Virtually Normal

Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality

Cover of the first edition
Author Andrew Sullivan
Cover artist Chip Kidd
Country United States
Language English
Subject Homosexuality
Published 1995 (Picador)
Media type Print (Hardcover and Paperback)
Pages 225
ISBN 0-330-34696-2

Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality is a 1995 book about the politics of homosexuality by Andrew Sullivan, in which the author discusses and criticizes four different perspectives on gay rights in American society, which he calls the "Prohibitionist", "Liberationist", "Conservative", and "Liberal" views. Sullivan also argues in favor of same-sex marriage and an end to the Don't ask, don't tell policy, which banned military service by openly gay people. The book received some praise from reviewers, as well as more negative reactions. Sullivan's discussion of the social constructionist approach to homosexuality has been criticized.

Summary

The book presents the reader with four groups of citizens who view homosexuality in a specific manner within American society, criticizing the arguments: Prohibitionists, Liberationists, Conservatives, and Liberals.

The Prohibitionists comprise strict followers of the Bible. They believe that "homosexuality is an aberration and that homosexual acts are an abomination"[1] and that homosexuality is an illness that requires a cure and that homosexual acts should be punished. Sullivan asserts that there is inconsistency with Prohibitionists that use Biblical and moral arguments against homosexuality yet not against other conditions many Christians find sexually immoral. In order for Prohibitionists to have effective policy, they have to be hypocritical in their denial of marriage to gays yet not to infertile couples (because they claim marriage's sole purpose is procreation). However, if the Prohibitionists are consistent, then their views are too marginal to be accepted by society at large.

The Liberationists are epitomised by Queer Nation. They believe, like the Prohibitionists, that no one is "homosexual" but for a different reason. To a Liberationist, words such as "homosexual", "homosexuality", "gay", and "lesbian" are simply tools that the straight majority use to oppress the gay minority. An example of this would be that a gay man who feels sexual attraction for a particular woman would be limited by the chains of his "sexual orientation". Sullivan claims their flaw to be that liberationist policy, by rejecting the notion of limiting oneself to words, fails to improve the plight of the gay community.

Conservatives, unlike the Prohibitionists, don't believe that everyone is essentially heterosexual. They acknowledge the existence of a gay minority. However, they believe that homosexuality should be only a private matter and kept silent in public matters. They further believe that gays should not seek to change public acceptance of homosexuality because social change will come with time, just as it has for other minorities. Sullivan says that the problem of the Conservatives is that as gays gain increasing acceptance in Western societies, they are faced with two alternatives. The first is a path of "increasing isolation and uncomfortable hostility to homosexuality".[1] The second is to incorporate homosexual trends into their conservatism, as those originally opposed to women's suffrage eventually accepted the notion of women contributing to the conservative tradition of democracy.

The Liberals seek to apply liberalism as has been applied to other minorities to the gay community. Sullivan argues that the liberals want to apply a cookie-cutter agenda of "liberalism" that would render many gays as permanent victims of civil rights abuse. He says that the liberals are guilty of "trying to use easy remedies for a problem that knows no easy remedies; using the language of rights in an area where it is impossible to avoid the language of goods; encouraging an attitude among homosexuals that might actually increase their isolation rather than undermine it".[1] They are said to limit the freedom of the majority to give rights to minorities. Sullivan also adds that anti-discrimination laws are reifying.

Finally, Sullivan concludes on gay marriage, arguing that it would be a good thing as it would be both a humanising and traditionalising effort. He also advocated the repeal of Don't ask, don't tell, which was still in effect when he wrote the book.

Reception

Mainstream media

Virtually Normal reviewed by the journalist Richard Bernstein in The New York Times,[2] the critic Camille Paglia in The Washington Post,[3] and the novelist and critic Adam Mars-Jones in the London Review of Books.[4] Bernstein and Paglia both praised the book.[2][3] Mars-Jones gave the book a mixed review, writing that Sullivan is "more interesting in his contradictions than his attempts to resolve them". He credited Sullivan with offering lucid discussions of the conservative and liberal views of homosexuality, but found Sullivan's discussion of the "prohibitionist" view overly sympathetic and his discussion of the "liberationist" view misleading. Mars-Jones argued that Sullivan wrongly equated the "liberationist" view with social constructionism and the ideas of the philosopher Michel Foucault, and maintained that Sullivan provided only a caricature of the constructionist view. Though noting that Sullivan's book had been compared to Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch (1970), Mars-Jones did not consider the comparison justified.[4]

The journalist E. J. Dionne praised Virtually Normal, but was not fully convinced by Sullivan's arguments, and hesitated to endorse Sullivan's case for same-sex marriage. Dionne later re-evaluated his views, and concluded that Sullivan was correct to support same-sex marriage.[5]

Scientific and academic journals

The philosopher Richard D. Mohr dismissed Virtually Normal in the Journal of Homosexuality.[6]

Evaluations in books

The neuroscientist Simon LeVay criticized Sullivan's attempt to show that Saint Paul did not condemn homosexuality as such.[7] The philosopher Edward Stein, writing in The Mismeasure of Desire (1999), criticized Sullivan's treatment of social constructionism, arguing that Sullivan does not succeed in showing that social constructionism is false.[8] Michael Warner's The Trouble With Normal (1999) has been characterized as a direct response to Virtually Normal.[9]

References

  1. 1 2 3 Sullivan, Andrew (1996). Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality. London: Picador. pp. 20, 132, 167, 168. ISBN 0-330-34696-2.
  2. 1 2 Bernstein, Richard (6 September 1995). "A Stand on Homosexuality for Both Left and Right". The Washington Post. Retrieved 9 January 2017.
  3. 1 2 Paglia, Camille (10 September 1995). "Speaking up on coming out". The Washington Post. Retrieved 9 January 2017.
  4. 1 2 Mars-Jones, Adam (1997). Blind Bitter Happiness. London: Chatto & Windus. pp. 51–79. ISBN 0-7011-6617-7.
  5. ↑ Dionne, E. J. (2008). Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics After the Religious Right. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 111–113. ISBN 978-0-691-13458-1.
  6. ↑ Mohr, Richard D. (1997). "Book Reviews". Journal of Homosexuality. 34 (2). PMID 22909286.
  7. ↑ LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. pp. 297–298. ISBN 0-262-12199-9.
  8. ↑ Stein, Edward (1999). The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation. Berkeley: Oxford University Press. p. 111. ISBN 0-19-514244-6.
  9. ↑ Van Buskirk, James E. (1999). "The Trouble With Normal (review)". The Library Journal.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.