5 Mar. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality 1-3 (3-87)
6 Mar. 
The Boys in the Band
7 Mar. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality 4-6
**Queer Theory paper due**
5 Mar. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality 1-3 (3-87)
6 Mar. The Boys in the Band
7 Mar. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality 4-6
**Queer Theory paper due**
More food for thought
Two more stories from today’s news seem relevant to Rubin and Sedgwick:
Tennessee Lawmakers Propose Ban on Mentioning LGBT People in Schools
(this is from Box Turtle Bulletin, another good blog)
and
The Craigslist Congressman and the Crossdressing Prostitute
Boswell
Boswell wrote his book in 1980, before most of the theorists we’ve read (except Foucault). Does he seem aware of the concerns they raise about homosexuality as a historically changing concept?
It would be very difficult to study the history of certain group’s place in society without assuming a certain amount of stability in the definition of the group. Most of the theorists we’ve read claim that the definition of homosexuality has a very unstable history, and a nebulous beginning. They might have a problem with Boswell right out of the gate. In the second chapter, Boswell defines “gay” as “persons who are conscious of erotic inclination to toward their own gender as a distinguishing characteristic,” and goes on to say that the book deals primarily with this group. The problem is that his definition did not exist in many societies, particularly ancient societies, so the group he is talking about did not really exist.
Foucault would argue that the idea of “gay people” emerged fairly recently, before which time there were only “people who performed homosexual acts.” Thus, we can talk about the ways in which same-sex acts and even same-sex romantic relationships have been perceived, discouraged, prohibited, persecuted, celebrated, etc. throughout history, but we cannot really talk about “gay people” in this context. Boswell seems somewhat aware of this argument, as he mostly limits the discussion of homosexuality in ancient societies to the discussion of homosexual acts. But in his examination of some the same societies Boswell studies, such as ancient Greece, Halperin suggests that certain civilizations did not really even distinguish same-sex acts from opposite-sex acts, or at least that it wasn’t important to them, so the group of acts Boswell is talking about were not defined as a group.
In the first chapter, Boswell spends some time talking about the natural/unnatural opposition present in many of the arguments against homosexuality. He defends the “naturalness” of homosexuality by analyzing how the two terms have come to be defined, what they represent to people and how they have been used throughout history. Boswell begins by arguing that what is presently understood to be unnatural to man, in this case, same-sex acts, is not so much inconsistent with nature as it is an observational failure by man to recognize that certain acts, whether unique to him or not, are evaluated not from a point of view that simply concerns itself with what is observed in nature, but also with certain moral judgments about what constitutes “ideal nature” or “good” nature. The latter, he argues, is only made possible when certain cultural meanings have been attached to certain acts. Boswell concludes by alluding to examples of same-sex acts among other animal species, while at the same time highlighting the fact that the concepts of “ideal nature” and “real nature,” as employed in homophobic arguments, are rarely used in ways that are consistent with each other.
By making this argument, Boswell could be said to be taking an ‘essentialist’ or ‘minoritizing’ position. By grounding same-sex acts in unequivocal ‘naturalness,’ he simultaneously negates Foucault’s view that sexual orientation is a social construction and the product of certain discourses. Additionally, by securing the title of “natural” for same sex-acts, he limits the multiple ways people might distinguish and express themselves sexually.
Boswell does seem aware of many of the difficulties and concerns in studying homosexuality as raised by many of the theorists we have discussed. Primarily, the main difficulties he explores are in “definitions,” to which he devotes and entire chapter (even though he does stray from the title for a significant portion of the chapter). The problems, as previously raised by Foucault, Sedgwick and Jagose lie within the distinction between “homosexual acts” and “homosexual people,” as well as between “homosexual” and “heterosexual.” Boswell does tend to speak often of “homosexual acts,” but he does also examine at length what he would term “gay relationships.” In his system of definition, homosexual refers simply to acts, distinct from any identity, somewhat analogous to what Jagose and Sedgwick would term a universalizing view. “Gay” for Boswell refers more to people doing homosexual acts, and things tied to them, e.g. art, poetry, love. This would be linked more to Jagose and Sedgwick’s minoritizing view. Boswell does hint at the constructed nature of these categories, but not to the extent that Foucault would expose them to be. Boswell as well hints at the constructed nature of gender as per Butler in his discussion of the lack of emphasis latin writers placed on gender in the accounts on their lovers, but again, not nearly as fully as Butler does. Overall, Boswell appears to be aware of many of the issues in studying and writing about the history of homosexuality, but as a historian, is rather less interested in the more semantical issues posed by the theorists and instead focuses on the actual available history.
Boswell is highly aware of homosexuality as a shifting subject. He devotes a large portion of his introduction to discussing the difficulty of defining and analyzing homosexual culture and oppression. Many old works have been edited to indicate different gender pronouns in favor of heterosexual relationships – with this comes the falsification of historical records and just flat-out deletion of crucial texts. Beyond that, few personal documents were recorded and much analysis must come through the lens of literature. Most of all, though, Boswell discusses anachronistic stereotypes – what we regard today as homosexual culture is nowhere near what existed in Roman and Greek society. Boswell must speak within the framework of 1980s culture to access his modern audience, but he ultimately discussing something entirely foreign to us, and something that will continue to change as time goes on.
Although Boswell wrote toward the end of the 1970s, an era in which homosexuality was not so prevalently explored as it subsequently has been, he seems very aware of the prospect of changing ideas and culture regarding homosexuality. Similar to some of the other theorists we have studied, Boswell compares homosexuality to Jews. His recognition that the main difference between the two groups is a lack of immediate community shows that he is thinking about homosexuality as its own entity, distinct from anything else. He also acknowledges that lack of historical evidence on Lesbians, though doesn’t deny its importance in modern context. A relatively early thinker on homosexuality, Boswell’s chapter devoted to definitions helps clarify the ideas of the time regarding homosexuality.