If you want some more fun with the subject, check out Hanne Blank’s Straight which argues that the identity of heterosexual is a fairly recent thing—only about a century old, as I recall. Previously, people thought in terms of sexual behaviors, not identities.
Obviously, the heterosexual identity can only exist in contrast to the homosexual identity. If a group of squid people suddenly appeared on earth, you could bet that a vertebrate identity would develop pretty fast.
Obviously, the heterosexual identity can only exist in contrast to the homosexual identity
That may be obvious if you think about it, but I, at least, hadn’t thought about it, and found it to be surprising. I’m willing to bet that I’m more typical on this point.
To some extent probably it is: the gay identity historically arose as a reaction against the previous negative view of homosexuals as people affected by a mental disease. Indeed the word “gay” was chosen specifically to avoid and reverse the negative connotations of “homosexual”.
To some other extent, it is probably be a result of Western societies becoming more wealthy, democratic and individualistic, therefore individuals feel more free to follow their preferences rather than social expectations of their family/clan/state.
Obligate homosexuals probably always existed, we just can’t be sure if it was at the same relatively high rates as today. But only recently have they organized socially and politically to demand equal rights. As part of this movement, homosexuality became an important part of their identity, and formed a group identity, and so the social and psychological character of how people express their own homosexuality changed. But that doesn’t mean the core features of being attracted to people of the same gender, and not attracted and unwilling to have sex with members of the opposite gender, changed.
I see this as similar to the historical emergence of nation-states. A medieval peasant didn’t consider being French an important part of who they were, didn’t have a French citizenship. But they still lived in France and spoke French; in that sense there were Frenchmen then just as today.
A medieval peasant didn’t consider being French an important part of who they were, didn’t have a French citizenship. But they still lived in France and spoke French; in that sense there were Frenchmen then just as today.
But if you go sufficiently back in time, there was no such thing as France or the French language.
Why does that matter? If you go sufficiently far back in time, there was no such thing as humans, either. Statements about humans, and about Frenchmen, are still valid within the right historical time frame.
This is actually really relevant to the point—it used to be that a person from Paris and a person from Marseille would have enough difficulty understanding each other that they are functionally speaking different languages. The government of France put a tremendous amount of effort into convincing everyone living in their borders that “being French” was a thing and that it described them, in large part by enforcing homogenization. In order to make the cluster of “Frenchmen” more distinct, outlying members had to be moved closer to the center (and foreign members moved further away from the center).
So, are you basically saying that the current Western concept of a being gay is mostly the result of identity politics?
If you want some more fun with the subject, check out Hanne Blank’s Straight which argues that the identity of heterosexual is a fairly recent thing—only about a century old, as I recall. Previously, people thought in terms of sexual behaviors, not identities.
Obviously, the heterosexual identity can only exist in contrast to the homosexual identity. If a group of squid people suddenly appeared on earth, you could bet that a vertebrate identity would develop pretty fast.
That may be obvious if you think about it, but I, at least, hadn’t thought about it, and found it to be surprising. I’m willing to bet that I’m more typical on this point.
To some extent probably it is: the gay identity historically arose as a reaction against the previous negative view of homosexuals as people affected by a mental disease. Indeed the word “gay” was chosen specifically to avoid and reverse the negative connotations of “homosexual”.
To some other extent, it is probably be a result of Western societies becoming more wealthy, democratic and individualistic, therefore individuals feel more free to follow their preferences rather than social expectations of their family/clan/state.
I don’t think that’s necessarily implied.
Obligate homosexuals probably always existed, we just can’t be sure if it was at the same relatively high rates as today. But only recently have they organized socially and politically to demand equal rights. As part of this movement, homosexuality became an important part of their identity, and formed a group identity, and so the social and psychological character of how people express their own homosexuality changed. But that doesn’t mean the core features of being attracted to people of the same gender, and not attracted and unwilling to have sex with members of the opposite gender, changed.
I see this as similar to the historical emergence of nation-states. A medieval peasant didn’t consider being French an important part of who they were, didn’t have a French citizenship. But they still lived in France and spoke French; in that sense there were Frenchmen then just as today.
But if you go sufficiently back in time, there was no such thing as France or the French language.
Why does that matter? If you go sufficiently far back in time, there was no such thing as humans, either. Statements about humans, and about Frenchmen, are still valid within the right historical time frame.
This is actually really relevant to the point—it used to be that a person from Paris and a person from Marseille would have enough difficulty understanding each other that they are functionally speaking different languages. The government of France put a tremendous amount of effort into convincing everyone living in their borders that “being French” was a thing and that it described them, in large part by enforcing homogenization. In order to make the cluster of “Frenchmen” more distinct, outlying members had to be moved closer to the center (and foreign members moved further away from the center).
Yes, that is a very good point. It was a bad example.