A brief essay on Allen Ginsberg and his 'queerness'.

1. Avery Brow: Queer Lit 3/25/2015
I agree that with the statement that Allen Ginsberg is more queer than gay. It is difficult
to establish exactly why however (I am also struck by the difficulty that the answer to this
question implies about the ‘queerness/gayness’ in all of us, myself in particular). The first
evidence I would offer here is on the bottom of page 122: “When the topic of homosexuality
arose with journalists, he would often smoothly shift the emphasis to free speech…”. Further, the
quote from Ginsberg that Regina Marler offers on page 123 helps: “I think it’s pretty shameful
that in this culture people have to be so frightened of their own normal sex lives and frightened
of other people knowing about it to the point where they have to go slinking around making
ridiculous tragedies of their lives.”
In both the above quotes it is apparent that Ginsberg’s focus goes beyond his own
interests. When Ginsberg shifts the conversation from homosexuality to free speech, he is giving
up a unique opportunity to promote a broader gay-only agenda. However, I argue that through
this shifting, he is making an implicit argument for ‘queerness’ that, while perhaps not explicitly
stated, provided a better platform for promotion of those issues he (and other Beats) felt
important. To this end, I was also struck by the statement that Ginsberg didn’t have an interest in
identity politics. This makes him, and his work, much more queer than gay. It is harder to have a
queer identity politick than a gay identity politick as queer issues are enwrapped with so many
other difficult social mores and customs than those encompassed by ‘gay’.
It is more difficult to identify what about his queerness is so American. I offer his
statement about NAMBLA: “Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witch hunting for profit,
humorlessness, anger, and ignorance.” In many ways this is a very American approach (support
even) to an organization that promotes underage sex between men and boys. When considered
further though, his approach to NAMBLA is even more American: “I’m a member of NAMBLA

2. Avery Brow: Queer Lit 3/25/2015
because I love boys too — everybody does.” Ginsberg defended NAMBLA not because they
promoted man-boy love but because he saw attacks on the organization as anti-free speech.
Despite my own feelings around NAMBLA and the inappropriateness of the organization, I find
no fault in Ginsberg's statement about loving boys or in the statements that attacks on NAMBLA
were politically motivated.
In support of both his queerness and his American approach to it, on page 123 Ginsberg
is quoted as saying: “I think it’s pretty shameful that in this culture people have to be so
frightened of their normal sex lives…so it’s necessary for the poets to speak out directly about
intimate matters…”. Sexuality and expression of their sexuality were interwoven into their lives.
This is particularly noticeable in the section when they describe Ginsberg going home with a
straight boy attending one of his readings, and the boy appearing no worse for the experience, or
when Ginsberg is described as sharing the women of Peter Orlovsky or Gary Snyder. It is as if
Ginsberg and other Beat poets were quietly fomenting a new idea of what a “gay” man was and
that became the “queer”. This is another point in queer history where I wonder what would have
happened if the HIV/AIDS epidemic hadn’t occurred. Fundamental changes and oppressions are
tracked directly back to the moment that HIV entered gay life. Ginsberg and others were so open
and willing to share about their intimate lives, and felt others should do the same, and the HIV
epidemic slammed shut all the doors that Ginsberg and others opened regarding sexuality, sexual
expression, and “queerness”.