will exist, and is a ing the recognition of same-sex couples (Vermont, constant in human society; the other, that homophobia Quebec, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, France, is generally a thing of the past. In reality, homophobia Sweden, Germany, Finland, Switzerland, England, etc.). as it exists today is neither a transhistorical inevitability, Certainly, further adjustments remain necessary in or- impossible to fight, nor an historical residue destined der to eradicate sexuality-based discrimination, once to disappear by itself over time. It constitutes a prob- and for all, but it would be nothing more than a sim- lem of humanity, serious and complex and with many ple question of time: time to bring to its conclusion a ramifications. grassroots movement launched many decades ago. But what exactly is homophobia? Apparently, But then again, perhaps not. Truth be told, the twen- the term was first used in the 1960s, but it is cred- tieth century was, without a doubt, the most violently ited to Kenneth Smith, author of a 1971 article en- homophobic period in history: deportations to con- titled “Homophobia: A Tentative Personality Profile.” centration camps under the Nazi regime, gulags in Although the word appeared later in other languag- the Soviet Union, and blackmail and persecution in es—particularly in French through the writing of the United States during the Joseph McCarthy anti- Claude Courouve in the 1970s—it did not appear in communist era. For some, particularly in the western dictionaries until 1994. It is, therefore, a recent term world, much of this seems very much part of the past. with a relatively rich history. But quite often, living conditions for gays, lesbians, Over time, the word’s semantic spectrum has con- and transgenders in today’s world remain very diffi- sistently broadened. In 1972, psychotherapist George cult. Homosexuality seems to be discriminated against Weinberg defined homophobia as “the fear of being in everywhere: in at least seventy nations, homosexual a closed space with a homosexual.” This very narrow acts are still illegal (e.g., Algeria, Cameroon, Ethiopia, definition quickly overflowed into common usage, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Senegal) and in a good many as witnessed by the standard definition found in the of these, punishment can last more than ten years Concise Oxford Dictionary: “An extreme and irrational (India, Jamaica, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, and Syria). aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals.” Didier Sometimes the law dictates life imprisonment (Guyana Eribon proposed to extend the notion by introduc- and Uganda), and, in a dozen or so nations, the death ing the idea of a homophobic continuum “which penalty may be applied (Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, goes from those words shouted on the street, which and Sudan). In Africa, many nations’ leaders have bru- every gay or lesbian has heard, ‘fuckin’ fag’ or ‘fuck- tally reaffirmed their will to personally fight against the ing dyke,’ to those words that are implicitly written on “scourge,” which is, according to them, “anti-African.” the archway of the city hall wedding hall: Homosexuals Even in countries where homosexuality is not illegal, Not Admitted.” From this perspective, the notion fully or explicitly named in the penal code, persecution is on integrated into everyday homophobia the theoretic the rise. In Brazil, for example, death squads and skin- dialogue of judicial, psychoanalytical, or anthropologi- heads spread terror: 1,900 homophobic murders have cal allegiance, thereby seeking to confirm or justify the INTRODUCTION 12 established inequality between homosexuals and het- The actual use hesitates between two very different erosexuals. definitions. The first emphasizes the phobia in ho- Pushing the limits of analysis, Daniel Welzer-Lang mophobia: it is the rejection of homosexuals and of suggested a new definition. For him, homophobia “is, homosexuality. We are at the level of an individual in a greater sense, the disparagement of those said femi- psychology. The second sees a certain heterosexism nine qualities in men and, to a certain extent, those said in homophobia. It is the inequality between sexu- masculine qualities in women.” As such, he sought to alities. The hierarchy between heterosexuality and link “specific homophobia, which is practiced against homosexuality returns us to the collective level of gays and lesbians, and generalized homophobia, which ideology. takes root in the construction of the hierarchical orga- nization of gender.” The phenomenon can affect any To this, he adds, “perhaps in this case, using the distinc- individual, which explains why the insult “fag” can be tion between misogyny and sexism as an example, it applied to those who are clearly heterosexual, in the would be clearer to distinguish between ‘homopho- sense that, beyond sexual orientation, it condemns a bia’ and ‘heterosexism’ in order to avoid the confusion deficiency in the “perfect” virility that society expects between the psychological and ideological meanings. and demands in men. That, for my part, is what I propose and practice.” In Evidently, the notion of homophobia has progres- these terms, regarding subjects such as same-sex mar- sively broadened as research has allowed us to under- riage or adoption rights, those who do not believe stand that acts, words, and attitudes that are clearly themselves to be the slightest bit homophobic, while perceived as homophobic are nothing more than refusing equal rights to others in the name of some the by-product of a more general cultural construc- religious, moral, anthropological, or psychoanalytical tion representative of violence throughout society as a privilege reserved for heterosexuals, will have to at least whole. As a result, the semantic extension of the word recognize that this is, technically speaking, a heterosex- has obeyed a metonymic logic that has permitted the ist attitude; such a recognition could constitute a first linking of the act of homophobia to its ideological and step. institutional foundations, which are also denounced That being the case, these semantic evolutions, ex- under this term. tensions, or distinctions enrich, albeit considerably However, parallel to this semantic broadening, there complicate, the debate. And the political stakes are has been an inverse movement of lexical differentiation quite real, since more and more citizens, associations, operating at the heart of the concept of homophobia. and politicians have become conscious, notably in Because of the specificity of attitudes towards lesbian- France during the battle for PaCS (Pacte civil de soli- ism, the term “lesbophobia” has been introduced into darité; Civil solidarity pact), of the necessity to resist theoretic discourses, a term which brings to light par- and even penalize homophobia in the same manner ticular mechanisms that the generic concept of ho- as racism or anti-Semitism. In effect, after the pass- mophobia tends to overshadow. With one stroke, this ing of homosexuality from the criminal law code to distinction justifies the term “gayphobia,” since much the civil law code, homophobia could, contrarily, pass homophobic discourse, in reality, pertains only to male from civil society, where is still remains, to criminal law, homosexuality. Similarly, the concept of “biphobia” where it is not yet contained. Shifting the focus from has also been proposed in order to highlight the sin- homosexuality to homophobia constitutes, as correctly gular situation of bisexuals, often stigmatized by both noted by Daniel Borrillo, “a change that is not only heterosexual and homosexual communities. Moreover, epistemological, but political as well.” But for the time we need to take into consideration the very different being, in the fight against homophobia much remains issues linked to transsexual, transvestite, and transgen- to be done. dered persons, which brings to mind the notion of In order to fight homophobia, it is necessary to “transphobia.” determine its real causes. Homophobia’s deep ori- Another distinction has been proposed in order to gin is, without a doubt,