The Role of Cuba's CENESEX

Setting the agenda for Cuban sexuality: the role of Cuba's CENESEX. Link to this page In recent years an increasing amount of media attention has been focused on Cuba's Centro Nacional de Educacion Sexual, or CENESEX (National Centre for Sexual Education) and, in particular, the role of its director, Mariela Castro Espin. In a country in which machismo and homophobia have been widely condemned, changes in the approach to accepting sexual diversity have been significant at both the public and government levels. In recent years large anti- homophobia parades have occurred in Havana and other Cuban cities, sexual reassignment operations have taken place in the country, and gay film festivals have been held. The country's parliament is even considering changes to the national Family Code to protect and strengthen the rights of the LGBT community. Clearly, radical changes are in the air, with the work of CENESEX playing a major role. Originally established in 1977 as the Grupo Nacional de Trabaj o de Educacion Sexual, or GNTES (The National Group for Work on Sexual Education), the centre has since dramatically evolved into one of the world's leading organizations working for LGBT equality (Hamilton 2012, 49). The director of the centre and noted sexologist, Mariela Castro Espin, has been a driving force behind CENESEX. As the daughter of current president Raul Castro and Vilma Espin, the former head of the Federation of Cuban Women (FMC), she has increased the national and international profile of the centre and its work. However, while her connection to the president is consistently used as the introduction for media coverage on the centre, this interest is increasingly accompanied by praise for the significant work of CENESEX. International media coverage continues to focus solely on the current work of the centre, with little analysis of its dramatic evolution in recent years. There has been little analysis, for example, of the role of feminist discourse in the evolution of CENESEX, or indeed educational processes employed by the centre, the development of the Cuban government's official stance on homosexuality, or the competing national understandings of sexual diversity. Similarly, scholars have not explored the centre's significant history in great detail. Contributions to the LGBT discussion have been made by, among others, Emilio Bejel (2001), Marvin Leiner (1994), Ian Lumsden (1996), and Dwayne Turner (1989). Their work, however, mainly employed an historical or literary analysis to focus strictly on the evolution of homophobia in Cuba. Moreover, their studies, while providing an important analysis, have not been updated, in some cases, for 20 years, leaving the role of CENESEX in contemporary Cuba largely ignored. How did a Cuban organization develop from a basic sexual health education function in 1977 to become one of the world's leading organizations working toward LGBT equality--and this in a country with a profoundly rooted tradition of homophobia? This article seeks to explore and analyze the evolution of CENESEX, examining, in particular, both the significant role it has played in revolutionary Cuba and the major challenges that remain. The Evolution of CENESEX Before examining the evolution of CENESEX, it is important to first understand some of the early history of homophobia in Cuba, as it has played an important role in defining the origins and subsequent mission of CENESEX. Indeed, as aptly stated by Epps, "the significance of homosexuality in revolutionary Cuba is the work of history" (1995, 236). Two statements by former Cuban president Fidel Castro are quite telling. "Cuba's leaders," Castro noted in 1965, "could never believe that a homosexual could embody the conditions and requirements of conduct that would enable us to consider him a true Revolutionary" (Lumsden 1996, 93). But twenty-seven years later he stated, "I am absolutely opposed to all forms of oppression, contempt, scorn, or discrimination with regard to homosexuals" (Leiner 1994, 59). These quotations illustrate clearly the evolution of official thought during the revolutionary process. There are two main reasons for the markedly negative attitude toward sexual diversity in revolutionary history, among males in particular. The first of these is as entrenched in Cuba as in any former Spanish colony: machismo. As it is often confused with patriarchy, it is important to distinguish between the two terms. Patriarchy refers to a form of social stratification that promotes male superiority, or "male social privilege" within a society, and that incorporates various levels of women's exploitation or marginalization (Firestone 1970, 176; Seidler 1989, 24; Dunphy 2000, 81; Whitehead 2002, 18; Figes 1970, 23; Coward 1983, 188). By contrast, machismo (1) is a more complex version of this social stratification, incorporating significant elements of Latin American and Caribbean colonial history (Leiner 1994; Hamilton 2012, 25, 111). Indeed, machismo in Cuba is the result of almost four centuries of Spanish colonial rule, supported by a deeply rooted Catholic value system. It refers to the idealized man as hyper-masculine, virile, strong, paternalistic, aggressive, sexually dominant, and unfaithful. The term also incorporates the glorification of female virginity (and by extension their faithfulness as wives), as well as the rejection of sexual diversity (Sternberg 2000, 91; Maynard 1998, 191; Pena 1991, 33; Ramirez Rodriguez 2006, 40; Yglesias 1968, 251-271; Gonzalez 1996). As a result of machismo, Cuban culture has condemned homosexuality and mystified women's sexuality (Leiner 1994, 11; Lumsden 1996, 45; Arguelles and Rich 1984, 668). Homosexuality was particularly rejected in rural areas, where one's sexual preferences could not easily be hidden, and prejudice against perceived homosexuals (particularly men) was commonplace. For this reason, many homosexuals gravitated toward more urban areas, where there was a greater possibility of sexual anonymity. Prejudice occurred more often against homosexual men than against homosexual women. Indeed, lesbians have had a different societal experience, as they were significantly less visible, and women's sexuality continued to be repressed and misunderstood--lesbianism was either ignored or viewed as "correctable" (Smith and Padula 1996, 170; Ferdinand 1996, 48). That said, it is impossible to determine the exact levels of prejudice suffered by lesbians, as it has not been documented in the same extensive manner in which prejudice against males is tracked, and research on the topic is limited at best (see the limited coverage in Smith 1992; Smith and Padula 1996). The second main factor that has shaped attitudes toward homosexuals in revolutionary Cuba was the association of homosexuality with capitalist decadence. Particularly in the 1950s, drugs, gambling, and prostitution were widely present in Havana and largely controlled by elements of the Cuban bourgeoisie and US crime syndicates (Turner 1989, 65). Homosexual males received greater employment opportunities in the tourist sector, as they were often used to satisfy the prostitution needs of US military personnel and tourists (Bowry 1989, 6; Arguelles and Rich 1984, 687). Homosexuality was thus seen as an extension of pre-revolutionary ills, and as a trend that needed to be uprooted by the revolutionary government. Homophobia continued unabated throughout the 1960s. Although the Revolution boasted that liberation had been achieved for all, homosexuals soon became the political "other," as they simply did not fit into the Cuban government's view of the "ideal" revolutionary. The leadership sought to cleanse the country of everything believed to be decadent or morally corrupt--a category that included homosexuality. By 1965, the concepts of the true "revolutionary" and the "New Man" had been fully developed, and the term "anti-social" began circulating, often used to include homosexuality. Increased polarization within Cuba and international tensions bred an air of mistrust toward the political "other" and to "counterrevolutionary" elements, and pre- revolutionary history was regularly used as "evidence" against homosexuality. Indeed homosexuality was vehemently considered anathema to the Revolution. In particular, the government's rather dogmatic position toward sexual diversity was evident in the official 1965 Ministry of Public Health report, which stated that there was no known biological cause of homosexuality; therefore, it theorized, homosexuality was a learned behaviour. Orthodoxy in western science at the time also affirmed that homosexuality was a mental illness and emphasized the possibility of "curing" individuals (Leiner 1994, 27; Turner 1989, 67, 69). Small changes began to occur in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was suggested by some scholars that these changes were attributed to East Germany's legalization of homosexual acts between adults in 1968 and its subsequent influence in Cuba. They argued that the Cuban government's desire to compete with what were seen to be other progressive countries motivated the government to begin reassessing policies and attitudes (Arguelles and Rich 1984, 92). Moreover, it was suggested that this change was also driven by the gradual change in the official approach toward homosexuality in other countries across Western Europe (Turner 1989, 70, 71). Others noted that, although these foreign influences were important for the promotion of liberalizing attitudes toward gender and sexuality, Cuba's own distinctive

Load more