[Marxism] A Marxist Theory of Gay and Lesbian Oppression

[Jeffrey Vanek]

I'd like to start a dialog on a Marxist theory of homosexuality.

I understand some in the Marxist movement consider this issue "petit- 
bourgeois" identity politics, and that some think of it as a  
particularly bourgeois vice.  I disagree.  I'm especially interested  
in the way an enforced heterosexuality based on the sexual division of  
labor conditions people to relationships and institutions of dominance  
and submission.

I'm going to start by posting part of the first article of a series  
from www.permanentrevolution.net


Chapter 1 The origins and nature of lesbian and gay oppression

The origins and nature of lesbian and gay oppression

Lesbians and gay men are subjected to brutal oppression in capitalist  
society. Despite some countries having legalised homosexual acts  
between consenting "adults" in private, oppression discrimination and  
legal harassment continue to exist on a massive scale. So much so that  
millions feel obliged to conceal their sexuality or to repress it. The  
submerged misery of these millions is incalculable. Against all who  
voluntarily or involuntarily reveal their sexuality, a massive barrage  
of repression is unleashed. Lesbians and gay men face not only abuse  
and derision but physical assault which can end in murder. At work  
lesbians and gay men face the constant threat of dismissal and  
victimisation and, if unemployed, discrimination. In addition there is  
the routine harassment by the police on the streets, in the gay clubs,  
through entrapment and so on.

Lesbian mothers are systematically denied the custody of their  
children. The "popular press" keeps up a persistent campaign of  
vilification - an incitement to "queer bashing" and a constant stoking  
of the fires of homophobia.

Why is there this monstrous campaign of repression which unites such  
unlikely bedfellows as the Pope, Ian Paisley and the Ayatollah  
Khomeini? Homosexual acts have long been condemned by certain  
religions - most notably Christianity - but the systematic oppression  
of homosexuals as a distinct category of people separated off from  
"normal" society, especially in Western Europe and North America,  
began only some two hundred years ago. That is it is a feature of  
capitalist society. The justification for this oppression is that  
homosexuality is not merely abnormal but also, and more importantly,  
"unnatural". While the levels of toleration that capitalist society is  
prepared to grant homosexuals have fluctuated, acceptance of  
homosexuality and therefore the recognition of it as a perfectly  
natural phenomenon, has never existed.

Yet the sexual behaviour deemed "natural" by capitalist society -  
heterosexual activity with great emphasis on penetrative intercourse  
as "real" sex - is only one aspect of human sexuality. What makes it  
so suited to being described as the only natural form of sex is its  
reproductive function. Now this is extremely important for the  
survival of the species and has always been so. The idea, perpetrated  
by many radical feminists, that penetrative heterosexual intercourse  
is inherently oppressive to women ignores a fundamental biological  
fact of human life. However, acceptance of the importance of  
reproductive sex is only half the story. Because one thing is natural  
it does not follow that everything else is unnatural Moreover, the  
very word natural brings with it a whole number of problems of  
definition. Human beings have never taken nature as a fait accompli,  
but have always sought to either utilise or transform it our species  
has, by social means, repeatedly developed and transformed our own  
"nature". To understand the development of lesbian and gay oppression  
it is necessary to dispense with capitalism's categories of natural  
and unnatural in matters of sexuality.

They are arbitrary in the extreme.

Capitalism has existed for several hundred years. In the thousands of  
years preceding capitalism's rise to world dominance there were many  
different views of what was natural and unnatural in sexual relations.  
Different societies and even different strata within a particular  
society conformed to moral codes that were peculiar to themselves.  
What was perfectly natural and even sanctified for the pre-Columbian  
natives of South America seemed unnatural and abominable to the  
Christian conquistadores. The wide diversity of moral codes in Sexual  
matters throughout history is eloquent testimony to the uselessness of  
the term natural as any sort of guide. Attitudes towards sexual  
behaviour and moral codes that relate to it repeatedly change as a  
particular society itself changes. Moral codes for regulating  
sexuality are determined by the needs of the class that rules in a  
particular society. These codes are always in conformity with the  
social needs of the dominant class.

The condemnation of homosexuality as unnatural and the systematic  
oppression of homosexuals that this led to arose from the social needs  
of capitalist society and its ruling class, the bourgeoisie. Nature  
was called upon by the bourgeoisie to validate an oppressive code of  
sexual conduct. A cursory glance at history demonstrates that with its  
sexual morality, as with all of the other aspects of capitalist  
society that are deemed eternal and natural, nature had nothing  
whatsoever to do with it The present bourgeois attitude to  
homosexuality is not eternal and history repeatedly shows this to be  
the case. In Ancient Greece homosexual activity was not regarded as  
unnatural at all. Sexual love between men was glorified by poets,  
philosophers, sculptors and painters. Although there are recorded  
examples of lesbianism as well - the term itself being derived from  
Lesbos, the name of the island where Sappho, a poetess who celebrated  
the love between women, lived - there is no evidence to suggest that  
it was accorded any social approval. Amongst males, homosexuality was  
not merely tolerated, it was encouraged. After his failure to rescue  
Eurydice from the underworld the mythical songster Orpheus turned to  
the love of young males. His songs openly celebrated this love. Plato  
and Aristotle, highly regarded by bourgeois scholars, both extolled  
the virtue of male homosexuality. Attempts by Christian scholars to  
suggest that such love was a non-physical, idealised love - hence  
"Platonic" - do not square with the mass of written and archaeological  
evidence depicting in: detail and with obvious approval, the physical  
aspects of male homosexuality. Even before the much publicised  
acceptance of homosexuality in Greece, earlier examples of the social  
approval of homosexuality exist. In ancient Mesopotamia the earliest  
legal codes dealt with many aspects of sexual morality but there were  
no provisions for the punishment of homosexuality. Indeed amongst the  
caste of priests in early Mesopotamia homosexual practice was  
commonplace, public and accepted. However, nobody should imagine that  
Ancient Greece was a haven of sexual freedom. It was a strongly  
patriarchal class society - based on slavery. Whilst many of the free  
males of Athens, Sparta and Thebes conducted same-sex emotional and  
sexual relationships women suffered terrible oppression. The citizen's  
wife was largely confined to her household and severely punished for  
any sexual relations beyond those with her husband necessary for  
producing children. The family was already an instrument of  
oppression. Other women were restricted to prostitution. The slaves,  
the great majority of the producers, had no rights either political or  
sexual. The main point, however, is that this society not only  
functioned, it also produced some of the finest products of the human  
spirit, giving birth to the earliest forms of democracy, to classics  
of tragic and comic drama, to philosophy, sculpture, architecture,  
mathematics and so on. And all this happened in a period when intra- 
male sexuality was not repressed but encouraged. This society was in  
no sense decadent - that is falling apart as a result of sexual  
customs. This embarrassing fact is usually passed over in silence by  
bourgeois historians and moralists. Classical Greece was unusual in  
the explicit honour and role accorded to male same-sex love. It was  
closely related to the educative and military training aspects of the  
Greek city state resting on the exploitation of slaves and the  
subordination of women. The "ideal" relationship was between an  
older," mature man and a younger adolescent (pederasty, which  
literally means "love of boys"). This was supposed to aid the  
education, moral as well as practical, of the young and to bind  
together the male citizens as a military force. This pattern has  
existed as well in other warrior societies throughout history.

However, if this pattern was unusually highly developed in Ancient  
Greece, if same sex love was only tolerated in other societies,  
nowhere was it treated, as it has been in modern times, with fear and  
loathing, let alone subjected to systematic legal punishment. Also, in  
Greece heterosexuality and homosexuality were not counterposed. Men  
were not thought of as being either homosexual or heterosexual. Sex  
between men and women was principally for the purposes of  
reproduction, while sex between men was a source of pleasure. There  
was no question of invoking nature to grant approval or disapproval  
for either. Instances of homosexuality and heterosexuality amongst the  
gods and goddesses were, after all, legion. The rise of Christianity,  
in the late classical world and during the establishment of feudal  
Christendom, brought about a significant change in attitudes towards  
homosexuality in Western Europe. However, homosexuality was lumped  
together with other sexual sins deserving of special treatment by the  
zealots of the early Christian church. Practitioners of homosexuality,  
along with fornicators, those guilty of bestiality, adulterers and  
more besides were all taboo under the Christian doctrine outlined by  
St Paul. Paul, as part of his plan to unify and centralise the  
Christian church, stamped on the very early sexually free attitudes of  
Christ's followers and advocated an ideal of celibacy that had  
profound consequences for Europe for centuries to follow. For Pauline  
Christianity lust and debauchery were major sins, punishable by god  
and the law, and homosexuality tended to be regarded as a particularly  
abominable extension of these sins. Once again it is clear that the  
target of god's wrath was a man guilty of a homosexual practice,  
rather than a man guilty of being a homosexual. To counter the sins of  
the flesh Paul preached celibacy as the highest good for all. He wrote  
to the Corinthians: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman. . .  
For I would that all men were even as myself." He did concede in the  
same letter that this ideal might be beyond many and that the best way  
to avoid "burning" would be to marry. But marriage was very much  
second best. Reinforcing the oppressive norms of the family, visible  
from the earliest days of class society, Paul taught that within  
marriage women had to occupy a position of total subservience to their  
men. Whereas paganism had witnessed many cults in which sexuality was  
an integral element of doctrine and indeed worship (fertility rites),  
Christianity - at least as systematised by the third century Roman  
state church - excluded it. The blessed trinity, the holy family and  
the virgin birth of Christ by Mary all excluded sex. Moreover, the  
church was run by an all male priesthood.

For early Christianity sex itself was an expression of sin, of the  
fall and of the devil. The sexual impulse was, according to Saint  
Augustine, so powerful that it destroyed the capacity for reasoned  
thought therein lay its danger. It was an earthly pleasure that could  
divert the faithful away from the pursuit of heavenly delights. And  
women were the temptresses, the true daughters of Eve. Thus in the  
earliest teachings homosexuality was not seen as a major threat. But  
the hostility towards sex in general that was typical of Christianity  
meant that it would inevitably become a target for persecution.  
Ironically warnings against homosexuality became necessary for those  
closed communities - monks and nuns - who had chosen to live celibate  
lives.

The rest of the article can be found at:  http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=347

The full series can be found at:  http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=category&cat=25