to Home 
page!
The ADVOCATE:
A REMARKABLE PUBLICATION WHOSE READERS BUY, BUY, BUY.
[The above slogan promoting ads appears on an
Advocate mailing envelope.]
"THE ADVOCATE: Capitalist
Manifesto"
by Biron
This article appeared in GAY SUNSHINE (San
Francisco, Spring 1976), a literary magazine published by Winston Leyland.
Are any issues raised in this article published
over 20 years ago in America's Bicentennial year 'relevant' today?
Or has, like most things, relevance simply become irrelevant?
The strident, preachy tone clearly dates this
article which I offer with mixed feelings.
To celebrate his first anniversary
as publisher of the Advocate, David Goodstein wrote a controversial
article on the Gay Liberation Movement in his "Opening Space"
column in the January 14th [1976] issue of that paper. In the wake of the
article, George Whitmore, editor of the Advocate's Humanities/Literature
section, resigned. Dave Aiken, David Brill, Arnie Kantrowitz, Vito Russo
and Allen Young, all regular contributors to the Advocate, joined
Whitmore in criticizing Goodstein's column in a letter to the editor published
in The February 11th issue. The New York Gay Activists Alliance [G.A.A.]
also responded to the column in the statement "In Defense of
the Gay Liberation Movement: An Open Letter to David Goodstein and the "Advocate,"
adopted at its January 22nd general meeting. [A copy of this statement is
available from G.A.A., Box 2, Village Sta., New York N.Y. 10014 in return
for a stamped self-addressed envelope]
Gay liberationists must not discount Goodstein's article as idle rhetoric;
this is not a battle of words. His remarks provide the firm ideological
base from which he intends to operate as a self-declared "practicing
capitalist" [Advocate No. 156]. Anyone who would doubt this,
should take note of the invitational letter sent by Goodstein to a select
"group of like minded people," and announcing " The 1976
Advocate Invitational Conference." This Conference was held
at the Chicago Hyatt Regency Hotel on March 27, 1976 and was chaired by
Goodstein. The invitational letter includes the following item in the Conference's
agenda:
lV.
Dealing with gay spoilers
A. Keeping them off broadcast media and out of print media organizing local
media committees to educate media about whom to contact.
B. Keeping them away from legislators or at least neutralizing them.
The Conference ground rules, stated in Goodstein's invitational letter,
suggest meetings held under tight security and procedural restrictions designed
to make the Conference reflect the Advocate's view of politics. The
Invitational letter states:
If you agree to come, I will send you forthwith an initial position paper
about the agenda items and policies. Because our objective is to obtain
agreement and because we don't wish to waste time over items everyone already
agrees, we will not debate items unless someone submits a position
paper specifically disagreeing with one or more of the start off positions.
This tightly run Conference was clearly Goodstein's answer to the less
manageable meetings of most gay organizations he has criticized so vehemently.
Yet, by convening this invitational conference, he contradicts the
following statement made in his January 14th Advocate column:
We have not found a way to solve the problem of organizing gay people.
Democracy as I've described it hasn't worked. Elitist organizing by invitation
only also hasn't worked. It is resented and too narrowly focused.
Gay Sunshine No. 24 [in its article "The Advocate: A Turn to the
Right?] reported how Goodstein, after purchasing the Advocate in
the fall of 1974, shifted "the basic editorial position from dead center
to some where between conservative and reactionary." During the past
year the Advocate has been transformed into a show place of white,
middle class gay America. Features on travel, fashion and entertainment
suggest an affluent, carefree lifestyle in which Gay means little more than
fun and chic. Editorial statements, lashing out at the Gay Liberation
Movement, have promoted a myopic gay politics whose sole end is the passage
of gay civil rights legislation, as if all will be well with gay America
once anti-gay discrimination laws are enacted. Consequently, news items
dealing with gay liberation spokespeople and organizations have been tailored,
or censored, to conform with this editorial policy. There have, of course,
been a few in depth, valuable articles in the Advocate during this
period. One might single out George Whitmore's superb literary humanities
section.
In his "Opening Space" Advocate column of Jan. 14th, 1976
Goodstein comments on the gay silent majority:
The past year has also shown us the truth of a complex reality we only
surmised a year ago. Specifically, we know most gay people are somewhat
closeted... Nevertheless, I believe many gay people would like to participate
in our exciting movement. They want reassurance from those of us who are
veterans that they are wanted as they are closeted. They don't wish to waste
their time or money over petty or irrelevant issues. The dues of public
exposure are more than they are willing to pay... We have to find
ways to encourage them to do what they can from the safety of their
closets. We have to articulate objectives narrowly and clearly. [emphasis
mine]
One gets the curious impression that the specter from San Clemente has been
conjured up for the occasion. President Nixon proclaimed himself the spokesman
of America's badly maligned "silent majority." In 1976 the Advocate
feels convinced that it can ride the crest of a new gay mandate by scrupulously
applying the old Nixonian politics to the Gay Liberation Movement. In the
late 1960's Americans were facing an agonizing reappraisal of the U.S. commitment
to South Vietnam. Nixon was able to direct the anxiety of many Americans
away from themselves towards the anti-war protesters who first revealed
that the war was not in the national interest.
Goodstein is attempting to revive the myth of the "silent majority"
for a similar purpose. Today, many gays are facing an agonizing reappraisal
of their closeted life styles. The Advocate wants to direct their
anxiety away from themselves towards the Lesbian and Gay activists who in
recent years have brought gayness out of the depths and into the light.
The same Advocate column states:
Almost anything of any significance is being done behind the scenes by
people who do not wish to be known or exposed to harassment by other gay
people, especially by self-appointed gay leaders. As a result, gay "spokespeople"
are disconnected from their constituency.
This statement is trying to undermine the Gay Liberation Movement's
politics of "Coming Out." Its message, directed to the silent
"gay majority," is very blunt: No longer is it desirable to be
out of the closet and openly gay. Look at the activists who have
come out. They are out of touch with the gay majority. In fact the new breed
of liberationists are closeted themselves. So, stop feeling guilty about
not coming out. It's perfectly acceptable to be "somewhat closeted"
in 1976, and perhaps even necessary if you are going to have any impact
on the future of gay America.
In their Open Letter to the Advocate the New York G. A. A.
challenges Goodstein's analysis:
It is true that most gay people are still closeted. This is because gay
people are still oppressed, and homosexuality is still condemned by our
society, But rather than urge them to stay in the closet and thereby accept
as permanent the oppression that this entails, the gay movement has from
the very beginning urged them to 'come out of the closets,' while at the
same time trying to involve even closeted gays in the struggle for liberation
by refusing to make coming out a precondition for participating in or supporting
our struggle, The entire thrust of the movement has been to create the conditions
in which ever greater numbers of gay people would feel they could come out
publicly with out running the risk of losing their jobs, their friends,
their apartments, their livelihood. Has this thrust been wrong? We don't
think so. In fact, we don't want to see our sisters and brothers feel obliged
to continue a closeted existence. We are doing everything we can
to break down the societal and psychological barriers to a free and open
life for gay people.
Ignoring the purposes and accomplishments of the Lesbian and Gay activists,
Goodstein tries to discredit the vocal minority by making it the scapegoat.
Nixon exploited the fears of the law and order mentality of his "silent
majority" by evoking the image of dirty, long-haired hippies. Goodstein
evokes a similar image when referring to the present day gay leaders "They
appear unemployable, unkempt and neurotic to the point of megalomania."
The motivation for this forced reasoning is apparent at the end of the Advocate
column: "We must find ways to keep the emotionally disturbed members
of our community out of center stage roles and on the counseling couches
where they belong." The distance from the couch to the psychiatric
ward is not far. To declare them mentally ill is a convenient way of eliminating
annoying gay leaders. This tactic provides the necessary rationale to isolate
them and their politics without appearing to violate the democratic principles
of free speech.
In his Advocate column Goodstein would also have us believe that
the political issues that have generated conflicts within gay organizations
are of no interest to his silent majority:
Gay men and women do not believe achievement of gay civil rights has anything
to do with fascism, imperialism, socialism or other aspects of Marxist rhetoric.
They are enraged by gay contingents in leftist and 'Third World' demonstrations.
This statement is an affront to Black Gays, Chicano Gays, Asian-American
Gays and all other minority group gays who must struggle against oppression
on more than one front. Obviously, Goodstein would restrict his silent
majority to the white middle class which alone can focus on the single issue
of gay civil rights.
The necessity of joining in solidarity with other oppressed peoples, debated
so passionately with in gay organizations, has raised the consciousness
of many white middle class gays, and made us aware of the common roots of
class, sexual, and racial oppression and our common goal of human liberation.
Goodstein also states the separatist issue in the simplest of terms:
First and foremost, no one reasonably can believe it is sensible to hate
or cut off communication with half the human race [the opposite sex} or
90% {heterosexuals], among whom our silent majority has many friends. Thus,
our majority regards separatism, including lesbian separatism, as counterproductive.
At best it is unrealistic; at worst destructive.
Only anti-feminist homosexual men who wish to make the "gay world"
the last bastion of male supremacy,choose to separate themselves
from Lesbians. Unfortunately, many such men exist who call themselves gay,
as our Lesbian sisters know all too well.
The only political male separatism feasible today concerns heterosexual
men. Gay males, however, must understand [without presuming to present a
coherent lesbian analysis] the essential difference of gay separatism for
women: our Lesbian sisters are torn between struggling against sexism with
homophobic straight feminists (a diminishing problem), and struggling against
homophobia with sexist gay males. Lesbian separatism teaches us that unless
gay men can raise their feminist consciousness, no meaningful Lesbian/Gay
coalition is possible. The Advocate's position again reveals its
lack of depth and understanding in dealing with the complex issues of gay
liberation.
Goodstein's Advocate column goes on to say:
Most gay organizations are nearly always insolvent and dominated by people
who took them over from more responsible persons through hysterical attacks
on their integrity. These are the spokespeople whom our majority shuns.
The straight media pay attention to them because they confirm the stereotypes
they're looking for. Our people resent them for the same reason.
We can assume from this statement that the Advocate is not duped
and does not pay attention to these gay leaders. These remarks seem to confirm
Gay Sunshine's report of last spring [Issue No. 24] that the Advocate
blacklists certain gay activists. Are you surprised when the publisher
of the largest national gay newspaper tacitly admits that editorial policy
is not confined to editorials but extends to the censorship of gay news?
This is an important point. Anyone who reads the Advocate should
be aware that under existing policy, a distorted view of the gay movement
is inevitable. Of course, these news blackouts are done in the name of a
"silent majority" which can begin wondering what is not "touching
their lifestyle" in the pages of the Advocate.
The New York Gay Activists Alliance comments on the Advocate's censorship:
Many of us have searched the pages of the Advocate in vain during the past
year for consistent coverage of activist demonstrations and struggles on
behalf of gay people. The occasional and incidental mention such struggles
have received cannot be entirely explained by the admitted general decrease
in activism during the past year or so. Clearly activist groups and actions
were put on a blacklist a long time ago by the Advocate. Goodstein
simply makes it official in his piece.
In his Advocate column (mentioned above) Goodstein writes:
Another aspect of the reality we observe is that gay people everywhere in
the Western world are demonstrating more self-esteem, more pride. The most
obvious example of this new pride are the many new, well-lighted, expensively
decorated bars and clubs that are rapidly replacing the dingy toilets of
old.
New York's Gay Activists Alliance responds directly to this statement
in their January 1976 official declaration (mentioned and briefly quoted,
above):
First, having surveyed the worldwide status of gays, he [Goodstein] correctly
notes that "gay people everywhere in the Western world are demonstrating,
more self-esteem, more pride." On this, at least, we can all agree.
But to what can this new self-esteem and gay pride be attributed? On the
struggles of the gay liberation movement, including its noisier components,
since Stonewall? No, To the impressively large, annual gay pride marches
occurring throughout the United States and Canada, which each year seem
to draw in wider strata of the gay population than before? No. To the growing
trend toward repeal of medieval sodomy statutes (now in thirteen states)
and passage of gay rights legislation (in close to thirty cities)? No. To
the mounting number of books being published that deal with homosexuality
in ways more imaginative than the old psychiatric formulas? No. To the successes
of lesbians in making lesbianism an issue within mass women's organizations
that formerly snubbed the issue? No. To the proliferation of gay groups,
reaching into wider layers of our community and of American society? No.
None of these factors some of which have even received passing mention in
the pages of the Advocate itself merit the slightest mention in Goodstein's
piece. No, he singles out something quite different as the symbol of this
new state of affairs "The most obvious examples of this new pride are
the many new, well-lighted, expensively decorated bars and clubs that are
rapidly replacing the dingy toilets of old."
And to whom, or to what, does Goodstein attribute this fact (if it is a
fact) that the bar and club owners have made their establishments into less
offensive places of rendezvous? A higher level of
consciousness on the part of the Mafia? Or is he inclined to take credit
for it himself? It does not seem to even occurred to him that the gay liberation
movement itself may have had something to do with instilling a new sense
of pride in gay people, as well as with the treatment received in the bars
and clubs some of us frequent. How far out of it can you get?
An analysis of the Advocate's politics must include its economic
interest in the Gay Movement. It is from Goodstein's statement "I am
a practicing capitalist" that must be viewed his evaluation (in dollars
and cents) of the Gay Liberation Movement. This explains why he sees gay
pride reflected in the new expensive bars and clubs rather than in the achievements
outlined L by G. A. A. And who are the "enlightened spokes people"
for whom the Advocate has cleared the way by discrediting present
day gay spokespeople and organizations? Aren't they the business people
ready to sell something to the closeted clientele, the same "like minded
people" at the Advocate Conference?
David Goodstein's "Opening Space" column (which I have been quoting
and commenting on throughout this article) ends on a plea that the "enlightened
spokespeople "join with the Advocate "as it is damned lonely
on the front lines!" The nature of the front lines by now is clear.
It is no revolutionary barricade. In defense of capitalism, Goodstein is
manning the front lines while waiting for new recruits to share the spoils
of the growing gay market the true "gay spoilers." The Advocate's
continued success, largely dependent on revenue from its advertisements,
encourages a coalition of "like minded" business people. Together
they will work out a plan to deal with gay activists who would upset their
clearly defined gay market with their politics of Coming Out.
Goodstein's "Opening Space" column is nothing less than a Gay
Capitalist Manifesto. It "articulates objectives narrowly and
clearly" for the gay masses in terms of gay civil rights. This permits
the ordered transfer of the quasi-visible gay person into the mainstream
of American society. There she/he can be granted full equality as
an exploited consumer. The alternatives are clear: economic oppression or
Gay Liberation.
In his January 23rd letter of resignation as literary contributor to the
Advocate (mentioned above) George Whitmore recognizes these alternatives
and makes his choice:
Those of us who don't necessarily consider ourselves "leaders "
but who want to be responsible spokespeople for the concerns of gay people
no longer want to be associated with this publication. He [Goodstein] did
quite ably create a "them" vs. "us" schism in his article.
I 'm one of "them," not one of you.
According to New York's G.AA., the Advocate's aim is "to drive
a wedge between the activist wing of the movement and the rest of the gay
community." To counter this attack, the Lesbian and Gay Liberation
Movement will need all the help it can get. Hopefully, we have all learned
from our experience with the Nixon presidency and won't be duped by this
"silent majority" double talk. If this is true, many Gays will
speak out and reject this kind of closet politics. That's what Coming Out
is all about.
Lionel Biron
Ann Arbor, Michigan
David Goodstein, the former publisher
of The Advocate , has long since died of AIDS. May he rest in peace.
If you have any comments you'd like to
share regarding this article published during America's Bicentennial, you
are encouraged to e-mail them. Interesting comments, even complimentary
ones, will be posted at this location.
back to bibliography!