The problem is that sometimes the world breaches this fable. Far from being a principle of equality or reciprocity between sexes, heterosexism is a thinking system whereby the said conjugality, and even maternity, confirms male domination in sexual relations. It restricts women in the idea that their laudable and generous sweetness naturally earmarks them for service to man and family. At the same time, it confirms men in their feeling that women are naturally owed to them, according to the order of things and their “valor,” an obscure conviction that confusedly justifies sexual aggressions and harassment of all kinds. This is perpetrated sometimes with complete peace of mind, and even, strangely enough, with a feeling of legitimacy that gives the impression of an extreme form of cynicism. In fact, we should perhaps see in this a sort of paradoxical naïveté, albeit one that is still inexcusible.
It is the cult of physical and sexual power, inherent to the constitution of male identity, at least as ordinarily conceived in our societies, which tends to valorize and so favor demonstrations of strength, as brutal as they can be, and which allows the comprehension of the remarkable co-relation, often not noted, between violence and masculinity. Most physical violence, sexual or not, is perpetrated by men who are conditioned by the social climate of masculinism. Heterosexism is altogether at the root of homophobia (toward gays), of sexism (toward women), but also in a more general way, at the root of numerous acts of violence (toward any person, whoever he or she is) whose ties with the masculine identity and culture of virile force do not show themselves at first glance, but this is why the most violent men are also often the most sexist, misogynistic, and, at the same time, the most homophobic. From this point of view, the fight against heterosexism will without doubt appear as a public issue, high on the agenda.
From this moment, we should focus on the deconstruction of heterosexism, which is the predominant logic of gender and sex promoted to the detriment of not just gays and women (let alone gay women), but also heterosexual men, who are often guided by the illusion of a badly understood social interest, as dominants dominated by their own domination. The “heterosexual social contract” that Wittig justly criticizes could give up its place to a new social contract with plural values, which grants complete legitimacy not only to gays and heteros, men or women, but also to bisexuals and transgenders that theoretical analysis and social practices, in their binary and exclusive logic, tend to obscure.
A final anecdote: in 1972, NASA put together a mission called “Pioneer” and sent a message into space intended for possible intelligent life forms that could receive it. On the message, which purported to be a figuration of “fundamentals” of our universe, appeared a map of the hydrogen atom, of the solar system, of our galaxy, and also of a couple, corresponding to an “average,” determined by a computer, that is a man and a woman (of Caucasian race), the man raising his hand in a sign of peace, the woman standing modestly at his side. At the risk of straying from this surprising “average,” the said scientists could also have represented lone individuals, hetero and gay couples, groups of friends, human beings, Asian, black, white, mixed-race, but they sacrificed this possibility, maybe even without noticing it, to heterosexist and racist prejudices that would want to see what is finally only a heterosexual middle-class couple from American suburbia, a kind of completely trite archetype of the human species. This is the ordinary illusion of metonymic reasoning or, to say it more familiarly, the story of the part that thought it was the whole. Finally we can suppose that the cosmic beings that will receive the message, in their supreme intelligence, will make do with a smile when they see this gross sham and will wait for better days to honor Earth by their visit.
—Louis-Georges Tin
Badinter, Elisabeth.
XY, de l’identité masculine
. Paris: Odile Jacob, 1992. [Published in the UK as
XY: On Masculine Identity
. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1995.]
Baret, Guy.
Eloge de l’hétérosexualité, pour le droit à la différence
. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1994.
Basow, Susan, and Peter Theodore. “Heterosexual Masculinity and Homophobia: A Reaction to the Self,”
Journal of Homosexuality
40, no. 2 (2000).
Beattie Jung, Patricia, and Ralph Smith.
Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge
. New York: State Univ. of New York Press, 1993.
Beach, Franck, and Clellan Ford.
Le Comportement sexuel chez l’homme et l’animal
. Paris: Robert Laffont, 1970. [Published in the UK as
Patterns of Sexual Behaviour
. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1952.]
Bourdieu, Pierre. “Sur le pouvoir symbolique,”
Annales
, no. 3 (1977).
Burn, Shawn Meghan. “Heterosexuals’ Use of ‘Fag’ and ‘Queer’ to Deride One Another: A Contribution to Heterosexism and Stigma,”
Journal of Homosexuality
40, no. 2 (2000).
Dorais, Michel, Pierre Dutey, Daniel Welzer-Lang, eds.
La Peur de l’autre en soi, du sexisme à l’homophobie
. Montreal: VLB, 1994.
Fassin, Eric. “Le ‘Outing’ de l’homophobie est-il de bonne politique?” In
L’Homosexualité, comment la définir, comment la combattre
. Paris: Ed. Prochoix, 1999.
Foucault, Michel.
La Volonté de savoir
. Paris: Gallimard, 1976.
Gide, André.
Corydon
. Paris: Gallimard, 1924. [Published in English as
Corydon
.]
Herek, Gregory. “Psychological Heterosexism and Anti-Gay Violence: The Social Psychology of Bigotry and Bashing.” In
Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence against Lesbians and Gay Men
. Edited by Gregory Herek and Kevin T. Berril. London: Sage Publications, 1992.
“Hétérosexualité et lesbianisme,”
La Revue d’en face
, no. 9–10 (1981).
Jackson, Stevi. “Récents débats sur l’hétérosexualité: une approche féministe matérialiste,”
Nouvelles questions féministes
17, no. 3 (1996).
———.
Heterosexuality in Question
. London: Sage, 1999.
Kantor, Martin.
Homophobia: Description, Dev
e
lopment and Dynamics of Gay Bashing
. Westport: Praeger, 1998.
Katz, Jonathan.
The Invention of Heterosexuality
. New York: Penguin, 1995.
Kitzinger, Celia, and Mary Wilkinson.
Heterosexuality: A Feminism and Psychology Reader
. London: Sage, 1993.
Maynard, Mary, and June Purvis, eds.
(Hetero)Sexual Politics
. London: Taylor & Francis, 1995.
Onlywomen Press, ed.
Love Your Enemy: The Debate Between Heterosexual Feminism and Political Lesbianism
. London: Onlywomen Press, 1981.
Richardson, Diane, ed.
Theorizing Heterosexuality: Telling It Straight
. Buckingham: Open Univ. Press, 1996.
Rich, Adrienne. “La Contrainte à l’hétérosexualité et l’existence lesbienne.”
Nouvelles questions féministes
, no. 1 (1981). [Published in the US as “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Experience,”
Signs
5, no. 4 (Summer 1980).]
Rougemont, Denis de.
L’Amour et l’Occident
. Paris: Pion, 1939.
Straayer, Chris.
Deviant Eyes, Deviant Bodies: Sexual Re-Orientations in Film and Video
. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1996.
Tin, Louis-Georges. “L’Invention de la culture hétérosexuelle,”
Les Temps mode
r
nes
(2003).
Wittig, Monique.
The Straight Mind
. Boston: Beacon Press, 1992.
—Abnormal; Against Nature; Heresy; Heterophobia; Literature; Rhetoric; Symbolic Order; Violence.
HIMMLER, Heinrich
Heinrich Himmler (1900–45)—who first came to prominence in Nazi Germany as commander of the Schutzstaffel (SS) (1929) and the Gestapo (1934), then as supreme chief of the German
police
(1936) and finally Minister of the Interior (1943)—was the main theorist behind official Nazi homophobia and the main instigator of the persecution of homosexuals by the Third Reich.
In a speech addressed to SS generals on February 18, 1937, Himmler revealed the principles of Nazi homophobia, which recycled popular prejudices to serve its racist and eugenist ideology. Presenting himself as a specialist on the topic, he insisted on relating homosexuality to a dangerous
contagion
that threatened the entire nation. In a Germany that had earlier been crippled by World War I, male homosexuality, as well as abortion, constituted an infringement on the “survival of the race” and hindered the expansion of the Reich and its conquest of a “vital space.” Himmler also stressed the risk of a secret gay coalition at work in the heart of the state. Homosexuals—depicted as traitorous and weak—were seen as pursuing sexual solidarity at the expense of patriotism, and as such they were enemies of the state who had to be unmasked in order to prevent them from ruining the country. Homosexuals were thus most dangerous to a nationalist organization like the SS, which sought to protect all Nazi “virtues.” For Himmler, homosexuality was the consequence of the mixing of races, most prevalent in urban centers; as a result, he vowed to protect those living in the German countryside (based on ancient Germania) from the “scourge” of homosexuality. Further, Germany’s male youth needed to be protected from the gay temptation by the means of
sport
, work, and discipline; and, if needed, by encouraging the use of prostitutes and early marriages, and tolerating illegitimate births. He countered the Christian morality of the day (which he despised) with the seductions of a neo-pagan and Dionysiac society, albeit disguised with puritan and idealist accents. In this way, Himmler embodied the many faces of homophobia: in addition to the slighting associated with the “effeminate” gay stereotype, he added the fear of lower birth rates as a result of homosexuality, and a fear of widespread
degeneracy
, in a society obsessed with virility. One might also add personal factors: Himmler seemed to possess an irrational fear of and aversion to male homosexuality which, combined with a kind of voyeurism and a veritable joy in legislating the sexuality of others, would move him to put into practice his purifying fantasies.
The secret directive of Himmler, dated October 10, 1936, prioritized “the fight against homosexuality and abortion” which had started as early as 1933, with the Nazis’ rise to power. The reinforcement of Paragraph 175 (the provision of the 1871 German criminal code which criminalized male homosexual acts), combined with the creation of new official organizations such as the Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion, had the joint intention of creating files on known homosexuals, leading to increased arrests and—for certain categories of “criminals” such as prostitutes, “corrupters of youth,” or repeat offenders—exile to concentration
camps
. Himmler was particularly obsessed with eradicating homosexuality within the Nazi party, the SS, and the Hitler Youth because he was conscious of the ambiguity instilled by the cult of virile camaraderie in these organizations. However, his attempts to “purify” the Wehrmacht were fruitless for a long time, due to the resistance of military authorities who were offended by his initiatives. In 1937, Himmler also fostered homophobic campaigns intended to purify the Catholic Church and the highest ranks of the
army
.
However, the extermination of homosexuals was not the objective of these campaigns, and Himmler himself contemplated the possibility of “rehabilitation” for those whose sexuality was considered “acquired” as a result of “
debauchery
” or “seduction.” He was very interested in the different methods advocated by doctors to “cure” gays, from psychoanalysis to hormonal
treatments
, and financed a number of experimental programs, including at Matthias Heinrich Goering’s German Institute for Psychological Research and Psychotherapy, which reported a successful cure rate of seventy percent. After the beginning of World War II, however, the “rehabilitation” projects took a back seat, as Himmler became less interested in wasting time and money on “asocials.” Thus, sending homosexuals to concentration camps became more systematic, and castration, notwithstanding the fact that it was disputed as a remedy for homosexuality, became the simplest means of sending “cured” gays to the front. Dr Carl Vaernet’s criminal experimentations at the Buchenwald concentration camp, in which he tried to cure homosexuals by injecting synthetic hormones into their groins, were also encouraged by Himmler.
—Florence Tamagne
Himmler, Heinrich.
Discours secrets
. Paris: Gallimard, 1978.
Le Bitoux, Jean.
Les Oubliés de la mémoire
. Paris: Hachette, 2002.
—Contagion; Decadence; Degeneracy; Deportation; Far Right; Fascism; Germany; Hirschfeld, Magnus; Medicine; Pétain, Philippe; Proselytism; Sterility; Treason; Treatment; Violence.
HINDUISM
Before discussing homophobia in Hinduism, one must first address Hinduism itself. While it is generally presented as a religion, it is a mistake to discuss it solely on those terms. In fact, the definition of Hinduism covers a broad theological spectrum, from monism to polytheism (or pantheism). It also represents a rich historical culture that developed well before the strict monotheism of the Old Testament.
Instead of the term “religion,” Hindus prefer to speak of
sanatana dharma
, or “system of eternal belief.” There are six Hindu metaphysical systems called
darshanas
(or “visions of reality”), which are diametrically opposed to the feudal systems of Western Asia:
nyaya
(logicism),
vaisheshika
(atomism),
sankhya
(enumeration),
yoga
(transcendence),
mimansa
(interpretation), and
vedanta
(metaphysical speculation).
None of these systems refer to any god, or to a true metaphysic for that matter. Correspondingly, they are not linked to temporal morality. However, Hinduism contains a set of sacred, clearly organized principles, such as
karmakanda,
the full spectrum of rituals, and
dyana,
the full spectrum of knowledge. Morality and ethics are clearly separated; morality on the side of temporal duties and ethics on the side of eternal duties. Under this belief system, the origins of homophobia in Hinduism can now be explained insofar as it can be compared to homophobia in Western cultures. Hinduism does not hold any specific moral position on homosexuality, as it appears to be perceived as a voluntary, occasional practice engaged in by heterosexual men.