Homosexuals and Capitalism

It is absolutely necessary to avoid the temptation to explain persecution of gay people on the basis of some kind of Marxist "functionality" as if they represented a threat to the capitalist system because they interfere with M-C-M'. In reality this kind of explanation is vulgar Marxism bordering on economic determinism. Not surprisingly, it an explanation that postmodernist Judith Butler wrongly equated with Marxism.

Probably all of us are familiar with Doug Henwood's renunciation of Marxism on the Internet, a fact that he has shielded from subscribers to his valuable if intermittently published newsletter. Not so many are familiar with the details of how he went astray. It actually hinges on a plenary talk given by Judith Butler to the Rethinking Marxism Conference up at Amherst 4 years ago which was subsequently published in NLR. Like Paul hearing Jesus, the scales dropped from his eyes after her talk.

Butler's target is "Marxist conservatism" which is neglectful of any social movement that does not involve forces at work in the mode of production. She is particularly concerned with the gay liberation movement and singles out Nancy Fraser as an example of Marxist conservatism in her "productivist" approach to gay oppression.

According to Butler, Fraser, author of "Justice Interruptus," has developed a schema where genuine oppression is related to one's participation in the political economy either as workers or as family members. The worker produces capital, while the wife helps in the production of the family, which is essential to the overall production process. The gays, who just have fun like the grasshoppers, are not part of the very serious and Marxist production process of the ant workers and families.

So what would be gay people's complaint? Fraser says they suffer because of "lack of recognition." In other words, they are culturally deprived because they are forced to the margins of society. This trivializes their situation, Butler argues. The only solution is to transcend the mode of production framework of traditional Marxism, because it can not explain homophobia. Since there is no profit in homophobia, it can not take on significance in Marxism. Thus Marxism would see no particular reason to struggle against it.

I maintain that not only is Fraser wrong by identifying the problematic of gay oppression within the workings of the capitalist economy, but that Butler is wrong by labeling this methodology as Marxist. Unfortunately, John Mage (Harry Magdoff's lawyer) has lent credence to this by putting forward a rather far-fetched explanation on Henwood's mailing list (and which was subsequently crossposted here) that revolves around the needs of British capitalism in the 16th century to consolidate itself. In Mage's rather tortured prose, we discover:

"so in building upon the understanding of alan bray (*Homosexuality in Renaissance England*) that the homosexual identity in england (with special consequences obviously for the english settler colonies) that emerged in modernity was an historical product formed in some not inconsiderable part in response to the threat of sanctions for samesexsex, an historical materialist analysis would go back - at least - to the dissolution (and as part of an analysis that places the dissolution causally in the subsequent creation of an agricultural proletariat in england & the origin of capitalism)."

In a write-up on Butler's article from about a year ago, I suggested that the explanation for persecution of gay people might not have anything to do with capitalism per se, but rather might be understood as the persistence of precapitalist social relations in the capitalist system. While a stagist version of history might be attractive on the basis of its simplicity, in actuality history is much more stubborn and wayward, refusing to bow down before some schema. Capitalist modernity is an idea found in stagist dogma, but in reality is found nearly nowhere except in books published by Duke University. Society should be seen much more like the human embryo which preserves in onion-like fashion layers during its gestation forms that belonged to earlier stages in human evolution.

And hostility to homosexuality falls into that category. It is rooted in the contradictions of the breakdown of Greco-Roman civilization, a thousand years before the period highlighted by John Mage. All this is detailed in the excellent article by David F. Greenberg and Marcia H. Bystryn--"Christian Intolerance of Homosexuality"--that appeared in the Nov. '82 American Journal of Sociology.

It is well-understood that homosexual acts were tolerated and even encouraged in the pre-Christian era. For example, the historian Alexis writes about Polycrates, the wealthy ruler of 6th century Samos: "the tyrant is not mentioned as having sent for women or boys from anywhere, despite his liaisons with males." As the authors point out, such behavior was part and parcel of a highly patriarchal society in which ALL sexual relations were conceptualized in terms of heterosexual relations involving subordination, particularly between an older powerful man and a youth who is not established in society.

Such behavior characterized Mediterranean society until the fateful period in late antiquity when old social and economic forms began to erode. A general failure of confidence in the existing social order, manifested particularly by the lower layers of society such as the kind that became Christian, led to asceticism or renunciation of the real world. Greenberg and Bystryn identify a number of interrelated processes:

1. Growth of long-distance trade in the Hellenistic and Roman Empire led to increased contact between adherents of different religions. This led not only to syncretism but increased skepticism about the traditional pantheons and their associated rites, many of which included sanctioned homosexual acts.

2. Growth of large cities discouraged rituals involving agricultural and fertility themes involving homosexual acts.

3. Larger scale of politics in kingdoms and empires reduced popular participation in politics, giving rise to feelings of estrangement, passivity, helplessness and withdrawal. These feelings fed into new monotheistic religions that eschewed all hedonistic sexual expressions, beginning with homosexuality.

4. Catastrophic wars and conquests shook confidence of these societies, leading to withdrawal from mundane concerns to lives of contemplation and spirituality.

During this period Hebrew literature began to identify sexual desire as man's greatest weakness. (In the later Talmudic period, when Jews enjoyed greater security, there was a more positive view of sex.) Many Essene groups practiced celibacy in this period and in Greece the material world became discredited as well, giving rise to the neo-Platonist school which stressed rejection of the pleasures of the flesh. Self-imposed deprivation and hardship became the norm in this milieu.

Christianity itself was hostile not only to homosexuality, but all forms of sexual activity. The leaders of the early Church were passionately anti-sex and praised virginity. Since the early church was in competition with other cults, it could not go overboard. This meant that in the 3rd century AD policies were relaxed if they stood in the way of recruitment of new members. (Obviously the modern world of Marxist-Leninist cults could stand to learn something from this period.)

Even with a liberalized attitude, the only sexual outlet for Christians was marriage, something that obviously was at odds with homosexuality. For example, Saint Basil of Nyssa, the founder of Christian monasticism, wrote in 375 to another Bishop: "He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers."

Roman law reflected a repressive stance toward homosexuality even before the Empire became Christian. By the 3rd century, male homosexual prostitution was illegal in the west. Further legislation was adopted in the 4th century. It is clear that by the end of this century, homosexual activity had become punishable by death. Legislation promoted by Justinian in the early 6th century called for the death penalty for repeat male homosexual offenders.

There was some relaxation of sexual repression during the early feudal period, when chivalry encouraged close relations between Knights and their pages. Latin poets of the 9th to 12th century wrote un-self-consciously of their homoerotic attachments. In early 12th century England, Saint Anselm urged that penalties against homosexuality be moderated because "this sin has been so public that hardly anyone has blushed for it, and many, therefore, have plunged into it without realizing its gravity."

Unfortunately, the rule of the church was far too powerful in this era to permit same-sex behavior, particularly among its numerous functionaries in the monastic orders. While not ceding anything to vulgar Marxism, it must be pointed out that one of the key motivations was the need to eliminate the transfer of property from priests to their offspring. Since the church was one of the wealthiest and most powerful landowners in the feudal era, this was no mere whim.

Instead of making laws against the transfer of property, the Church--steeped as it was in asceticism--found it more convenient to simply ban priestly marriages. When this sexual outlet was cut off, the temptation to resort to same-sex relations, particularly in the intimate surroundings of monasteries, became overpowering. Scriptures were re-interpreted as condemning all homosexuality and the Church hierarchy took every opportunity to condemn it. While the punishment was not as severe as in the earlier period, the attitude was all the more uncompromising about the act itself. This obviously sets the hypocritical tone for the church of the modern era, which is interested in condemning the sin, but not the sinner.

There is much more history than can be dealt with in this brief post, but suffice it to say that our burden is not just to overthrow the capitalist system, but all the ghosts of past societies that are chained to it. Marxism is not just concerned with exploitation at the point of production, but in the entire ensemble of oppressive relations that make up capitalist society. Not all of these can be tied to the production of surplus value obviously, but the overthrow of the system that revolves around the production of surplus value is a precondition to liberating humanity and allowing the free expression of sexuality in a free society overall.