The state of the union of the LGBTQIA+ movement in 2021 is worrying. There seems to be a reversal of the progressive trend of several decades in Europe. Is this a fundamental turnaround or just a temporary "blip"? No one really knows. Once again, we need to decide how to respond. What is the best strategy to adopt?
I would like to answer this question by looking back at the anti-gay world in my own country. From there, I will take a closer look at the European context. The meteoric sexual development since the 1960s also deserves to be highlighted. In short, long live history, including at this Antwerp Pride!
The anti-gay world
For centuries, a decidedly negative attitude towards homosexuality characterised Europe until very recently. This was particularly the case for male homosexuality. This is clear from historical sources from the Middle Ages, where the denunciation of 'sodomy' was very often in line with this pattern.
Traditionally, religion and its associated traditionalism have opposed any deviation from the heterosexual norm. In a traditionalist society, Church and State do not prioritise individual freedom as the fundamental principle for building society, but instead prioritise the collective. In the ancient world, infant mortality was high and epidemics were frequent. Survival across generations was a major concern. So sex was about procreation, having children, so that God's people would grow and social order would be maintained. Any deviation from this norm was perceived as a very serious threat: behold, a mortal sin against which both the ecclesiastical and the secular authorities took action.
The separation of church and state, privileged individual freedom and the acceptance of homosexuality were all introduced by the French Revolution. But new ideas did not immediately transform the sluggish, staid society of pre-1914. Indeed, the omnipresent Church continued to maintain its traditionalist views, and this affected the already entrenched social conventions that had been handed down from one generation to the next, even among the less religious. To this day, Catholicism officially adheres to a sexual morality focused on procreation. This is also a widespread tenet in Islam.
Religion, in its traditionalist form, is thus the first source of resistance against homosexuality and, more broadly, against other non-heteronormative sexual identities.
The second historical foundation of the homophobic trend is political. In the modern Europe of the Enlightenment, there is an absolute freedom of the individual - absolute as long as it does not restrict the freedom of the other. Homosexuality is often opposed by political movements that challenge or reject these modern freedoms. Just as they sometimes oppose another Enlightenment achievement, equal rights for Jews. A sinister example is Nazi Germany, which persecuted homosexual people and Jewish people. It did so on the basis of an anti-Catholic, 'pagan' racial doctrine.
Religiously or politically inspired views only have great impact if they also mobilise masses of people. This is the power of the masses. I developed this theme on the first floor of the Kazerne Dossin museum. The riled up masses can become a deadly force, especially when the vanguard rushes in to fight the opponents physically. Opposition to homosexuality, better yet the attack on gay people, can be fuelled by a fascist cult of masculinity, with a warrior herd of steeled and muscular straight men.
These are the three basic ingredients that, depending on political evolution, may weigh more or less heavily on attitudes towards LGBTQIA+ today: a traditionalist religion, the rejection of freedom as a fundamental concept of the state order, and the possible mobilisation of riled up 'masculine' troops.
If we are worried about their situation in 2021, it has everything to do with a particular political development, namely the rise of populism in the last decade. Populism is a nationalist, anti-intellectual mass movement led by a conservative leader. It opposes all recent social innovations and draws its strength from the cult of an enemy image. The storming of the Capitol was led by mostly male thugs, masculine, muscular political hooligans. There is no need to argue any further that in this world, the LGBTQIA+ movement will soon be at the front of the pack. But we should make no mistake. It is undeniably true that the far right sometimes mobilises LGBTQI+ people, for example in its fight against 'Islam'.
The European map
Let's start with Flanders. Last year was sad. Let's not forget the embarrassing verbal gaffes by leading Flemish politicians and opinion leaders. Most recently, a sports journalist received a firm slap on the wrist. And then there was the terrible murder in Beveren. The dignified reaction of David's loved ones echoes the theme of this Antwerp Pride: #notjustwords.
Let's counter the growing intolerance on social media, both outside and within the LGBTQIA+ community, with a respectful attitude. By the way, the hashtag of this Antwerp Pride is also a good fit for the so-called community of colour. A movement like Black Lives Matter could be empowered by joining other groups in concerted action for the deep value they and we all stand for: inclusive society. Because that is what it is all about.
Well, from a global point of view, Flanders today enjoys the reputation of being a tolerant region with regard to those who deviate from the classic heterosexual norm. Our tolerant space is that of the Benelux, Great Britain and Scandinavia. Things look (even) less rosy in other parts of the world. In countries like France, Italy and Spain, ethical national politics are influenced by Catholic conservatism, just as conservative Muslim tendencies are a problem everywhere in Europe. But it is the countries of the former Eastern Bloc that are of particular concern.
With NATO right up to the borders of Russia, Putin's Russian nationalism is turning against the West. Skinheads have been mobilizing to infiltrate the LGBTQIA+ movement. Within the European Union itself, two former Eastern Bloc countries stand out in particular. They each have a distinctly populist government, and a hefty dose of Holocaust denial. There is Poland, where, like Russia, a strongly traditionalist church is very influential. In Hungary, the anti- lgbtqia+ policy of the Orban government looks more like an opportunistic slogan, a move against the West and an action to establish non-liberal democracy as an alternative European model. But the rainbow flag works like a red rag on a bull elsewhere in the former Eastern bloc.
The point is that all these countries have only been able to experiment with democracy as it existed in Western Europe since the 1990s. But there it had grown along paths of gradualism. And the roads were long! The political development in the former Eastern bloc shows that there is no escaping the time-honored path of gradualism. And that being too brusque can be counterproductive.
Since the 1960s
This brings me to another point. In the face of the misunderstanding that the LGBTQIA+ movement sometimes evokes, we must also recognize that the acceptance, indeed the discovery, of a non-heterosexual gender perspective is a very recent achievement. It is a consequence of one of the most profound innovations in human history, the introduction of the "pill" beginning in the 1960s. Now that sexuality could be adequately separated from procreation, that sexuality could also explore new avenues.
Recent" is, of course, a relative term. The twenty-somethings in 2021, the many young people I see participating in Pride, estimate that 2011 was a very long time ago. But that perspective will change completely from your twenties on. From then on the years fly by, and when you are fifty, 10 years ago seems like the day before yesterday, and 20 and 30 years ago are still very close. By which I mean to say: the years 1970-1980 are actually not long ago.
The evolution of the experience of sexuality was very slow in those days. In the 1970s, even in liberal environments, separate schools for boys and girls and separate youth movements were still the norm.
This separate world seemed quite normal to us as young people. The night in Flanders at that time was also mainly in the context of the parish halls or, a little more disguised, in the youth centers that often had a similar origin and where the neon lights always went on around half past twelve in the morning - time to go home. The fact that Freddie Mercury was gay was barely noticed by many young people, if at all. Concepts such as the unacceptability of "premarital relations" and the equally abhorrent issue of "marriage" were still obvious facts of life in the 1970s. I am not able to explain these things to my children today.
Little did we realize that all of this was still tied to a now obsolete society in which pregnancy avoidance was wrapped up in centuries-old layers of culture, as complex as they were diverse, that permeated society with this premise: only in the context of marriage and family do you put boys and girls and men and women together. And once a woman is married, she might as well stay at home.
Belgian marriage law treated men and women unequally until the 1970s. Until the 1970s, the law of inheritance discriminated against children born in wedlock. Other countries did the same. In the Netherlands, a gay person was chemically castrated as recently as the 1970s.
The tide turned slowly. The 1980s were a turning point in new perceptions of sexuality. In the non-heterosexual community, gay and lesbian people were the first to emancipate themselves, followed by other groups that I would respectfully and permissibly call "more complex categories": People who often not only had to learn to discover themselves, but who were often emotionally confused in their search for a gender category that might not have been defined before. Concepts have sometimes appeared and disappeared, to this day, as we gain new insights into complex human beings in all their diversity... (although the acronym that has now expanded to LGBTQIA+ also seems to me to be a rather weak label).
Diplomacy, Patience and Hope
Back to the original question: how do we respond to strong push-backs?
One. The era of multiple gender identities is recent. It is a revolution in human history. Now, the realization that major reforms simply take time will not escape even the most militant activist. We need to push, of course, but pushing too hard is counterproductive.
Two. Know your opponents. Understand them. But also try to understand them, break the ice if possible, and work for understanding, for recognition, for respect. Looking them straight in the eye and just being friendly and courteous can be very disarming. Think of politicians like Petra De Sutter, Elio Di Rupo or Xavier Bettel, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg; they are pioneers. We should all adopt their spirit.
Three. Political populism already received a fierce crunch with Trump's defeat. In a country like Hungary, Orban's position is not set in stone, and vibrant centrist and civic movements are making themselves heard more than ever. I am convinced that in a world where knowledge can spread without limits, science will prevail over ignorance and lies. In such a context, the gender emancipation of each individual may be slowed down, but it cannot be stopped.
Four. If the anti-gay movement builds on the lines of the past, it is counterbalanced by the fact that year after year, young people are emerging at a stage in their lives where they are exploring and building their identities. They are also becoming increasingly impatient and demanding accountability from the generations before them. Just look at how strongly the Belgian Cats reacted to the symptomatic outburst at the VRT sports desk! Young people also find each other very quickly thanks to social media, something that distinguishes them from previous generations. Connected as they are, young people will make the difference and build the new world we dream of.
That's a hopeful outlook for this fourteenth edition of the Antwerp Pride. I wish you all the best!
Herman Van Goethem
Rector UAntwerp
August 13th, 2021