In 1989, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen published After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s.
It took a little longer than 90’s but public opinion is now with the gay rights movement and gay marriage was just upheld as the law of the land. This doesn’t mean there still isn’t work to do, but I mention these things to talk about how far the movement has come and how change can and does happen.
Even though it was controversial when it was published, the LGBT rights movement has followed Kirk and Madsen’s advice quite closely.
Since it is out of print, I thought I’d talk about some of the lessons from Kirk and Madsen’s blueprint for change and acceptance.
What didn’t work
Though methods are numerous and varied, Kirk and Madsen talk about how almost all of these approaches fall into three general categories. They then talk about how and why each approach doesn’t work in overcoming hatred of homosexuals.
1. Argument
Kirk and Madsen write:
Trying to argue people out of their homohatred is founded on a completely false assumption – namely, that prejudice is a belief. But prejudice is not a belief; it’s a feeling. Argument can change beliefs, but not feelings.
In other words, people tend to make decisions first based on emotion and then rationalize their emotions after the fact.
Addressing the rationalizations (with argument) isn’t going to deal with the emotional hatred.
2. Fighting – aka Storming the Barricades
Kirk and Madsen write about the tremendous anger (righteously so) that the LGBT community faces every time some horrible act of violence occurs against someone in the community. When Stonewall erupted in violence then, it was no surprise that people rallied around the event with calls to fight.
They write:
The trouble with threats and acts of violence, beyond the fact that we gays don’t have the wherewithal to put our fists where our mouth is, is that they not only do nothing whatever to improve straight America’s picture of us, but actually confirm and aggravate that picture! Straights already see us as mentally unbalanced or willfully perverse; how much more moral obloquy would they heap upon our heads if we were to stand up and declare that we are willing to burn down cities in order to force America to allow us to practice our despicable sins untrammeled? There’s such a thing as putting people’s backs up, and if you do, you’d best be prepared for a wicked backlash.
A couple modern day comparisons are the Occupy Movement and #BlackLivesMatter.
With Occupy, the media portrayed them as violent, scary anarchists even though there was actually very little violence. Any little violence, however, was magnified out of all proportion to the movement. This was how corporate special interest groups worked to break up the movement.
Similarly, with #BlackLivesMatter, the images most broadcast on TV from the murder of Freddie Gray in Baltimore were images of people looting stores. Never mind that the vast majority of these people had nothing to do with the movement. Never mind that this was a legitimate reaction to years of oppression and subjugation. I’m not arguing that the acts weren’t justified. And I’m not arguing that this treatment was fair.
I do believe, however, like Kirk and Madsen that violence is an early reaction that may hurt the cause. The media may portray the movement as violent and the response from many people is to want to escalate.
3. Shock Tactics – aka Gender Bending
Many of the early tactics of the gay rights movement involved openly and proudly saying “’Eff you, America! We don’t need your morals. We will loudly and proudly do what we please!”
The idea was that through exposure America would accept people being different.
Kirk and Madsen don’t disagree with people being different. In fact, they agree.
However, as a movement tactic, they write that it fails:
Here we are, a community painted from end to end with one broad brush – laughed to scorn, vilified, as a collection of perverted freaks, evil or insane – in any case disgustingly different – and incapable of ever fitting in with the mentally healthy and morally upright. We’re assumed to consist entirely of extreme stereotypes: men ultraswishy and ultraviolet, Frankensteinian thug-women with bolts on their necks, mustachio’d Dolly Parton wanna-bes, leather-men in boots and whips, ombudsmen of pederasty squirming their ombudsboys – all ridiculous, deranged, or criminal. And when we are finally allowed to rally and march, to lay our case before the cameras of the straight American public, what do we do? We call out of the woodwork as our ambassadors of bad will all the screamers, stompers, gender-benders, sadomasochists, and pederasts, and confirm America’s worst fears and hates. You can call it gay liberation if you like: we say it’s spinach, and we say the hell with it!
Wow.
You may see now why their book was controversial for the time and even now among many in the LGBT community.
What to do?
The biggest takeaway from Kirk and Madsen’s book and what I believe the LGBT community took to heart was realizing that in order to win they were going to have to fight a public relations fight.
The three goals of this media strategy were:
- Employ images that desensitize, jam, and/or convert bigots on an emotional level. Kirk and Madsen claim this is the most important goal.
Challenge beliefs and actions on an intellectual level. Rational messages serve to camouflage the emotional appeal.
- Gain access to the kinds of public media that would convey legitimacy to these messages.
How important have media channels been for corporate special interest group messages or for religious messages?
What to do in the media
Here are the eight principles Kirk and Madsen recommended for persuading straight people.
1. Don’t just express yourself – communicate!
Most efforts to date, they write, have been efforts of self-expression, akin to “I gotta be me” efforts. On the other hand, genuine public outreach requires a serious and cautious communication effort. They write:
The natives are determining whether to treat you as a dinner guest or as dinner. Somehow you must win them over – quickly. This is no time to burst out singing “I gotta be me.” Each word, each gesture, is watched, stereotyped, interpreted by them in native terms. You must help them relate to you and your humanity, to recognize that you and they share many good things in common, and that they can like and accept you on their own terms. (Rest assured, they won’t go to the trouble of accepting you on your terms.) To win them over will require your finest skills of communication.
They recommend that every gay person should ask:
If I were straight and felt the hostility most straights feel towards gays, what would it take to get me to change my antigay feelings? In other words, don’t start with what you most ardently want to tell straights: start by determining what they most need to hear from you.
2. Appeal to the skeptics
The audience they recommend reaching out to are the in-betweens. Not the fervent homophobic crowd. Nor the crowd of supporters. The supporters will receive support from whatever campaign reaches out to the independents.
3. Keep talking (desensitize, don’t shock)
Kirk and Madsen argue that the fastest way to get a bunch of independents to believe that homosexuality is commonplace is to get a lot of people talking about it in a neutral or supportive way.
The way to talk about it is not to shock and/or repel with explicit exposure to homosexual behavior. The way to talk about it is to ask questions like, wouldn’t a loving god accept all people? Talk about support for the LGBT community from moderate churches and organizations. And talk about homophobia as backwards and a product of medieval times while science and public opinion have accepted the LGBT community as normal.
4. Keep the message focused – you’re a homosexual, not a whale
This is a tough rule. Kirk and Madsen argue that the gay community must stay focused until it can grow stronger.
They were all for seeking allies, but only allies who would demonstrate some commitment to the LGBT cause.
This one really resonates with me when thinking about the progressive movement because it often seems like we're a collection of loosely knit activists from different causes. There is nothing wrong with this. One of the strengths of corporate special interest groups is that they've figured out how to pursue many different policies by focusing on a few beliefs. For example, smaller government.
I don't know as progressives have been as effective about focus. One of my biggest passions is how do we win on more issues by uniting around big ideas (and by ideas, I mean something closer to values than policy prescriptions).
5. Portray gays as victims of oppression, not as aggressive challengers
Kirk and Madsen argue that if the LGBT community presents themselves as “a strong arrogant tribe promoting a defiantly non-conformist lifestyle” they will be more likely to be seen as threatening and deserving of punishment and oppression.
Basically, this is a version of holding the moral high ground.
It is critical to emphasize that, similar to straight people, LGBT people were born knowing their sexuality. Just like there isn’t a point when someone “chooses” to be straight, there isn’t a point where gay people “choose” to be gay.
And second, it’s important to demonstrate the effects of prejudice such as beatings, public humiliation, loss of job opportunities, and other impacts from homophobia.
I would also like to mention that it's important that these be honest portrayals. Today's media portrays all kinds of people as victims, many of whom are not.
6. Give potential protectors a just cause
The theme should be antidiscrimination or equality (rather than homosexual behavior).
Homophobic groups cloak their attacks within the dogma of religion so it is necessary to counter dogma with other strong moral principles.
7. Make gays look good
Any campaign needs to portray gay people as pillars of our community.
Talk about historical figures like Tchaikovsky, Walt Whitman, or Cole Porter. Find celebrity endorsements. Even celebrities who aren’t gay but support the LGBT community would help.
Here, I think about Jim Obergefell. I’ve known Jim for years since he was the President of our college men’s chorus. Jim is about as strong a pillar of the community as you can get. He’s a respected businessman. He was married for over twenty years in a loving, committed relationship. He supported his partner, John Arthur, through a several year eventually fatal fight against ALS.
Jim is the perfect face for the Supreme Court gay marriage case. He is comfortable speaking in front of the media and is simply one of the most stand-up guys I've ever known.
8. Make victimizers look bad
This is important. Kirk and Madsen write that the real target here isn’t homophobic people, but rather the hatred of gay people that drives them.
Don’t hate the person, hate the behavior. Don’t waste resources on revenge. The idea is to make homophobic behavior so repugnant and nasty to average Americans that they don’t want any part of it.
Some examples of homophobic people you want to show in the media:
- Klansmen demanding gays be slaughtered or castrated
- Nutty backwoods preachers
- Menacing thugs and criminals that talk about beating gay people
- Nazi actions against homosexuals
Sample advertisements
Here's a couple sample advertisements from the book. The first one talks about the homophobic Klu Klux Klan.
The second one is an example of the gay guy you might know who lives next door.
Close
After the Ball talks about many other ways to overcome hatred of gay people. It’s a great read if you can find it at your library (or if you can find an out-of-print copy). I was fortunate and happened to find one several years ago at a used bookstore in town.
Though the times and situation are somewhat different, there are many good lessons here for liberals as we face demonization and divide-and-conquer techniques. Two takeaways for me are to always remember that this is an emotional fight and not just that we should be leveraging the media, but how we should be leveraging the media.
This is the second in a series of posts about different strategies for different audiences and different situations. Compare the media strategies here with the personal suggestions for leading change.
Thoughts? Takeaways? Your own experiences?
Personal strategies: Leading change |
Media strategies |
1. Start with why |
1. Communicate! |
2. Focus on independents |
2. Appeal to the skeptics |
3. Ignore the trolls |
3. Keep talking (densensitize, don’t shock) |
4. Inclusive humor |
4. Keep the message focused |
5. Lead |
5. Portray gays as victims, not aggressors |
6. Ask questions |
6. Give potential protectors a just cause |
7. Show you understand a concern |
7. Make gays look good |
8. Use “we” |
8. Make victimizers look bad |
9. Be relentless |
|
---
David Akadjian is the author of The Little Book of Revolution: A Distributive Strategy for Democracy.