Blog Entry 3 - 2/05/07

1. Describe the Puritan approach to sexual desire. What was the ideal of sexuality in colonial America? How did people learn about sexuality? How did colonial society deal with sexual “deviance” and what were the two main goals of regulating it?
2. D’Emilio argues that the relationship between capitalism and the family is contradictory. Explain this argument, and then summarize his argument about gay identity and capitalism. Do you agree with this argument? Why or why not?

The Puritan approach to sexual expression

In colonial America, expression of sexuality was important within the confines of marriage for the purpose of procreation. A family-centered sexual system was supported by the economic system as well as by religious beliefs. The family was the economic unit of which children were an essential component. It was a self-sufficient entity that produced and consumed its own goods and services and it was, therefore, necessary for economic survival that children were taught the place for sexual desire was within a marriage. Youth learned about sexuality from observation in close sleeping quarters and through moral instruction by both parents and the church. Puritan clergy and lawmakers set standards which influenced people to limit sex to marriage for the purpose of raising children.

Colonists made efforts to outlaw and punish what they defined as deviant sexual practices, including adultery, sodomy, incest, rape and bearing children out of wedlock. Regulation of deviance reminded the community that sex was only acceptable in the context of marriage and for the purpose of producing progeny. Among Puritans, individuals felt responsible for upholding the morality of community members so that God would not punish the whole society.

On the positive side, Puritan standards for sexuality established rules in order to ensure the survival of the colonial people who had to struggle to exist. Rules concerning sexuality maintained order within the society, which helped the communities to survive and grow. Each member of society was required to neatly fit into a family unit which was an economic unit, so there was no tolerance for deviants. It encouraged each member of society to pull his or her own weight, whether child or adult. For those who found it difficult to adhere to the rule of forbidden premarital relations, the society forgave the couple as long as they repented and soon created their own family unit. This flexibility was a positive response which strengthened the society. Unfortunately, the system put a lot of stress on the women, who had to bear many children, which was often risky to their health. Punishment for deviation was often excessively harsh, although apparently it kept illegitimacy rates low. Also on the negative side, sexual rules reinforced a system of racial dominance. A rigid system such as this was stifling to the creative side of human nature and could not last indefinitely without repercussion.

Capitalism, the family and gay identity

D’Emilio first makes a case for relating the emergence of gay communities with the development of capitalism. Capitalism eroded the foundation of family life, which in turn opened opportunities for gays to express their sexuality and connect with one another. The spread of wage labor and production helped to transition the family away from economic independence and led to changing values that eventually separated sexuality and procreation. Since it was no longer necessary to live in a family unit for economic survival, it became possible for members of the same sex to organize a personal life that suited them without calling attention to their “deviance” from tradition. Capitalism was instrumental in weakening the family structure, which consequently allowed gay communities to exist, but according to D’Emilio, then stifled gay identity.

Although it was the structure of capitalism that allowed gay communities to emerge, capitalism appeared unable to accept homosexuals. As family structure weakened, individuals began to feel the resulting instability and insecurity since there were no social structures in place to meet the growing of personal freedom outside of the family unit. According to D’Emilio, capitalism drives people into heterosexual families in order to reproduce the next generation of workers and he believes that capitalist society also encourages heterosexism and homophobia by elevating the family to “ideological preeminence.” Until programs are instituted to support personal autonomy, (such as community-controlled daycare and other structures beyond the family that provide a sense of belonging), D’Emilio argues that gay liberation cannot fully be a reality.

I agree that the decline of the family allowed gays to come out and that capitalism contributed to the rapid decline of the family. It seems, however, that World War II had a major impact on both the upsurge and the later oppression of the expression of homosexuality in our country. It seriously disrupted former patterns of sexuality and created avenues suitable to homosexual relationships. Just as homosexual men and women were beginning to network and establish a sort of subculture, the government of the post-war period aimed to stifle its growth by banning gays from the military and employment. This oppression actually promoted the gay liberation movement because gays were denied their civil rights, and as a group they had a noble cause to fight back.

I disagree that the lack of social programs is what is holding gay people back. They need to prove that as a subculture they can be a functioning family since children need a family first before daycare and other social programs can be of use. The type of society D’Emilio envisions is impersonal and appalling. He takes issue with the fact that children are viewed as dependents, belonging to parents rather than as autonomous human beings. Children need nurturing within a family unit, which in today’s society has a rather flexible definition. He claims that capitalism is against gays because it relies on heterosexuals to produce more workers. In order to keep people in a heterosexual orientation he believes capitalists use homosexuals as scapegoats, encouraging homophobia to unify heterosexuals against them. In reality, to avoid being scapegoats, the mainstream needs to be educated in order to understand that the issue is primarily a biological one—that homosexuals comprise a very small part of the population, and that if they are allowed to live an equal life style (marriage and adopting children), they will contribute to capitalist society. D’Emilio’s ideas approach communism and are a bit extreme. For stability and happiness, both heterosexuals and homosexuals will benefit from a capitalist society with a family orientation and a variety of social programs. As a gay rights spokesperson speaking to a gay audience, D'Emilio has neglected to put his ideas in the context of the whole society. I cannot agree that capitalism champions heterosexuality to the exclusion of gay identity.