"camp." The very apparent truth that a group so strongly confined within its own limits, intermingling within itself, may develop its own in-group characteristics, seems to have been overlooked. These characteristics can be twofold in source: first, they can arise from unconscious imitation; secondly, from the conscious effort to develop such signs of recognition as will lead members of this marginal society to each other without exposing them to the outside and usually hostile world. However, this conscious effort to develop modes of recognition can easily slip beyond control, and lead to exposure, even to extreme effeminacy, although it was never intended for such purpose.

What is meant by unconscious imitation? This does not mean standing in front of mirrors, gesticulating until one has successfully mimicked a new-found companion. On the contrary, it means that when people intermingle with each other so much and with those unlike them so little, they must take on a set of common mannerisms. At the bars, in the homes, at parties, even to a certain extent at work, these people are travelling within the confines of a very limited circle, and they assume mannerisms, methods of speech, and other traits from each other, in much the same manner as members of a ghetto community of an ethnic character might do.

But the gay world is beset by a contradictory drive. On the one hand, the homosexual wishes to conceal, which means to avoid the group characteristics; and on the other hand, there is a strong need to recognize others in the group, and to be recognized, in order to find companionship, friendship, affection, understanding, and physical partners. To accomplish the second aim, the gay create their own mannerisms that make it possible for them to recognize each other. At the same time, to protect concealment they seek to have these signs of recognition function in a sphere in which effeminacy is avoided, thus making it difficult for others to pinpoint them.

It would be indelicate for me to go into a description of all of these characteristics, but I shall limit myself to pointing out a few of them, in order to illustrate the main contention that there is an in-group set of folkway traits, and that the latter are not in any way effeminate. For example, there are methods of dressing that have absolutely nothing effeminate about them; methods used by all segments of the population, but much more frequently by the homosexuals. There is a very definite type of haircut, which is in fact at least as masculine as any haircut in vogue for men; it is used by many men, but particularly by those in the gay group. Now, some men may use this method of dress and of haircut quite unaware that homosexuals have cultivated it. Is there not a possibility, then, that such men will lead the homosexual astray that the latter will imagine a companion where none is to be found? No, this is quite unlikely, because other traits will confirm or deny the suspicion.

one

page 10