INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find ja good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA St. John’s Road, Tyler's Green High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP10 SNR 77-8275 CONRAD, James Rogers, 1937- BOUNDARY MAINTENANCE AND SUBCULTURAL LEXICAL CODES: LANGUAGE AS A DEFENSIVE STRATEGY. The American University, Ph.D., 1976 Anthropology, cultural 1 Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan48ioe i 0 1976 JAMES ROGERS CONRAD ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BOUNDARY MAINTENANCE AND SUBCULTURAL LEXICAL CODES; LANGUAGE AS A DEFENSIVE STRATEGY by James Rogers Conrad Submitted to the Faculty of the Anthropology Department of The American University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology Signatures of Committee Chairperson: Dean of the Collwe of Arts and Sci^ces or. 17. liU Datre 1976 The American University Washington, D. C. 20016 THE iMÉEICM OSIÏEBSITÏ LIBEiSY S'XS‘1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Grateful acknowledgement must be made to Dr. William L. Leap whose steadfast conviction that a study of this nature was possible helped make its completion a reality. His wise counsel through the difficult periods of conception and design and throughout the time of execu­ tion helped me to realize the full nature and scope of this study. Without him to guide me, the study would not have been possible. I must also thank Dr. Geoffrey Burkhart whose patient discussions led me to understand the importance of group structures and social mechanisms. If there is a sense in this study that it involves real people acting in real social situations, the credit must go to him. I would like to thank Dr. Harvey L. Moore whose eleventh hour addition to the list of "readers" made things much easier; and Dr. George Harris for his calming, stead­ fast influence over the whole project. Both these men took the time to patiently read and correct the manuscript— for this I am grateful. Further I would like to thank Ms. Cheryl Hammer and Mrs. Gladys Shimasaki for variously editing and typing the manuscript. ii Finally, I must thank the men of the coffee house. My association with them over the last two-and- one-half years has been a rewarding and enriching experience. Their fine personal qualities gives the lie to many of the negative stereotypes associated with gay people. They are the true authors of this study. Ill TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......... 1 Chapter I. HOMOSEXUALS ............................. 4 II. THE COFFEE HOUSE ................... 28 III. BOUNDARIES................................ 44 IV. METHODOLOGY ............................. 56 V. THE DATA .................................. 93 VI. SUMMARY .................................... 186 REFERENCES.......................................... 200 XV INTRODUCTION My interest in the language of gay men in America began with a study I did with William More in the fall of 1974 (Conrad and More, 1976) on the existence of a homo­ sexual code or "argot." We concluded from this study that such a code did not exist, at least not in the form sug­ gested by some researchers in the field. This question led me to look to the larger question of ethnic minorities. These groups, which are usually geographically based, share kinship ties and cultural traditions which make them easily recognizable and separate units and have been studied extensively as such in anthropology. This, in turn, led me to wonder whether or not gay men should be considered as an ethnic group, or as some other kind of societal unit, and consequently, if the same rules applied to them insofar as language use is concerned, especially as it relates to the question of boundary behavior. I wondered if it would be true that homosexuals use language to delineate boundaries (or to cross them) in the same manner as ethnic groups using codes. This research is an effort to explore some dimensions of this question. To do it, I will look at the language usage patterns of a group of gay men in a student coffee house of a large eastern university. 2 The question of why it is important to raise the issue of boundary behavior relates specifically to how people look at their world. It tells us how they see the world and how the world sees them. In the case of the 20,000,000 homosexuals in the United States, their world is everybody's world. In talking about the coffee house, of course, we are talking about a very small corner of it. I will not, therefore, generalize from that small part of the world to our society as a whole as too many writers have done previously. Boundaries are barriers. This study seeks to explore in some detail the nature of only one of these boundaries, that between the gay men of the coffee house and the heterosexual world they live in. To do so involves other questions. Some of these questions are very complex. Much of this research involves breaking new ground. As a consequence, to treat them as fully as they deserve would take us far beyond the central focus of this study. We cannot do all these questions justice. We can only suggest some areas for investigation. I do not believe, for example, I can adequately cover the question of exactly what kind of group it is we are deal­ ing with when we talk about homosexuals. What I can do, and have done in that respect, is to look briefly at some of the designations used by other writers (community, subculture, etc.) and suggest reasons why I think one designation better than others. Also, I cannot adequately 3 discuss what is meant by "homosexual." This general point, however, must be made: they are diverse in back­ ground, education, occupation, outlook etc. Therefore, I will not try to discuss such complex issues as "quality of life" or "what it feels like to be gay." I am only interested in these questions insofar as they relate to the men of the coffee house experiencing the boundaries of their world. I would like to begin by looking at the question of who it is that is homosexual. CHAPTER I HOMOSEXUALS General Perspectives Who are homosexuals? No writer has expressed the difficulty involved in categorizing homosexuals better than C. A. Tripp in his book. The Homosexual Matrix; . the difficulty in viewing homosexuality is that it is largely amorphous— a behavioral category of individuals who are about as diffusely allied with each other as the world's smokers or coffee drinkers, and who are defined more by social opinion than by any fundamental consistency among themselves. And since homo­ sexuals differ at least as much from each other as they do from heterosexuals, it is not feasible to divide them into "types" (1975:127-8). Warren (1974) notes there is no word for "homosexualizing." Words for engaging in homosexual relations are not spe­ cific to homosexual activities, but could be applied to heterosexual activities as well. One who performs homo­ sexual acts is "a homosexual." But, as Kinsey (1948) has shown, commitment to the homosexual act is a highly variable thing. Kinsey originally sought, in his re­ search, to use a simple polar designation, "homosexual, non-homosexual." This proved, however, to be inadequate (Churchill 1967:36). It became necessary to create a six part scale ranging from exclusively homosexual, both 5 psychically and in terms of sexual acts performed, to exclusively heterosexual. What lies between are five different levels of commitment to either homo- or hetero­ sexuality. "... 37 percent of the adult male population had at least some homosexual experience to the point of orgasm" (Fisher 1972:254). These persons— the 37 percent— may be considered homosexuals, for at least part of their lives. The question then becomes, what do these people have in common? Is there something about homosexuals that makes them more similar, less of an "amorphous" category, than Tripp suggests? Martin Hoffman, speaking as a homo­ sexual, finds only diversity: What kind of men are these homosexuals? What do they look like? How do they act? To these questions one can only give the most general (and unsatisfactory) answer, namely, that these people run the entire gamut from the swishy faggot who can be identified a block away to the husband, son, or brother whom even the fairly sophisticated persons would not suspect of any homosexual interest.