Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Corvino: The trouble with common ground
Readers of this column occasionally complain that I’m too nice to our enemies. They may have a point.
I’m an easygoing person by nature. It’s not a deliberate strategy; it’s just who I am. Usually the trait serves me well, though there are times I wish I had a reputation as more of an asshole. People generally steer clear of assholes, for fear of provoking them, and intimidation has its uses.Even though my being “Mr. Nice Guy” wasn’t chosen for strategic purposes, I try to work it to my advantage. It gives me influence with a certain group of people. And it’s shaped my career as a gay-rights advocate, one who aims for thoughtful engagement with the other side.
Such engagement can be productive. For one thing, the more our opponents know us personally, the harder it is for them to demonize us. (Not impossible, obviously, but harder.) Part of my life’s mission is to create cognitive dissonance for those who would label all gays as angry deviants.
But engagement is also important because, like it or not, our opponents still capture majorities in most states. I don’t doubt that the tide is shifting strongly in our favor, but we’ve got a lot of work to do. One effective way to reach the movable middle is to take opponents’ concerns seriously.
I say “one effective way,” not “the only effective way.” There’s a place for militant activism. And I’m not just saying that because I like getting along with people—militant activists included. I really believe it.
There’s a character type in the GLBT community that we might refer to as the Angry Queers. (It’s a caricature, to be sure, but like any good caricature it captures something important.) They’re angry, and they want everyone to know it.
They’re angry at our opponents. They’re angry at me for civilly engaging those opponents. They’re angry at the schools who host our debates, for giving the opposition a platform, as well as for not providing (take your pick): (a) free parking; (b) accessible seating; (c) more Q&A time; (d) universal health care.
They’re angry at the world generally, and they’re going to let everyone know it.
There are times when I’m sincerely grateful for Angry Queers. They jolt us out of our complacency. They remind us that these issues can have life-or-death implications. Yes, they make us uncomfortable, but sometimes we should be uncomfortable.
So they have their role, and I have mine. Both have their uses.
It’s tempting to cast the resulting alliance as a “Good Cop/Bad Cop” strategy. Tempting, but not so easy. For when it comes to moral issues, “Good Cop/Bad Cop” seems unstable—maybe even unsustainable.
In this debate, the Good Cop tells opponents, “You have reasonable concerns—just like the many other decent people who share your views. Let’s hear those concerns so we can address them thoughtfully.”
The Bad Cop tells opponents, “Your ‘concerns’ are prejudice, pure and simple. And the best way to stamp out prejudice is to make life as uncomfortable as possible for anyone who tries to express it. That’s how society handles bigots: we don’t accommodate them; we ostracize them.”
Needless to say, these strategies are at cross purposes. One cannot simultaneous tell people that one wants to hear their concerns and also that they’d better shut up if they know what’s good for them.
I don’t pretend to have an easy answer to this dilemma. The debate is unlike, say, the health-care debate, where everyone agrees that healing the sick is a good thing, and the disagreement is over who pays for it and how.
The gay-rights debate is a debate about whether our deep romantic commitments are a good thing. It’s about the nature of family, the authority of scripture, and other core moral issues. It cuts far deeper than “who pays for it and how?” (which, admittedly, has its own moral entanglements).
I agree with the Angry Queers that the other side is wrong—badly wrong, wrong in ways that profoundly harm innocent people. And I can understand their desire to marginalize anyone who doubts the moral value of our relationships. I get it. I get it strategically, and I get it personally.
But, for reasons both strategic and personal, I can’t join their approach. So I keep doing my “Good Cop” thing, hoping for synergy in this unstable but necessary alliance.
*************************************
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.
His upcoming lecture appearances include:
April 07: Michigan Tech Univ. 7:30 pm Rosza Center for the Performing Arts
April 14: College of St. Benedict/St. John’s University (St. Joseph, MN) 7 pm in HCC-Alum Hall
April 16: Cabrini College, 7:15 pm Widener Lecture Hall
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.
I agree with Mr. Corvino’s Ph.D, position: only because you are young, and maybe fresh out of school. Your views and opinion’s are welcomed, since they do bring something different to the table. Yes you are a gentleman, and your writing(s) do reflect this.
Although; It would be nice if 365gay would employ the writings of some one more like Jack Nichols (RIP). I very much enjoyed reading what he wrote about. Jack recommended this site too me. I’m sorry to say: I am not really pleased as much as I was reading the stuff Jack wrote about. I’m also not to pleased that 365gay does not have more male writers.
FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Nichols_(activist)
@ A Katz–you are right, sir. Not just about Larry Kramer, but about the concept. I’m guessing you’re old enough to remember the movie “Julia.” Defenestration? That was real, not made up for a movie dramatics. You’re right, but that sustained anger and indignation…it was a different time. Alan, what do you see as different in 1980 v 2009, and what’s the same? What seems to have changed but hasn’t?
@ Trace–think you and I are a year or two apart. In fact, I think we both know at least one common bud. My mother was/is a feminist. “Ms” was about the power of a woman not disclosing her marital status. Knowledge is power. Why should I put my business out there for co-workers to digest, when they can spend their time guessing at pieces until I confirm? Why shouldn’t I keep the ultimate power? I have co-workers who I know aren’t necessarily comfortable with gay stuff. I make sure they see me as a co-worker first. After that, you wanna cut me down? Try it, because it ain’t gonna happen. What’s your take on this, Trace?
We don’t have a legal leg to stand on in so many ways. We’re vulnerable and unprotected. How else should we feel but angry? Many of us have had to deny who we are and live a lie, and now we should deny our feelings again? Get used to it or give us what we want.
Mr. Corvino, I just can’t buy your argument. It sounds like an apologia for appeasement, not a strategy for achieving our goals.
In point: There would not be a gay movement, let alone gay rights or gay marriage, without the angry queens at Stonewall who rioted when they’d finally had their fill of injustice. Angry, indeed!
Millions more people would have died of AIDS had not the angry voice of Larry Kramer (and they don’t come angrier) lashed out at the intentional neglect of the victims of this terrible disease when it could have been halted early in the epidemic. The result of this anger? GMHC and Act Up.
When the history of gay rights is written, it will be the angry queens, the Larry Kramers, the Act-Up members and the other over-the-top activists who put it all on the line, who will be recognized for their courage in obtaining our rights, and not appeasing our enemies.
Furthermore, if you think your “reasoned”, gentle approach is going to gain the support of the lunatic religious right (who is our most dedicated and well-funded enemy), then you are deluding yourself.
Does anyone in their right mind believe that a civil debate on an auditorium stage will end the hatred that emanates in waves from the Mormon and Catholic and Southern Baptist churches?
Perhaps you have just spent too much time in Academia and need to get out a little more in the real world – where gays are really, really angry.
AAK
I like what Mark said.
To me, it’s a matter of who I’m talking to and what the situation is. I am all for intelligent discussions, but then again I can also get really pissed off at someone for their intolerance. It all depends on what the situation calls for.
As I have been told before, it’s not always what you say, but how you say it that can make the difference.
So you’re kind of like a black person who is like, “weeeeeell, you KKK guys did try to lynch me buuuuut, whatevs. i’m gonna be nice to you anyway”. When has that strategy worked? …Ever?
Doc, Doc, Doc. That wasn’t nice. You assumed the position of “Good Queer” and give the title of “Angry Queer” to the opposition. Tsk. Tsk.
I get “Angry” with gay people who talk in cow towing language. With straight people, like my family, I am calm and rational.
I could just as easily call you a Lap Dog Queer and me an Activist Queer. But that would be wrong. Think before you type.
A new binational couple being torn apart…. Pass the UAFA
“They’re angry at the world generally, and they’re going to let everyone know it.”
Really? REALLY?
You go through the time and effort to write an article that amounts to little more than a defense of your chosen way to deal with this situation, and ruin it entirely by making such a broad generalization that you alienate the people you are defending yourself to.
I’m probably one of these Angry Queers you speak of. For the record, I’m not angry at the world. I love the world I live in. This world is filled with so much absolute wonder and awe that it’s nothing shy of incredible. The world and I are on excellent terms.
What Pisses me off is that in a land supposedly founded on the principles of freedom and equality, we’re arguing over who is good enough, normal enough, to actually be treated equal.
What pisses me off is that there are people in this supposed ‘land of equality’ who will stop at nothing to make damned sure that I, you, and all of us who happen to be different than they are stay in the place they have put us.
There’s no synergy to be had there, John. You can’t be friends with someone who strives to take away your freedom. At least, not if you ever want to get that boot off our necks.
WOW, John said “asshole”!!
To borrow an argument from Sam Harris, the problem with supporting the reasonable middle ground is that the same arguments – tolerance, etc. – then get used in support of the dangerous fringes. The fringes can be dangerous.
Well best of luck Prof Corvino, but – does such an approach make a difference?
One concern was your closeness to that Stanton guy from FOF. When you become too personally acquainted with the enemy, doesn’t that affect your ability to give a heated debate on the stage? You opponent isn’t just debating a philosophical point, he’s intent on pushing you and me back into the closet… or worse.
Most people who oppose our rights have all the answers in a 2000 year-old book: there is nothing more to know (it’s worth asking these same people, how old they believe the earth to be, while you’re about it).
Reasoned debate is fine, but so long as you don’t show ‘respect’ for opinions, especially religious ones. We don’t want scrpiture poisoning state affairs, full stop. If people say, marriage is a god-given institution, tear them to pieces on this ridiculous, non-true premise, and their impossible claim to intimately know god’s mind on sexual matters. I can’t see how any debate with a fundamentalist can progress any further.
John, as gay men we are constantly bombarded with situations that require a decision about how to respond. My experience is that when you speak to most people in a logical respectful manner they are ,sometimes at least, able to see past their bigotry. Most people to not tend to think of me as gay, (not saying that’s a good thing) on the basis of first meeting me, so they tend to say some pretty rotten things about gays. My choices are to stay in the closet and let it go, get angry, or to say, by the way, I’m gay and here’s another perspective. My results with the last tend to be good. On the other hand, I can get pretty angry when standing outside a gay bar and somebody yells faggots at us.
The I let loose pretty good, I’m a big guy and it’s amazing what how scared they get of an angry gay guy, ha, ha.
I think you’re trying to define things a bit to sharply in shades of “Nice, diplomatic and non-threatening gay rights advocate” and “foaming at the mouth Stonewall, ACTUP, we’re here, we’re queer want to fightaboutit?”
In my own opinion it’s far more proper to be nice and diplomatic and debate with someone who respectfully disagrees that gays are human beings of equal worth or fellow Americans worthy of equal rights for whatever reason. I’m more than willing to talk and debate with someone who is willing to listen.
I’m also more than willing to “throw down” with anyone who arrives firmly entrenched in the notion that I’m nothing but an evil sinner with no redeeming value or human worth because I’m gay and God or Rush Limbaugh said so.
There is a time for diplomacy. There is also a time for taking a stand and voicing your anger.
There is also a time to compromise and a time to draw the line. I draw my line at the point where my rights as an American citizen begin.
Have to agree Aiden.
I’ve gone to great extents to eliminate much drama from my life. I really have no use for anyone that does not believe in equality for gays and straights a like.
Life is too short.
I fall under the “Bad Cop” status. I have disassociated myself with people who don’t agree with gay marriage or any other gay rights. I ditched 2 fairly close friends because of it. They are not my friend if they cannot respect my relationship with my boyfriend as a valid family. So what if gay marriage passes, will their opinion change just because it is allowed by law? If we get legally married will they recognize us as husband and husband. In some cases actually yes it will, but you gotta be with me every step of the way or else you are just being hypocritical.