laws will be revised, abolished or, at best, impossible to enforce. Up to that point there is a general social-legal interactional process going on in which if enough lip-service (ideal) adherence can be maintained the laws will still be applicable to some people. In this regard, the taboo aspects will still tend to foster miseducation and a consequent maintenance of the stereotypes (hence, putative deviation and spurious sanctions).

Up to this tolerance limit there is often a correlative pressure by the more vociferous conservative groups for continued (often, increased) enforcement of the existing laws. This is particularly manifest when there exists an unquestionably smaller and less powerful target-group (i.e., the homosexuals). This self-perpetuating nature of many laws and norms is discussed by Westwood as when "people regard (the) sex-code as something that cannot be changed because it is 'right' and something that is morally 'right' cannot be altered or brought up to date-the sex code has remained as before, producing a disparity between our lives and our rules."18 This assertion will not appear astonishing to students of social processes, but the prior assertion that there is a recurrent reinforcing of opinion in favor of the laws (a kind of "uneducation" and static "pull") may be argued by some. Alfred McClung Lee sees this conservative tendency as being pitted against the deviants themselves who clamor for social change (this will be seen as the general thesis of this paper); or, more generally, those who clamor for social change become, ipso facto, social deviants.

"When there is orderly and gradual change, the fewest people are hurt by change, (sic) the most gain by it, and society remains most healthy. The prevention of well-indicated changes stores up periods of tension and suffering. But the way-breakers for social change, whether gradual or drastic, are social deviants. They are those sufficiently aggressive and heedless to defy the overwhelming social forces making for uniformity and the maintenance of the status quo. They are the social manipulators of change just as the successful dominators of society are the social manipulators of stability or against change. And the chief characteristic of such manipulators or agitators of change is that they are-to established and satisfied members of society-unreasonable. "19

Another common "net result" of the application or threatened application of these laws is that they may merely drive the undesired behaviors underground for a time. The actual effect on behaviors is probably nil, or may even aggravate other behavioral symptoms by forcing the deviants to assume

a false pretense and continually wear a mask. Again, they may aggravate

18. Gordon Westwood, Society and the Homosexual, p. 107.

19. Alfred McClung Lee, ed., Principles of Sociology; Lee's Chapter 35, p. 338-339 ("The Person and Social Policy").

mattachine REVIEW

the problem by forcing a reification of subcultural-type relationships. As Lindesmith and Strauss express this phenomenon: "Homosexuals may be so scattered as to have relatively little contact with others like themselves. Public (and official) censure, however, tends to cause them to congregate in certain places, especially cosmopolitan centers, where heterogeniety and the size of the population make for more anonymity and tolerance."20 However much this may tend to lower the "visibility" of homosexuality for a time, norms of an aggressive and anti-social nature will invariably spring up in the deviants. Then, in a circular manner, forms of visibility (hence, the problematical aspects) may arise in flamboyant behavior and affected mannerisms, as is observable in the "gay crowds," the various "queens" and open solicitation and promiscuity.

The last "net result" that will be touched upon here may be looked upon as a type of feedback-more directly than the two previous "net results." There are two major aspects to this process; or actually, three. The first is problem-defining behavior; therefore, in a large measure, problem-creating. This was discussed at length earlier in the paper.

The second aspect is that of society's role in the original "creation" of the homosexual. The author accepts the theory that Western civilization and its sex mores-the inconsistencies, hypocrisies, highly competitive nature of sexual participation, etc.-forms the sexual patterns in general, and contributes to sexual deviations in particular. If one further accepts the hypothesis that poly-sexuality (re: man's "plastic nature") is the only "natural," inherent propensity, then the inference to be drawn is that whenever sexual behavior becomes channeled into one exclusive, fixed and rigid pattern it is the result of social processes and pressures. This would hold true in all forms of sexual behavior, and by degrees from "choice" to "compulsion."

This leads nicely into the third and most significant aspect of this feedback. By the very act of social disapproval, sanction, pressure, stigmatization and ostracism, society unwittingly tends to crystalize and then reinforce many homosexual traits. As these behavioral patterns become more inflexible the more socially and individually undesirable and damaging factors such as fetishism, neuroses and aggressiveness become entrenched. Original feelings of guilt, shame and suppression and the necessity of playing dual roles and employing rationalizations are seen as maladjustment and "primary deviation." Adjustment is sought by the homosexual by establishing a major role-definition and self-acceptance thereof; the behavioral pattern then truly may become a "way of life," or "secondary deviation.”21 20. Lindesmith and Strauss, op. cit., p. 681.

21. The concepts of primary and secondary deviation are Lemert's, op. cit., pp. 75-76.