What is it about homosexuality that inspires such hatred in others — and most frequently on the part of men? I mean often the degree of hatred, and the violence it often inspires, seems completely out of proportion to whatever threat homosexuality seemingly poses. Recent events in Malawi are a case in point, though such incidents of homophobia are certainly not isolated to that one African country.
Homophobia is frequently explained in terms of homosexuality being “un-African”, in contravention of a particular culture, or being in some way “unnatural” — as was the case in Malawi. For me these explanations all seem rather weak. Part of the reason is because they don’t seem capable of accounting for the extreme levels of violence and hatred that often accompany anti-gay sentiments. Why does homosexuality in particular provoke such a desire for violence when there are numerous other “practices” that can also be classified as “un-African”, “unnatural”, or “irreligious”, but which don’t warrant such sentiments? If the problem is simply that being gay is “un-African”, then I still don’t understand why that in itself merits such violence, or calls for punishment.
So, for now I propose we set aside those explanations, and instead look at homophobia from a different point of view. Let’s start with the fear which is at the root of the word homophobia, and trace how fear could be playing a role in motivating hatred and violence.
The most obvious fear, and perhaps one all the more pervasive in homophobic environments, must be the actual fear of being labelled “gay”. In a country like Malawi, for example, where society is so openly homophobic, the prospect of being called gay must be terrifying, not least because of homosexuality’s illegality. In this way, homosexuality becomes something of a social contagion, something to be avoided as far as possible. In such a context it seems fair to assume that people would put a lot of effort into not being gay. And what better way to prove how not gay you are, than by violently denouncing gays and homosexuality?
In this model it’s easy to see how homophobia would begin to sustain (and reinforce) itself. As more and more are co-opted into the homophobia, so the “costs” of being caught out become all the more dire, and as such the system escalates. We can also see how the “costs” or dangers of even being associated with homosexuality would dissuade people from speaking out against the system. Indeed if one had the courage to challenge such homophobia, one would run a serious risk of simply being called gay, and as such one’s efforts would be discredited.
What results, then, is a vicious cycle wherein homosexuality is demonised, and homophobia is naturalised; people actually come to see homophobia as “unnatural” and “uncultural’. And in this light their violence against homosexuals takes on a new guise of legitimacy and righteousness.
What I find interesting is how, from this point of view, homophobia has its roots in fear and not in culture, religion or ethnicity. It’s as if these explanations for homophobia are more like excuses; a way of legitimising violent sentiments, but not of actually explaining them. Perhaps then we can understand these other explanations for homophobia as convenient ways of accounting for the hatred without having to acknowledge its true origins — because doing so is potentially very dangerous as you could easily be labelled gay yourself.
The power of this system, as I’ve argued above, is its ability to reinforce and sustain itself. Left unchallenged the system will continue to manufacture scapegoats and lead to human-rights abuses. Trying to stop the system by challenging cultural or ethnic explanations is an impotent course of action. How can we ever come to any consensus on what is really African, and what is not? Who are the cultural custodians of culture, able of making a definitive decision on what acts are culturally acceptable, and which aren’t? No, challenging homophobia on these grounds is a dead-end.
Ending homophobia requires us to face up to our own insecurities and fears regarding homosexuality. Until being called gay is no longer taken as an insult, we will continue to create boundaries between ourselves and what is considered gay — and these boundaries are the very constructs that ultimately make homophobia a possibility, and keep it alive.
As a natural phenomenon, perhaps it’s something that lives in all of us to some degree. The ones who were bullied into thinking it’s an evil thing by parents, school, religion or society may have a hard time confronting these feelings, expressed in distrust, violence.
Heterosexual men generally react so violently to it because they’re afraid that if they gave it a chance, they might actually like it. According to some research anyway, most people in the world are, to some degree, attracted to people of the same sex – men and women. So the more they openly denounce homosexuality, or give explanations/excuses based on religion or culture as to why it should be banned, the more they’re actually fighting and denying the impulses from within.
Thank you, that will set them straight.
I speak from a nation that has, by and large, moved past the perception of gay stigma – calling someone ‘gay’ as a derogatory has pretty much dropped from the social lexicon*.
I regard myself as a liberal sort, with a conservative streak. I was raised as a catholic but stopped practising the religion in my teen years. I was molested as a child by a catholic monk and I’ve spent the last 20 years coming to terms with it (PTSD and all). Despite his actions I harbour no ill-will towards homosexuals.
My feelings on this subject – influenced by my catholic parents – are that homophobes fear homosexuality as a decadent hedonistic practice as witnessed in the downfall of Rome; something that transforms the social fabric to its detriment. I don’t really claim to know the answer, perhaps there’s a fear homosexuality will run rampant, distorting the genome and herald the extinction of the human race!
My firm opinion is that homosexuals have been with us since time immemorial and it’s time we as a species accept homosexuality. The fact is homosexuality is evident even amongst wild animals and therefore can only be a quirk of nature. Mother nature certainly has a wicked sense of humour.
*Disclaimer: This may just be a result of growing up and moving away from a childish social environment, I’m willing to acknowledge that.
I believe that the roots of homophobia lie not in being seen to be gay (and the dangers that may ensue) but in ‘being’ gay. Men who are comfortable with their sexuality and who acknowledge – if only to themselves – that some blokes are pretty fanciable, are far less likely to be threatened by homosexuality. It’s the men who fear this in themselves, who see it as a threat to their own masculinity, that are most like likely to be phobic. Only when the world (or in this case Africa) wakes up to the fact that we all have homosexual leanings – to a greater or lesser degree – and stops being so pathetically religious about it, that we’ll lose the fear.
This is a many faceted problem for which I do not have an answer, since I do not share the phobia, but to which I have given a lot of thought and “street research”.
From a species point of view, I think that homosexuality is on the rise because there are too many of us. For the “straights” to condemn a sexual choice, that is not really a choice to homosexuals, is perhaps a result of the fear and horror at what we have become as a species at a deeper, never to be admitted level. If they can suppress “these people” they can continue to pretend that everything is just fine with homo sapiens.
I have also discovered that it would be the more agressive males that has this phobia. Straight women rarely ever attack lesbians. Perhaps these males’ understanding of what constitutes sexual practice has them fear what would happen should they be “hit on” by homosexual males? No he-man would cherish the prospect of being bulldozed into sex.
Wait until they find out about the other new sexual choice which is definitely on the rise: asexuality. This would probably leave homophobes scoffing and sneering at “a lack of ability” blahblahblah. Intolerance of other shows such a lack of mental flexibility and ability. From an environmental point of view, all sexual practices that do not lead to procreation is spot-on at the moment.
Nice article
Your argument is a little cyclic though. You are saying that homophobia arises from the fear of being labeled “gay”, as that carries negative connotations. But, the big question is: Where did the fear ORIGINALLY come from. Before it was illegal, people were still afraid of it, thus making it illegal.
Sometime ago, there must have been a turning point where someone, somewhere, decided that other people being gay was not ok in their book.
Homosexuality occurs in nature, as can be seen by animal behavior. From that point of view, I can’t imagine our cave dwelling ancestors were homophobes. Ancient Greeks were perfectly happy with homosexuality. So were the Romans. I don’t know enough about other cultures in prehistoric times to say whether they were ok with it or not. But I am really interested to know where the starting point of this prejudice was. Maybe if we knew the root cause at the very start, we could figure out a way to get rid of it all together.
Liza
good, engaged article. (just check use of ‘homophobia’ in 6th paragraph, 3rd line)
Nice piece. But not to forget the ongoing violence that men perpetrate against lesbian women and rape to ‘convert’ them to straight.
Absolutely correct – I have lived through the whole lifecycle (in the UK) of homosexuality being freed from being a criminal offense and it is really quite refreshing.
It seems, though that societies feel the need to have a real “hate object” in order to have coherence, whether that hate object is “gayness”, or being of a particular religion or being a certain nationality or whatever. One can argue that this is mainly to do with politicians playing to the gallery but in the end every society finds something that they hate, and in that hate, they find cohesion.
I think it has a lot to do with maintaining the patriarchal hegemony which is based on a binary-gendered, hetero-normative foundation and, as such, it also has a lot to do with keeping women in line.
The situation that is not examined in the article is how one treats family members that are gay?
Can one treat them normally but defile gay strangers?
How then does society find a norm for the treatment of others? Maybe when a law is promulgated enforcing the axiom that we must treat others as we would be treated?
It’s impossible to reason why. I do think women are more neurotic about lesbians than gay males and men vice versa. Frankly, I can’t see reason for conflict until/unless someone’s in bed with you and why would anyone straight let things get that far? So I guess secretive transvestites could prove a problem.
More interesting to me, are the attacks suffered by so many black women for the clothes they wear. Some men won’t allow them in trousers, although I’d consider them fairly respectable and a lot less easy for any marauding male to get into. Others object to skirts mainly, I gather, short ones. How short is too short? I’m not mad about any female clothing that shows too much, even bra straps, but some people look spendid in short skirts and itsy-bitsy tops, usually the extremely thin ones.
As as for men that bare half their buttocks; they just look cruddy!
@Liza – Perhaps the Victorian era or maybe the Council of Nycea? Just a thought, don’t know myself but would like to know.
I think Andrew has got it right. The more that government points out a particular ‘group’ as the reason that things are going wrong, the more govt is able to deflect attention from themselves.
It also seems true that society needs to find some sort of ‘hate object’ or group that it is against – people find cohesion more often in being against something than being for something (so against crime, rather than for women’s rights for example).
I wish that it didn’t have to be that way.
@ Jenniefer,
Andrew makes a point worthy of debate. The wrinkle for me is that we have many so called “hate objects” being presented all the time.
Which one should we pick as our cohesive vehicle? It is my nelieve that we always choose the one dictated by the way we had grown up. The lessons absorbed during our childhood years seem to dictate the way we conduct our lives today.
I will speak for the village i was born. The value of any person male female is children- no children no respect.Its a shame on you if you are a villager and dont have children- thats why people /woen will get their brothers daughters to come and marry their husbands to get a child which she will call her own /communal. Seka Nhlahla (father of nhlahla) was my neibhour in the village. That in itself was a lie. Nhlahlas father was his brother.This guy was potent but sterile (mumps i think)so his brother was invited to do he deed for him.discussed by the elders and presented to the wife. Brother came for conjugal visits till she got pregnant. All those times Seka nhlahla was away on some spurious busin ess.Problem was solved everybody happy.Brother has no claim to child whatsoever.
For gays thats a problem. such an arrangement could not be made.Him seeking out other males would bring in the question of origins of the child.This is why my village is strong in its homophobe stance. Its not the white priest(who were mostly gay anyway).Its not politicians, its the mums and dads in the village.
Its wrong its unfair but its certainly not because of fear of being labelled gay.Hell I slep with visitor boys in the same blanket (one of them wet by mat and blanket-no bed then)but question of gay never came into mind
Jennifer – I think you’ve got it right – hate gays, Jews, foreigners, etc, it all gives us something to hate and therefore deflects from our own inadequacies
@Jennifer – “The more that government points out a particular ‘group’ ” This is precisely the reason I dislike women being singled out as a group, they will never achieve fully empowered person status that way.
This is why sexual preference should stay private and any form of sexual act should be prohibited in public, gay people are no less or more than straight people on the workfront (depending on ability and training of course) and it is rather distasteful being forced to whatch a blue movie you didn’t rent on the train or at the bus stop. Do not offend and you won’t be hit on.
@MLH – “As as for men that bare half their buttocks” – Oh those “dirty nappy” pants, how I wish the “gangsta” fashion would dissapear along with the hoodies.
It’s the oldest trick in the power game – find a minority group, breed unjustified fears surrounding this group “based” on some moral notion, and voila! You have a scapegoat that those in power can divert the general discontent (actually meant for them) towards. Racism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, etc. – it’s the same recipe. It’s a diversion folks, and the longer we entertain these notions the longer responsibilities are shifted along for the next generation of fat cats to deal with!
Im all for the gays,leaves more woman to go around for the rest of us.
Actually, the science is in on this one. Homophobia is not rooted in a fear of being labelled “gay”. Rather, it appears to be highly correlated with an egodystonia associated with one’s own homosexual feelings. The Adams study at University of Georgia in 1990′s found that 80% of homophobic men were erotically stimulated by images of gay porn. Refer Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Vol 105(3), Aug 1996, 440-445.
Homophobia is soooo gay! Sorry, guys. Anyone expressing homophobic sentiments de facto outs himself.
@ X cepting
Exactly what is your idea of “any sexual act”? Gay people have “provoked” attacks by holding hands and kissing, something I have no problem with doing in public. This conservative mind set does not in any way aid this cause!
@ Reg,
Sorry man but men will be men and to some any port in a storm will do?
I’ve never understood homophobia. I have had gay and lesbian friends, and of all races. No doubt I have met many other homosexuals of both genders that I would have had no idea of their homosexuality, and I wouldn’t have cared less if I had known. It is none of my business. Also, what the hell does “UnAfrican” mean. Homosexuality is well known and researched in a number of animal species, so how is it “unnatural”. I’m hetero but I’m no more natural than a homosexual.
@MsAnnThorpe – Whoa! I think the phrase “blue movie” should have put you in mind and I did not simply refer to gay people who mostly behaves more decorously than straights. Watching a couple (of any combination of sexes or ages) holding hands is sweet. Watching a couple (of any combination of sexes or ages) sucking each others faces off or groping each others bodies in public is just disgusting. Please do not put words in my mouth, I prefer gay couples, as stated before, they do not contribute to overpopulation.
transformation = affirmative action for homosexuals, no?
homophobia (institutionalized discrimination) was created by the christians, largely. The church and its dangerously conservative tenets around homosexuality, gender equality and race is what has encouraged society to be so cruel, fearful and hateful. It is the damned fate of the ‘other’. Now that is one thing all governments should censor – those damn churches.
You wonder what Baillie thinks goes on there at PC Brigade Towers. Bespectacled, computer experts, hunched over their machines, tapping oppressed minorities into complicated models to resolve their differences without offending any of them. Transvestite executives, sipping fairtrade organic differently-abled-accessible coffee over lengthy meetings about whether to use gays to undermine marriage so the Zulus can take over, or Marxism to undermine South Africa so the Muslims can take over. Put-upon lesbian secretaries (male of course) trying to cram as many attacks on hardworking South African families into their asylum-seeker bosses’ already packed PC agendas. Sounds a nightmare.
If only Baillie knew our real agenda. Throw darts at pictures of white people and dick about on the internet all morning, have lunch, check facebook, do the opposite of whatever the bosses want then hit the pub around four. Quality.
great article, one of the better thought through commentary on this topic