In the 1880s and 1890s—at the same time that the word homosexuality entered the English language, largely through the work of Havelock Ellis—social attitudes towards homosexuality underwent a major change. From being defined in terms of sinful behaviour, homosexuality came to be regarded as a characteristic of a particular type of person. Because homosexuality was seen as a condition, homosexuals were therefore a species, which it became the object of the social sciences to explore and explain. The principal vehicles of this redefinition were legal and medical.
Homosexual behaviour became subject to increased legal penalties, notably by the Labouchère Amendment of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. which extended the law to cover all male homosexual acts, whether committed in public or private. The harsher legal sanctions were accompanied over a longer period by an important change in the conceptualisation of homosexuality: the emergence of the idea that homosexuality was a disease or sickness which required treatment.
The result, however, was that the late nineteenth century saw homosexuality acquire new labelling, in the context of a social climate that was more hostile than before.
The result, however, was that the late nineteenth century saw homosexuality acquire new labelling, in the context of a social climate that was more hostile than before. The tightening of the law and the widespread acceptance by opinion-makers of the “medical model” of homosexuality produced conditions within which men with homosexual feelings began to develop a conscious collective identity. For although a small homosexual subculture had existed in London and a few other cities in the British Isles since the early eighteenth century, the final development of a homosexual underground was essentially a phenomenon of the late nineteenth century.5 Such a subculture did not rise in a vacuum. It was a direct consequence of growing social hostility that compelled homosexual men to begin to perceive themselves as members of a group with certain distinctive characteristics:
The homosexual subculture, in which sexual meanings were defined and sharpened, was then predominantly male, revolving around meeting place, clubs, pubs, etc. Indeed perhaps it was less a single subculture than a series of overlapping subcultures, each part supplying a different need. In its most organized aspect there was often an emphasis on transvestism, a self-mocking effeminacy, an argot (slang) and a predominance of “camp.” (Weeks, “Movements of Affirmation,” 175).
Most of these middle-class homosexuals were married and lived double lives. Outside or on the fringes of the subculture were many men with a homosexual orientation who avoided giving their behaviour a homosexual interpretation. Until the mid-twentieth century, because male homosexuality was so often equated in popular thinking with the display of feminine behaviour and personality traits, it was often difficult for men who combined strong homosexual feelings with a strong sense of male gender identity to regard themselves as homosexual.6
6 John Marshall, ‘Pansies, Perverts and Macho Men: Changing Conceptions of Male Homosexuality,” in The Making of the Modern Homosexual, ed. Kenneth Plummet (London: Hutchinson, 1980), pp. 133-154.
Homosexual behaviour became subject to increased legal penalties, notably by the Labouchère Amendment of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. which extended the law to cover all male homosexual acts, whether committed in public or private. The harsher legal sanctions were accompanied over a longer period by an important change in the conceptualisation of homosexuality: the emergence of the idea that homosexuality was a disease or sickness which required treatment.
The result, however, was that the late nineteenth century saw homosexuality acquire new labelling, in the context of a social climate that was more hostile than before.
The result, however, was that the late nineteenth century saw homosexuality acquire new labelling, in the context of a social climate that was more hostile than before. The tightening of the law and the widespread acceptance by opinion-makers of the “medical model” of homosexuality produced conditions within which men with homosexual feelings began to develop a conscious collective identity. For although a small homosexual subculture had existed in London and a few other cities in the British Isles since the early eighteenth century, the final development of a homosexual underground was essentially a phenomenon of the late nineteenth century.5 Such a subculture did not rise in a vacuum. It was a direct consequence of growing social hostility that compelled homosexual men to begin to perceive themselves as members of a group with certain distinctive characteristics:
The homosexual subculture, in which sexual meanings were defined and sharpened, was then predominantly male, revolving around meeting place, clubs, pubs, etc. Indeed perhaps it was less a single subculture than a series of overlapping subcultures, each part supplying a different need. In its most organized aspect there was often an emphasis on transvestism, a self-mocking effeminacy, an argot (slang) and a predominance of “camp.” (Weeks, “Movements of Affirmation,” 175).
Most of these middle-class homosexuals were married and lived double lives. Outside or on the fringes of the subculture were many men with a homosexual orientation who avoided giving their behaviour a homosexual interpretation. Until the mid-twentieth century, because male homosexuality was so often equated in popular thinking with the display of feminine behaviour and personality traits, it was often difficult for men who combined strong homosexual feelings with a strong sense of male gender identity to regard themselves as homosexual.6
6 John Marshall, ‘Pansies, Perverts and Macho Men: Changing Conceptions of Male Homosexuality,” in The Making of the Modern Homosexual, ed. Kenneth Plummet (London: Hutchinson, 1980), pp. 133-154.
