Esther Newton’s Mother Camp explores homosexuality in America. Her writing seems to be trying to bring to light a subculture that many do not understand, the homosexual subculture (today we would probably say “queer culture”), and explain it to a broader audience. I enjoyed reading Newton’s explanation of drag culture especially. As I was reading this text though I had a problem: it was first published in 1972.
I was born in 1990. Most of my knowledge regarding queer culture comes from personal experience, portrayal of homosexuality in the media, and this course. Thus, reading Mother Camp was valuable because it allowed me to catch a glimpse of what queer culture was like during a time when I was not living. While reading I found myself wondering if any aspects of the subculture described in Newton’s report have changed since the 1970’s, and to what degree.
What drew most of my attention were a couple lines on page 2. Here Newton says, “Since male-female sexual relations are the only ‘natural’ mode of sexuality, at least one of the men of a homosexual pair must, then, be ‘acting’ the woman: passive, powerless, and unmanly.” In other words, Newton observed that in same sex couples, someone is always playing the man while the other plays the woman, with the man being dominant.
I don’t think that Newton actually believes that male-female sexual relations are the only “natural” mode of sexuality due to her use of quotes, but she asserts that this assumption is part of homosexual subculture. I’m not sure how strongly this applies today. Though I have encountered same-sex couples in which one person was dominant, I don’t think it necessarily means that they are playing the part of man and woman. I think that in most relationships between people, one person is often more dominant. This doesn’t just apply to romantic relationships; it is true for friendship, family, and in business as well. What I am trying to get at is that when two or more humans are placed together, a pecking order is usually established. In the context of homosexuality, this would mean that even though one person is dominant in the relationship, this is a result of human-human sexual relations rather than male-female sexual relations. I also believe that there are male-female sexual relations in which the female is dominant, and same-sex relationships in which neither partner is dominant.
I think these assertions that Newton presents reflect the values and perceptions of the time. It’s not hard to see that trying to explain same-sex relations by using male-female relations as a reference point would be helpful to those without much knowledge of homosexuality, though it would be an incorrect method of doing so. I read Mother Camp as a glimpse into the perceptions held by 1970’s America regarding homosexuality. I’m not sure how useful the text would be in explaining queer culture today.
-Ziev
Ziev,
ReplyDeleteI think the questions this text prompts for you are good ones, and I do think we need to consider the time period in which this text was written when thinking through the ways in which the text is and isn't useful. I do, though, find myself wondering about the example you're drawn to in paragraph 4--namely the way in which pecking orders are established. I wonder if we have a tendency--regardless of whether or not the "actual" sexes align w/ this notion--to refer to the higher in the pecking order as "male" and the lower as "female"? What does this suggest about hierarchy and gender? What does this suggest about the traits that we come to associate with men and women?
Just some food for thought!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting point, and it's something I've found myself getting stuck on as this course has progressed. It's a little weird to me that the dom/sub dynamic of a homosexual relationship (assuming that particular dynamic is actually present) is viewed as man/woman. What is that saying about women? Dr. Renzi has me thinking now about women in a dominated role, and it's weird that this dynamic seems to stem from roles in intercourse.
ReplyDeleteDelving into personal experience - I think this idea of "male"/"female" in same-sex relationships might be a little dated. In some sense, I realize this... maybe the word is used to here? This used to in some way legitimize same-sex relationships, and I've read about the perceived "weirdness" of same-sex relationships with, say, two very masculine partners. But I agree you may be right about the text being at least a little dated, because in my experience I've seen this dynamic less and less.
I just realized I'm talking about women here. Maybe there's a gender gap in this sense? I know we've talked about the differences between female couples and male couples before, but I have yet to meet a lesbian couple where one plays the "man's" role, even in a butch/femme dynamic. Two of my friends in particular have that going on - one's more traditionally "feminine" (not to open that can of worms) and the other is much more masculine in appearance, but the "more feminine" of the two is the more outgoing/dominant personality in the relationship. (Also the "more masculine" one makes cupcakes for a living, but this is beside the point.)
This turned into rambling pretty quickly; sorry about that, Ziev. Do you think that dynamic isn't present in lesbian relationships? I'm also wondering how to navigate the "bisexual" category... Because in that case, it isn't possible for a man to always take the "submissive"/"female" role. Interesting.