(Quick note: to be more inclusive I have changed the word 'homsexuality' in the title to LGBT. It doesn't change the analogy significantly, but hopefully makes clear I'm not trying to ignore anyone in that community.)
In case the title isn’t clear, what I intend to focus on in this diary is the occasional employment of the analogy between LGBT people and atheism. It is sometimes used and sometimes criticized, so I want to take a deeper look and unpack the baggage that often accompanies these arguments.
First of all, I think it will be useful to define what I mean by analogy for the context of this piece. An analogy is a rhetorical device that utilizes a comparison of similar characteristics of seemingly unrelated things. There is no such thing as a perfect analogy. The only thing that compares exactly with a given thing is the thing itself. You do not have an analogy in that case.
To be useful, an analogy has to be two things: It must me accurate and it has to be instructive. If an analogy is too flawed, it will not carry the argument because it will be bogged down in bickering over the viability of the comparison. Once that hurdle is cleared, an analogy has to shed light on, simplify, or allow someone to relate to the thing being compared. If it can’t advance an argument it is a vehicle without cargo. There’s an analogy right there. An analogy is a cargo truck. If it doesn’t drive it’s useless, if there’s no cargo to transport, it’s similarly useless.
We have seen, for example, many recent attempts by politicians to craft analogies which help simplify the explanation of the current state of the economy and how we got here. Some of these work better than others.
In order to get at the heart of the analogy in question I’m going to look at both aspects of the analogy. After that, I’ll open it up to discussion and get your opinion. Scramble over the curly do-dad with me.
Let’s begin with accuracy. Is it plausible to compare atheism and homosexuality? There are many similarities, which make it understandable why this analogy is sometimes conceived. There are also some glaring discrepancies which I will look into further.
The first similarity that comes to mind, and the one that is probably most often evoked, is that both atheists and LGBT people can be “in the closet.” In other words, large parts of society do not understand and/or approve of atheists or LGBT people. It won’t be hard to convince people at this site that these people are wrong, and potentially dangerously so. There is a glaring difference between being “in the closet” as an atheist and “in the closet” as a LGBT person. I will discuss that later on.
Another similarity we can look at between the two is that both are a significant minority of the U.S. population. The numbers can be argued about infinitely, but lets just say that atheists and LGBT people both know what it’s like to live in a society where they are mostly surrounded by people not like them.
Some other things we have in common are being hated by religious conservatives, having virtually no representation in national politics, being often caricatured in the media, and sharing a fear of workplace discrimination. The extent that these fears and conditions vary by degree will lead us into a discussion on the flaws in the analogy.
First, the big sticky point of the “in the closet” part I alluded to earlier. I don’t think it would be difficult here at Daily Kos to come to a consensus that being lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgendered is rooted in genetics. Whatever the biological mechanism, as Lady Gaga says, you are born that way. Now, there is a much less clear discussion to have about the role of genetics in what is perhaps best described as innate skepticism that may ultimately make atheism a more likely choice in some. We had a small discussion of this in the comments section in the first diary of this year’s series. I would encourage people to read that if they haven’t yet done so.
Bottom line is, it’s a much simpler and less life altering condition to be “in the closet” as an atheist then as a LGBT person. Suppressing and/or hiding one’s sexual orientation is a more painful and difficult process than keeping your mouth shut about part of your personal philosophy. I would argue that the First Amendment to our Constitution should preclude either group from ever having to be in the position of pretending you are something you are not. But we all know that our society doesn’t always provide incentive to be your full throated self. LGBT people, youths in particular, face enormous hardship in almost any community by outing themselves. Atheists have faced persecution in history for making their thoughts known, but the scale of this kind of retribution for open atheists is significantly smaller. The reasons for the difference are most likely the relative ease of lying, hiding, or blending in as an atheist; the probability that people don’t realize they are atheists until an age where bullying is less of a threat; or that atheism doesn’t seem as large or tangible an affront to society in the eyes of bigots.
Let’s now assume, for the sake of argument going forward, that these flaws in the analogy do not present a large enough obstacle to prevent us from using it. I’m going to proceed by offering my thoughts on why I think this vehicle has some cargo to carry.
It is not an attempt to insult or trivialize the experience of LGBT people to compare them to atheists. On the contrary, my experience with atheism has given my more empathy and a small window into what it must be like to live in a world dominated by hetero-privilege. Being a young to middle-aged white male offers me no way to personally connect with the plight of minority groups in our society. But knowing how it feels to be an atheist in a Christian dominated country, and knowing that I still have it many times easier than many other minorities, gives me an easy point with which to connect to a human experience I am otherwise blocked off from.
When we atheists compare ourselves to LGBT people it is also a way of trying to open a new perspective on our world. We can use an experience many non-atheists have to give them a feel for what it’s like for us in a country dominated by Christian privilege. People in minority (in the U.S.) religions can identify with their interaction with Christian privilege, but they also are part of larger faith communities with which atheism has nothing comparable. I have to point out that I am aware of the fact many people belong to both these communities. If so, they probably not in need of a way to connect with the experience one group has, since they have had experience as both. The analogy does not need to carry any cargo.
Ultimately, atheism is like a careful dance between self-censorship and self-expression. There are places like this where I can freely express my views without fear of overwhelming hostility. There are some places I can’t. I think there are many groups that experience a similar feeling about themselves. As long as it is understood that there will always be flaws and large variances in the degree to which these concepts apply, the analogy between atheism and LGBT people can serve a purpose. It is not meant to be a perfect analogy, which is impossible. It is meant to enhance communication, not inflame and obfuscate it. It is also important to note that this is not necessarily the only analogy to be draw that can achieve these ends. It is not chosen arbitrarily, but it is not chosen because it’s the only thing that fits the bill. I chose to explore this one because I have seen it frequently enough to know that it can’t be dismissed, but I also know that it is not unassailable. I wanted to explore it further because I thought it was an interesting topic that could benefit from more attention. Let’s continue the conversation in the comments.
Thanks for reading. Discuss!
Series Schedule
8-5: I Didn't Choose to be an Atheist
8-10: On Anders Breivik
8-16: Athesim and Socialism
8-31: Conclusion