the long and complex shift from the “secretive” sub rosa regime before the 1960s to the supra rosa system
Despite the relative regularization of homosexuality themes in the contemporary age, they still rank as the most controversial topics in the social and political landscapes. This situation depicts how stigmatization that characterized sexuality and homosexuality discourses in earlier societies. In the article “Lesbian/Gay Studies in the House of Anthropology,” Kath Weston maps out the factors, critiques, and controversies, which prevent the lesbian/gay studies from raising issues in a manner that aligns with the mindsets of both anthropologists and lay audiences. The article was published in the Annual Review of Anthropology journal vol. 22 of 1993. Even though the article integrates some of the complex concepts of anthropology, it utilizes a direct structure to analyze published literature, thereby enhancing the readers’ clear and logical ordering of the ideas.
The main topic of this work was to explore the long and complex shift from the “secretive” sub rosa regime before the 1960s to the supra rosa system, which “broke the silence” of sexuality discourses in the last three decades of the 20th century. This argument is based on the prohibitive anthropology trends that stigmatized the topic before the 1960s era. Hence, the author utilized the emergent regional literature to explore why lesbian/gay anthropology developed at a much slower pace than feminine, literary, and history studies. She adopted the literature review method to understand the trends that characterized the major eras of homosexuality. This approach facilitated systematic analyses of the published anthropological studies, thereby, synthesizing ideas in ways that conform to the audiences’ varied interests. Primarily, this anthropological review is guided by the research question, which sought to understand why some societies were better prepared than others in institutionalizing homosexuality.
The author concluded that varied homosexuality perceptions by different societies were attributed to a set of stigmatized categories, which were derived from Anglo-European cultures. Therefore, sexuality anthropologists were necessitated to employ additional efforts to legitimize the topic for subsequent acceptance and publication of research works. This conclusion was supported firstly, by Weston’s claim that the publication of her essay in the Annual Review of Anthropology signified an institutionalizing move. Secondly, the conclusion is supported by the author’s observation that contemporary lesbian/gay studies are characterized by unevenness and border conflicts, which sometimes restrict the use of the terms “field” and “domain” in publishing sexuality themes. Prevalent restrictiveness necessitated the use of cunning and suggestive terms, such as those used by Weston in her essay. They include evasive, yet leading terms, such as the “data gatherers,” “hearing homosexual voices,” “coming to terms,” “where the boys are,” and “beyond the binary,” among other labels, representing the different stages of homosexuality anthropology in the 20th century.
However, a significant question that the author should have addressed is how the emerging generational components could distort the overt homosexuality approaches adopted in the post-1960s era. I think this issue is important since lesbian/gay research remains susceptible to contemporary societal elements, such as globalization, changing role of the nation, communal intersectionality, shifting demographic patterns, and the intensifying conflict between sexuality and gender. Concisely, the author failed to connect the audience’s understanding of the post-1960s system with the prospective sexuality elements of the 21st century.
Overall, the research empowered the author to appreciate the critical nature of sexuality anthropology. It provided relevant ideas for evaluating how generational perceptions and labeling of homosexuality either advanced or suppressed the realization of progressive discourses. This article also clarified the extent to which the dominant scholarly lenses propagated or limited the emergence of certain gay “subcultures.” Weston extracted far-reaching concepts for advancing homosexuality anthropology. It offers a seamless link between sub rosa and supra rosa regimes, thereby empowering the audience through logical mapping of homosexuality breakthroughs realized throughout the 20th century.