What do you think?
Rate this book
The Construction of Homosexuality
"At various times, homosexuality has been considered the noblest of loves, a horrible sin, a psychological condition or grounds for torture and execution. David F. Greenberg's careful, encyclopedic and important new book argues that homosexuality is only deviant because society has constructed, or defined, it as deviant. The book takes us over vast terrains of example and detail in the history of homosexuality."—Nicholas B. Dirks, New York Times Book Review
645 pages, Paperback
First published December 9, 1988
5 people are currently reading
369 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
June 17, 2020
I found this book on my partner’s bookshelf, having been prompted to read it by a Facebook exchange with an anti-gay bigot who posited the author, David F. Greenberg, as an ally of his, in that Greenberg purportedly argued that homosexuals choose to be that way, rather than being born that way.
I was bemused, therefore, to start reading and discover immediately that this book is not about homosexuals per se. Whether a “homosexual” is born or bred homosexual is mostly peripheral to Greenberg’s argument. The gist of the matter is that this is primarily a sociological survey, not a psychological or medical one. To the sociologist, what people do is not significant until it becomes recognized by communities. And how a community might perceive something does not necessarily reflect with much accuracy how it really is. The point is that something has been made a phenomenon. The task is to discover how it got to be made a phenomenon, and how that phenomenon is dealt with and talked about.
This book is a survey of behavior through the ages that shares significant attributes with what is currently considered to be homosexual (even though that definition is another can of worms). The Construction of Homosexuality is more concerned with how and why homosexual behavior has been differentiated. “Instead of studying the reasons why someone engages in behavior of which people disapprove,” the author is interested in “shifting attention to the reasons for the disapproval.” (p.2) In other words, this book doesn't take homosexuality as a given, as something whose story is to be told. It is about homosexuality as it is constructed, perceived, evaluated, imagined, punished and promoted by societies and peoples.
The difficulty of defining homosexuality is reflected in the division of the book into "Part I, Before Homosexuality," and "Part II, The Construction of Modern Homosexuality." Describing certain behaviors and relationships as "before homosexuality," i.e., as being identifiable only in hindsight, is equally as respectful of the paucity of information we have about ancient societies, and unanachronistic, as it is cognizant of homosexuality as a modern concept.
But, however poor the literature might be about cross-dressing native American berdaches, homosexual practices in New Guinea, and intergenerational, masculine homosexual relationships in ancient Greece, to name a few, Greenberg’s mammoth intellect and vast reading make for wheels pumped plenty big enough to take us over this rough and scanty terrain in enjoyable, stimulating comfort. I was constantly agape at the aplomb (even the chutzpah, on occasion!) with which Greenberg navigates his way through this largely unexplored and uncharted territory.
Perhaps Greenberg’s biggest claim to credibility is his willingness to straddle disciplines. His analysis is built on the basis of stupendously far-reaching research in numerous fields: history, sociology, psychology and more, which no less than 112 pages of references attest to. The book is chock-a-block with footnotes.
Greenberg’s study is very much rooted in the present, with its history of gay rights, its disciplines of history, sociology, psychology, economics and medicine, and its urbanization, bureaucratization and industrialization. Greenberg does draw out some pre-modern aspects of homosexuality, such as how the fate of homosexuals in primitive societies was closely linked to how much authority women exercised in them (the more female authority, the greater the respect for homosexuals). But the main insights are from periods of historical change.
Some of the most significant of recent such changes are the general tightening of sexual mores during the industrialization of the West, when sexual liberality was seen as inimical to the behavioral traits demanded by the new capitalism with its regulated working hours and conditions, and its need for obedience and restraint: one crucial reason for such restraint being the need to save money and accumulate capital. This was followed by a loosening of such restraints from the twentieth century, when capitalism, having entrenched itself, morphed into a system where consumption became more important than saving. (This is a very broad-stroke rendition of a few of Greenberg’s arguments.)
As someone who identifies as gay, I identified with this book insofar as it adumbrates what could be seen as a history of what I like to think of as “people like me.” Therefore, it was very satisfying to read, for example, about things like a pre-Stonewall riot against the constabulary in a London molly house back in the 18th century. Reading about the breadth of the history of “homosexuality” and the behaviors it covers even of people who don’t consider themselves “homosexual” made me personalize it and think of the countless numbers of men I have met throughout my life who share in what could be termed homosexual traits, but in such diverse and multifarious ways: from the classmate I first did it with when we had to bunk together at a school camp, to the ultra-proper married uncle who was fond of approvingly, and slightly awedly, pointing out to me the “good strapping young men” of the village, to my mentor when I first came out who introduced me to the bathhouse scene, to the many men I’ve encountered who love sex with men but to all intents and purposes are "straight," to the "screaming queens" who are generally so much more interesting than the latter. It’s a wide, wide “homosexual” world full of surprises, and this book shows that it has a deep and wide full-of-surprises history to match. As Greenberg himself says, “There are more phenomena under the sun than the uninformed mind ever dreamed.” (p.483)
But when it comes to trying to appeal to this book in a standoff between gay and anti-gay activists, The Construction of Homosexuality is not really where it’s at. On the one hand, Greenberg is clearly not “anti-gay” in any way whatsoever, and his analysis of why homosexuality is labelled deviant by those who do not consider themselves homosexuals (Larry Craig included) can only serve to hollow out any rationally- (as opposed to religiously-) based arguments for keeping it deviant. But on the other hand, this is—to repeat—primarily a sociological, and then a historical, work, and, as such, surveys homosexuality primarily as a socially invented label.
Greenberg does discuss gay rights at some length, and insofar as he addresses the nature/nurture debate, he sees it more as a debate between the disciplines of medicine (nature) and psychology (nurture) than one that is crucial to arguments for or against gay rights. He rejects Foucaultian social constructivism, which basically claims that it's all in the mind, as being too dismissive of the weight of history and tradition. But neither does he want to commit to born-that-way essentialism, in regard to which he makes a very good point: “Although it is well known that people can and sometimes do change their religious convictions, no one argues that people should be denied rights on the basis of their religion, or be forced to convert.” (p. 492)
Gay people like me, who may well be—and certainly feel as if we are—“born that way,” are therefore invited to forget about how you feel, step away from the picket line for a bit, and enjoy the ride through bigger, broader terrain than you might be used to, conducted by an ace driver.
I was bemused, therefore, to start reading and discover immediately that this book is not about homosexuals per se. Whether a “homosexual” is born or bred homosexual is mostly peripheral to Greenberg’s argument. The gist of the matter is that this is primarily a sociological survey, not a psychological or medical one. To the sociologist, what people do is not significant until it becomes recognized by communities. And how a community might perceive something does not necessarily reflect with much accuracy how it really is. The point is that something has been made a phenomenon. The task is to discover how it got to be made a phenomenon, and how that phenomenon is dealt with and talked about.
This book is a survey of behavior through the ages that shares significant attributes with what is currently considered to be homosexual (even though that definition is another can of worms). The Construction of Homosexuality is more concerned with how and why homosexual behavior has been differentiated. “Instead of studying the reasons why someone engages in behavior of which people disapprove,” the author is interested in “shifting attention to the reasons for the disapproval.” (p.2) In other words, this book doesn't take homosexuality as a given, as something whose story is to be told. It is about homosexuality as it is constructed, perceived, evaluated, imagined, punished and promoted by societies and peoples.
The difficulty of defining homosexuality is reflected in the division of the book into "Part I, Before Homosexuality," and "Part II, The Construction of Modern Homosexuality." Describing certain behaviors and relationships as "before homosexuality," i.e., as being identifiable only in hindsight, is equally as respectful of the paucity of information we have about ancient societies, and unanachronistic, as it is cognizant of homosexuality as a modern concept.
But, however poor the literature might be about cross-dressing native American berdaches, homosexual practices in New Guinea, and intergenerational, masculine homosexual relationships in ancient Greece, to name a few, Greenberg’s mammoth intellect and vast reading make for wheels pumped plenty big enough to take us over this rough and scanty terrain in enjoyable, stimulating comfort. I was constantly agape at the aplomb (even the chutzpah, on occasion!) with which Greenberg navigates his way through this largely unexplored and uncharted territory.
Perhaps Greenberg’s biggest claim to credibility is his willingness to straddle disciplines. His analysis is built on the basis of stupendously far-reaching research in numerous fields: history, sociology, psychology and more, which no less than 112 pages of references attest to. The book is chock-a-block with footnotes.
Greenberg’s study is very much rooted in the present, with its history of gay rights, its disciplines of history, sociology, psychology, economics and medicine, and its urbanization, bureaucratization and industrialization. Greenberg does draw out some pre-modern aspects of homosexuality, such as how the fate of homosexuals in primitive societies was closely linked to how much authority women exercised in them (the more female authority, the greater the respect for homosexuals). But the main insights are from periods of historical change.
Some of the most significant of recent such changes are the general tightening of sexual mores during the industrialization of the West, when sexual liberality was seen as inimical to the behavioral traits demanded by the new capitalism with its regulated working hours and conditions, and its need for obedience and restraint: one crucial reason for such restraint being the need to save money and accumulate capital. This was followed by a loosening of such restraints from the twentieth century, when capitalism, having entrenched itself, morphed into a system where consumption became more important than saving. (This is a very broad-stroke rendition of a few of Greenberg’s arguments.)
As someone who identifies as gay, I identified with this book insofar as it adumbrates what could be seen as a history of what I like to think of as “people like me.” Therefore, it was very satisfying to read, for example, about things like a pre-Stonewall riot against the constabulary in a London molly house back in the 18th century. Reading about the breadth of the history of “homosexuality” and the behaviors it covers even of people who don’t consider themselves “homosexual” made me personalize it and think of the countless numbers of men I have met throughout my life who share in what could be termed homosexual traits, but in such diverse and multifarious ways: from the classmate I first did it with when we had to bunk together at a school camp, to the ultra-proper married uncle who was fond of approvingly, and slightly awedly, pointing out to me the “good strapping young men” of the village, to my mentor when I first came out who introduced me to the bathhouse scene, to the many men I’ve encountered who love sex with men but to all intents and purposes are "straight," to the "screaming queens" who are generally so much more interesting than the latter. It’s a wide, wide “homosexual” world full of surprises, and this book shows that it has a deep and wide full-of-surprises history to match. As Greenberg himself says, “There are more phenomena under the sun than the uninformed mind ever dreamed.” (p.483)
But when it comes to trying to appeal to this book in a standoff between gay and anti-gay activists, The Construction of Homosexuality is not really where it’s at. On the one hand, Greenberg is clearly not “anti-gay” in any way whatsoever, and his analysis of why homosexuality is labelled deviant by those who do not consider themselves homosexuals (Larry Craig included) can only serve to hollow out any rationally- (as opposed to religiously-) based arguments for keeping it deviant. But on the other hand, this is—to repeat—primarily a sociological, and then a historical, work, and, as such, surveys homosexuality primarily as a socially invented label.
Greenberg does discuss gay rights at some length, and insofar as he addresses the nature/nurture debate, he sees it more as a debate between the disciplines of medicine (nature) and psychology (nurture) than one that is crucial to arguments for or against gay rights. He rejects Foucaultian social constructivism, which basically claims that it's all in the mind, as being too dismissive of the weight of history and tradition. But neither does he want to commit to born-that-way essentialism, in regard to which he makes a very good point: “Although it is well known that people can and sometimes do change their religious convictions, no one argues that people should be denied rights on the basis of their religion, or be forced to convert.” (p. 492)
Gay people like me, who may well be—and certainly feel as if we are—“born that way,” are therefore invited to forget about how you feel, step away from the picket line for a bit, and enjoy the ride through bigger, broader terrain than you might be used to, conducted by an ace driver.
Read
March 25, 2018This is slightly odd I know but this is not actually so much a review, as a correction of a major error that author David Greenberg made in this book (hence why I am not star rating). I'm an academic with two degrees worth of study on the ancient Near East, and it came to my attention that this book is the source used by James Neill's The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies which is then the source used by Wikipedia's article on the History of Homosexuality and other websites which are stating that Hammurabi was homosexual. I am sorry if anyone out there is disappointed, but I did some digging and it turns out this isn't true.
On pages 124 to 126, Greenberg states that King Zimri-Lim of Mari and King Hammurabi of Babylon had male lovers, mentioning letters authored by Zimri-Lim’s wife, and sticks in a reference “Moran, 1969”. Bibliography tells me this is W. L. Moran, 1969, “New Evidence from Mari on the History of Prophecy” in the journal Biblica, volume 50, pages 15 – 56. After much searching for this very old journal entry, I found a copy in one of the online academic archive resources I sometimes use, gated past either payment or making an account. What Moran presents is a translation of and commentary upon several ancient texts between King Zimri-Lim of Mari and his wife, discussing the takings of omens by divination. Many of the letters are simply concerning signs from the gods on whether this or that political or military move is a good idea. I suspect that Greenberg got his notion of the ‘male lovers’ of Zimri-Lim and Hammurabi from page 29 – 31 of Moran’s article, in which he translates letter ARM X 7:
“Speak to my lord: Thus Shibtu [Zimri-Lim’s wife] your maid-servant. The palace is safe and sound. In the temple of Annunitum, on the third day of the month, Shelebum went into a trance. Thus spoke Annunitum: ‘O Zimri-Lim, with a revolt they would put you to the test. Guard yourself. Put at your side servants, your controllers whom you love. Station them so they can guard you. Do not go about by yourself. And as for the men who would put you to the test, I shall deliver these men into your hand.’ I have now hereby dispatched to my lord the hair and fringe of the cultist.”
In his commentary on this letter, Moran writes: “The men Zimri-Lim “loves” are the objects not only of his affection but of the favors and benefactions which “love” implies; cf. the Esangila which Hammurabi “loves” (CH xxivb 93-94). Hence their loyalty could be counted on.”
It is fairly clear that ‘love’ in this case means Zimri-Lim’s most trusted court officials, not a romantic or sexual love. Moran himself certainly never implies that this is anything but a friendly relationship, and his commentary has been misinterpreted by Greenberg who thought that Moran was confirming in a wink-wink nudge-nudge sort of way that Zimri-Lim and Hammurabi both enjoyed homosexual love. But I can prove that Greenberg was mistaken, because he clearly didn’t check Moran’s references. Moran tells the reader to compare [cf.] Zimri-Lim’s ‘love’ for his most trusted advisors to the ‘love’ Hammurabi bears for ‘Esangila’ and then gives us a string of letters and numbers in parentheses. That string of letters and numbers is a reference to the famous law Code of Hammurabi, which, if you go and look it up for yourself, contains several instances in which Hammurabi proclaims his love and dedication to the Esagila, which was a sacred temple to the god Marduk. Moran is saying that the untranslated word used in Queen Shibtu’s letter to Zimri-Lim about the advisors he ‘loves’ is the same as Hammurabi’s ‘love’ for the temple of Marduk.
In conclusion, 30 years ago a careless misinterpretation by David Greenberg subsequently spawned and perpetuated a myth that simply isn’t true. I am sorry to anyone reading this who may be upset that it turns out that Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim didn’t have male lovers. But rejecting the evidence in front of us to construct a more comforting narrative is a disservice to the education we’re all entitled to and our ability to critically analyse events of the past, identify the successes and failures, admirable and abominable moments, and decide where we go from here. Peace.
April 26, 2019
It was a very good book. At first I expected the book to be more about homosexuals and the way they were represented, seen medically, in history along with gay rights in general. However it was more about finding the reasons why varying ancient societys saw homosexuals differently.
Overall it explained why our society developed its current opinions on homosexuality. Greenberg does this by using different communities and civilizations, showing that homosexuality isn't perceived as an invalid act until the civilization as a majority recognizes it as one, giving examples where being a homosexual can be seen as a sin, medical condition, or completely normal as he questions why these ancient civilizations came to these conclusions on how to view homosexuality.
A part that I really liked was I the beginning of the book where Greenberg explains why homosexuality wasn't looked at in a sociological standpoint, but more medically, and explaining that because it was seen as deviant many feared looking into because society may believe that they themselves are homosexual.
Overall it was a very good book and I would definitely read it again.
Overall it explained why our society developed its current opinions on homosexuality. Greenberg does this by using different communities and civilizations, showing that homosexuality isn't perceived as an invalid act until the civilization as a majority recognizes it as one, giving examples where being a homosexual can be seen as a sin, medical condition, or completely normal as he questions why these ancient civilizations came to these conclusions on how to view homosexuality.
A part that I really liked was I the beginning of the book where Greenberg explains why homosexuality wasn't looked at in a sociological standpoint, but more medically, and explaining that because it was seen as deviant many feared looking into because society may believe that they themselves are homosexual.
Overall it was a very good book and I would definitely read it again.
January 30, 2025
Incredibly relevant and thorough. I appreciated that it was opinionated even though those opinions did not always convince me. I thought it was lacking some discussion of the development of romantic versus erotic love.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews