and communication, tools, weapons,

READERS Occupations, etc., the arts, myths and

on

Writers

I have some further thoughts on Marcel Martin's article "The Gravest Danger," a translation from Arcadie with comments. I wholly agree with his position and am surprised that the French editors have so completely misunderstood the position of the ONE group. In 1962 I wrote a review of The Homosexual Society by Richard Hauser in which I said the following, believing that I was following the view held by that group's leaders at least. "One of the persistent problems in the sexual field to which considerable thought has been given in recent years is that of determining the extent to which there exists a homosexual society or culture distinctive in itself and capable of definition. A society and a culture are not synonymous, but they are closely related. A society is a group of persons who are integrated into a system which, beginning in the the 'consciousness of kind' (Giddings), gradually develops certain characteristics that have a relative consistency and permanence, although the members of the group come and go. These common characteristics include particular ways of doing things, consensus of beliefs and sentiments, and a degree of integration which makes the society percep tible within a larger setting. A culture group is more specifically defined in what is termed 'a pattern of culture' and may include a series of categories such, for example, as language, a group of material activities covering food, shelter, clothing, transportation

scientific knowledge, religion, family organization, property and exchange, government and laws, recreation, and war and intergroup relations. The anthropologists, such, for example, as Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead, have found these categories practically universal, although the content of each differs widely within ethnic groups. The problem of the homosexuals is then: To what extent is there an integrated society among them and a distinctive attitude or practice with reference to the cultural

categories? As to the existence of a society of homosexuals, there is just now in our own times a beginning of a recognition of the 'consciousness of kind' in the formation of organizations and the development of communication through periodical literature. As revealed in many letters to ONE, it has come as almost a shock to those who have suffered loneliness and isolation that they are members of a group which is widespread and historically of long duration. To call homosexuals a society is as yet immature. The question of a distinct culture is still an open one and is occupying the thought of a number of serious minds, but the present weight of opinion seems to be on the side of the negative, finding sexual preference the only deviation from the cultural national pattern of the ethnic or group to which the individual belongs." Certainly ONE has stood for the assimilation of homosexuals to the larger citizenship group without discrimination and unfair and unjust deprivation of acceptance for occupation or other privilege open to citizens generally. There has been no effort that I have ever seen to make of them a special, privileged class or distinctive culture group. It is curious that any other impression has gone abroad.

T.M.M.

27