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, to be found in heterosexism, clarify the political uses of the notion of homophobia. that compulsory rule of heterosexuality that feminist According to sociologist Eric Fassin, writer and poet Adrienne Rich criticized. This regime tends to construe heterosexuality as the only legitimate 13 INTRODUCTION sexual experience possible, or even thinkable, which baseball bats in hand to “bash some queers,” the notion explains why so many people go through life without of sex panic appears to be the height of dishonesty and ever having considered the homosexual reality. Better cynical cruelty. Nonetheless, it is the deep origin of than a norm—which would require explication—het- extreme reactions, linked to heterosexist conditioning, erosexuality becomes, for those it has conditioned, the that dictates the male identity as based on the more or non thought of their particular psychic makeup and the less “gentle” control of women and the more or less apriorism of all human sexuality in general. Far from harsh repression of homosexuality. being self-evident, this transparency of self, which is a For theories—be they theological, moral, legal, forced exclusion of the other, constitutes one of the medical, biological, psychoanalytical, anthropological, fundamentals of social learning. In its rigidity, it ends et cetera—are never more than concocted reasons to up as, and not only for heterosexuals, a model by which justify, after the fact, obviously unjustifiable personal to perceive the world, individuals, and gender. In these convictions aligned with the status quo. Thus, dur- conditions, it becomes difficult to imagine not only ing the fight for PaCS, arguments based on theology homosexuality, whose simple existence risks shaking and religious morality were not well received, so the the foundations of universal beliefs, and consequently Catholic Church did not hesitate to resort to more values, but also heterosexuality, which, being the usual fashionable psychoanalysis, whose theories the Church point of view on the world, is nonetheless that point had not so long ago condemned as being obscene and of view’s blind spot. permissive. Similarly, it is generally useless to explain In fact, by not evaluating all the horror that homo- to those who see homosexuality as a type of defect or sexuality can represent, we expose ourselves to not pathology that their beliefs have long been invalidated understanding homophobia—as much as we can un- by medical science itself. Far from being the cause of derstand it—in its more radical form. The general and their homophobia, the obsolete medical argument is convulsive feeling of hatred that Copernicus aroused nothing more than the occasional manifestation of ho- when he dared knock the Earth off its epistemological mophobia and, at most, its confirmation. Thus, belief pedestal might give us an approximate idea. The con- can both precede and obstinately survive the theories cept of heterocentrism, fashioned after geocentrism, upon which it is seemingly based, theories that were, may be described as a world view circling a self-pro- in fact, nothing more than a contextual formulation claimed center of reference, in this case heterosexual- and justification. ity. From this perspective, other sexualities may not be Truth be told, the theories themselves matter very anything other than strange galaxies, obscure nebulae, little; they are often interchangeable. The divine, natu- or, at the very least, extraterrestrial life forms. Whether ral, moral, public, symbolic, or anthropological orders the earth was, or was not, at the center of the universe are nothing but the decline of the one and the same changed very little in everyday life; however, the ne- concept, though diversely constructed, invoked to le- cessity to objectively rethink God’s order, which was gitimize a condition that is profoundly inegalitarian. in fact Man’s order, aroused a veritable subjective fury We must use all means necessary to change this. From whose reasoning went beyond strict religious belief, all evidence, the theories or arguments set forth are which was fundamentally never put into question by nothing more than a conjectural means set in mo- the theories of either Copernicus or Galileo. tion by generic homophobia, whose conscious origin Thus, for those individuals who are strongly condi- must be sought deep within this thought, or rather this tioned by heterosexism, the simple existence of homo- heterosexist non thought, which contains the stigma- sexuals—who, objectively speaking, pose no threat— tization of all homosexuals. However, this respectable subjectively constitutes a threat against a valued psy- heterosexism does not always lead, thankfully, to mur- chological construct built on exclusion. This allows us derous violence. Therefore, it remains to be understood to understand how fear—and even more the resulting why homophobia arises or resurfaces more violently hate—can lead to the most brutal violence. Clearly, this during certain periods, areas, and conditions. fear could never constitute mitigating circumstances, Beyond everyday manifestations, it seems that large even less justification, for homophobic murders. And waves of homophobia generally obey opportunist mo- when claims are made in American courts, sometimes tivations and history is rife with lessons. In the first successfully, by individuals who go to cruising areas, years of the communist revolution, homosexuality INTRODUCTION 14 was relatively “tolerated.” In the Soviet Union, after the Near East, India, China, or Japan, it is perceived the abolition of the penal code of 1832, the crime of as a Western practice; in Black Africa, it is, of course, a sodomy was not reintroduced in the codes of 1922 or white phenomenon. 1926. And in its first edition in 1930, the Great Soviet In short, homosexuality constitutes a symbolic pro- Encyclopedia asserted quite clearly that homosexuality tean component, typically characteristic of an adver- was neither a crime nor a sickness. Likewise, in Cuba, sary or enemy, be it a rival nation, a particular social at the beginning of the New Revolution, homosexu- group, or an individual on the street. It is the simplest als enjoyed a short-lived yet real liberty, as witnessed and most certain means to disqualify another, and it is by writer Reinaldo Arenas, however, the instant po- why it finds such a favorable ground in areas where litical difficulties appeared, they were systematically social, religious, racist, xenophobic, or anti-Semitic hunted and locked away in camps. Similarly in the hate is already deeply rooted. It is the strange common USSR, the difficulties in the regime and the ascen- denominator of various resentments that rally around sion of Stalin contributed to a hardening of living con- the same cause. That is, in a heterosexist culture, cri- ditions. Homosexuality was once again penalized in ses and difficult circumstances favor the formation of 1933, soon became a crime against the state, a sign of homophobic sentiments and practices, which offer an bourgeois decadence, and, even worse, a fascist perver- opportunity for any “charismatic” leader in search of sion to be harshly condemned. But, as Daniel Borrillo popular support. Under such conditions, it is not sur- notes, “by a sad irony of history, at the same time, Nazi prising that homosexuality is so often the designated Germany put into place a plan to persecute and ex- target for regimes who, at least in appearance, are not terminate homosexuals by putting them in the same only dissimilar, but in polar opposition. As soon as any category as communists.” cloud darkens the sky, the mobilization of homophobic These examples clearly show that heterosexism’s discourse is a useful method to divert attention from latent and inherent homophobia can suddenly be re- real problems, while guaranteeing support of the mor- awakened by a serious crisis that justifies the search alists. And often, that which was nothing more than an for a scapegoat. Accused of all evils, homosexuality can opportunistic pretext becomes an end in itself, justified become sufficient reason for purges perceived as nec- by sentiments most acceptable to the public. It is the essary. That is why, depending on the historical mo- end making a virtue out of necessity. ment considered, it is adjusted to each particular situ- However, it remains necessary to examine the nu- ation and projected upon an adversary who is to be merous methods used by homophobia. It is not so stigmatized or eliminated. Thus, likened to Bulgarian much a question of putting together a catalogue raison- heresy during the Middle Ages, sodomy was regularly né—a grim and fastidious task—as it is of analyzing its used as the main charge in the fight against religious complex workings. Methods are often ambiguous and “deviancy,” such as the charge against the Knights it is difficult to classify these diverse forms of violence, Templar. Similarly, during the French Religious Wars, be they formal, i.e. practiced under government au- homosexuality became a Catholic vice according thority (death penalty, forced labor, whipping, chemi- to the Huguenots, and a Huguenot vice according cal or physical castration, clitoridectomy, incarceration, to the Catholics. During the same period, it was as- internment), or informal (terrorism, assassination, pu- cribed to Italian morals, in the sense that the French nitive rape, beating, physical or verbal assault, harass- Court seemed to be submerged by Italian culture; ment). Moreover, this distinction itself is subject to then to English morals, when the British Empire was caution in the sense that, in certain countries, informal at its pinnacle; to German morals, at the time when violence benefits largely from the approval—if not the the Franco-German rivalry was at its peak; to Jewish outright complicity—of authorities who are supposed cosmopolitanism, whose alleged aims were so worri- to condemn it. And even where homosexual practices some to the nation; to American communitarianism, are not penalized, legal detours may be used in order to whose principles threatened, we are told, the French incriminate these practices with other charges, as fan- Republic. While a bourgeois vice to the proletariat of tastic as they may appear to be: unlawful meeting, con- the nineteenth century, it was considered by the bour- spiracy, blasphemy, mutual assault and battery, even if it geois to be a phenomenon of the immoral working occurs in a private home. Since the roles played by au- classes, or of the necessarily decadent aristocracy. In thorities are rather ambiguous, the line between formal 15 INTRODUCTION and informal violence is often difficult to trace. alternative is impossible—homosexuality is outside Beyond this more or less state-sanctioned homopho- of language, if it isn’t against the law. It remains only bia, the more widespread social homophobia is prac- in the basest of insults, “fag,” “cocksucker,” and other ticed everywhere: in families, school, army, workplace, charming words, whose homophobic charge isn’t even politics, media, sport, prison, et cetera. These types of understood by those who use them, thereby relegat- physical violence or moral coercion are often less un- ing male homosexuality to the level of ignominy and derstood, and those who suffer from them—sometimes female homosexuality to being beyond thought. simultaneously—often refuse to denounce them. The Consequently, even in silence, this symbolic violence fear of having their homosexuality revealed and the fear imposes itself upon the minds of its victims. Far from of reprisals—especially when these acts are committed arousing their revolt, it often succeeds in ensuring their within a group setting, barracks, or team—compels to collaboration in exchange for some eventual tolerance. silence those victims who are the most vulnerable. As Erving Goffman so rightly explained, “We ask, But it is in the symbolic order that everyday ho- therefore, the stigmatized to show some manners and mophobia is best practiced. Beyond even the acts, at- not take too much advantage of their luck. It is unac- titudes, and discourses that are clearly homophobic, ceptable for them to test the limits of the acceptance society’s framework constitutes a structure in which they’ve been given, nor that they take advantage of it daily violence is, doubtless, difficult to imagine for for new demands. Tolerance is almost always part of the those whose experience is organized in accordance bargain.” Thus, the more a homosexual gives proof of with that framework. As Eribon notes, no matter how proper conduct, the more a homosexual believes that racist the area in which he is born, a black child has he or she will receive acceptance by others. This type every chance to grow up in a family that will allow of condescending homophobia with its liberal, toler- him to construct his identity with a sense of relative ant façade encourages gays and lesbians to multiply the legitimacy. However, in heterosexual families in which pretences and honorable lies that, even when they de- the majority of gay youth grow up, the developing ceive no one, appear to be the prerequisites for an al- consciousness of their desire constitutes, generally, a ways precarious recognition, whose limitations always trial that is even more difficult in the fact that it must surprise those who so naively believed in a definitive remain secret. The shame, the solitude, the despair of “integration.” never being loved, the pure panic of one day being dis- This logic of social acceptance at any cost drives covered locks away the spirit in a sort of interior prison those who submit to it to adopt, in their position of that pushes the individual to sometimes overestimate being dominated, the dominant point of view, which is the negative attitudes expressed by his or her social a source of immeasurable heartbreak and psychologi- circle. Thus, we see tearful parents who are incapable of cal disorder. It creates within them a sense of internal- comprehending their gay child’s suicide; of course they ized homophobia, a veritable self-loathing, which may would have accepted his or her difference; moreover, be the cause of the greatest violence. The necessity to they had never said anything against homosexuality. prove their perfect “normalcy” pushes certain indi- The problem is that they had never said anything in viduals to assault or persecute those whom they per- its favor, either. They cannot understand, but the gen- ceive as homosexuals. Of this, contemporary history eral silence surrounding this taboo subject, the absence has offered a blatant example. It is unknown to many of images and dialogue were, for their son, for their that the American “witch hunts” were largely aimed daughter, the strongest condemnation. at homosexuals. But it is also believed that one of the It is in these extreme cases, more numerous than we primary players, J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI, would want to believe, that homophobia’s symbolic was gay or bisexual and the purpose of his homopho- violence is best measured; it does not need to be ex- bic, patriotic, and strong-armed internal policies was pressed to be committed. Silence is its home. Cursing to prove, especially to himself, his infallible virility. This and condemnations are often useless. Parents, friends, mental disposition—a profound split between a desire neighbors, television shows, films, children’s books, for the other and the denial of self—may also lead to and magazines, all repeatedly celebrate the heterosex- rape. Frequently in non-mixed environments, such as ual couple. As they grow up all children understand, prisons, barracks, or boarding schools, where masculin- said or unsaid, consciously or unconsciously, that the ity is exacerbated, the practice of rape—to the degree INTRODUCTION 16 that it teaches a lesson to a victim who is perceived as Clearly displaying both a scientific and political voca- less “virile”—offers a double advantage of satisfying a tion, this dictionary of homophobia is, as a result, a secretly homosexual libido while proving to others an work of knowledge and of battle. incontestable sexual power that is, in this paradoxical The articles here, presented in the alphabetical order logic, completely heterosexual. expected of any dictionary, can nonetheless be divided Nonetheless, this internalized homophobia, whose into five categories whose titles made up the genera- violence is vented against other homosexuals or, more tive principles for the definition of the various entries. often, against the subject himself, is without a doubt Firstly, consideration was given to the theories that may one of the most appalling aspects of the symbolic or- have been used to justify homophobic acts, attitudes, or der, since it acts without having been seen to do so. discourses—from theology to psychoanalysis by way of The shame that it arouses and fuels exempts it from medicine, biology, or anthropology. Historical agents visibility—so much so that many reasonable people do of homophobia, such as Joseph McCarthy and Anita not believe that homophobia actually exists and sus- Bryant, for example, were also included, as were the pect, rather, that those who complain about it suffer historical victims of homophobia, such as Radclyffe from some form of paranoia. By refusing to see pre- Hall or Oscar Wilde. Next, many articles focus on dif- cisely this characteristic of symbolic violence—that it ferent countries (France, Germany, India, China, etc.) can be committed without any apparent constraints— or regions (Maghreb or Central and Eastern Africa, they become the allies of a system which they refuse the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Latin America, etc.) to recognize. In this way, the relentless machine that is creating a panorama which, without being exhaustive, homophobia of the symbolic order, anonymous and allows us to think about homophobia geographically collective, seems particularly formidable: those who and historically. Another group of articles concerns en- submit to it, by internalizing its principles, contribute vironments and institutions, such as family, school, the implicitly to its legitimization; those who denounce it, armed forces, or workplace, where social homophobia by questioning its violence, discredit themselves, espe- engenders very specific practices and thought that are cially since they appear, like Don Quixote, to be tilting of interest to study. And finally, the everyday themes at windmills. of homophobic rhetoric—such as debauchery, sterility, That being the case, the fight against homophobia, proselytism, and AIDS—have also justified a group of whose causes are profound and whose methods so ef- articles. fective, appears to be a difficult venture. Inasmuch as In total, more than seventy people from over fif- laws that condemn or discriminate against homosexu- teen countries have worked on this book. It has many ality are the effect rather than the cause of rampant ho- voices, not only for the sake of plurality, but also, and mophobia, the simple act of abolishing them appears fundamentally, because homophobia is a collective vi- to be a necessary, if not sufficient, measure. It would be olence. When it targets one individual, it always targets necessary to go further in order to create the condi- him as a supposed element of a group that it seeks tions that would permit a true evolution of thought. to stigmatize. Consequently, faced with this collective However, minds cannot be so easily changed, and the violence, it is necessary to respond collectively. For all necessary work requires time, energy, and clear-head- that, gathering these articles in one book does not sup- edness. pose a unified thought; but if there is a lesson to be To contribute to this long-term project, it is useful had, it can be none other than the need to fight against to compile a summary as overview of the problemat- homophobia is essential. ics associated with homophobia. In order to do that, Beyond this, the subject’s complexity and diversity it seems appropriate to revive the tradition of criti- do not permit us to draw any general conclusions. cal dictionaries of the Age of Enlightenment: long ago, Furthermore, homophobia does not always present philosophers Bayle, Diderot, d’Alembert, and Voltaire the same face. Indeed, it may seem problematic to use resorted to this format in order to fight prejudice and the term for cultures in which the concept of homo- other forms of intolerance. sexuality does not exist per se. But in truth, it is not The dictionary format offers entries on every aspect necessary to conceive of the existence of a social and of the subject matter. They are independent, detach- sexual system, such as ours, in order to use the notion able, reusable elements able to feed new development. of homophobia. Whether homosexuality exists or not 17 INTRODUCTION as a category in different societies, homophobia may Borrillo, Daniel, and Pierre Lascoumes, eds. L’Homophobie: be thought of as a tool for analysis and can be defined comment la définir, comment la combattre. Paris: Ed. Prochoix, as the totality of physical, mental, or symbolic violence 1999. targeting sexual relations between persons of the same Eribon, Didier. “Ce que l’injure me dit. Quelques remarques gender, regardless of the significance given to these re- sur le racisme et la discrimination.” In L’Homophobie, lations. Each entry is composed by authors who, con- comment la définir, comment la combattre. Paris: Editions scious of the term’s limits, attempt to highlight differ- ProChoix, 1999. ent details, while avoiding the dangers of anachronism Fassin, Eric. “Le Outing de l’homophobie est-il de bonne or ethnocentrism. politique?.” In L’Homophobie, comment la définir, comment la However, though the authors worked alone, it is combattre. Paris: Editions ProChoix, 1999. clear that the various articles blend with, complete, and Goffman, Erving. Stigma. New York: Simon & Schuster, respond to one other, inviting the reader to explore 1998. according to his or her whim. And in order to simplify Rich, Adrienne. “La Contrainte à l’hétérosexualité et the book’s use, keywords have been listed at the end l’existence lesbienne.” Nouvelles questions féministes, of each article. Furthermore, the bolded words indi- no. 1 (1981). [Published in the US as “Compulsory cate words that have their own specific entry. These Heterosexuality and Lesbian Experience,” Signs 5, no. 4 comments are sufficient operating instructions for any (Summer 1980).] book whose goal is to clarify, in the general sense, an Smith, Kenneth. “Homophobia: A Tentative Personality issue whose topicality reveals its crucial importance. Profile,”Psychological Report, no. 29 (1971). Also, this dictionary should be considered a synthesis Weinberg, George. Society and the Healthy Homosexual. New rather than a whole. It will seem incomplete to those York: St Martin’s Press, 1972. who wish to go further into one aspect or another. For Welzer-Lang, Daniel. “La Face cachée du masculin.” In La them, the bibliographical entries will suggest some ad- Peur de l’autre en soi. Edited by Michel Dorais, Pierre ditional avenues to explore. For all others, it will with- Dutcy, and Welzer-Lang. Montreal: VLB, 1994. out a doubt constitute a true basis of reflection and, possibly, action. —Louis-Georges Tin 2003