The fear of children

In its July 21 editorial applauding same-sex marriage, the Globe and Mail noted: "To deny homosexuals the blessing of marriage was not only cruel but stupid. Cruel, because it marked them as lesser beings, unlikely to form lasting bonds of affection and unworthy of society's approbation. Gays and lesbians grew up knowing that, however deep their love for another, they would never be married. Stupid, because it reinforced the very traits that many in straight society found disturbing: promiscuity, flamboyance, irresponsibility. As long as society treated them as queer, many homosexuals threw the taunt back by embracing the party lifestyle, forming a rich underworld where they could feel accepted and safe. Now, at last, they can feel that way in the light of day....

"[B]y opening the door to its central institution, society is signalling that there is a secure place for them in the wider world. That is good for homosexual society, which can grow beyond its stage of adolescent rebellion."

Gays are like children. We -- just like young'uns -- question the ways of the majority because we aren't yet fully integrated. And so we're all a threat.

Maurice Sendak's beloved and lush kiddie book "Where The Wild Things Are" was banned by some libraries when it was first published in 1963. Not because of Sendak's homosexuality, which he kept quiet, but because it was too real a portrayal of a child's life.

Sendak once recalled: "When that came out, there were psychologists who said, 'This is a bad book. Any mother who sends their child to bed without dinner is a terrible mother.' They objected to that, they objected to him being so rude to his mother, they objected to her yelling back at him, they objected to the Wild Things being too scary. They [including Freudian tyrant and fairy tale guru Bruno Bettelheim] objected to everything.... Now it's a classic and cult book and showered with praise."

There's even a Spike Jonze/Dave Eggers flick in production.

In his recent essay "From Hunger to Love," McGill University academic Desmond Manderson writes: "Although the eponymous monsters were said to be too frightening for young children, it was the fear that Sendak stirred up in adults that lay behind their antipathy. Sendak's story respects children's behaviour, and represents not only their intelligence but their emotional ambivalence."

Grown-ups saw danger for children in their vulnerability, just as they also saw danger to society in the child's lack of knowledge -- of acceptance -- of adult norms. "The duty to educate becomes, like the duty to civilize, a moral necessity in order to protect society from the contamination of children no less than the other way around." One philosopher noted: "The idea of childish innocence resulted in two kinds of attitude and behaviour towards childhood: firstly, safeguarding it against pollution by life, and particularly by the sexuality tolerated if not approved among adults, and secondly, strengthening it by developing character and reason."

Manderson notes: "'The two concepts of childhood,' as an innocence to be cherished, and yet as a weakness to be corrected and a danger to be suppressed... [marched] lockstep into the modern world. The memory of childhood past was glazed in nostalgia while at the same time the experience of childhood present was smothered with a hefty and frequently violent discipline. By the logic of this reverse alchemy, what was loved about childhood nevertheless had to be ruthlessly destroyed."

In the now, the censors have discovered that Sendak's story has an emotional realism that children can relate to, but still teaches them about rules. The little boy learns about the need to control the wild rumpus. It wasn't so revolutionary a tale after all. Just like gay marriage.


THANKS TO Samatha for sending me a copy of Manderson's monograph.


POSTED WEDNESDAY: AND Toronto blogger Bert Archer has some further thoughts here.