CAPITALISM, BUREAUCRACY AND MALE HOMOSEXUALITY（资本主义，官僚制与男同性恋）*，Part 2

Bureaucracy and Homosexuality

The spread of bureaucratic forms of social organization has been one of the most striking features of modern life. Bureaucracy, we argue, has been important in shaping social responses to homosexuality in three ways. Bureaucracies influence the way social norms are enforced; they potentially conflict with some forms of nonbureaucratic affiliation; and they influence childhood socialization.

THE NATURE OF BUREAUCRACY

The early twentieth century German sociologist Max Weber [43] delineated the features of an ideal bureaucracy. In his portrayal, an ideal bureaucracy operates on the basis of officially defined areas of jurisdiction "which are generally ordered by rules, that is, by laws or administrative regulations." Authority to give commands is likewise "strictly delimited by rules." The administration of the office is sharply distinguished from the private affairs of the office-holder: "bureaucracy segregates official activity from the sphere of private life." This administration is governed by general rules:

The reduction of modern office management to rules is deeply embedded in its very nature. The theory of modern public administration, for instance, assumes that the authority to order certain matters by decree - which has been legally granted to public authorities - does not entitle the bureau to regulate the matter by commands given for each case, but only to regulate the matter abstractly. This stands in extreme contrast to the regulation of all relationships through individual privileges and bestowals of favour .... (p. 198).

Administration on the basis of general rules that regulate the rights and duties of office-holders implies that cases are to be decided by impersonal criteria, rather than by whim, subjectively determined criteria, or personal favouritism. Loyalty is owed to the goals of the organization rather than to particular superordinate individuals, and recruitment and promotions are to be based on objective merit [44]. These principles of bureaucratic administration contrast sharply with those of a kinship-structured society, in which loyalty is to a clan or lineage; or of a feudal society, which is structured on the basis of vertical ties of personal loyalty. The feudal vassal swears an oath of homage and fealty to his lord, not to his office. The administration of the patrimonial ruler of a feudal kingdom is staffed by members of the king's personal household, and is properly influenced by personal loyalty to his family and vassals. The distribution of land to followers is from the king's own patrimony, and is not subject to evaluation on the basis of universalistic criteria.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIAL CONTROL

In general, social control is organized differently in a society whose structuring principle is bureaucratic than in societies where kinship or feudal bonds are the fundamental principles of social organization. Instead of being carried out by an injured party, rule enforcement lies in the hands of a salaried, full-time staff, which can be deployed in a sustained and organized campaign of repression, even though individual members have little personal commitment to the campaign. In addition, enforcement agencies typically have resources with which to finance surveillance and prosecution far in excess of those available to individuals. The great prosecutions of homosexuality in the modern age have all been carried out by the bureaucracies of Church and State. Thus, when the Spanish Inquisition received jurisdiction over sodomy cases in 1451, persecution of homosexuals was stepped up. By contrast, in Italy, where the Inquisition did not receive this jurisdiction, travellers reported that homosexual relationships were carried on quite openly [45]. In France, the establishment of the Paris police force under Louis XIV, with its vast network of secret informers, greatly enhanced the capacity of the state to ferret out unreported homosexual activity. Police files of the period show that they made use of this capability, and kept records on hundreds of homosexuals [46]. The McDonald Report on the Canadian Royal Mounted Police, released in August, 1981, indicates that the mounties have kept files on homosexuals on an even larger scale in recent years. The massive deportation of homosexuals to Nazi extermination camps could not have been carried out except by means of a bureaucratic organization. Police entrapment and arrests on charges related to homosexuality in public places - a pattern of enforcement that has prevailed in twentieth century England and the United States - are also greatly facilitated by bureaucratic organization. On the other hand, the staffs of bureaucracies do not necessarily have any personal interest in the enforcement of the orders their superiors give them. This lays the basis for an official policy of repression that in practice is mitigated by the indifference or corruption of the enforcement staff. This is a pattern seen often in the area of “victimless crime" legislation [47].

BUREAUCRACY AND IMPERSONALITY

Unlike other forms of social organization, such as kinship, bureaucratic organizations are expected to be universalistic, or impartial, in the way they make decisions. This feature of bureaucracies requires a degree of impersonality in the way employees deal with outsiders, and with one another. Conversely, the universalistic quality of decision-making is potentially threatened when members of an organization are linked to one another or to outsiders by affective ties, for in that circumstance, an office-holder might be influenced by personal considerations involving someone whose case is being decided. Even when decision-makers actually remain uninfluenced by personal considerations, the appearance of impartiality which a bureaucracy must maintain to preserve its legitimacy will be threatened if intimate personal relationships are publicised. Moreover, jealousy within an organization on the part of those excluded from a sexual relationship might tend to interfere with the harmonious cooperation that a bureaucracy requires from its staff. Some modern bureaucracies that employ both men and women - notably universities and business corporations - promulgate nepotism rules to prevent heterosexual relationships among staff from interfering with the functioning of the organization. We might expect that a prohibition against male homosexuality would have been established (or preserved, if it already existed) for the same reason at a time when bureaucracies were staffed only by men [48]. Since women were excluded from public and private bureaucracies prior to the twentieth century, lesbian and heterosexual relationships would not have excited the same degree of public concern as male homosexuality - as indeed they did not. Of course, this line of reasoning can be taken too far. Perhaps personal ties between bureaucratic office-holders interfere with rational decision- making and raise doubts about impartiality. Yet we are all familiar with organizations where ties of this sort develop. Decisions may or may not be influenced by these ties; observers may grumble at real or imagined favouritism, but the organization continues to function [49]. Moreover, if office-holders segregate their work from their personal lives, restricting their affective and sexual involvements to organizational outsiders who have no dealings with the organization, the impartiality of decisions will not be threatened even in appearance. The large size of urban populations has made this sort of segregation relatively easy to maintain. Indeed, many homosexuals have kept their positions in just this way, effectively with- holding information about their sexual orientation from possibly hostile organizational superiors [50]. For these reasons, organizations would not necessarily need to discourage homosexual activity on the part of their members, as the argument suggested. We must anticipate, then, that organizational considerations would come into play vis c? vis homosexuality most strongly where the "total" quality of the organization precludes significant outside relationships (that is, where people's entire lives are encompassed by the organization), and where the efficient and impersonal functioning of the organization is of particular concern.One bureaucracy that clearly meets this criteria is the military, and it has shown an exceptional preoccupation with homosexuality. The Articles of War for the British navy included buggery as a capital offence, and punished it with execution more consistently than mutiny or desertion; the British army, in which life would not have been quite as totalized as life on a ship, relied more heavily on whippings [51]. In 1967, when the legal prohibition against homosexuality was lifted in England, men in the armed forces were explicitly excluded. In the U.S., a Senate Subcommittee [52] investigating the employment of homosexuals in government noted that the armed services had been much more aggressive than the civilian branches in attempting to exclude homosexuals. Pearce [53] notes that the conviction of an American navy officer for fraternizing with an enlisted man was upheld on appeal because "Some acts are by their very nature palpably and directly prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the services." The judge was evidently concerned that the hierarchical line of command would be subverted by a personal relationship between an officer and an enlisted man. This difference in policy between the military and civilian branches of the U.S. government persists to this day; each year hundreds of men and women are discharged from the armed services (mostly from the navy), while nothing comparable is done elsewhere in government.

BUREAUCRACY AND PERSONALITY

Apart from organizational considerations, there are reasons for thinking that bureaucratization would have consequences for attitudes toward homo- sexuality through its effect on the personality. Bureaucracies can ensure compliance with organizational rules by making symbolic and material rewards contingent on compliance. In so doing, they mould what has been called the "bureaucratic personality" - methodical, rational, prudent, disciplined, unemotional, and preoccupied with conformity to expectations [54]. By contrast, a social system in which legitimate authority is exercised on the basis of tradition or personal charisma would have no reason to reinforce these traits. A charismatic leader can throw a temper tantrum, but a modern bureaucrat is expected to exhibit emotional self-restraint. Through internalization, the cold impersonality of the bureaucrat's "working personality" can come to comprise a set of behavioural responses that carry over from work to interpersonal interaction outside the work setting. Until quite recently, few women were employed in bureaucracies. Thus, adult socialization of this sort would have affected men almost exclusively. It is thus hardly a coincidence that what we have described as the bureaucratic personality is essentially what writers on gender have portrayed as the male personality [55].Because the formation of the bureaucratic personality in men entails (among other things) the suppression of affective emotional responses toward other males, men will tend to experience anxiety in the presence of expressions of emotional intimacy or sexual contact between men - or even at the thought of intimacy. It is this anxiety, we suggest, that lies behind irrational anger toward male homosexuality. The violence that is directed toward gay men walking along city streets with their arms about one another's shoulders is not provoked by their sexual preference or conduct so much as by their exhibition of affection toward one another.

PATTERNS OF EVIDENCE

Since people tend to be reticent about sexual matters, and are usually not fully aware of the social influences that shape their sexual preferences and attitudes, evidence for the sorts of processes theorized here must be sought indirectly. We do this by examining the patterns of response to homosexuality comparatively and historically, as well as the psychological correlates of hostility toward homosexuality in modern times. If our reasoning is correct, attitudes toward homosexuality should be comparatively tolerant in societies where social relations are not bureaucratized. The anthropological literature is generally consistent with this picture [56]. Conversely, bureaucratized societies should be inhospitable to homosexuality. The special features of the Ottoman bureaucracy make it especially suitable for examining the relationship between bureaucracy and acceptance of homosexuality. Prior to the nineteenth century, much of the Ottoman state administration was staffed by janissaries - children of Christian parents who were conscripted at an early age and trained collectively by palace eunuchs for military and political careers. Training lasted until age 25 or 30, during which time the janissaries were not permitted to marry. Advancement was on the basis of seniority and merit rather than birth; and in this respect, the Ottoman state resembled a modern bureaucracy. We should thus expect to find homosexual relationships prohibited, and they were. During the period of training, the youths were subjected to strict surveillance to prevent homosexual behaviour, and were punished severely for violations of the prohibition [57]. In one respect, the Ottoman state differed from a modern, rational bureaucracy: government officials were personal slaves of the Sultan, who ruled as an absolute monarch. In this respect, the administration was patrimonial, and loyalty was to the person of the Sultan, rather than to his office or to the law. Homosexual relationships between the Sultan and his high officials would have posed no structural problem, and indeed commonly occurred [58]. With the exception of state functionaries, the Turkish population was not bureaucratized and not trained for future employment in a bureaucracy. Travellers' reports suggest that male homo- sexuality was extremely widespread [59]. The Chinese Empire was also a patrimonial bureaucracy. For long periods in its history, palace eunuchs played a major role in state administration. While not all eunuchs were involved in homosexual relations, it was not unusual for the Emperor to have homosexual relationships with some eunuchs, as well as with men who were not eunuchs [60]. Although Chinese criminal law did prohibit sexual relations between consenting men, homosexuality was treated in law as a form of fornication - not a very serious offense. Participation appears to have been extremely widespread throughout all ranks of society, and evoked no moral outrage whatsoever [61]. However, the criminal code specified that officials who engaged in fornication (whether heterosexual or homosexual) with inhabitants of their districts were to receive a penalty two degrees higher than that for civilians. This provision was evidently an attempt to preserve the impartiality of state administration in a society that with the exception of the state was not bureaucratized, and did not generally stigmatize homosexuality. In the U.S.S.R., homosexuality, which had been decriminalized in the immediate aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution, was recriminalized during the Stalin administration, a period during which major bureaucratization of the state and economy took place [62]. Official policy toward homo- sexuality in post-Revolutionary China and Cuba (whose states are both highly bureaucratized) has also been hostile [63]. In western Europe, bureaucratic forms of social organization were introduced slowly and unevenly. The bureaucratization of military combat began in the fourteenth century [64], while major steps toward the bureaucratization of state administration, and the rationalization of law, were taken in sixteenth century England under Henry VIII, and in seventeenth century France during the reigns of Louix XIII and Louis XIV. Aries [65] and Foucault [66] have noted the introduction of age-grading, rationalization of the curriculum, classification, individualized ranking, surveillance and discipline into the French educational system, hospitals and factories at this time. Despite these important steps, the adoption of bureaucratic principles of administration was still quite limited during the Age of Absolutism. In France it did not include the court aristocracy (Louis XIV preferred to employ bourgeoisie who would be dependent on him for salaries). The purchase and inheritance of offices profoundly limited the rationalization of the state. And outside of government, bureaucracy was virtually unknown. Only in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was a large proportion of the male population employed in bureaucracies. The large manufacturing plant, for example, was highly atypical in American industry until quite late in the nineteenth century. The years from 1880 to 1920 saw not only an appreciable growth in the average number of employees per plant, but also a rationalization of work organization and the tightening of lines of hierarchical authority [67]. Thus, it is only in the last century that most men would have been exposed as adults to workplace socialization of a sort that would inhibit emotional or physical involvement with other men. Changes in the socialization of children were also taking place in this period. In both England and the United States, efforts were made to extend and make compulsory formal schooling for the entire juvenile population. Parents were compelled by law to send their children to school, and penalties were imposed on those who did not do so. In the U.S., public school enrolments more than doubled between 1890 and 1910. The proportion of the juvenile population attending school daily increased from 44% to 67%, and the school year was extended from 135 to 173 days over these two decades [68]. For the first time in history, everyone was being exposed at an early age to the reward contingencies of a bureaucracy. In addition, as bureaucracies became major sources of employment for adults, parents and schools would have begun to socialize their children in ways that would help them meet the expectations of future employers. Personal traits that would be valuable in occupational settings in adulthood would have been encouraged by both parents and teachers. Since occupational careers in modem societies tend to be formally open to all, all children would have been exposed to similar socialization processes (with some variation on the basis of race and class made possible by tracking and by residential segregation) - even children whose future employment will not be in a bureaucracy. The strengthening of anti-homosexual attitudes at the turn of the century in England and the United States, and their persistence in the twentieth century, can plausibly be attributed to these developments. The concentration of these attitudes in the middle class lends strength to our argument. We do not have survey data for earlier generations, but scattered evidence suggests that casual involvement in homosexuality, and a more comfortable acceptance of same-sex physical contact, was a distinctive feature of British male working-class life in the nineteenth century [69]. Boys from the working class, of course, had a much more limited exposure to formal education, and were not destined, as their middle-class counterparts would have been, for bureaucratic employment. Our argument that socialization generates subconscious conflict to which hostility toward homosexuality is a psychological defence receives support from an experimental study of aggression toward homosexuals [70]. In the study, male heterosexual college students who had negative views of homo- sexuality were found to be more aggressive toward homosexual targets they believed to be similar to themselves than toward those they considered dis- similar. When the targets were heterosexual, subjects were more aggressive to those they believed to be dissimilar to themselves than to those they believed similar. This difference in patterns of aggressiveness suggests that aggressiveness toward homosexuals may be provoked by an irrational sense of personal threat aroused by unconscious homosexual impulses.

The Advent of Gay Liberation

Law and psychiatry have continued to share the social control of homo- sexuality in the twentieth century. Until quite recently, the criminal law in almost all states continued to classify homosexual acts as felonies. Men convicted in the Boise, Idaho scandal in the mid-1950s were sent to prison for long periods, in one case with a maximum sentence of life. Men sentenced to prison for consensual sodomy in California have served sentences that were, on the average, longer than sentences served for rape with serious injury to the victim. Just a few years ago, a survey of homosexuals conducted in a large American city found that 37% had been arrested at least once on sex-related charges [71]. In England, a major police drive against homosexuals was carried out in the 1950s, and decriminalization came only in 1967. The shift in public attitudes seen in the 1970s undoubtedly owes much to the gay liberation movement [72]. It is relevant to our analysis to note that gay liberation had its origins in the New Left, a social movement opposed to the capitalist organization of the economy and to large-scale bureaucratic forms of social organization. Its adherents were largely college youths who either lacked clear vocational goals, or anticipated careers in the non-bureaucratic sectors of the economy. By the time of the 1969 Stonewall Rebellion in New York, the women's liberation movement had developed a critique of the gender role system and the male-dominated monogamous family, and had projected a vision of an androgynous future. These developments took place against a backdrop of post-war prosperity. The generation of youths with middle- and upper-class backgrounds entering college in the 1960s had never known scarcity, were relatively unconcerned about their futures in the economy, and as children had been indulged by their moderately affluent parents [73]. Their upbringing largely lacked the nineteenth century emphasis on discipline and self-restraint. No longer facing an economy in which heavy doses of asceticism were required for success, and in fact living in a society whose economy required and encouraged high levels of consumer spending, college students rebelled against restrictions that did not appear to serve any rational purpose, and developed a lifestyle of moderate hedonism. This new lifestyle included the recreational use of drugs, the blurring of traditional gender roles (beads, long hair and colourful clothes for men), and the abandonment of traditional attitudes toward sexuality. The pursuit of pleasure combined with increases in female white-collar employment, and public concern about population growth, served to reverse the nineteenth and early twentieth century prohibition of contraception, abortion and premarital heterosexual inter- course. These developments of the sixties were of course not without precedent. The shift toward acceptance of sexual pleasure as a legitimate goal in its own right occurs slowly throughout the twentieth century in marriage manuals [74]. In the 1960s these changes reached a critical level and received greater publicity. This acceptance of a legitimate separation of sexuality from procreation was readily extended to homosexuality given the social base of the New Left in the white, youthful middle class, which had been undergoing major trans- formation in methods of upbringing and occupational prospects. In the absence of these broad patterns of social change, it is unlikely that a large gay liberation movement could have emerged, or that it would have been favourably received by major segments of the non-gay population. The backlash against gay liberation of the past few years makes clear that this favourable reception has by no means been universal. A number of cities have held public referenda rejecting legislation seeking to establish equal civil rights for gays; and attempts have been made to bar homosexuals from practicing certain occupations. Insofar as one can tell at present, this backlash is located primarily in lower middle-class strata employed in bureaucratic organizations or in highly competitive small businesses. In a period of economic stagnation and rising prices, these strata are excluded from participation in a lifestyle of affluence or hedonistic indulgence, and resent those they view as participants in this sort of decadence. The antagonism toward homosexuality in these strata has the same social roots as the tax revolt, and opposition to abortion, contraception and the women's liberation movement. The belief that homosexuality threatens the family has further stiffened resistance to gay liberation. The monogamous family continues to have survival value for married women given the realities of today's labour market: wages for women that are far lower than those for men, and inadequate child support payments for men who leave their wives. As Gordon and Hunter [75] note, fear that the destruction of the family will mean the loss of nurturance, stable companionship, and commitment in personal relationships adds another dimension to the defence of the family.Even though homosexuality may not really be a threat to the family (a large proportion of the men in Laud Humphreys [76] study of homosexual transactions in public washrooms were stably married), homosexuality is seen as symbolically threatening because it is seen as standing for extra-marital relations, promiscuity, precocious sexuality, and a repudiation of stereotypical gender roles. At a time when the conventional nuclear family is being jeopardized by economic pressures that force the women to enter the paid labour force, the destruction of neighbourhoods, feminism, and the loss of parental authority, these broader associations that homosexuality evokes have become threatening, especially to middle-aged, middle-class women who cannot easily take advantage of the career opportunities opening up for young, college-educated women. Anxiety over the family's threatened status thus makes lifestyles that appear to be inconsistent with the perpetuation of the traditional family salient and subjectively threatening, especially in the lower middle class, where family members are especially vulnerable.

Discussion

Previous explanations of intolerance toward male homosexuality have been quite different from those suggested here. Perhaps the most widely accepted has been the transmission from one generation to another of a "Judaeo-Christian tradition" with a distinctive hostility toward homo- sexuality [77]. Historical research has shown, however, that attitudes toward homosexuality in Christian Europe have been historically variable [78]. At times the institutional Church has been quite repressive, but at other times relatively tolerant. Although religious teachings may have some bearing on the way people think about homosexuality, it does not seem likely that contemporary attitudes and policies can be understood adequately in terms of inherited religious doctrine alone. The existence of many nominally faithful Catholics who reject Church teachings on such matters as contraception would be difficult to explain on the basis of simple cultural transmission. Recently several other ideas have been proposed. John Boswell [79] has argued that urban life involves exposure to diverse life-styles, and thus fosters tolerance toward minorities, including homosexuals. Yet Boswell concedes that the thirteenth century, in which town life was reviving, was a period of growing intolerance. His thesis is also incompatible with the intensification of anti-homosexual repression in late nineteenth century America, a period of rapid urbanization. Marxist analyses have attempted to establish a unique connection between capitalism and the prohibition of homosexuality [80]. Although capitalism did play a powerful role in shaping social responses to homosexuality, the repression of homosexuality is not uniquely associated with capitalism. It was found in the high Middle Ages, and is present in contemporary non-capitalist, bureaucratically organized societies. Our analysis, which sees repression as rooted in the sexual asceticism of competitive capitalism, and in the organizational policies and socialization processes associated with bureaucratic forms of social organization, is admittedly somewhat schematic and speculative, but as we have shown, it is consistent with the major patterns of variation in social responses to homosexuality in the modern world. This is not true of earlier explanations of these responses. Nevertheless, much is as yet unknown about the historical processes we have theorized as being responsible for these reactions. As more is learned about changing family structures, patterns of child-rearing, and the development of occupational ideologies - and of the history of economic and political organization - it will become possible to elaborate and qualify the ideas sketched here. In the meantime, it is relevant to note the political implications of our analysis. To the extent that attitudes toward homosexuality are shaped by such factors as the social pressures facing the lower middle class, and by the experience of bureaucratic organization, we can expect hostility to persist. Educational campaigns no doubt have their value, but unless objective social relations are changed, there will be definite limits to their impact.

Notes

*An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Society for the Study of Social Problems in 1978. We are grateful for comments and discussion to B. Richard Burg, Nancy Chodorow, Jeff Escoffier, Meredith Gould, Stephen Murray, Nicole Rafter, Daniel Resnick, Christine Stansell, Peter Stearns, Dennis Wrong, and members of the Sexual Fraternity Seminar of the New York Institute for the Humanities.

1.M. Goodich (1976), "Sodomy in Medieval Secular Law," Journal of Homosexuality 1: 295-302; M. Goodich (1979) The Unmentionable Vice: Homosexuality in the Late Medieval Period. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Ctio; A. Gauthier (1977), "La Sodomie dans le Montreal: Aurore; D. Roby (1977), "Early Medieval Attitudes toward Homosexuality," Gai Saber 1: 67-71; J. Boswell (1980), Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; D.F. Greenberg and M.H. Bystryn (1982), "Christian Intolerance of Homo- sexuality," American Journal of Sociology 88 : 515-548.

2.H. Kamen (1968), The Spanish Inquisition. New York: Mentor, p. 201.

3. H.M. Hyde (1970), The Other Love." An Historical and Contemporary Survey of Homosexuality in Britain. London: William Heinemann.

4.Ibid., p. 40.

5.V. Bullough (1976), Sexual Variance in Society and History. New York: Wiley, p. 476.

6.A.L. Rowse (1977), Homosexuals in History: A Study of Ambivalence in Literature and the Arts. New York: Macmillan.

7.M. Daniel (1957), Hommes du Grand Siecles: Etudes sur l'Homosexualit~ sous les Regnes de Louis XIII et de Louis XIV. Paris: Arcadie, p. 14.

8.B.R. Burg (1983), Sodomy and the Perception of Evil: English Sea Rovers in the Seventeenth- Century Caribbean. New York: New York University Press, pp. 13-20.

9.H.L. Marchand (1933). Sex Life in France: Including History of Its Erotic Literature. New York: Panurge Press.

10.V. Bullough, op. cit., pp. 507-508, 519-522; L. Crompton (1976), "Homosexuals and the Death Penalty in Colonial America," Journal of Homosexuality 1: 277-292; J, Katz (ed.) (1976), Gay American History: Lesbians and Gay Men in the U.S.A. New York: Thomas Y. CroweU.

11.B.R. Burg (1983), op. cir., pp, 38-40.

12.We are concerned here only with male homosexuality. The qualifier should be understood even when it is omitted from the text. Conceptions of lesbianism in the modern world have recently been discussed by L. Faderman (1981), Surpassing the Love of Men. New York: Morrow; and G. Chauncey (1982), "Female Deviance," Salamagundi 58-59: 114-146.

13.D. Humphries and D.F. Greenberg (1981), "The Dialectics of Crime Control," pp. 209-254 in David F. Greenberg (ed.), Crime and Capitalism: Readings in Marxist Criminology. Palo Alto, California: Mayfield.

14.H.M. Hyde (1970), op. cit.; R. Hamoway (n.d.), "Medicine and the Crimination of Sin: 'Self- Abuse' in Nineteenth Century America." Unpublished paper.

15.J. Bentham (1978), "Offenses Against One's Self: Paederasty," Journal of Homosexuality 4: 389-405; L. Crompton (1976), op. cit.

16.E. Pessen (1969), Jacksonian America: Society, Personality, and Politics. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey pp. 90-92.

17.That the critical factor was class, rather than some religious development such as the development of a Protestant ethic, is evident from the comment made by E. Barber (1955), The Bourgeoisie in Eighteenth Century France, Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 79, that in France, even before the Revolution enthroned "middle class respectability," in all its aspects, the bourgeoisie disapproved of the lax sexual morality for which the 18th century was famous. This was as true for the Catholic bourgeoisie as it was for the Calvinists.

18.D. Humphries and D.F. Greenberg (1981), op. cit.; H.G. Levine (1979), "Temperance and Women in Nineteenth Century United States," in Research Advances in Alcohol and Drug Problems, vol. 5 New York: Plenum.

19.S. Marcus (1964), The Other Victorians: A Study of Sexuality and Pornography in Mid-Nine- teenth Century England. New York; Basic Books, pp. 21-23.

20.G.J. Barker-Benfield (1976), The Horrors of the Half-Known Life: Male Attitudes toward Women and Sexuality in Nineteenth Century America. New York: Harper and Row; J.S. Hailer and R.M. Haller (1974), The Physician and Sexuality in Victorian America. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 97, 124-131; R. Hamoway (n.d.), op. cit.; R.P. Neumann (1975), "Masturbation, Madness and the Modern Concepts of Childhood and Adolescence," Journal of Social History 8: 1-27; T. Szasz (1970), The Manufacture of Madness. New York: Dell, pp. 180-206.

21.J.S. Hailer and R.M. Hailer (1974), op. cir.; W.S. Johnson (1979), Living in Sin: The Victorian Sexual Revolution. Chicago; Nelson-Hall.

22.C.N. Degler (1974), "What Ought to Be and What was: Women's Sexuality in the Nineteenth Century," American Historical Revie w 79: 1467-1490.

23.L. Stone (1979). The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800. Abridged Edition. New York: Harper and Row, p. 332.

24.R. Hamilton (1978), The Liberation of Women: A Study of Patriarchy and Capitalism. Winchester, Massachusetts: AUen and Unwin; M. Walzer (1968), The Revolution of the Saints: A Study in the Origins of Radical Politics. New York: Atheneum, pp. 193-194.

25.C. Lasch (1977), Haven in a Heartless World. New York: Basic.

26.On the other hand, the literature on masturbation was explicit in portraying loss of interest in the opposite sex and subsequent social withdrawal and isolation, or the development of sex- inappropriate behaviour (shyness for boys, flirtatiousness and self-assertion for girls) as among its undesirable consequences.

27.R. Hamoway (n,d.), op. cit.

28.J. Katz (ed.) (1976), Gay American History: Lesbians and Gay Men in the U.S.A. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, pp. 36-37, 39.

29.Although passage of the Amendment has often been taken as an indication of strong anti-homo- sexual sentiment, this was apparently not the case. F.B. Smith (1976), "Labouchere's Amendment to the Criminal Law Amendment Bill," Historical Studies 17: 165-175, has demonstrated that Labouchere, who tacked his Amendment on to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which raised the age of consent for females, did so as a joke, to discredit the act, which he wanted defeated. The purity organizations that had campaigned for the adoption of the act had never mentioned homosexuality in their pamphlets. The late-night debate over Labouchere's Amendment, which came at the end of a two-year period of parliamentary discussion of the Act, was extremely superficial, and it is uncertain whether the members of Parliament who approved it understood its provisions, according to H.M. Hyde (1970), op. cit., pp. 135-136, and K. Plummer (1975), Sexual Stigma: An lnteractionist Account. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

30.S. Rowbotham (1977), "Edward Carpenter, Prophet of the New Life," pp. 25-138 in Sheila Rowbotham and Jeffrey Weeks (eds.), Socialism and the New Life: The Personal and Sexual Politics of Edward Carpenter and Havelock Ellis. London: Pluto; K.B. Davis (1972), Factors in the Sex Life of Twenty-Two Hundred Women. New York: Arno Press; J. Weeks (1977), Coming Out: Homosexual Politics in Britain, from the Nineteenth Century to the Present. London: Quartet.

32.Distinctive homosexual social roles had been recognized much earlier, but it is not clear that these roles were thought to reflect more than a personal choice. See, for example, M. Mclntosh (1968), "The Homosexual Role," Social Problems 16: 182-192; R. Trumbach (1977) "London's Sodomites: Homosexual Behaviour and Western Culture in the 18th Century," Journal of Social History 11: 1-33.

33.M.S. Larson (1977), The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 20-21.

34.J. Weeks (1977), op. cir.

35.C. Lombroso (1911), Crime, Its Causes and Remedies. Boston: Little Brown.

36.Contagion was of concern for two reasons. First, seduction into homosexuality was thought possible; second, homosexual choices were not generally thought to be exclusive. Late nineteenth and early twentieth century degeneracy theorists commonly expressed the fear that homosexuals would marry and transmit their degeneracy to offspring.

37.P. Conrad and J.W. Schneider (eds.) (1980), Deviance and Medicalization: From Badness to Sick- ness, St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, describe this development for a number of different types of deviance, including homosexuality; but they do not explain why the trend occurred.

38.T. Duesterberg (1979), Criminology and the Social Order in Nineteenth Century France. Un- published Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.

39.G.G. Gonzalez (1977), "The Relationship between Monopoly Capitalism and Progressive Education," The Insurgent Sociologist 7: 25-42.

40.J. Weeks (1977), op. cit., p. 18.

41.For England, see ibid., p. 16; for the United States, see D.J. Pivar (1973), Purity Crusade. West- port, Connecticut: Greenwood.

42.This ideology and practice was soon to be challenged by Freudian psychiatry, which displaced the medical conception of homosexuality as pathological from the biological level to the psychological. But the older conception never disappeared from therapeutic practice. We do not trace the development of psycho-analytic perspectives here; for an overview, see P. Conrad and J.W. Schneider (eds.) (1980), op. cir.

43.M. Weber (1946), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Trans. by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 196-198.

44.M. Weber (1968), Economy and Society, vol. 3 Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (eds.). New York: Bedminster Press, pp. 956-1005.

45.H.C. Lea (1907), A History of the Inquisition of Spain, vol. 4. New York: Macmillan, pp. 361, 364; A. Karlen (1971), Sexuality and Homosexuality: A New View. New York: Norton, pp. 109-110, 122; W. Lithgow (1906), The Total Discourse of the Rare Adventures and Painefull Peregrinations of Long Nineteene Yeares Travayles. Glasgow: James Maclehose. Orig. publ. 1632.

46.M. Daniel, op. cit.

47 E.M. Schur (1965), Crimes Without Victims. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. It is precisely under this pattern of enforcement that a semi-covert deviant subculture comes into being. Evidence for the existence of distinctive, partly hidden homosexual subcultures in England comes from the early eighteenth century, and in France from the seventeenth. See M. Mclntosh (1968), op. cir.; R. Trumbach (1977), op. cit.; M. Daniel (1957), op. tit.

48.This idea has also been proposed by C. Davies (1982), "Sexual Taboos and Social Boundaries," American Journal of Sociology 87: 1032-1063, who, however, does not qualify it as we do below. Now that women are being employed in bureaucracies to an increasing extent, concern over heterosexual relationships at the workplace is rising, and M. Mead (1978) "Needed: A New Sex Taboo," Redbook (February): 31, 33, 38, has gone so far as to call for the creation of a taboo against such relationships.

49.R.E. Quinn (1977), "Coping with Cupid: The Formation, Impact and Management of Romantic Relationships in Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly 22: 30-45.

50.R. Zoglin (1979), "The Homosexual Executive," pp. 68-77 in Martin P. Levine (ed.), Gay Men: The Sociology of Male Homosexuality. New York: Harper and Row.

51.A.N. Gilbert (1976), "Buggery and the British Navy, 1700-1861," Journal of Social History 10: 72-98.

52.Senate Subcommittee on Investigations (1950), Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

53.F. Pearce (1973), "How to be Immoral and IU, Pathetic and Dangerous All at the Same Time: Mass Media and the Homosexual," pp. 284-301 in Stanley Cohen and Jock Young (eds.), The Manufacture of News: Deviance, Social Problems and the Mass Media. London: Constable.

54.R.K. Merton (1957), Social Theory and Social Structure, Revised Edition. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, pp. 195-206.

55.S. Jourard (1974), "Some Lethal Aspects of the Male Role," pp. 21-29 in Joseph Pleck and Jack Sawyer (eds.), Men and Masculinity. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall; J. Sawyer (1970), "On Male Liberation," Liberation 15: 32-33. The socialization of female children in the modern, western world has encouraged the expression of traits that are inconsistent with bureaucratic administration (emotional expressiveness, nurturance), but are important in the tasks carried out by women in the home or in such occupations as elementary education and nursing, where women have been employed in large numbers. Of course, this linkage between sex and personality traits is imperfect, and would not be expected to exist at all in social groups where the sexual division of labour is differently structured.

56.R. Trumbach (1977), op. cit.

57.W. Eton (1972), A Survey of the Turkish Empire. Second Edition. Westmead: Gregg Inter- national. Orig. publ. 1789, p. 29; A.H. Lybyer (1966), The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent. New York: Russell and Russell. Orig. publ. 1913.

58.E.S. Creasy (1877), History of the Ottoman Turks. London: Richard Bently and Son, pp. 34-35, 85-86; A.t-I. Lybyer (1966), op. cit., pp. 75-77, 122, 244-245,263;W. Eton (1972), op. cir.; H. Inalcik (1973), The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, pp. 74-75.

59.W. Lithgow (1906), op. cit.; Karlen (1971), p. 335.

60.J.-J. Matignon (1899), "Deux Mots sur la Pederastie en Chine," Archives d'Anthropologie Criminelle 14: 38-53.

61.Ibid.; E. Alabaster (1899), Notes and Commentaries on Chinese Criminal Law. London: Luzac.

62.M. Schachtman (1962) The Bureaucratic Revolution: The Rise of the Stalinist State. New York: Donald; J. Lauritsen and D. Thorstad (1974), The Early Homosexual Rights Movement (1864- 1935). New York: Times Change Press. C. Lefort (1974-75), "What is Bureaucracy?" Telos 22:31-65; A. Arato (1978), "Understanding Bureaucratic Centralism," Telos 35: 73-87.

63.In a critique of Leninist (democratic centralist) organizational structures, S. Robotham (1979), "The Women's Movement and Organizing for Socialism," Radical America 13: 9--28, describes their austere image of what it means to be a revolutionary:

The individual militant appears as a lonely character without ties, bereft of domestic emotions, who is hard, erect, serf-contained, controlled, without the time or ability to express loving passions, who cannot pause to nurture, and for whom friendship is a diversion .... It's a stark vision of sacrifice and deprivation .... It surely owes something to the strange things done to little boys in preparing them for manhood in capitalism .... Leninist groups still tend to reduce the criteria for success to an old-style managerial concept of efficiency...

In light of our analysis it is not surprising that major Leninist organizations in the United States have declined to endorse gay liberation, or have characterized homosexuality as bourgeois decadence, or as a sickness induced by the decay of capitalism.

64.J.F. Verbruggen (1977), The Art of Warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages. Amster- dam: North-Holland.

65.P. Aries (1962), Centuries of Childhood. Trans. by'Robert Baldick. New York: Vintage.

66.M. Foucault (1977), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. by Alan Sheridan. New York: Pantheon.

67.K. Stone (1974), "The Origins of Job Structures in the Steel Industry," Review of Radical Political Economics 6: 113-173; D. Nelson (1975), Managers and Workers: Origins of the New Factory System in the United States, 1880-1920. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

68.N. Edwards and H.G. Richy (1971), The School in the American Social Order. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

69.J. Weeks (1977), op. cit., pp. 39-41.

70.C.L. San Miguel and J. MiUham (1976), "The Role of Cognitive and Situational Variables in Aggression toward Homosexuals," Journal of Homosexuality 2:11-27.

71.M.T. Saghir and E. Robins (1973), Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation. Baltimore, Maryland: Williams and Wilkins.

72.For details of the early history of the gay liberation movement, which cannot be presented here, see D. Teal (1971), The Gay Militants. New York: Stein and Day; L. Humphreys (1972), Out of" the Closets: The Sociology of Homosexual Liberation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall; and J. Weeks (1977), op. cir.

73.R. Flacks (1971), Youth and Social Change. Chicago; Rand McNally.

74.M. Gordon (1971), "From an Unfortunate Necessity to a Cult of Mutual Orgasm: Sex in American Marital Education Literature, 1830-1930," pp. 53-77 in James Henslin (ed.), Studies in the Sociology of Sex. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

75.L. Gordon and A. Hunter (1977), "Sex, the Family and the New Right," Radical America 11: 9-25.

76.L. Humphreys (1970), Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. Chicago: Aldine. 77.J. Lauritsen (1974), Religious Roots of the Taboo on Homosexuality. New York: Privately printed; L. Crompton (1978), "Gay Genocide: From Leviticus to Hitler," pp. 67-91 in Louie Crew (ed.), The Gay Academic. Palm Springs, California: ETC.

78.M. Goodich (1979), op. cit.; J. Boswell (1980), op. cit.; D.F. Greenberg and M.H. Bystryn (1982), op. cir.

79.J. Boswell, ibid.

80.D. Fernbach (1976), "Toward a Marxist Theory of Gay Liberation," Socialist Review 6: 29-41; F. Pearce and A. Roberts (1973), "The Social Regulation of Sexual Behavior and the Develop- ment of Industrial Capitalism in Britain," pp. 51-72 in Roy Bailey and Jock Youngs (eds.), Contemporary Social Problems in Britain. Lexington, Massachusetts: Saxon House.