In other cases, conditions described lead to the development of opposite, centripetal tendencies, causing the individual to confess, more or less emphatically, his belonging to the group. One could, for instance, very well imagine that the very difficulty of the social and psychological status of the homophile induces some of them to give themselves, with all their talents and abilities, to the furtherance of the group and its interests, in full consciousness of thereby losing great personal opportunities.

However, we may come upon others whom the choice of the centripetal solution has not been free and independent, but because they were not able to do otherwise, either on account of fear of loneliness, or because they could no longer deny their nature to society, even if they wished to do so.

One may also mention those who, because their capacities are not quite sufficient to achieve great success in society at large, try to establish a more satisflying position in the smaller group of homophiles.

1

Let us now consider how, in the light of present conditions, the homophile group feels about its position as a minority; how it gives expression to this feeling; how the majority group reacts, in turn.

However understandable it may be, the unwillingness (or should we say, incapacity?) of the majority to accord recognition to the minority-group is received by many of the latter with a similar unwillingness to understand the conscious and unconscious inner tensions which prevent the majority from taking an objective attitude regarding these problems.

At times this disinclination of the minority is expressed aggressively, thereby provoking equally aggressive reactions from the majority, recalling the wellknown proverb: "where two quarrel, two are guilty." More often, we meet with the less aggressive, but essentially more dangerous reaction, which shrugs it all off with the statement, "we are different anyhow," meaning, we abandon all claim upon the other's understanding, being thereby relieved of trying to understand them.

I am convinced that this attitude greatly hampers endeavors at rapprochement, and completely ignores the possibility of different forms and levels of communal humanity, mutually recognizing and respecting each other.

Even the most superficial spectator will see that such attitudes, when taken by the homophile, produce very marked effects within the group itself. Every tendency toward exclusivism, and the putting up of barriers, inevitably leads to loss of spontaneity, and produces strain, or even more serious, a dangerous overrating of the importance of the group as such. We often observe the development of an understandable, but fatally dangerous tendency, to consider the group as nucleus of the chosen, finding its complete justification in itself and entitled to ignore the existence of a larger world. What disappointments follow as they discover that, even in this chosen world of their own, kindness, courage and pity flourish concurrently with unreliability, cowardice and lovelessness, just like everywhere else.