a short sprint through the Sociology degrees...
vinsanity0 -- my experience is pretty much the same from Minneapolis... sorta. The non-straight grouping was in no way monolithic (another of Scheff's leaps, & dithery at that).
With us, the "LBGTQetc" thing woulda been approaching 100% of any given party or meetup.
Dead-on Kinsey 0 never-kissed-a-boy straights were rare.
And the prevalence of bisexuals seemed to make us more welcoming to the transfolk.
The only Kinsey 6 that I can think of -- it's not like we ran around with color-coded nametags or anything
-- is part of a unique vee, a beautiful green-eyed redhead, & we were beer-drinking buddies & would flirt outrageously which managed to make just about
everyone jealous.
________________
Spork, you set off some great thoughts. I'm gonna sketch a bit in, but you'll get a glimpse of why I need an entire seminar to even
begin discussing the notion of "communication."
For years I've been thinking about the
neophobe/neophile continuum that
Robert Anton Wilson brought to my attention. In brief (& my emphases):
The opposite of a neophile is a neophobe: a person with an aversion to novelty and change.
Wilson observes that neophobes tend to regard neophiles, especially extreme ones, with fear and contempt, and to brand them with titles such as "witch," "satanist," "heretic," etc. He also speculates in his Prometheus Rising series of books that the Industrial Revolution (and related Enlightenment) represents one of the first periods of history in which neophiles were a dominant force in society.
Neophiles accelerate change because they like it that way.
It's too easy to come off as picking on neophobes -- especially for those of us with a neophilic bent -- so
please drop a grain of salt.
I've tried to live my life without fear & anxiety. I've many times said, "Skulking dogs get kicked. It's a reflex." If you don't want people to suspect you, then don't look suspicious.
If you're closeted, people WILL assume that you're up to something wicked or disgusting.
I was "out" as Wiccan / poly / bi / leather long before any of these was mentioned in
Newsweek, & hung out with the tattoo /
Radical Faery / swing communities. For you youngsters, let me point out that, back in the late '70s & early '80s, ANY of these things could easily have cost you your jobs, lease, marriage, kids, & there wasn't much you could do about it.
None of these things did I "pursue" because it was cool or trendy -- quite the opposite. And you would likely be stunned to know just how much one devaint subculture can despise the others: most Wiccans saw D/s as pervy & weird & maybe dangerous, & we got LOTS of witchy gossip about that & poly & bi. Swingers saw Wicca as childish play-acting & mere sublimation of sexuality. And on & on.
As Mom said,
"You were raised to believe in what is right for you."
I know that my "it's no big deal" attitude cleared a path for lots of others who figured that if wonky, goofy ME could so casually risk everything, then they could certainly risk a
little.
Another book to consider: Everett Rogers,
Diffusion of Innovations (any edition), a MUCH easier read than you might think, & even entertaining. Rogers posits that when a population is presented with a useful & cost-effective innovation (not necessarily technological), those who adopt the upgrade will move in this order:
- innovators
- early adopters
- early majority
- late majority
- laggards.
I've never considered myself an innovator, nor even an early adopter. Part of that is because I'm well-read & -informed, so I feel as though I'm planting tilled soil rather than breakin' turf. Just because I was hemmed-in by laggards didn't mean I was impressed with how "radical" I was.
Innovators (a very small group) include people who leap wildly at new stuff with little understanding of how the change will impact their lives & their environment. Much like the westward movement in United States history, it's the crazy, wild, & misanthropic who often open a path, "blaze trail." But it's the
early adopters who build the towns, & could be called "the
sane neophiles."
________________
So, to bring it back around:
There's no good reason to force neophobes to change. I respect the satisfaction of "comfortable" people, & sometimes envy it.
As Jacques Ellul said in
Propaganda, there's very little functional difference between
education &
propaganda &
brainwashing &
marketing, & the techniques are mostly interchangeable.
Comfortable people realize they don't NEED a new car every three years... so car-makers need to make 'em uncomfortable, to create the ILLUSION of a need in order to step up, be a White Knight, & offer a ready-made "solution" to that perceived gap.
At no point does Scheff ask herself the question, "why do True Gay people NEED to be MADE part of The Mainstream Poly Community??"
Over the years I have seen people who WANT to explore something new, but are so FEARFUL of being "
the tall poppy," of actually innovating, that they exhort, cajole, even bully others to "join" them, which is why I have long spoken against turning polyamory into some sort of Movement. Read Eric Hoffer,
The True Believer.
Rather than reducing all-round fear, Scheff stirs it up & foments dissent & disunity in order to (1) look smart, (2) look more pious than the rest of us, as Noel did with race, & be superior to "real" homosexuals & in fact to anyone LGBTQ.
________________
Phew! The beginnings of a foundation.