EDITORIAL

Leadership in which creativity is matched by dependability is greatly needed in the Homophile Movement today. This Movement already has passed the midpoint of its second decade of existence in the United States. Hence it no longer can be regarded as a pioneering effort. Fifteen years ago such was the Movement's status. Today different standards must be used.

The problem of leadership appropriate to a rapidly maturing social movement promises no easy solution; for there are so few who have any clear ideas as to what such leadership should be. Many are satisfied to define a leader in terms of a following, this being the yardstick widely accepted these days in public life and the arts. According to this popularity-poll type of thinking the important questions are: do people like so-and-so; is he drawing a crowd; is he successful?

Commenting on this sort of thinking we should ask if Napoleon was a leader while he was winning but not a leader after he started losing battles. In short, was he ever truly a leader in terms of broad historical and social effectiveness? Having asked such a question the point is seen that only the crude forms of leadership can function on a basis of impulse and improvisation. Not to have thoughtfully considered aims and purposes means that leadership does not exist in any laudable form.

If this be so what of those within the Homophile Movement who feel that the path of success is found where there is the most noise? Homophiles must attract attention to themselves. They must march and picket. They must go on TV and radio programs as often as possible. So runs this line of opinion. When pressed for reasons the answer sometimes has been that it is foolish to get bogged down in "details at present." Let events take care of themselves and who knows what fine achievements may ensue? On the other hand, who knows how much disaster, how much damage, how much setback might follow?

Put a little more bluntly, it could also be asked, why, if getting attention is of itself so very much worthwhile, should we not aim for splashier goals? Put the whole Homophile Movement either into drag or leather. In this way there could be front page stories far oftener. There are those whose need for attention is so great that they will do almost anything to get it, but is this leadership?

A variation on the shock tactic is the camp approach. More camp, cleverer camp, even smuttier camp is the answer. This will show how sophisticated one is and serve to set the campy apart from the squares who just don't know what is happening. For instance, one might go butch to show how really subtle camp can be. Of course this may all become very complicated and, amidst all the laughs and sniggers, leadership gets somewhat lost in the tumult.

4