ePub Gay New York: Gender; Urban Culture; and the Making of the Gay Male World; 1890-1940 by George Chauncey in History

Review

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. A Part of History That Must Not Be ForgottenBy Nick Nicholas; MSWSo many people think gay history; with a few minor exceptions; began only when the Stonewall Riots occurred in 1969; but this is far from the case. In his book Gay New York: Gender; Urban Culture; and the Making of the Gay Male World 1890-1940; George Chauncey puts any such beliefs aside. He sets out to disprove three myths: the myth of invisibility; the myth of isolation; and the myth of internalization.The myth of invisibility holds that the gay world prior to Stonewall was invisible and largely inaccessible. Chauncey shows that this was not the case as a vibrant culture around homosexuality was visible throughout the period he studied. He notes that even though his study is limited to New York City; similar advances were occurring in other major metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles; Chicago; and San Francisco.The myth of isolation is similar to the myth of invisibility in that it holds there was no gay culture to speak of; no gay-friendly places to hang out; no places where gay business was welcomed. Chauncey demolishes this myth as handily as he demolishes the myth of invisibility.Finally; the myth of internalization holds that the gay and lesbian populations had internalized the messages of hate and shame promulgated by dominant culture; and therefore no move was made to establish a specifically gay culture. Chauncey blows this myth; too; out of the water. Gay people were subject to constant police harassment; but they nevertheless proudly; even exuberantly expressed their sexuality.Although New York City is the focus of the book; the text is far more wide-ranging. New York is the appropriate place for centering this story as it pertains to the US because it was not until the 1960s that San Francisco came to be known as a gay Mecca. Even today New York is a leading destination for those who wish to come out of the closet; but are unable to do so in their provincial home towns. Nevertheless; New York is not the entire story; and Chauncey brings in other details as appropriate.The book is full of facts and statistics; and this attention to detail sometimes makes the book a little dry. It is all very interesting and fascinating reading; however; just occasionally overly pedantic. Still; I highly recommend this book especially for the queer person who wishes to learn more about gay history. The text fills in important gaps about understanding of gay history; and superbly corrects commonly held misconceptions.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. A Brilliant Necessary WorkBy RDDIn "Gay New York: Gender; Urban Culture; and the Making of the Gay Male World; 1890 – 1940"; George Chauncey argues “that gay life in New York was less tolerated; less visible to outsiders; and more rigidly segregated in the second third of the century than the first; and that the very severity of the postwar reaction has tended to blind us to the relative tolerance of the prewar years.” (pg. 9) Further; he argues “that in important respects the hetero-homosexual binarism; the sexual regime now hegemonic in American culture; is a stunningly recent creation.” (pg. 13) Through his work; Chauncey maps both the physical and social topography of gay culture in New York City. Finally; Chauncey argues “that the construction of male homosexual identities can be understood only in the context of the broader social organization and representation of gender; that relations among men were construed in gendered terms; and that the policing of gay men was part of a more general policing of the gender order.” (pg. 28)One of the most interesting parts of Chauncey’s analysis details the manner in which gay and heterosexual men interacted. Chauncey writes; “The earlier culture [pre-1950s] permitted men to engage in sexual relations with other men; often on a regular basis; without requiring them to regard themselves – or to be regarded by others – as gay.” (pg. 65) Due to this; “many men alternated between male and female sexual partners without believing that interest in one precluded interest in the other; or that their occasional recourse to male sexual partners; in particular; indicated an abnormal; ‘homosexual;’ or even ‘bisexual’ disposition; for they neither understood nor organized their sexual practices along a hetero-homosexual axis.” (pg. 65) Chauncey adds an element of class to his analysis; specifically when discussing the differences between those groups of gay men that self-identified as queer and those that identified as fairies. Chauncey writes; “The queers’ antagonism toward the fairies was in large part a class antagonism. Not all queers were middle class…just as not all fairies were of the working class. But if the fairy as a cultural ‘type’ was rooted in the working-class culture of the Bowery…the queer was rooted in the middle-class culture of the Village and the prosperous sections of Harlem and Times Square.” (pg. 106) His discussion of police power further demonstrates the complex relationships between the queer and normal worlds.Chauncey discusses the anti-vice societies’ and police focus on sexuality targeting primarily female prostitutes. Chauncey writes; “The campaigns to control assignation hotels illustrate the degree to which the anti-vice societies often neglected homosexuality because of their preoccupation with controlling female prostitution; as well as the ability of ‘normal’-looking gay men to manipulate observers’ presumption that they were straight to their own advantage.” (pg. 163) When the police did charge gay men; they usually did so with disorderly conduct charges. Chauncey writes; “The use of the disorderly conduct law against gay people was consistent with the intent of the law; which effectively criminalized a wide range of non-normative behavior in public spaces; as defined by the dominant culture; be it loitering; gambling; failure to hire oneself out to an employer; failure to remain sober; or behaving in a public space in any other manner perceived as threatening the social order.” (pg. 172) After the end of Prohibition; the State Liquor Authority controlled both those spaces where patrons could drink and what type of clientele they could host. According to Chauncey; “The genius of the licensing mechanism lay in the way it expanded the state’s ability to survey and regulate public sociability…By threatening proprietors with the revocation of their licenses if its agents discovered that customers were violating the regulations; it forced proprietors to uphold those regulations on behalf of the state.” (pg. 336) This public role of policing fed into later Cold War fears; in which “the specter of the invisible homosexual; like that of the invisible communist; haunted Cold War America. The new image was invoked to justify a new wave of assaults on gay men in the postwar decade.” (pg. 360) This effectively ended the broader public realm open to gay New Yorkers while cementing the hetero-homosexual binary.2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Gay New York; Gender; Urban Culture and the Making of the Gay Male World 1890-1940 by George ChaunceyBy ElisaI was intrigued by this essay since recently some of my preconceptions are starting to fall down and I wanted a book that helped me to rebuild my basis. If I think to a hypothetic "modern" past (more or less pre II World War) I had the idea the gay culture was more or less "underground"; or better; completely hidden. My idea was that; if you were gay (and yes; I know at the time the word gay had a different meaning; but bear with me); you were also probably fated to be unhappily married; or completely alone; some exception were allowed to the very wealthy men that sheltered themselves in some isolated paradise; far from the society eyes and judgement. Then I started to read about John Gray (March 2; 1866 - June 14; 1934); the man who apparently inspired Oscar Wilde's Dorian Gray; and who; more or less; lived happily together with his lover Marc-André Raffalovich (September 11; 1864 - February 14; 1934): when John Gray; a catholic priest; went to Edinburgh Marc-André Raffalovich settled nearby; he then helped finance St Peter's Church in Morningside where Gray would serve as priest for the rest of his life. And is it a coincidence that John died barely 4 months after Marc-André?Or about Edward Carpenter (August 29; 1844 - June 28; 1929); the man who most used the term "intermediate sex"; referring to those men who were not exactly men; not exactly women; men who were attracted by other men; but usually stronger and masculine men. Edward Carpenter was a strong advocate of sexual freedom; living in a gay community near Sheffield; and had a profound influence on both D. H. Lawrence and E. M. Forster; so much that they said Forster took inspiration from Carpenter for Maurice and D.H. Lawrence for Lady Chatterley's Lover: Edward Carpenter had a long-lasting relationship with George Merrill (1866-1928); a working class man also from Sheffield. Again; when Merrill suddenly died in January 1928; Carpenter was devastated and 13 months after; he himself died; on Friday 28 June 1929.And what about F.O. Matthiessen (February 19; 1902 - April 1; 1950); the noted Harward literary historian and critic; who wrote to his lover; the painter Russell Cheney (1881-1945); "we are complex - both of us - in that we are neither wholly man; woman; or child". In another letter he noted; "just as there are energetic active women and sensitive delicate men; so also there are... men; like us; who appear to be masculine but have a female sex element". Both Yale graduate and members of the Skull Bones; Matthiessen was 20 years younger than Cheney; but they died at only 5 years of distance.And then there is the story of Glenway Wescott (April 11; 1901 - February 22; 1987) and his lover Monroe Wheeler (February 13; 1899 - August 14; 1988); despite apparently having an open relationship; and an on-off ménages a trois with fashion photographer and male nude artist George Platt Lynes (April 15; 1907 - December 6; 1955); they lived together until old age; hosting one of the most important intellectual saloon in their Greenwich Village apartment. Again; when Wescott dies in 1987; Monroe followed soon after 1 year and half later (on a sad note; it seems that to Monroe Wheeler was prohibited to live in the country house he had always shared with Glenway; truth be told; the house was not of Glenway; but of his brother who had married a wealthy heiress who apparently maintained for all her life both her husband than Glenway and Monroe).But other than tidbits about these men; you will read also about the Harlem's drag balls with the quintessentia of Harlem Renaissance poets like Langston Hughes and Richard Bruce Nugent; but also with; among the attendants; Broadway gay celebrities like Beatrice Lillie; Clifton Webb; Jay Brennan and Tallulah Bankhead (it's a coincidence that most of these names are almost forgotten? I loved black and white movies by Clifton Webb; but those other names were completely new to me). It was the chance for me to google about Beatrice Lillie and Tallulah Bankhead; and rediscover these fascinating women.On a closing note; even if today there seems to be more "freedom"; popular culture still likes to erase the memory; like in the case of Charles Henri Ford (February 10; 1913 - September 27; 2002) whose lover Indra Tamang is still today identified as "the butler"; upon her death; Charles Henri Ford's sister; actress Ruth Ford (July 7; 1911 - August 12; 2009); according to the newspapers left 2 multimillionaire apartments in New York City plus an art collection (n.d.r. Charles Henri Ford was the partner of painter Pavel Tchelitchew; until his death in 1957) to her "butler"... who is no one else than Indra Tamang that already in the '70 and '80 was well known as to be Charles Henri Ford devoted partner. It's so hard to imagine that she was not leaving an unthinkable generous legacy to a simple partner; but was probably honouring the memory of her late brother?Gay New York is maybe a little more academic than my review is letting you believe; and that is a worth for the essay I suppose. But to me; romantic reader; it allowed to have a more solid basis to read about the above men and women; and their sometime hidden lives. It's a pity they are hidden; since apparently; these men and women were not afraid; at their time; to openly live their love.