Masculinity: Homosexuality and Male Identity among Queer Creatives in Victorian Britain.

 

 

As defined by the Oxford Dictionary (2010), ‘masculinity’ is “qualities or attributes regarded as characteristic of men”, however, there is no solid definition of ‘masculinity’. It is a cultural concept defined by the social and biological status of a person. It is defined by a range of psychological and physical characteristics and traits specific to a given culture. The definition of ‘masculinity’ is ever-shifting and is subjective to different communities, whether defined geographically or periodically. However, there are general characteristics which are associated with this term, for example, non-emotional, competitive, self-confident, sexually aggressive. These ideas of masculinity include the domination of women, but also that of other men (Lorber 1994; Carrigan, Connell, and Lee 1985). This authority leads to social differences between women and men, and between different natures of men, which may associate themselves with other notions or different degrees of masculinity. Being a flexible term, ‘masculinity’ is usually studied within a specific context. This essay will explore the concept of ‘masculinity’ among queer and homosexual artists of the Victorian era.

In Victorian Britain, homosexuality opposed the perceptions of masculinity and threatened patriarchal traditions, hence, it was contra-posed to being a respectful British citizen. In an attempt to preserve the family structure and heterosexual masculinity, the awareness of any homosexual behaviours was minimised. The ‘gross indecency’ law, criminalising any sexual interaction between men, was signed by the British government in 1885. However, the details of the law have never been discussed and clarified by Parliament, which meant each case was left up to the courts. The lack of public discourse restricted the understanding of masculinity in Victorian society. The main attributes of being ‘masculine’ included being married, faithfully Christian and being able to provide for your family (Danahay 2005). Not being able to do so meant that their masculinity and general social acceptance was threatened. Homosexual behaviour endangered the prime concept of the family, which was to reproduce and continue the genus. The word ‘familia’ (family) was coined by the Romans and initially was not used to describe spouses and their children, but for the slaves (‘famulus’) and home servants. A ‘familia’ was a set of inherent belongings transferred from father to son by a will. The term was later reinvented by the Romans to denote a new social organism, whose leader was the master of his wife and children, and slaves, having the absolute control provided by the Roman paternal system over the lives of all those subordinate entities (Engels 1884). This patriarchal family structure was later adopted by the majority of Western societies in its more loyal forms, including that of the Victorian era. With such power and significance expected from the male in the family, homosexual relationships have accordingly challenged the family institution, because the perfect male was the supporting and authoritative father figure, and as the foundation for a healthy society (Brady 2005). If certain male individuals failed to fit these expectations, they were not accepted by Victorian society. To avoid this, the majority of homosexuals followed social norms by getting married and hiding their affairs. If their relationships were exposed, it was considered to be a crisis within the family and often, the females of the family would help them to overcome the ‘deviation’. To keep these issues within the family meant that the husband could stay a respectable member of society. In 1895, the trials of Oscar Wilde enlightened the existence of the Victorian homosexual underground among the limited circle of artists. Following this, the issue was actively discussed by the public and press. This controversial incident also developed the stereotypes of linking homosexuality with effeminacy, the arts, and bohemian leisure activities (O’Conor 1995).

In the Victorian era, the performance arts such as theatre and ballet became a safe field for homosexual and gender queer people to express their ‘deviant’ identity and convey their unique understanding of masculinity. Hiding behind the ‘playful’ nature of performance arts, people of all classes could finally embrace their queer identity, which the Victorian society wouldn’t accept outside the theatrical or humorous context. Social rejection of any unfitting identities brought the queer artists of Britain together to form a queer subculture, where people accepted each other despite the strict morals of the period. The theatrical arts in particular led to the emergence of drag queens and female impersonators, which was a shocking new phenomenon for the traditional Victorian society. However, their existence was unknown to the public until a few famous cases of drag queens were revealed following their arrest. In January 1833, a twenty-four years old actress called Eliza Edwards died of a lung infection. She debuted on the stage at fourteen years old and went on to play many tragic roles in theatres across England. Over the last years of her life, she was financially supported by several prominent gentlemen, who paid her rent. After her death, numerous letters from different gentlemen were found to show details of secret meetings. As no one claimed her body, she was taken to Guy’s Hospital for further examination, where it was discovered that she had the body of a male, which caused a scandalous reaction across the medical society and public. Miss Edwards is assumed to have been a female impersonator and a male version of a ‘kept woman’ (Norton 2012). It may even be the first case of a transgender woman reported to the wider public. Drag queens, however, were not a rare phenomenon later in the Victorian age. The famous Fanny and Stella are still the drag icons of the LGBTQI community and inspire people to this day. The psychology behind the drag queens’ identity and the desire to take on a female persona, is curious. It is directly linked to the individual’s understanding of masculinity. Theoretically, a homosexual man cannot be masculine because in Victorian society, homophobia is the prime characteristic of a masculine male, and any demonstration of affection towards another male is regarded as non-masculine and possibly homosexual. However, if a homosexual man voluntarily rejected his masculinity by taking on a female persona, it made it ‘natural’ and acceptable, for a homoerotic relationship to take place. The female character is historically sexualised by males. According to Friedrich Engels (1884), “the tradition of representing women as ‘sexualised objects’ beyond social, psychic, political and even physical life is associated with the emergence of private property, meaning a female gender role has been evolving for thousands of years”. This led to the traditional belief that a woman has to establish her identity around a man’s needs. “Male domination is sexual, hence, the man sexualises the hierarchy. As a result, a male sexual role consists of an aggressive invasion of those with less power” (МасКinnon 1989). The domination of men and the subordination of women are constructed by the desire for male superiority, the desire that eroticises the hierarchy. Sexuality is the power by which gender is formed. The desire for male superiority, which eroticises the objectification of others, constantly reproduces inequality, which is necessary to satisfy this superiority. Furthermore, gender inequality is encouraged by men’s expectation of women. In the Victorian patriarchal society, women are primarily associated with their physique, which is judged by the periodical understanding of attractiveness. A woman’s personality is degraded and defined by her organs and the perception of female attractiveness in different historical periods. For example, in past decades, being thin meant being ‘beautiful’, ‘good’, ‘successful’. In this system of values, the male desire creates the illusion of what needs to be done to be a ‘successful’ woman. A ‘successful’ body reduces its natural surface and any evidence of ‘wildlife’ (Shadrina 2014). Hence, the art of drag has a very straight forward notion of what needs to be done to be a ‘woman’ as it is dictated by popular culture, and nowadays, media, which distorts the actual female biology to an unrecognisable extent for the sake of ‘beauty’. Drag being an art-form of beauty beyond gender reflects back on mass culture, often satirising and exaggerating the stereotypes of ideal femininity. Drag queens focus on “highlighting the subordination of women and the superiority of men in our society” (Niles 2004). David Harris (2005) in his book, ‘Diary of a Drag Queen’, says that people are usually more accepting of drag queens than they are of homosexuals, because drag queens have become staples of female icons and personalities, and are “therefore an endearing object of amused pity”. A famous Victorian drag queen Fanny, for example, had a natural inclination towards performing domineering duchesses and dowagers and taking on the stereotypical image of a noted lady (McKenna 2014). Victorian drag queens introduced playing with an identity beyond gender. Indeed, if identity is nothing more than a performance and a device to create social relationships and sexual pleasures, then it is practical. However, if identity becomes the main focus of social and sexual existence, and if people create principals to follow their ‘true’ identity, then they return to the ethics of the traditional heterosexual masculinity (Michel Foucault 1984). Through identity, which includes sexuality and masculinity, people become content in their social role. Homosexuals, being 'deviant' from the norms of sexuality and masculinity, often do not feel obligated by stereotypical masculine identity, and therefore many of them identify as queer, which allows for absolute freedom of identity.

‘Hegemonic’ masculinity of Victorian age can be defined as the code of gender practices which expresses the legitimacy of patriarchy, which secures the domination of men and the subordination of women (Conell, Messerschmidt 2005). Men respond to threats to their masculinity by engaging in stereotypically-masculine behaviours, such as supporting hierarchy, adopting homophobic beliefs, expressing aggression and preferring physical tasks over intellectual ones. Men who practice creative activities, such as poetry or painting, may not acknowledge masculinity as precarious but may respond to threats to their intellect or creativity. According to Winegard, Winegard, and Geary (2014), this phenomenon is defined by function; poetry and painting do not involve traditionally masculine traits, and assaults on these qualities should not provoke concern.     

Author, poet and playwright Oscar Wilde is one of the founders and advocates of the Aesthetism and Decadent literary movement of the Victorian era. The artists and writers of Aesthetic style tended to profess that the Arts should provide refined sensuous pleasure (Raeper 1987). The Aesthetes established worship of beauty, which they regarded the fundamental element of art. Wilde’s lover and muse Lord Alfred Douglas, also known as ‘Bosie’, inspired a lot of Wilde’s work as he was seen by Wilde as the perfect embodiment of beauty and affection. In his ‘gross indecency’ trial, Wilde was asked about the line from Bosie’s poem which read “the love that dare not speak its name”. In Wilde's explanation, the line meant “...such a great affection of an elder for a younger man... There is nothing unnatural about it. It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between an elder and a younger man, when the elder man has intellect, and the younger man has all the joy, hope and glamour of life before him” (Clarke 2015). This thinking translates into the notions of muse worshiping and male gaze as it demonstrates that a person often looks for what they lack in other people. Even though, this symbiotic relationship is usually represented through gender, sometimes lacking traits can be found in people of same gender but, as in this example, different age. This is possible because gender is a “cultural invention with a set of somatic descriptions” (Preciado 2008), for example, masculinity or femininity that can be found in people of both sexes, which makes us think that gender exists.

 

To sum up, queer community in the Victorian era has revolutionised and challenged the traditional notions of the patriarchal society. It has also raised its awareness through the means of arts, such as theatre, literature, etc. Queer personas of the Victorian age were the pioneers of the sexual and gender diversity and sometimes sacrificed their lives because of their uncommon identity. A lifestyle can be shared by people of different identities, ages and status and it can generate intense relationships that differ from traditional institutionalised relationships in some aspects, but it should be recognised to produce a healthy and safe society which would encourage diversity and individuality.

 

 

Bibliography:

 

Brady, S. (2005) Masculinity and Male Homosexuality in Britain, 1861-1913. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

 

Carrigan, T., Connell, B. and Lee, J. (1985) Toward a New Sociology of Masculinity. California: Theory and Society.

 

Clarke, E. (1895) Testimony of Oscar Wilde. (Accessed on 5 May 2017) Available at: http://www.famous-trials.com/wilde/347-wildedirect

 

Connell, R.W and Messerschmidt J.W. (2005) Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking Concept. London: SAGE Publications.

 

Danahay, M. (2005). Gender at work in Victorian culture: literature, art and masculinity. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishers.

 

Engels, F. (1884) The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Zurich: Die Büchermacher.

 

Foucault, M. (1984). Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. New York: The New Press.

 

Harris, D. (2005). Diary of a drag queen. New York: Carroll & Graff Publishers.

 

Lorber, J. (1994) The Gender Paradox. New Haven: Yale University Press.

 

MacKinnon, C.A. (1989) Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

 

McKenna, N. (2014) Fanny and Stella: The Young Men Who Shocked Victorian England. London: Faber & Faber.

 

Niles, R. (2004). Wigs, laughter, and subversion: Charles Busch and strategies of drag performance, London: Journal of Homosexuality.

 

Norton, R. (2012) Homosexuality in Nineteenth-Century England. (Accessed on 5 May 2017) Available at: http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/edwards.htm

 

O’Conor, A. (1995) The Gay Teen: Educational Practice and Theory for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth. New York: Routledge.

 

Oxford Dictionaries (2010) Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press

 

Preciado, B. (2013) Testo Junkie: Sex, Drugs and Biopolitics in the Pharmacopornographic Era. New York: The Feminist Press.

 

Raeper, W. (1987) George MacDonald. IL: Lion Publishing.

 

Shadrina, A. (2014) Rejected Bodies: How Media Makes Us Hate Ourselves. (Accessed on 5 May 2017) Available at: https://makeout.by/2014/07/09/otvergnutye-tela-kak-media-zastavlyayut-nas-nenavidet-sebya.html

 

Winegard, B.M., Winegard, B. and Geary D.C. (2014) An Evolutionary Account of Dominance, Prestige, and Precarious Manhood. Washington: APA Publications.