Sodomites

“Why can’t it just be about Flowers…?”

— Charlie Kaufman,

Adaptation 

Because Successful Flowers 

go to Seed.

“For Oscar Wilde —

Posing as a Sodomite”

Queensberry’s handwriting was almost indecipherable [That’ll be the cerebral Syphilis, then.] : The hall porter initially read “ponce and sodomite”, but Queensberry himself claimed that he’d written “posing ‘as’ a sodomite”, an easier accusation to defend in court. Merlin Holland concludes that “what Queensberry almost certainly wrote was “posing somdomite [sic]”.

“Consider for example the history of what was once “The” Great Sin against Nature. The extreme discretion of the texts dealing with Sodomy – that utterly confused category – and the nearly universal reticence in talking about it made possible a twofold operation.”

Okay. Here’s Foucault saying that this is a category. The Homosexual Identity, as understood in terms of Sodomy, is a category. 

He’s going to go on to say that it’s punishable in the extreme by Law, but in the meantime he’s saying there’s no discourse. There’s a kind of almost universal silence on the subject. You don’t get silence in Dante, as I’m sure you know, but in most cases in this period nobody talks about it. 

It’s punishable, severely punishable by Law, and yet nobody talks about it. 

This would seem to violate Foucault’s own premise that Discourse constitutes Identity but also plainly does contradict Butler’s claim that Foucault supposes that Discourse always constitutes Identity.

Let’s continue :

… [T]he nearly universal reticence in talking about it made possible a twofold operation : on the one hand, there was an extreme severity (punishment by Fire was meted out well into the eighteenth century, without there being any substantial protest expressed before the middle of the century)

[Discourse is here failing also in that it’s not constituting a site of resistance, and nobody’s complaining about these severe punishments just as on the other hand nobody’s talking very much about them [“The Sodomites”]  : 

There is, in other words, an Erasure of Discourse], and [he continues] on the other hand, a tolerance that must have been widespread (which one can deduce indirectly from the infrequency of judicial sentences, and which one glimpses more directly through certain statements concerning societies of men that were thought to exist in the army or in the courts) –

In other words, he’s saying there was An Identity [“Sodomite” or “Sodomist”] and that identity was not – at least not very much – constituted by discourse. As you read down the column, he’s going to go on to say that in a way, the plight of the homosexual got worse when it started being talked about. Yes, penalties for being homosexual were less severe, but the surveillance of Homosexuality – the way in which it could be sort of dictated to by Therapy and by The Clergy and by everyone else who might have something to say about it – became far more pervasive and determinate than it was when there was no discourse about it. 

In a certain way, Foucault is going so far as to say silence was, while perilous to the few, a GOOD Thing for the many; whereas discourse which perhaps relieves the few of extreme fear nevertheless sort of imposes a kind of hegemonic authority on all that remain and constitutes them as something that Power-Knowledge believes them to be, rather than something that in any sense according to their sexuality they spontaneously are. 

It seems to me that this pointed disagreement with Foucault, raised by Butler, is answered in advance by Foucault and that even there, when you think about it, they’re really in agreement with each other. Foucault’s position is more flexible than she takes it to be, but that just means that it’s similar to her own and, as I say, that fact together with the broad shared political agenda that they have seems to me to suggest that they’re writing very much in concert and in keeping with each other’s views.

 

Did General Charles Gordon Have Aspergers Syndrome?

Paul Mersh, 11 Gravesend Road, Strood, Rochester, Kent ME2 3PH [paulmersh@btinternet.com]

[Victorian Web Home —> Victorian Political History —> Victorian Social History —> The British Empire]

Introduction

This essay has been written in order to stimulate discussion about what has been described as General Charles Gordon's homosexual traits. The discussion begins by outlining the evidence often cited as proof that Gordon was a latent homosexual, then examines John Pollock's refutation of these allegations, and finally offers an alternative explanation for Gordon's behaviour.

Evidence for Gordon's alleged homosexuality

It has to be stated at the outset that there are no confessions written by supposed lovers. There was no court trial, as in Oscar Wilde's case, or army record of him having been cashiered for what was then, a serious offence. Writers who have maintained that Gordon was a closet homosexual, such as Richardson, largely rely on his behavioural traits to provide their evidence.

What is this evidence? Firstly he began his days by having a cold bath (a fact cited by many authors including Pollock). This is often explained as being necessary to "cool his passions." Secondly, there is his liking for small children, in particular boys. There is no doubt that Gordon enjoyed the company of young boys. From all accounts he seemed to have sought them out, spent time with them in his home and nursed them when they were sick. It has to be said that this suggests not only latent homosexuality but latent paedophillia. Thirdly, there is Gordon's aversion to women: he is on record as having refused invitations from women if he felt that he was being lined up to marry a young woman. Gordon remained a bachelor all of his life.

On their own, none of these facts provide conclusive proof of homosexuality, but taken as a whole, to the modern mind, it would seem to be fairly conclusive proof that Gordon was, as Pollock puts it, "sexually orientated towards men."

Pollock's refutation 

Pollock, who does not set out to refute the evidence point by point, starts by admitting that Gordon felt "ill at ease with women," and he then asserts that "many clues suggest a man of normal male instincts who was determined to stay celibate." He then quotes from a number of sources to show that Gordon approved of marriage but felt that he had never met a woman who would put up with his way of life. Pollock quotes at length from Gordon, that he needs a woman who would be "prepared to sacrifice the comforts of home, and the sweet society of loved one and accompany me whithersoever the demand of duty might lead. . . .Such a woman I have not met, and such a one alone could be my wife!"

Pollock's two points seem to conflict, for it could be argued that by saying he had never met a woman suited to be his wife, Gordon was avoiding making a socially unacceptable statement, that is, "I am not interested in women." Pollock did not effectively refute the allegation that Gordon was homosexual.

An alternative explanation for Gordon's behaviour.

Gordon presents as an enigma to historians, who usually aknowledge the following about Gordon:

1. He found normal social interaction difficult. He did not relate well to his peer group; fellow officers found him difficult, and he could often be tactless. 

2. He found it hard to relate to adults, but related well to children.

3. He was meticulous and thorough in all he did, whether it was map making, being a governor-general, a social worker or teacher

4. He was obsessed with routines. Gordon would not start work until 8, even when he knew that important matters needed his attention. He had a cold bath every morning. This routine probably began during his school days; it was quite normal for public school boys to have a cold bath every day.

I would like to suggest that these are all traits of a condition called Aspergers syndrome, which the National Autistic societydescribes in the following way: "Aspergers syndrome is a form of autism, a disability that affects the way a person communicates and relates to others. A number of the traits of autism are common to Aspergers syndrome including:

• Difficulty in communicating
• Difficulty in social relationships
• Lack of imagination"

However, people with Aspergers syndrome usually have fewer problems with language than those with autism, often speaking fluently, though their words can sometimes sound formal or stilted.They also do not have the accompanying learning disabilites often associated with autism, in fact, they are often of average or above average intelligence.'

They are also prone to depression in later life owing to their desire to have normal social contact, which they are unable to maintain. Gordon is known to have suffered from bouts of depression.

Lack of facial expression is another trait of Aspergers syndrome, pictures of Gordon usually show him with a straight face. It is thought that Aspergers syndrome is an inherited condition, Pollock describes Gordon's paternal ancestors as "the solemn Gordons," this would seem to indicate that Gordon's father possibly shared his condition.

Conclusions

Today Aspergers syndrome is usually diagnosed in childhood by a consultant psychologist. It is not possible to have Gordon diagnosed. From the available evidence it is possible to deduce that Gordon had this condition. Why go to all of this trouble? Gordon would have found it highly offensive to be described as homosexual. He was a deeply religious man, and being a homosexual would be regarded as a sin in the circles he moved in, as would any unatural attraction to children. 

References

Pollock, John. Gordon, the Man behind the Legend. Oxford: Lion, 1993.

Richardson Mars without Venus

If you wish to comments about this essay please e-mail me on pemersh@tagteacher.net.