Questions on John D’Emilio, “Capitalism and Gay Identity”

Between the colonial period in the US and the late 19^th-early 20^th century, the economy changed from a predominantly household economy of male farmers and artisans who owned their land and workshops to an economy based primarily on wage labor. How did this shift affect families? How did the economic role of the family change?

D’Emilio describes the norms regulating sexuality in Puritan society as focused on procreation. How were these norms different from the sexual norms that emerge in the early 20^th century? How does the Puritan sexual system reflect the demands of the household economy? How do the new sexual norms reflect changes in wage labor and the emergence of the household as a unit of consumption, not production?

How did changing sexual norms, especially the emergence of the idea of heterosexual desire as the basis of marriage, lead to new ideals of family? Although this shift also constructed homosexuality as a form of deviance and psychological abnormality, it also encouraged the emergence of gay identities. How so?

How did the spread of wage labor and the rise of cities make possible the emergence of a homosexual subculture? What were some differences in the subcultures that men and women formed and what might explain these differences? Why were these subcultures not found in the rural West?

Why was World War II an important milestone in the development of urban gay communities? How did the society respond to the growth and visibility of the gay subculture? How did this response lead to the emergence of the gay liberation movement?

From this historical view of the emergence of gay identities, D’Emilio concludes that gay people are not a fixed social minority, composed for all time of a certain percentage of the population. He argues that gay rights advocates should not try to counter homophobic fears by reassuring people that homosexual people are born that way. What is your response to this idea?

D’Emilio argues that the “pro-family/anti-gay” politics of contemporary conservative movements, reflects a contradiction of the capitalist economy: on the one hand, individuals have much greater choice than ever about how they will live, who they will form families with; but on the other hand, families still are expected to take up the major responsibility for raising children and for providing adults with emotional security and personal happiness. Families are expected to provide much; yet, the bonds holding families in place are weaker than ever. Families cannot provide the security and happiness that everyone thinks they should provide. He suggests that opposition to homosexual families and relationships is a kind of scapegoating, that homophobia misdirects fears about the real instabilities and difficulties that families face. He proposes that gay communities offer an alternative to the heterosexual nuclear family and that the gay rights movement should not only support more personal autonomy and choice in sexual matters but also more collective forms for meeting our needs for care.

What do you think about his approach?