|
December 14, 2003
A leg up on culture?
Not to neglect today's events, but I think the following might be of general interest, and I would have posted on it earlier but for the dramatic news of Saddam Hussein's capture. Is homosexuality is associated with the inner workings of civilization itself? Arthur Silber (a meticulous guy who always does his homework) links to this book review from the New York Times (and I know what a hassle it can be to fill out the damned form to read these things, so I'll quote generously): [I]n Louis Crompton's sober, searching and somber new history, "Homosexuality and Civilization," homosexuality is associated with the inner workings of civilization itself....I have posted -- repeatedly -- about the difficulties posed in analyzing the ancients' attitude towards homosexuality in modern terms. To say that they did not stigmatize it misses the point. They did not see it as different. Rather, it was a part of human sexual expression; sexual desire. Something to be perhaps commented upon in passing, but not something which would separate people who did it as remarkable, different, or (particularly) in any way less human than anyone else. While it is tough to draw a modern analogy, the closest example I can give would be the way a heterosexual man who liked legs (I guess that's safe enough) would be called "a leg man." No stigma, because this is simply seen as sexual variation. Homosexuality was as unremarkable to the ancients as an interest in legs would be to heterosexuals today. To speak of America's "tolerance" for men who enjoy women's legs would strike us as totally absurd. Similarly, to talk about the ancients' attitude towards homosexuality, by presuming that there is an attitude, runs the risk of contamination by alien observation. Still, the question remains: why the stigma? Certainly, it makes little sense solely to blame Leviticus. Jews have not stoned homosexuals for thousands of years, and, notwithstanding St. Paul's disapproval of homosexuality, the Council of Jerusalem specifically distanced Christianity from the Leviticus prohibitions. Thus, at some point in time, Christianity "discovered" a new stigma -- or perhaps reinvented and misintepreted ancient Jewish laws even though Jews no longer applied them as written. Were Justinian and Theodora the culprits? Maybe I should ask a genuine scholar of the Byzantine period (and one of my favorite bloggers) Michael McNeil. (His latest post -- The Byzantine Crusades is a real gem!) I don't think there was any one cause. Different ideas spring up among different peoples, times, and places. (It has long fascinated me, for example, how homosexuality could be the essence of masculinity in some cultures, and the essence of effeminacy in others. And they didn't get the latter idea from Leviticus!) Given enough time, such ideas become so entrenched that no one knows how they started. Like foot binding. (You never know; it might have started with a leg man.....)
posted by Eric on 12.14.03 at 05:56 PM
Comments
Interesting article -- which shows how much debate there is about ancient attitudes. The bottom line, however (if you can forgive my use of the term), is that there were no criminal penalties, nor was there anything resembling the modern notion of sexuality as a "sin." Roman writers had many personal opinions -- some based on social position, some based on satire, some on honor. The fact that even emperors were known to have favored the passive role in same sex relations makes me suspect that social disapproval ran more to considerations of taste than to what we would consider genuine morality. (Once again, I am reminded of heterosexual fetishes -- which can cause raised eyebrows, but not major social ostracism -- to say nothing of death or imprisonment....) Thanks for that link, Dave! Eric Scheie · December 14, 2003 08:06 PM I recently read an article on anti-Semitism which wound up suggesting the same things you suggest about homophobia: that it is protean, has many sources, and excuses itself creatively. Humans seem to come equipped with an emotional inheritance from the baboon: free-floating hostility toward strangers. This hostility can coalesce on any object. Jews and queers have been mere targets of opportunity. Alan Sullivan · December 15, 2003 02:21 PM Fascinating. Just a few thoughts that occured to me: Steven Malcolm Anderson · December 15, 2003 03:20 PM NY Times: "In ancient Greece, homosexuality was philosophically praised and institutionally sanctioned, associated with virtues of courage and mentorship."I don't think the picture is quite so simple. Take a look at this Lingua Franca article about Plato's use of the term "enormity" to describe homosexual acts. Michael · December 22, 2003 01:50 AM Michael -- Thanks for visiting -- and for that link, which is very interesting. I am not a classical scholar, however, and translation of ancient Greek is beyond my competence. However, I think most people would agree that the pictures on ancient Greek plates speak for themselves -- perhaps not very "Platonically"....
Eric Scheie · December 22, 2003 08:55 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Well, homosexuality in the broadest sense of "same-sex coitus" may have been okay in ancient times, but at least in ancient Rome, it was seen as shameful to be a cinaedus, a pathicus, or a cunnilingus; far better to be a fututor, pedicator, or irrumator.
Or roughly, passivity during sex was seen as embarrassing, while activeness during sex was considered manly, at least according to this article. There are still sexual inequalities within at least Roman society (I know very little about ancient Greece), but they seem to fall along an active-passive axis rather than a hetero-homo one.
And I just like saying the word "irrumator".