Performative and Competitive Homosexuality: The LGBT+ Community as a Contact Zone

December 2019

To the heterosexual world, the gay man’s presentation of his sexuality is a performance. Homosexual men are the players, heterosexual society the director, crew, critic, and audience. How well can the gay man perform his sexuality? Are his lines compelling— does he use interesting slang? Can he cook the man a meal? Will he powder the woman’s nose? How well can he serve a heterosexual society? Can he at all? When he takes his final bow, did he impress the audience or will he leave them wanting to see an entirely different production, one with a more captivating cast? The homosexual man has no voice in whether or not he partakes in this performance. He is forced into a never-ending production, all for the pleasure of his heterosexual audience.

The modern LGBTQIA+ (LGBT+) community has made remarkable strides in weaving itself into the fabric of contemporary American culture and society. Queer people have gained increasing amounts of visibility in a heterosexually dominant world. However, regardless of both political and cultural progress, a power dynamic between queer people, specifically homosexual men, and non-queer people still persists. In order to investigate the origins and effects of this power dynamic, I would like to define the phenomenon performative and competitive homosexuality. I define the phenomenon as conflict between two gay men based on their ability to present their homosexuality to a standard set by a heterosexually hegemonic society. Performative and competitive homosexuality is manifested through and reinforced by a process of heterosexual power retention.

The process goes as follows:

1. The gay man is reduced to his stereotype through commodification and tokenization. This stereotype becomes the standard for the presentation of homosexuality. It is what can be called heterosexualized homosexuality: homosexuality that is made palatable for a heterosexual world.

2. If there is more than one gay man in any given majority heterosexual space, the men’s performances of heterosexualized homosexuality will be compared.

3. The men will sacrifice parts of their identities and compete to be considered the most valued gay man in the space. Their worth is based on the performance of their homosexuality.

The pronouns within this definition and greater essay are he/him/his but are by no means exclusive to cisgender people. The definition applies to any person who identifies as a homosexual male-presenting person.

Performative and competitive homosexuality and the cycle of power retention are fed by the degradation of queer people by a heterosexually dominant society, specifically one that totes messages of inclusivity and diversity. While it is true that allies of the LGBT+ community exist, the phenomenon relates to a prevailing culture within the heterosexual world. The phenomenon has rendered the LGBT+ community what Mary Louise Pratt would call a contact zone. Discussed by Pratt in her essay “Arts of the Contact Zone,” a contact zone is a “social space where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power” (Pratt 34). Performative and competitive homosexuality and its applied pressure by a heterosexual society creates an imposed LGBT+ contact zone. Gay people cannot coexist within a larger heterosexual space without being pitted against one another. When performative and competitive homosexuality is forced upon a queer space, gay men must either choose to conform to a new heterosexual standard or lose their value as gay men.

Behind a mask of inclusivity lays the true fuel of the phenomenon: the commodification of queer culture and the tokenization of queer people. Commodification and tokenization are methods of othering; heterosexual people create divides within the LGBT+ community in order to retain control over gay people. When executed by heterosexual people, these devices of othering reduce the gay man to a simple stereotype. The gay man becomes nothing more than exactly that. These dehumanized gay men are then able to be compared to one another and valued based on the presentation of their homosexuality. Gay people are forced to compete with one another on the grounds that their sexuality and, transitively, their worth as human beings are at stake. The comparison is also based on the performance of ideal homosexuality, heterosexualized homosexuality, which is created through commodification and tokenization. Gay men are reduced to the simplest version of themselves and their homosexuality is made palatable for a heterosexual audience. If the gay man cannot perform heterosexualized homosexuality, he is unable to be controlled and is therefore worthless in heterosexual spaces. This process of dehumanization is what feeds the aforementioned power dynamic between heterosexual and homosexual people. Once the gay man is reduced to his stereotype and sold to the masses, he is able to serve a heterosexually dominant society.

Gay people are forced to compete with one another on the grounds that their sexuality and, transitively, their worth as human beings are at stake.

The phenomenon is performative because its competitive aspect is based on the presentation of sexuality. It is competitive because gay men are forced to struggle against one another to prove their worth to a heterosexual audience. It is specifically homosexuality (and homosexual men) because modern-day American society hosts an asymmetrical heterosexual-homosexual power dynamic that mostly affects homosexual men. This concentrated effect can be seen in 2018 FBI hate crime statistics. Of the 1,445 hate crime victims targeted due to sexual-orientation bias in 2018, 59.7% were homosexual men while 12.2% were homosexual women, according to FBI hate crime statistics. Homosexual men are more often targeted for their homosexuality by heterosexual people. Their sexuality is under more violent scrutiny.

Performative and competitive homosexuality shackles the gay man to the stage and forces him to perform for a heterosexual crowd. They cheer him on in a rapturous applause under which creeps whispers of permeating forms of homophobia and methods of dehumanization.

The Gay Man as a Commodity

The attempt to gain visibility within mainstream culture has been a battle that members of the LGBT+ community have fought for decades. While I am certain that the cultural representation of homosexuals has become more accurate, positive, and widespread, there are still grounds to criticize the methods of representation. Increased LBGT+ visibility is often restricted to commodified spaces. When ones’ goal is to accumulate profit, cultural appropriation and its effects are rarely taken into consideration. In an attempt to appear inclusive and diverse, heterosexually owned brands and public figures commodify gay people and their culture and causes. Homosexuality sells just as well as sex does.

Consumers enter the marketplace to be served. If they are able to be sold appropriated elements of homosexuality, they will expect those same elements to be served to them in all social settings. These appropriated elements become the heterosexual world’s standards for how homosexual people are ought to perform, heterosexualized homosexuality.

In her essay “Queer Visibility in Commodity Culture,” Rosemary Hennessy discusses the LGBT+ community and its relation to consumerism and capitalism. She writes, “The visibility of sexual identity is often a matter of commodification, a process that invariably depends on the lives and labor of invisible others…The increasing circulation of gay and lesbian images in consumer culture has the effect of consolidating an imaginary, class-specific gay subjectivity for both straight and gay audiences. This process is not limited to the spheres of knowledge promoted by popular culture and retail advertising but also infiltrates the production of subjectivities in academic and activist work” (Hennessy 31-32). When one chooses to profit off of another’s culture, they inevitably ignore the history of those who built said culture. The ‘imaginary’ gay man created by the heterosexual is one performing heterosexualized homosexuality. He must adapt to the new definition of his sexuality. He can no longer be authentic.

Hennessey also notes how commodification affects activist work, much of which, for the LGBT+ community, is done through Pride Month celebrations. Pride Month holds great historical significance for LGBT+ community as it started as a riot against an oppressive police force (Stonewall Riots, 1969). Pride is not only significant for its history as a riot but also for the fact that it has been a point of contention within an ever-diversifying community. Pride was originally championed by transgender people of color who, in modern-day pride celebrations, are often an afterthought. This imbalance in representation is discussed by Meredith Talusan in her article “45 Years After Stonewall, the LGBT Movement has a Transphobia Problem.” She writes, “Trans people continue to be marginalized within the LGBT rights struggle, treated as tokens when convenient, yet denied the basic respect, rights, and resources needed for our equality” (Talusan). Talusan explores the implications of modern Pride celebrations and how the LGBT+ community continues to struggle with them.

Regardless of these historical implications, each year when June 1st rolls around, brands and businesses plaster the pride flag to the front of their stores in order to advertise their annual Pride Month collections. While these stores, Urban Outfitters, H&M, and Forever 21, for example, tote messages of inclusivity, they are operating under a misguided assumption that their brands are providing visibility to an underserved community. However, when creating pride collections, these brands ignore the charged implications and history of Pride and reduce it to rainbow flags and colorful prints. They suck it of its history and true queerness and sell it to a mainstream audience. By commodifying the movement, they attempt to idealize it. For these brands, pride is not a struggle for visibility, it is a sparkly rainbow t-shirt. It is not a revolution, it is a fad. They implicitly expect all gay people to identify with this reduced version of their once vibrant and historic movement. They expect the gay man to forget his past and the role of Pride in the community and celebrate according to a commodified narrative.

A contact zone is created. The power of a capitalist society clashes with the largely disregarded LGBT+ community and its history. For those in the position of power, there is a clear prevailing interest. To them, the destruction of culture and history is a measly price for the net gain.

This general disregard for history is equally prevalent in the heterosexual world’s appropriation of queer lingo. As an element of LGBT+ culture, language is, historically, particularly powerful. Through the 20th century, when being openly gay was a death sentence, the LGBT+ community developed a secret language— Polari. The language was created within the theater and performance world and was used by gay men to communicate with each other. Author of Fabulosa!: The Story of Polari, Britain’s Secret Gay Language Paul Baker writes “Polari was…mostly…spoken by camp gay men. They were a class of people who lived on the margins of society…They were not seen as important or interesting. Their stories were not told…They were often implied to be silly or sinister, victims or villains. So, because of their criminal status, they learnt to speak in an unfamiliar tongue…that could not be understood by others” (Baker 3). Polari was born out of necessity. Language was used to protect against outside harm, specifically harm caused by oppressive heterosexual people.

As language evolved, Polari words that were once used out of necessity became slang for a more accepted generation of queer people. These words that connect people in the most simple way quickly gained popularity both inside and outside of the LGBT+ community and were exploited by a heterosexual market as a source of profit. Language, something that served as a shield against the heterosexual world, is being appropriated by the aggressor as a method of economic gain. Consumer culture is fed with elements of others’ identities. 

Cardi B, for example, attempted to put a trademark on the word “okurrr” (the homosexual slang for “okay”) after she used it in a Pepsi commercial. Clothing brands make “spilling the tea” (the homosexual term for sharing the truth or gossip) t-shirts, hoping to profit off of the popularization of the phrase. Through appropriation, these celebrities and companies attempt sell homosexuality as a trend. Queer lingo is separated from the gay man and his history and used to serve a heterosexual market. Consumers are able to access elements of gay culture, not with the intent of celebrating gay people and causes, but rather with the goal of controlling the culture and rewriting its narrative. Most of these consumers are unaware of the culture they commodify. They shop for clothing, not history. Yet, by putting these items in their carts, they become the oppressor in the gay man’s struggle for true liberation. By commodifying lingo, the gay man’s history with language is reduced to a stereotype. This stereotype, what was once a complex linguistic history, becomes the standard to which all gay people must perform to.

Advertised images of the gay man and his culture and causes spread notions of what the ideal gay man is. He is the gay man who is sucked of his queerness, made palatable for a heterosexual audience, and sold to the consumer. He is no longer a complex human being, he is a product to be sold for profit. Because consumers are able to access this culture on the racks, they expect it to be presented to them by all gay men they come in contact with.

Advertised images of the gay man and his culture spread notions of what the ideal gay man is. He is the gay man who is sucked of his queerness, made palatable for a heterosexual audience, and sold to the consumer. He is no longer a complex human being, he is a product to be sold for profit. Because consumers are able to access this culture on the racks, they expect it to be presented to them by all gay men they come in contact with.

When put in the context of performative and competitive homosexuality, commodification allows heterosexual people who have appropriated, rewritten, and reduced a queer narrative to destroy the gay man and measure his value based on his performance of a manufactured stereotype. His performance is compared to his gay counterparts’. Gay men must embody a heterosexually-washed LGBT+ brand and are considered worthless if they cannot perform this new commodified culture at the pleasure of a heterosexual consumer base. The gay man who is not a stereotype cannot be controlled as is therefore useless in feeding a heterosexual-homosexual power dynamic. 

commodification allows heterosexual people…to destroy the gay man and measure his value based on his performance of a manufactured stereotype. His performance is compared to his gay counterparts’. Gay men must embody a heterosexually-washed LGBT+ brand and are considered worthless if they cannot perform this new commodified culture at the pleasure of a heterosexual consumer base.

Commodification increases the pressure within an LGBT+ contact zone. Gay men, forced to conform to an appropriated narrative of their own culture, are left disillusioned and confused on how to behave. This creates conflict between the men themselves. When standards of behavior are set by an outside power, judgement of one another is almost inherent. If the gay man cannot perform up to par, his identity will be ripped from him by heterosexual people, and, implicitly, homosexual people.

The Gay Man as a Token

Once the gay man is reduced to a stereotype and beaten down small enough to be controlled by his heterosexual superiors, he is able to be tokenized. The basis of tokenization is the confusion between inclusivity and true diversity. When one attempts inclusivity through tokenization, they make no further strides to offer opportunities to minorities equal to those of the majority. Tokenization is enough for a misguided heterosexual world as it feeds the misconception that the presence of one gay man in any given space is enough diversity for a heterosexually dominant world. If more than one gay man is present, the two must be compared on their ability to perform an idealized, commodified form of homosexuality.

The concept of the heterosexual girl’s gay best friend is an example of how a gay man can be reduced to a token. The gay best friend, as popularized by the movie G.B.F, is the gay male sidekick who helps his heterosexual female friend pick out clothes, do her hair and makeup, and navigate the dating world. The gay man is useful for nothing more than those duties. He only lives to serve her and once he fulfills his role, he is worthless to the woman.

When multiple gay men enter a space, they are seen as potential gay best friends and forced into performative and competitive homosexuality: each gay man, or gay best friend, can be compared to one another based on their ability to serve. There is simply no need for multiple gay best friends. The man who can perform best at the benefit of a heterosexual woman will be considered more useful. Performative and competitive homosexuality allows for only one gay man in any given space. This aspect of power retention, tokenization, allows heterosexual people to reinforce their power over gay men.

A clear contact zone is created. Gay men clash with one another based on their ability to survive under the asymmetrical power dynamic created by heterosexual people.

The stereotypes of the role of gay men and their ability to serve the heterosexual world is prominent in the 2003 television show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Five gay men, all who specialize in a different area of stereotypical expertise, travel around the country helping makeover heterosexual men who are in need of a life overhaul. While these gay men operate in the same space, it is only under the assumption that they can do so based on the variety of their abilities. They do not overlap in their jurisdiction; one focuses on fashion while another focuses on decor. The men do not intersect but simultaneously serve a heterosexual person. In the 2017 reboot of the show, the men aid people across the sexuality spectrum. However, the reboot was built upon the premise of the original series: gay men can be used to serve those around him. As outlined in the definition of performative and competitive homosexuality, the worth of each queer eye guy is based on the presentation of his homosexuality.

The contact zone cuts deeper. Gay men are forced to ask themselves: Am I giving enough? Is what I offer as a gay man valuable? How do I compare to my counterparts? Do I have anything to offer in both queer and non-queer spaces? Tokenization forces competition between gay men who attempt to answer these questions while at odds with their fellow competitors.

The contact zone cuts deeper. Gay men are forced to ask themselves: Am I giving enough? Is what I offer as a gay man valuable? How do I compare to my counterparts? Do I have anything to offer in both queer and non-queer spaces? Tokenization forces competition between gay men who attempt to answer these questions while at odds with their fellow competitors.

When the heterosexual tears down the homosexual, they demolish all chances of community building. The LGBT+ community will never gain full visibility when their culture and causes are continuously crushed by a misguided heterosexually dominate world. They will never be able to stand strong against true hate when they are being divided and forced to compete with one another. Under this system, this cycle of heterosexual power retention, the heterosexual will always have the final word.

The Gay Man as a Victor

In this battle of performing homosexuality, there is no victor. Though one man will be considered of value in a heterosexual space, it does not come without his history and culture being ripped away from him. Gay men forced into performative and competitive homosexuality will inevitably feel dehumanized and devalued, left confused about their community and its place in a heterosexual world.

For homosexual men, there is only one way to win the game: do not play. Gay men must opt-out of situations where their identity is being threatened. They must surround themselves with people who embrace their identity rather than use it as a competitive device and calculator of worth. They must find true allies. If gay men can create productive LGBT+ spaces, they will no longer be susceptible to heterosexual control or performative and competitive homosexuality. The gay man will finally be homosexual for his own sake, rather than for the enjoyment of others.

Do not perform for the heterosexual world. Do not put on a show. Do not cook the man a meal, do not powder the woman’s nose. That is not your job, it is not your role, and your ability to do so does not define your worth. 

The expression of identity is not a performance and it is certainly not a competition. It is a celebration. 

Take your final bow. The show is over.

End Notes and Acknowledgements

I wrote this essay as a reaction to my first semester at one of the most LGBT+-friendly colleges in America. It is an attempt to explore and dissect the experiences of gay men, specifically in spaces where there are concentrated amounts of both LGBT+ and non-queer people. I also attempted to answer questions I found myself asking about my own sexuality as it relates to my queer counterparts. While I intend this piece to read as academic, I hope my voice shines through.

I would like to thank Miles Legrow, Sareen Bekerian, Anna Harberger, Sophia Kreigel, Jordi Kligman for their ability to listen to me endlessly discuss this topic. I fell in love with what I was writing and they were able to filter that passion through a sifter of reality and academia. Thank you. I would also like to thank Mary Kovaleski Byrnes for encouraging me to take on this intense and sometimes confusing topic.