Towards a Gay Communism

by Mario Mieli

  2) I have briefly summarised the repression of homosexuality in history (or prehistory, in the Marxist sense), with the aim of recording the historical origin of the anti-homosexual taboo and demonstrating how terrible the persecution perpetrated against us homosexuals was in the past, and can still be today.

  3) I have insisted on the universal presence of homosexual desire, normally negated by capitalist-heterosexual ideology. Still today, it is generally held that the homosexual question exclusively concerns a minority, a limited number of queers and lesbians: they don’t want to take into account how as long as homosexuality remains repressed, the homosexual will be a problem concerning everyone, insofar as gay desire is present in every human being, congenitally so, even if in the majority of cases it is repressed or semi-repressed.

  4) I have tried to cast light on the relation that exists between homoeroticism and what stands behind the ‘veil of illusion’ i.e. what is beyond ordinary perception and that which is commonly considered as ‘normal’ and hypostatised by the system. I have indicated that homosexuality is a bridge towards a decidedly other dimension of existence, sublime and profound, one that is in part revealed by so-called ‘schizophrenic’ experiences.

  5) I have emphasised the importance of the liberation of homosexuality in the context of human emancipation; indeed, for the creation of communism, one of the sine qua non, among others, will be the complete disinhibition of homoerotic tendencies, which, if freed, can guarantee the attainment of a totalising communication between human beings, independent of their sex.

  6) I have defined as transsexual4 our potential erotic availability, constrained by repression to latency or subjected to a more or less severe repression, and I have therefore indicated in transsexuality the telos (a genuine telos, insofar as it is internal) of the struggle for the liberation of Eros.

  I hope this book will promote the liberation of gay desire among all who now repress it, and will aid gay people who are still enslaved by the sense of guilt induced by social persecution to free themselves from this false guilt. It is high time to root this out, as it only helps to perpetuate the deadly domination of capital. It is time to oppose both this determination and the heterosexual Norm that contributes to maintaining it by guaranteeing, among other things, the subjection of Eros to alienated labour and the divisions between men, between women, and between women and men.

  I am deeply grateful to Rosa Carotti, Adriana Guardigli, Corrado Levi, Manolo Pellegrini and in particular Francesco Santini for having helped me write this book. I also want to thank: Angelo Pezzana, who advised me to publish it, Myriam Cristallo, who was the first to read it, and Walter Pagliero, who lent me books and articles which proved very helpful. And I am indebted to Silvia Colombo, Marcello Dal Lago, Franco Fergnani, Maria Martinotti, Denis Rognon, Guia Sambonet, Anna Sordini, Aldo Tagliaferri and Annabella Zaccaria for their valuable suggestions.

  I have used the terms ‘homosexuality’ and ‘homoeroticism’ as synonymous, and ‘gay’ as a synonym for ‘homosexual’ or ‘homoerotic’. I have used the term ‘pederasty’ only in its proper sense, to define erotic desire directed at a very young person.

  __________

  1. Herbert Spiers, ‘Psychiatric Neutrality: An Autopsy’, in The Body Politic, no. 7, Winter 1973, pp. 14–15. [Translator’s note: The epigraph was presented in English by Mieli in the Italian text.]

  2. [Translator’s note: Mieli here uses the Latin phrase mare magnum, which literally means ‘great sea’ (and often referred to the Mediterranean) but came to denote figuratively both a maelstrom and, crucially for this context, an unmapped zone where expected forms of navigation and cartography were of little use.]

  3. [Translator’s note: The word he uses here is canaglia, which carries heavy echoes, particularly in its sense of a condemnation of the masses as rabble. In Italian, it also suggests a scoundrel or riffraff, linked etymologically to the word cane (‘dog’). Here, this meaning is flipped to signify the well-heeled pack of what Mieli later terms the ‘psychonazis’ hounding homosexuals.]

  4. [Translator’s note: As Mieli does not hyphenate this word, and in order to put it in closer dialogue with contemporary trans and queer theory, I have followed his lead and left it unhyphenated.]

  1

  Homosexual Desire is Universal

  The Gay Movement Against Oppression

  Contemporary gay movements have developed in countries where capital has reached the stage of real domination.1 However, while still under the formal domination of capital, and for the first time in history, homosexuals had organised themselves into a movement. This happened first of all in Germany, in the second half of the nineteenth century, thanks to the spread of the work of Karl Ulrichs and the subsequent foundation of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee in 1897,2 as it did in different ways in England, and then in the first decades of this century in Holland, Austria, the USA, Soviet Russia, and other countries. The homosexual movement did not invariably take the fixed organisational form that distinguished the Scientific Humanitarian Committee and its international offshoot, the World League for Sexual Reform, but in many countries, even without producing specific formal organisations, it still gave rise to a wide debate on homosexuality that involved for the first time a considerable number of cultural and political ‘personalities’ and brought to light problems and arguments which had until then been passed over in silence, in deference to one of the severest of taboos.

  The violent persecution of homosexuals by Nazism, Stalinism and fascism obliterated this movement, and with it the very memory of this first major international homosexual self-assertion, thereby re-establishing the absolute ideology of the Norm. Due to this setback, it was only through the research of the new gay movement, re-emerging in 1969 with the Gay Liberation Front in the United States, and subsequently spreading to several other countries, that those of us born in more recent decades became at all aware of the existence of an earlier gay movement, and came to see ourselves as engaged – contrary to what we had believed – in a second wave of the liberation movement and not in the first. Some of the questions that we raise today, for example, involve themes that were already tackled by the first gay movement. One of these, in particular, still concerns homosexuals today as much as those in the past: for what reasons does society marginalise us and repress us so harshly?

  To this and other questions, we have tried to reply with a research starting from our own personal experience, whether by talking together at general meetings about our existential and social condition as homosexuals and comparing our experiences, or by committing ourselves more deeply to the analysis of individual experience, undertaking the ‘work’ of self-awareness in smaller consciousness-raising or ‘awareness’ groups. As a result, we have begun to understand better what we are, and why we have been oppressed, in the process of coming together on the basis of our common desire and with the viewpoint of liberation.

  The new gay movement has also resumed the historical and anthropological investigations started by the first wave, shedding light on the persecution of homosexuals across the centuries and on the historical origin of anti-gay condemnation, a condemnation that is almost invariably peddled by the ideology of heterosexual primacy as simply natural. And if the old movement had a strong commitment to psychological research, in the new movement groups have formed that concern themselves instead with psychiatry, struggling against the anti-homosexual persecution perpetrated in the guise of psychiatric treatment. The gay movement totally rejects the reactionary (pre)judices against homosexuality displayed by mainstream psychiatry, yet revolutionary homosexuals also oppose the new ‘progressive’ but completely heterosexual view of homosexuality currently widespread in anti-psychiatry circles.3

  The work of consciousness-raising has also brought us face to face with elements of psychoanalytic theory that refers to homosexuality. We have discovered in psychoanalysis some important ideas, such as that of the unconscious, for example, and repression – idea
s which we can integrate at least temporarily into our own gay science. As a result, we have reached the firm conclusion that the hatred generated towards us within heterosexual society is caused by the repression of the homoerotic component of desire in those individuals who are apparently heterosexual. The general repression of homosexuality, in other words, determines the rejection by society of the manifest expressions of the gay desire. The question now is what it is that provokes this repression; and we believe we shall discover the hidden motives for this by combatting the repression itself, i.e. by spreading the pleasure and desire of homosexuality.4 It is in the struggle for liberation that we shall come to understand why we have up till now been slaves – and we are all slaves, both gay and straight alike.

  But if repression is a psychoanalytic concept, it was also psychoanalysis, in modern times that first upheld the universality of homosexual desire. In Freud’s words, ‘in all of us, throughout life, the libido normally oscillates between male and female objects’.5 Why, then, we might ask, if all people are also homosexual, do so few admit this and enjoy their homosexuality?

  Polymorphous ‘Perversity’, Bisexuality and Transsexuality

  The hermaphrodite was a distinct sex in form as well as in name, with the characteristics of both male and female, but now the name alone remains, and that solely as a term of abuse. – Plato6

  Psychoanalysis comes to the conclusion of an infantile ‘perverse’ polymorphism and recognises in every individual an erotic disposition towards others of the same sex. According to Freud, the child is ‘constitutionally disposed’ to this ‘perverse’ polymorphism, and all the so-called ‘perversions’ form part of infantile sexuality (sadism, masochism, coprophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, homosexuality, etc.). In fact, ‘a disposition to perversions is an original and universal disposition of the human sexual instinct and . . . normal sexual behaviour is developed out of it as a result of organic changes and psychical inhibitions occurring in the course of maturation.’7

  Among the forces that inhibit and restrict the direction of the sexual drive are, above all, ‘the structures of morality and authority erected by society.’8 Repressive society and dominant morality consider only heterosexuality as ‘normal’ – and only genital heterosexuality at that. Society operates repressively on children, above all through an educastration designed to eradicate those congenital sexual tendencies deemed ‘perverse.’ (Moreover, one could say that today, more or less all infantile sexual impulses are considered ‘perverse,’ including heterosexual ones, the child having no right to erotic enjoyment.) The objective of educastration is the transformation of the infant, in tendency polymorphous and ‘perverse’, into a heterosexual adult, erotically mutilated but conforming to the Norm.

  The majority of psychoanalysts recognise sexual expressions even in the very first months of life, and have established steps of sexual development that we can sum up as autoeroticism – homosexuality – heterosexuality. But this is in no way a ‘natural’ evolution; it rather reflects the repressive influence of the child’s social and family environment. There is nothing in life itself that requires the child to ‘grow out’ of autoeroticism and the homosexual ‘stage’ in order to attain this exclusive heterosexuality. The environment in which we live is heterosexual (in the first place the family, the cell of the social tissue), in that it forces the child, through a sense of guilt, to abandon the satisfaction of his auto- and homoerotic desires, obliging him to identify with a mutilated monosexual (heterosexual) model. Obviously, this does not always succeed.

  Psychoanalysis defines the first expressions of eroticism as ‘undifferentiated,’ or only a little so. In other words, the selection of an object, for the infant, is due more to circumstances than to biological sex (and to circumstances that can change even in the course of a day). Little girls are all also lesbians, and little boys are all also gay.

  To those who still wonder whether they are born homosexual or become so, we must reply that everyone is born endowed with a wide range of erotic propensity, directed first of all towards the self and the mother, then gradually turning outward to ‘everyone’ else, irrespective of their sex, and in fact towards the entire world. They become either heterosexual or homosexual only as a result of educastration (repressing their homoerotic impulses in the first case, and their heterosexual ones in the second).

  At this point, however, we might pause to consider whether these tendencies are actually repressed in the strict sense. According to Georg Groddeck, for example, no heterosexual really represses all his homoerotic desires, even if he believes himself to have done so. Rather than repressed, the majority of people most commonly exhibit a latent homosexuality (just as the desire for the opposite sex is latent, as a general rule, in gays). According to Freud, again, ‘we have two kinds of unconscious: the one which is latent but capable of becoming conscious, and the one which is repressed and which is not, in itself and without more ado, capable of becoming conscious’.9 To be quite correct, we should therefore speak of both latent homosexual desires and others that are effectively repressed. But since it is not always easy to distinguish the two, I shall speak sometimes of latent homosexual desire and in other contexts of the repression of homosexuality, without establishing too fine a distinction and thus using the concept in a somewhat elastic sense. In any case, faced with skilled seduction by a gay person, it is not repression that wins out; sooner or later, all heterosexuals give in. All are latent queens.

  In actual fact, latent homosexuality exists in everyone who is not a manifest homosexual, as a residue of infantile sexuality, polymorphous and ‘perverse’, and hence also gay. A residue, because homoeroticism has been repressed by society, condemned to latency and sublimated in the form of feelings of friendship, comradeship, etc., as well as being converted, or rather distorted, into pathological syndromes.10

  I shall use the term transsexuality throughout this book to refer to the infantile polymorphous and ‘undifferentiated’ erotic disposition, which society suppresses and which, in adult life, every human being carries within him either in a latent state, or else confined in the depths of the unconscious under the yoke of repression. ‘Transsexuality’ seems to me the best word for expressing, at one and the same time, both the plurality of the erotic tendencies and the original and deep hermaphrodism of every individual. But what exactly is this hermaphrodism?

  In psychoanalytic theory, the claim of ‘perverse’ infantile polymorphism goes hand in hand with the theory of original bisexuality. (And this theory will also make clearer what I mean by transsexuality and the transsexual nature of our underlying being.) The theory of original bisexuality was first put forward – among other reasons – to explain the causes of so-called ‘sexual inversion’ (i.e. homosexuality).11 Its roots lay in the discovery of the coexistence in the individual of somatic factors common to both sexes. This was well summed up by Daniel Paul Schreber (even though he was not a medical man but a crazy old queen): ‘In the first months of pregnancy the rudiments of both sexes are laid down and the characteristics of the sex which is not developed remain as rudimentary organs at a lower stage of development, like the nipples of the male.’12 The same applies to the female clitoris. Similar observations of this kind were taken to mean that sex is never unitary, and that monosexuality rather conceals a certain bisexuality (a hermaphrodism). According to psychoanalysis, we are all bisexual beings.

  This question has been comprehensively studied by genetic theory and endocrinology. In the words of Gilbert Dreyfus:

  Although genetic sex is determined by the composition of the fertilising spermatozoon, so that the father alone is responsible for the genetic sex of his offspring, the embryo undergoes in its early development a phase of apparently undifferentiated sexuality. It is only in the second month of foetal life that the rudimentary genitals begin to differentiate, so as to end up – after a long process and according to whether the first growth of tissue later develops or atrophies to make way for a second growth
– with the formation of a testicle or an ovary. But even in adults, there remain in both sexes residues of the other, as evidence of the dual male and female development of the embryonic gonads and the double reproductive system with which the embryo is initially endowed.13

  It can happen, in this embryonic development, that discrepancies arise between genetic and genital sex (and so, the son of Hermes and Aphrodite merges with the body of the nymph Salmacis).14 This gives rise to combinations of male and female characteristics, causes of what is termed ‘pseudo hermaphrodism’, ‘inter-sexuals’, or, better, ‘cases’ of manifest transsexuality.15

  But not all these ‘cases’ are determined simply by unusual physiological conditions. There are many conscious transsexuals, for example, who are physiologically every bit as male as the butchest heterosexual. What does it mean, then, to be manifestly transsexual today?

  In general, we call ‘transsexuals’ those adults who consciously live out their own hermaphrodism, and who recognise in themselves, in their body and mind, the presence of the ‘opposite’ sex.

  At the present time, the ‘cases’ of manifest transsexuality are still subject to the contradiction between the sexes and the repression of Eros, which is the repression of the universal transsexual (or polymorphous and hermaphrodite) disposition common to all human individuals. Persecuted by a society that cannot accept any confusion between the sexes, they frequently tend to reduce their effective transsexuality to an apparent monosexuality, seeking to identify with a historically ‘normal’ gender opposite to their genital definition. Thus a female transsexual feels herself a man, opting for the male gender role, while a male transsexual feels himself a woman. A human being of ‘imprecise’ sex has a much harder time just getting around than does a male person who seems, by all external signs, to be a woman, or vice versa. This is why people who recognise themselves as transsexual in the present society often want to ‘change’ (genital) sex by surgical operation, in Casablanca or Copenhagen, or rather more frequently, restrict themselves to strict psychological identification with the ‘opposite’ sex.16 Society induces these manifest transsexuals to feel monosexual and to conceal their real hermaphrodism. To tell the truth, however, this is exactly how society behaves with all of us. In fact we are all, deep down, transsexuals, we have all been transsexual infants, and we have been forced to identify with a specific monosexual role, masculine or feminine. In the case of manifest transsexuals, or those rare persons who have not repressed their transsexuality in growing up, the social constraint produces the opposite effect from what it does in ‘normal’ people, in as much as a male person tends to identify with the feminine role, and vice versa.