Homo chic

Tom Wolfe is credited with coining the term 'radical-chic' which described that odd time and phenomena in the 60s and 70s where people, but especially the wealthy and bored, appropriated radical political identities and adopted extremists as friends because that was 'the thing to do' and kept them in the public eye. This is all accounted in his essay "The Radical Chic Party & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers" which describes a party that famed classical composer Leonard Bernstein held at his home to benefit the Black Panthers. Because these people possessed immense wealth and were untied to traditional citizenry due to their international jetsetting, David Denby later wrote in chronicling this social climate, they were thoroughly detached from the issues that plagued the rest of American society. They feared a downturn into irrelevance, no longer being the talk of the town. Recall that during the 60s and 70s political activism amongst youths was relatively high and that conversations around the water cooler tended to be more explicitly political and social, so the natural solution for boredom amongst the excessively wealthy was to embrace the behaviors of the youthful hipsters and take on their alternative lifestyles, albeit much less aggressively than their college-aged ilk, and with greater access to those making headway in this regard. Denby recounts this normalizing behavior by New York's upper crust elites mingling with an eclectic mix of East Coast leftist literati and radical activists like the Black Panthers. As always, social experiment becomes litmus test for social climate, and a surge in radical chic and faux-extremism trickled down to the masses, displacing the political activism that had previously emerged and thrived on campuses nationwide.

Now, years later, it seems as youths have regressed in their taste for politics (save for the 2008 presidential election which was more an exceptional case than an indication of a change in tides), they have at least applied their continued love for the alternative in subtler, similarly as reflexive and wholly as dangerous ways. David Denby, in writing about Tom Wolfe in his book Snark, was not making a simple reference to this phenomena but utilized it to discuss the epidemic-level rise of snark in his profession of journalism and criticism; their shared characteristics being the use of symbols and aesthetics to empower what is ultimately empty rhetoric, making an argument out of fluff, agitating for the sake of agitating. Play-acting. Dilettantism. Completely detached from the ideological tenets and grassroots efforts of the people they mimic, this sort of behavior at least propels their own individual standing within their social circles. In writing about snark, Denby only reveals how impressive its effects have become on the ways people, but especially youths, engage in everyday presentations of self.

Katy Perry kissed a girl. But does it matter? 

In surveying conversations that litter social networking sites I'm affiliated with and in reviewing the conduct of friends, acquaintances, co-workers, and family, it's apparent that a sort of trend has emerged that recalls Wolfe's radical chic, this time it's consolidated into a very specific set of behaviors that all belong to a spectrum of related identities. But, next to the performative aspects of radicalism, this new trend seeks to displace what is increasingly being recognized as a genetically-predetermined quality of selfhood. The kids nowadays are all a lot gayer. Of course, it goes without saying that the closet is moving in the direction of shrinkage, from a walk-in to a broom closet, and youths are feeling greater efficacy to come out, but given the bounty of publicity, even celebrity, that surrounds homoerotic behavior, it begs the question of whether or not to be gay is now the "in" thing to be. Could it be that all of today's musicians, actors and socialites really are gay or bisexual? It's nothing to get alarmed about, but it should arouse some suspicion. And, personally, I find it deceptive, disingenuous, and dangerous to real efforts to disintegrate barriers for LGBT rights and tolerance.

Where the Bernsteins of yesteryear were sporting Black Panther armbands and hosting dinners and where youths from not long ago donned Che Guevara tees and gear, today's hipsters are decked out in similar garb to Lady GaGa (who is invested in LGBT rights and spoke at a rally in Wasington D.C.) and openly discuss (exagerrate?) their bromances, their gaiety for outed celebrities, and pose in pictures for Facebook like they're in a Chi Chi Larue shoot.

I see youths' frivolous investment in homosexual identity via faux-homo behavior as a way of assuaging their guilt over homosexual erasure and phobias, curbing stereotypes for personal empowerment that ends ultimately in reaffirming those stereotypes, pushing the LGBT into niches of preconceived demeanor. Whether or not they share or sympathize with causes of the LGBT, they habitually perform stereotypical conduct to complicate their own previously defined and well-accepted identities, and display these things as a hermit crab does an empty container, to push upon social mores in a manner that exudes the alternative and suggests their liberation from taboo or gender stereotypes, although the effect is perpetuation. This effect arises when those who remain firmly opposed to homosexuality or LGBT rights, with or without a theoretical basis, encounter such widespread 'gaydom' and intensify their animosity, disdain, apathy or hatred. In the end, it's lose-lose: not only does the LGBT community have dilettantes in their ranks committing acts of gay-for-pay or gay-for-a-day with little thought of the repercussions, but those broadcasted signals that are intended for public reception also end in LGBT persons making connections that simply don't end up going anywhere. It's the ultimate in cock-blocking, and it's destroying every victory the community has achieved in opening those closet doors.  



R.J.M.