Esther Newton is Professor of Anthropology and Kempner Distinguished Professor at State University of New York at Purchase. She is the author of several books, including Mother Camp, a groundbreaking study of American drag queens, and Cherry Grove, Fire Island: Sixty Years in America’s First Gay and Lesbian Town. Among other distinctions, she was Scholarly Advisor for the documentary film Paris Is Burning, a founding member of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center, and member of the Advisory Group for Stonewall History Project.

Margaret Mead Made Me Gay

PERSONAL ESSAYS, PUBLIC IDEASBy Esther Newton

Duke University Press

Copyright © 2000 Duke University Press
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-8223-2604-5

Contents

FOREWORD The Butch Anthropologist Out in the Field Judith Halberstam………………………………………………………………………..ixFOREWORD On Being Different: An Appreciation William L. Leap………………………………………………………………………………..xixACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..xxiiiINTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1From the Appendix to Mother Camp, Field Methods (1972)……………………………………………………………………………………..11Role Models (1972)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..14Preface to the Phoenix Edition of Mother Camp (1979)……………………………………………………………………………………….30Theater: Gay Anti-Church-More Notes on Camp (1992/1999)…………………………………………………………………………………….34Dick(less) Tracy and the Homecoming Queen: Lesbian Power and Representation in Gay Male Cherry Grove (1996)………………………………………63High School Crack-up (1973)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..93Marginal Woman/Marginal Academic (1973)…………………………………………………………………………………………………..103The Personal Is Political: Consciousness Raising and Personal Change in the Women’s Liberation Movement (with Shirley Walton; 1971)…………………113Excerpt from Womenfriends (with Shirley Walton; 1976)………………………………………………………………………………………142Will the Real Lesbian Community Please Stand Up? (1982/1998)………………………………………………………………………………..155The Misunderstanding: Toward a More Precise Sexual Vocabulary (with Shirley Walton; 1984)………………………………………………………167The Mythic Mannish Lesbian: Radclyffe Hall and the New Woman (1984)………………………………………………………………………….176Beyond Freud, Ken, and Barbie (1986)……………………………………………………………………………………………………..189My Butch Career: A Memoir (1996)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………195DMS: The Outsider’s Insider (1995)……………………………………………………………………………………………………….215Too Queer for College: Notes on Homophobia (1987)………………………………………………………………………………………….219An Open Letter to “Manda Cesara” (1984)…………………………………………………………………………………………………..225Of Yams, Grinders, and Gays: The Anthropology of Homosexuality (1988)………………………………………………………………………..229Lesbian and Gay Issues in Anthropology: Some Remarks to the Chairs of Anthropology Departments (1993)……………………………………………238My Best Informant’s Dress: The Erotic Equation in Fieldwork (1992)…………………………………………………………………………..243NOTES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………259BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..293INDEX…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………311

Chapter One

From the Appendix to Mother Camp:

Field Methods

1972

The research for this book was traditional anthropological fieldwork, with certain qualifications imposed by time, resources, and the special constitution of the “community” under study. There is to date no full ethnography of the homosexual community, much less of the drag world, so that from the beginning I was “flying blind.” Moreover, very few ethnographies (except for the early community studies) have been attempted in America, so that my model of fieldwork procedure was largely based on non-urban precedents.

A female impersonator show or “drag show” generally consists of a number of short acts or routines performed sequentially by the same or different performers. The shows often open and close with routines by all the performers together, called production numbers. The number of performers in the cast of a particular show can range from one to twenty-six (this was the largest cast I ever saw, although in theory a cast could be larger), but the majority of drag shows have casts of about five or six. The shows take place in bars, nightclubs, and theaters for paying audiences, and last about an hour each. Performers generally do three shows an evening.

The first drag show I saw was in a small bar on Chicago’s Near North Side. I did not understand about half of the performance, and my reaction was one of mingled shock and fascination. The audience clearly found the performance exceedingly funny. Never having seen a man dressed in full female attire before, I was astounded to find performer and audience joined through laughter in the commission and witnessing of a taboo act. At the same time I was struck by the effectiveness of the impersonation, by the highly charged nature of the symbol being presented dramatically, and by the intensely familiar interaction between the performer and the audience. The closest analogue I had seen was a Negro Gospel show in Chicago, in which the performers came down off the stage and mingled with the audience in a “laying-on of hands,” and members of the audience “got the spirit.” On the basis of that observation I hypothesized that I had witnessed a “cultural performance” (Singer 1955) and decided to attempt to analyze it in much the same way that Keil (1966) had analyzed the blues show in relation to Negro audiences.

At this early stage the practical problem was to see more drag shows and to establish contact with a female impersonator to see if the study was feasible. At that time (August-September 1965) there were five drag shows in Chicago, and I very shortly got around to see four of them. This convinced me that drag shows did indeed follow predictable conventions that indicated ritual or cultural performance. At the same time, I approached a female impersonator between shows in the bar in which he was working. I explained that I was an anthropologist at the University of Chicago and that I would like to interview him. I stated that I was impressed with his performance and with the enthusiasm of the audience and that I wanted to question him about the profession of female impersonation. To my amazement, he replied that he had majored in anthropology in college and that he would willingly talk to me. Thereafter I interviewed this man seven times, at first in the bar and later at his home with a tape recorder. He turned out to be my entre into the drag world and my best informant. He was a highly articulate, intelligent man who from the first was at least as dedicated to the study as I was. He had been performing professionally for about twelve years in several different parts of the country, and he knew the history and structure of the profession.

Between August and November 1965, I interviewed four other female impersonators in their apartments. These interviews were set up for me by my original informant. In addition, I spent many evenings “hanging around” Chicago drag bars, seeing shows, and getting to know performers and audiences. The problem at this stage was getting impersonators to talk to me at all. Above all they did not wish to be confronted by an unsympathetic person who would ask insensitive questions or show a condescending attitude. The fact that most of them did not really know what an anthropologist was was helpful in avoiding preconceived hostility. But it is doubtful that they would have consented to talk to me without the enthusiastic endorsement of my original informant, who was a respected figure in the group. Second, in speaking with the potential informant to set up the interview, I made it plain that I had some familiarity with drag (that I was “wise,” in Goffman’s terminology) and that I was not interested in psychological problems.

I continued to find the taped interview a very useful tool throughout the fieldwork. However, it was not possible to interview many impersonators in this way.

Such interviews were done only with the “stage” impersonators who were verbally oriented and articulate and who felt relatively comfortable with the interview situation. All in all, I interviewed ten of them: six in Chicago, three in New York City, and one in Kansas City. All were interviewed in two-hour or longer sessions from one to seven times in their own apartments. But my tentative attempts to interview “street” impersonators convinced me immediately that this would not be a useful approach with them. Many of them perceived me as a complete outsider and were appalled at the idea of spending several hours alone with me. In addition, their apartments were too chaotic to permit the requisite privacy and concentration. Even given good will, they were unwilling or unable to respond thoughtfully to sustained verbal interaction. Some more informal approach was called for, and I needed a chance to observe interaction rather than to ask questions about it.

These problems were solved when my original informant left Chicago to take a job in Kansas City. He suggested that I come to Kansas City and that in his capacity as “boss” of the show, he would give me admittance to the backstage, where I could meet the performers on amore sustained and less formal basis and could actually observe them in their natural habitat. Accordingly, between December 1965 and December 1966 I made three trips to Kansas City. The first two times (December 1965 and August 1966), I stayed about a month each; the third time I stayed one week. Once the performers had accepted me as a fixture backstage and rapport had been established, I proceeded more or less as a fieldworker might. I lived in two different cheap hotels where performers lived. I spent time during the day with impersonators, both singly and in groups, and participated in their activities, including parties and outings. Most important, I spent every night in the two bars where the impersonators worked, either backstage, watching the show, or talking to the bar personnel and generally observing the bar life. I considered my own role to include a great deal of participation that would have been difficult to avoid in any case. I not only listened and questioned, I also answered questions and argued. I helped out with the shows whenever I could, pulling curtains, running messages for the performers, and bringing in drinks and french fries from the restaurant across the street. When the performers half jokingly suggested I should stand in for an absent stripper, however, I drew the line.

There is no reason, in theory, why a fieldworker actually could not have stayed in Kansas City (or any city in which rapport has been established) for a full year, and in this way approximate conventional fieldwork. The ethnography of such a small and specialized group as female impersonators did not seem to demand such a commitment. However, ethnography of the homosexual community in even one city, or of the various “street” groups, would certainly require such an effort.

Chapter Two

Role Models

1972

THE ACTRESS

Female impersonators, particularly the stage impersonators, identify strongly with professional performers. Their special, but not exclusive, idols are female entertainers. Street impersonators usually try to model themselves on movie stars rather than on stage actresses and nightclub performers. Stage impersonators are quite conversant with the language of the theaters and nightclubs, while the street impersonators are not. In Kansas City, the stage impersonators frequently talked with avid interest about stage and nightclub “personalities.” The street impersonators could not join in these discussions for lack of knowledge.

Stage impersonators very often told me that they considered themselves to be nightclub performers or to be in the nightclub business, “just like other [straight] performers.”

When impersonators criticized each other’s on- or offstage conduct as “unprofessional,” this was a direct appeal to norms of show business. Certain show business phrases such as “Break a leg” (for good luck) were used routinely, and I was admonished not to whistle backstage. The following response of a stage impersonator shows this emphasis in response to my question, “What’s the difference between professionals and street fairies?” This impersonator was a “headliner” (had top billing) at a club in New York:

Well [laughs], simply saying … well, I can leave that up to you. You have seen the show. You see the difference between me and some of these other people [his voice makes it sound as if this point is utterly self-evident] who are working in this left field of show business, and I’m quite sure that you see a distinct difference. I am more conscious of being a performer, and I think generally speaking, most, or a lot, of other people who are appearing in the same show are just doing it not as a lark-we won’t say that it’s a lark-but they’re doing it because it’s something they can drop in and out of. They have fun, they laugh, have drinks, and play around, and just have a good time. But to me, now, playing around and having a good time is important to me also; but primarily my interest from the time I arrive at the club till the end of the evening-I am there as a performer, as an entertainer, and this to me is the most important thing. And I dare say that if needs be, I probably could do it, and be just as good an entertainer … I don’t know if I would be any more successful if I were working in men’s clothes than I am working as a woman. But comparing myself to some of the people that I would consider real professional entertainers-people who are genuinely interested in the show as a show, and not just, as I say, a street fairy, who wants to put on a dress and a pair of high heels to be seen and show off in public.

The stage impersonators are interested in “billings” and publicity, in lighting and makeup and stage effects, in “timing” and “stage presence.” The quality by which they measure performers and performances is “talent.” Their models in these matters are established performers, both in their performances and in their offstage lives, insofar as the impersonators are familiar with the latter. The practice of doing “impressions” is, of course, a very direct expression of this role modeling.

From this perspective, female impersonators are simply nightclub performers who happen to use impersonation as a medium. Many stage impersonators are drab in appearance (and sometimes in manner) offstage. These men often say that drag is simply a medium or mask that allows them to perform. The mask is borrowed from female performers, the ethos of performance from show business norms in general.

The stated aspiration of almost all stage impersonators is to “go legit,” that is, to play in movies, television, and on stage or in respectable nightclubs, either in drag or (some say) in men’s clothes. Failing this, they would like to see the whole profession “upgraded,” made more legitimate and professional (and to this end they would like to see all street impersonators barred from working, for they claim that the street performers downgrade the profession). T.C. Jones is universally accorded highest status among impersonators because he has appeared on Broadway (New Faces of 1956) and on television (Alfred Hitchcock) and plays only high-status nightclubs.

THE DRAG QUEEN

Professionally, impersonators place themselves as a group at the bottom of the show business world. But socially, their self-image can be represented (without the moral implications) in its simplest form as three concentric circles: the impersonators, or drag queens, are the inner circle. Surrounding them are the queens, ordinary gay men. The straights are the outer circle. In this way, impersonators are “a society within a society within a society,” as one impersonator told me.

A few impersonators deny publicly that they are gay. These impersonators are married, and some have children. Of course, being married and having children constitute no barrier to participation in the homosexual subculture. But whatever may be the actual case with these few, the impersonators I knew universally described such public statements as “cover.” One impersonator’s statement was particularly revealing. He said that “in practice” perhaps some impersonators were straight, but “in theory” they could not be. “How can a man perform in female attire and not have something wrong with him?” he asked.

The role of the female impersonator is directly related to both the drag queen and camp roles in the homosexual subculture. In gay life, the two roles are strongly associated. In homosexual terminology, a drag queen is a homosexual man who often, or habitually, dresses in female attire. (A drag butch is a lesbian who often, or habitually, dresses in male attire.) Drag and camp are the most representative and widely used symbols of homosexuality in the English-speaking world. This is true even though many homosexuals would never wear drag or go to a drag party and even though most homosexuals who do wear drag do so only in special contexts, such as private parties and Halloween balls. At the middle-class level, it is common to give “costume” parties at which those who want to wear drag can do so, and the others can wear a costume appropriate to their gender.

The principal opposition around which the gay world revolves is masculine-feminine. There are a number of ways of presenting this opposition through one’s own person, where it becomes also an opposition of “inside”=”outside” or “underneath”=”outside.” Ultimately, all drag symbolism opposes the “inner” or “real” self (subjective self) to the “outer” self (social self). For the great majority of homosexuals, the social self is often a calculated respectability and the subjective or real self is stigmatized. The “inner”= “outer” opposition is almost parallel to “back”=”front.” In fact, the social self is usually described as “front” and social relationships (especially with women) designed to support the veracity of the “front” are called “cover.” The “front”=”back” opposition also has a direct tie-in with the body: “front”= “face”; “back”=”ass.”

There are two different levels on which the opposition can be played out. One is within the sartorial system itself,2 that is, wearing feminine clothing “underneath” and masculine clothing “outside.” (This method seems to be used more by heterosexual transvestites.) It symbolizes that the visible, social, masculine clothing is a costume, which in turn symbolizes that the entire sex-role behavior is a role-an act. Conversely, stage impersonators sometimes wear jockey shorts underneath full stage drag, symbolizing that the feminine clothing is a costume.

A second “internal” method is to mix sex-role referents within the visible sartorial system. This generally involves some “outside” items from the feminine sartorial system such as earrings, lipstick, high-heeled shoes, a necklace, and so on, worn with masculine clothing. This kind of opposition is used very frequently in informal camping by homosexuals. The feminine item stands out so glaringly by incongruity that it “undermines” the masculine system and proclaims that the inner identification is feminine. When this method is used on stage, it is called “working with (feminine) pieces.” The performer generally works in a tuxedo or business suit and a woman’s large hat and earrings.

(Continues…)

Excerpted from Margaret Mead Made Me Gayby Esther Newton Copyright © 2000 by Duke University Press. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.