Section 3: Norms, censorship and history

Even as we have established that homosexual orientation is most probably a natural variation within the human species, the same way that some people are left-handed or others have powerful soprano voices, what place in society we accord homosexually-oriented persons is quite a different question. Just because a trait has biological roots doesn't mean humans don't marginalise, ostracise or ethnically-cleanse those with that trait. Skin colour, after all, has long been known to be genetically determined, but that knowledge has never stopped racism. Even when a characteristic has no biological basis, e.g. caste or religious affiliation, human societies have put great store by marking this difference, and treating the "outsiders" badly.

All societies have norms. Depending on where you look, these norms can be broad and inclusive, or narrow and exclusionary. Societies also treat those who fall outside their norms in different ways, from generous to brutal.

But first, before we go about waving norms as some kind of independent benchmark, we need to think critically about how they are arrived at, and how they can be manipulated.

Norms are created by humans

Norms can be quite arbitrary in their etiology, or they might have served a certain purpose that is lost in time and no longer relevant today. But by being in place for generations, and having a web of rationalisations woven around them, they can appear permanent and unassailable. This is especially since most people live their entire lives within one cultural milieu. Never stepping out of their own culture, they seldom get to be conscious of the fact that the norms they are steeped in, are largely cultural constructions, sometimes of quite recent lineage.

Different sections of Singapore society have different views

So, with respect to homosexuality, what are the norms in Singapore? Not being a homogenous society like Japan or Finland, it's very difficult to say. Different communities here have different cultural references. Even the majority Chinese community is split down the middle between those who are more Westernised, and those who are more plugged into the Chinese cultural world.

There are sections of Singapore society who are "conservative", a word that is used to mean disapproving of homosexuality. But there is a growing percentage that is liberal-minded, especially among the younger generation.

The Singapore government has said that Singapore is a conservative society. In their own survey, Social Attitudes of Singapore 2001 (1481 respondents), they reported that 85% found homosexuality "unacceptable". On the face of it, it would support their claim.

However, when one looks at the break-ups by age and education, trends emerge. Of those with post-secondary education, 74% said it was unacceptable. Of those under age 30, 71% said it was unacceptable. "A third of those below 30 say homosexuality… is alright," reported Channel News Asia.

The survey's monograph released by the government did not give the result for those who were under 30 AND have post-secondary education, but the figures point to an even lower percentage objecting to homosexuality. This suggests that the opinion leaders of the next generation may have quite different views from the present.

Government policies can affect norms

But such statistics are not just of academic interest. The government uses them to justify continuing censorship. Just about anyone who has worked in the print and broadcast media in Singapore can report that positive portrayals of homosexuality often beget stern phone calls from the ministry watchdogs, and editors and broadcast producers have long since learnt to self-censor without being asked. Likewise, film censorship has incomparably stricter standards for homosexual content than for heterosexual content. Even a simple kiss, commonplace if opposite-sex, is censored out if same-sex, as was the case in the acclaimed film, The Hours.

Censorship policies in Singapore are largely developed with reference to majoritarian values: If that's what the majority wants, the minority will have to live with it. There's a certain anxiousness to promote the "right" values, with little concern to balance this with a general freedom of speech, not to mention with minority rights to equal expression. As argued in a letter to the Straits Times (by Paul Tan Beng Hwee and Ang Song Ming, Straits Times, 23 April 2003),

Indeed, the "correct" perspective is not achieved by the paternalistic imposition of shared values but through the interaction of ideas - be they bald, subtle, offensive or pleasing. It is not so much that such speech should be permitted as it should be protected, it is meaningless to protect "good" ideas since they will be popular by definition. It is unpopular speech that is most in need of protection. … Censorship laws are inherently discriminatory. They say, in effect, that certain people are not allowed to hold a particular viewpoint….

We have to take this political context into account whenever we think about norms in Singapore. Norms are not just bottom-up values aggregating the opinions and beliefs of individuals. They are also top-down, fashioned by a censorship regime that restricts portrayal and discussion. What little airing that is permitted is skewed negatively. It is noteworthy that censorship is justified by the authorities with reference to, and in response to community values, when censorship itself plays no small part in directing those values.

Norms change over time

As mentioned above, many people live under the impression that the norms they know are unchanging. This is especially so for those who classify themselves as "conservative", as they rely more on the authority of long-standing tradition, which is believed to comprise strongly procreative, "pro-family" ethos.

Many Chinese would be surprised at what Bert Hinsch has documented in his book, Passions of the Cut Sleeve. In it, he cites numerous examples of same-sex relationships, through 2,000 years of governmental and literary records. He showed how common same-sex relationships were and how, through many centuries, Chinese society celebrated it in poetry and prose. However, there were also periods when the government turned hostile and issued edicts proscribing it. Chinese norms fluctuated considerably through history.

Partly as a result of Western influence from the Victorian era, Chinese society is now in one of most homophobic phases. It is a good example of how people can't see beyond their present cultural setting that many Chinese today assert that traditionally, Chinese norms cannot allow homosexuality, unaware of the long history of tolerance in generations past.

In the West, people are equally unaware that there was a thousand-year period when the Christian Church was quite accepting of same-sex love. It celebrated saints who were romantically attached, and there were liturgies for blessing same-sex unions between parishioners. John Boswell documented this in his book, Same-sex Unions in the Early Christian Church. It must be pointed out though that most of his examples were from the Eastern Rite Church, but then again, it should also be pointed out that the Eastern Church was, during that period, the senior branch of the Church, richer in records. The modern assertion that Christianity is incompatible with homosexuality has to take into account this history.

Not seeing history through the modern lens

Yet, we should be extremely careful when we point to historical records. We must be aware of the social context of those periods.

For example, it is often pointed out that there have been societies in the past when homosexuality was common and widely accepted, namely Ancient Greece and Rome. It might not have been the majority practice, but it was certainly much more open and much less marginalised than in later centuries in Europe.

But we forget that almost all societies of any size before the modern time, were strongly stratified by class, and powerful men could do what they wanted with the less powerful. History alas, tends to be written by the powerful, so what has come down to us must be read with great care. Were homosexual relationships, whether loving or recreational, all that widely accepted? Or was it that such societies were simply more tolerant of class-exploitation?

How many of the same-sex liaisons in Ancient Greece and Rome would be what we now call egalitarian homosexuality, i.e. a relationship of equals, which is how we expect love and relationships to be today? How much of the same-sex activity in those ancient cultures involved teenage boys? We don't call that homosexuality today. We call that paedophilia. (But before we jump to conclusions, we should also ask, how often did men in those societies take teenage girls as well? Even today, how many men around the world take teenage brides - and is that marriage or paedophilia?)

The same care must be taken when looking at China's record, as the author Hinsch himself cautions the reader at the beginning of his book.

A broad trend towards liberalism and equality

While it is interesting, perhaps useful, to realise that human societies have differed considerably in how they handled sexual variation, and that there are no immutable, unchanging norms, it still doesn't offer much of a guide to the present or the future.

How should we respond to homosexuality in our own age?

It may be a bit premature to say this, but it seems that in the last century or two, there has been a steady broadening of human consciousness. Once upon a time, it was unremarkable to enslave other peoples, to treat them as less than human because they differed from us in some way. For millennia, it was entirely acceptable to deny women education, property rights or even mobility (bound feet), simply because they were women, or to make children work all day and into the night. We now consider all this as beyond the pale.

There is the gradual appreciation that the norms of civilised behaviour must include respect for, and giving space to other ethnic communities and religions. We have a notion of human rights, heavily anchored in the idea of equality, non-exploitation and justice. No doubt, the devil is in the details, but the general consensus is there even if application is patchy.

Yet homosexuality remains a contentious issue.

Morality

For many it is still mired in a question of morality. Very often, as will be explained in Section 4, homosexuality as immorality comes from the scriptures of certain religions.

But, as a friend of the writer once asked, "which is the greater immorality - to fall foul at the personal level of some interpretations of some old scriptures, or to build and perpetuate, on the basis on one's unquestioned reading of those scriptures, an edifice of discrimination against a whole class of people?"

Or, as another friend of the writer wrote recently in a private letter,

"To insist that morality is black and white ….. is to be blind to the complexities of morality and life. Only people who are able to develop a highly selective morality based on their own prejudices can say that moral issues are so clear cut.

"It is high time we recognise that we live in a world whose complexity calls us to base our lives and morals on broad principles of respect, reflexivity and relationship. Respect because we need to give others due space to live their lives to their highest potential. Reflexivity because we are fallible human beings who need to regularly interrogate our assumptions and beliefs about others who are different. Relationship because we need to harness our diversity and similarities to build a resilient nation."

Well said!

Section 1: Orientation or lifestyle?
Section 2: The science to date
Section 3: Norms, censorship and history
Section 4: Homophobia