I don't think
narrow is the right word. There is no such thing as "gay culture" as an international phenomenon, so it feels uncharitable to me to criticize him for focusing on gay culture as it manifests and has historically been understood where he lives. He acknowledges this - that this specific version is "largely a British/American animal with a studied French accent." He's not making claims to universal applicability. I suspect he sees his article as contributing to a conversation among American gay men about "
the end of gay culture," as
Andrew Sullivan put it a decade ago, which was also about gay culture as it exists in the United States and the idea that it would no longer be distinguishable from the mainstream or heterosexual culture as homosexuality stopped being important as a social identifier.
There is a name that I could have done without ever having to see again.
But I do think that "narrow" is exactly the right word, and I vehemently disagree with the notion that there is no gay culture as an international phenomenon and, honestly, do you have anything that backs up that assertion? Taking a look at gay bars, pride parades, and even lady gaga concerts across the world makes it self evident that there is a shared culture, or at minimum shared cultural components.
I'm not criticising him just for discussing gay culture and how it pertains to the specific geographical location at which he resides, but for discussing it as it pertains to
him. In the article he is unable to separate how he feels about and sees a culture from how it can be perceived by, say, someone like me. The article and its author seems to be afraid that a subculture, of which he belongs, is declining or dying but doesn't really provide compelling evidence to prove that it is. Yes, gay culture is changing with its increased acceptance, but I don't think that it is fair to say that it is dying. This coupled with a sort of romanisation of what was, makes the issues raised ring hollow.
I also don't think that the claim is shaky at all. It's widely accepted that it was the medicalization in the late nineteenth century that gave homosexuals a discrete identity (they were a specific type of person, rather than just a sinner), and an identity that wasn't wrapped up in condemnatory Biblical sexual mores, and that it was urbanization and industrialization that afforded homosexuals the widespread combination of anonymity and homosocial spaces (e.g. work, men coming into cities to work). It might be possible that there were small, covert gay communities before this time, but if you've read histories of just how visible - they advertised balls in newspapers in the early 1900s - the gay community was in cities like New York, Berlin, London, or Paris at the turn of the century, I think you'll agree that there's a difference of kind and not just degree between the communities we know came about in the late 19th century and the ones we're speculating about.
I do not disagree about the visibility of the culture or the identity, I'm disagreeing with it being born then and there. Or to maybe make myself a bit clearer on the subject; I do not believe that the core tenets of what we identify as gay culture arose from nothing in the 1800s. It is part of this histor-mythology (sorry, but I can't think of an appropriate term), which embellishes or overlooks certain aspects to create a more compelling narrative. For instance how the Stonewall riots were not the first riot where queer people fought police and how that event, as important and influential as Stonewall really was, should be seen as part of a larger cultural shift. Rather than something which, as I said above, arose from nothing
Is this something he says explicitly and I just missed it, or is this subtext you're reading out of it? I didn't see that.
It is a very, very obvious subtext. From how he uses words like "amazing" and "wonderfully" to describe those aspects which he likes, via how he says to how those things he lists is "the
fundamental practices that constitute a gay way of being in the world" I cannot take away anything but "unless you like and do what I like and do you're not gay". I do not consider his list the be-all and end-all of what constitutes being gay, and when he says:
"A popular approach has been to look for gayness in certain genres, objects, and cultural figures and in our relationship to them—think opera, Judy Garland, interior design, drag queens, disco. This is an understandably satisfying exercise for those who do, in fact, identify with those specific artifacts. But for the young queen who simply can’t get into Joan Crawford, gay canonization is a misguided, unhelpful quest."
he is dismissing "my" gay culture for no other reason that he does not enjoy it or consider it worthwhile.
I didn't get this at all; in fact, he said pretty early on he had little issue with people disassociation themselves with the elaborate gay culture he was describing. He seemed to be concerned with the dying out of gay culture, which, judging by the number of gay dudes who want to distance themselves from any kind of femininity, is a legitimate concern. He does have a sort of disdainful tone towards these types of people, sure, but his concerns are legit.
I find it kind of...I guess funny(? in an ironic way) how quickly (especially younger gays) seem to have turned heel on any kind of gender-queerness. Especially considering all the freedoms they are now enjoying were built on the backs of all those queens who couldn't hide being gay.
At the same time, I find it difficult to fault these dudes who are only into totallyMASCBRAHs because it feels like judging people for liking what they like is hypocritical.
Overall I don't know about the article. It just seems like a wistful look back at (possibly) dying camp culture with no real suggestions on how to keep it going.
I feel like I'm personally sort of in the middle of what he describes as being gay and what that new breed of MASCBRAHs are, but I still enjoy a lot of things that are considering stereotypically gay. I know I was apprehensive about drag shows until I actually went to one and found out they're mostly like a (somewhat) sexually charged comedy routine. I'd encourage younger gay dudes to at least give it a shot, they're fun
. I think exposure to gay people and activities is important especially if you have any lingering apprehension with your sexuality.
Look I hate MASCBRAHs as much (or more) than the next person, I'm drawn to androgyny and I'm more than a little effeminate.
My issues with the article comes from that tone that you picked up, it is dismissive as hell and the fact that people are complex and capable of liking different things seems to perplex the author. I don't consider him to be any better than those MASCBRAHs deriding anything more feminine than drinking beer whilst doing push-ups.