The Straight State – Sexuality and Citizenship in Twentieth–Century America (Anglais) Broché – 5 juillet 2011

This was required for a women's studies course that I took. I enjoyed this book more and more as I continued to read it. It led to many insightful and informative lectures and discussions in our class.

interesting ideas...

The inclusion of footnotes on almost every page of the book is a distraction to the reader: Canaday would have been wiser to include a Notes section at the end of the book for smoother reader experience, regardless of the audience’s academic background (or lack thereof). Even though the book is published by the Princeton academic press, its potential for larger appeal is muted by this editorial choice to mark up every page with such interference. More problematically, Canaday asks an insightful question in the Introduction to her book: “How did a state that was so late in coming construct such a vast apparatus for policing homosexuality, and why?” (2). She explores and explains a lot of the “how” based on her source materials, although the “why” is not clarified thoroughly enough by the end. Canaday may not have that answer, though, despite some attempts in her Conclusion to frame some ideas. When the reader finishes the book, there is still that nagging question, lingering on in the mind, leaving the whole experience to be emptier than expected.

Distilling an impressive amount of archival research, this book traces the gradual refinement (if that is the appropriate term) of antihomosexual policies on the part of the US federal government over the course of the twentieth century. Three areas are addressed: immigration, the military, and welfare. Not discussed are the baneful effects of state and local governments, as seen in such areas as entrapment and compulsory treatment of perceived mental disorders. In addition, the author offers only a brief discussion of the McCarthyite persecution of federal employees of the 1950s, holding that that has been covered in David K. Johnson's book.

Now in my seventies, I remember the horrendously homophobic atmosphere of mid-century America all too well. To be sure,"the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church"; that is, many of us became activists because we wanted to bring an end to these practices. That said, it is mistaken to suggest, as Canaday does, that the homophobic climate of the era was unique to the US. To be sure, some European countries, such as France and Italy, benefiting from the Code Napoleon, did better. But the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were worse. Probably, the atmosphere that we endured was a special characteristic of the English-speaking peoples. While England and Wales decriminalized in 1967, over forty Commonwealth countries are still saddled with antisodomy legislation introduced by British colonialism. In countries like Jamaica and Uganda this heritage is accompanied by truly frightening popular outbreaks of bigotry and repression.

Another problem is the residue of the special creationism of the Social Construction trend of the 1990s. "The state . . . did not merely implicate but c o n s t i t u t e d homosexuality . . . (p. 4). This claim is simply untrue to the experience of myself and many others in that period. Prior to becoming acquainted with any theory, we first became imbued with a powerful attraction to a member of the same sex. Some of us thought that we were the only such people in the world. Theory did not "constitute" us.

A possibly revealing mistake, suggesting the limitations of the author's perspective, is the term "puppen-hungen" for a young man who was seeking to emigrate from Berlin in 1909 (p. 19). The actual term is "puppenjunge," a common German-language term for a young hustler at the time.

In "The Straight State: Sexuality and Citizenship in Twentieth-Century America", Margot Canaday works to dispel the notion that “the extreme state repression of sex and gender noncomformity in the mid-twentieth century was a result of the sudden visibility of gays and lesbians during and after World War II” (pg. 2). Her scope, then, focuses on how the government defined homosexuality beginning in World War I, through the Depression, and finally during and after the Second World War with the advent of the G.I. Bill. While military and governmental personnel did their part in defining homosexuality prior to World War II, the G.I. Bill, more than any other piece of legislation, tied the gender roles associated with heterosexuality to the concept of proper citizenship. This bill serves as the focal point of Canaday’s argument.
Canaday begins her chapter on the G.I. Bill arguing, “The suggestive and symbolic removal of the sexually deviant from federal relief…has morphed into the actual removal of homosexuals from programs for veterans’ benefits” (pg. 139). The social stigma associated with receiving an undesirable, or “blue,” discharge prevented many veterans from using the advantages offered through the G.I. Bill and thus gaining the ideal rewards of American citizenship (pg. 145). Though the military initially used the blue discharge for a number of offenses, including drunkenness, the discharge soon transformed into a code for those dismissed due to homosexual acts or tendencies. Further, while the language of the G.I. Bill only prohibits those dishonorably discharged from taking advantage of its benefits, the Veterans’ Administration took the responsibility for determining which blue discharges were acceptable for benefits. The Veterans Administration, in explicitly linking homosexuality with undesirability, condemned American veterans who, despite serving their country, belonged to a different gender than those in power.
In denying benefits to those discharged for homosexuality, the Veterans Administration created a group of second-class citizens to whom the benefits of a college education or a home loan were not available. The 1957 Doyle Bill, intended to offer relief to those given blue discharges for behaviors other than homosexuality, further reinforced gender lines. Doyle’s rehabilitation program identified those who had married, started families, and sought employment as most likely to deserve rehabilitation. All of these traits fit in with traditional ideas of manhood. Tellingly, one congressman described a veteran deserving of this program as having “assumed the position of a man” (pg. 166). The use of binary language indicates that the other choice was the position of a woman, which would equate the veteran with a homosexual in the eyes of the government. Canaday summarizes this program, “In continuing the World War II-era practice of using the undesirable discharge for soldiers discharged for homosexuality, the military increased the association between undesirability and homosexuality” (pg. 167). The entire program served as a self-perpetuating system for ensuring only those that met strict heterosexual gender standards received rewards and full citizenship from the government.
Canaday’s book demonstrates that the government defined homosexuality more than homosexuals themselves. Concepts of manhood played a significant part, but the desire to prosecute or deny benefits, especially in the case of the G.I. Bill, dominated the discourse surrounding homosexuality. This discourse of punishment explains why homosexuality continues to suffer from a social stigma in the United States to this day.