This article was downloaded by: [University of California, San Francisco]On: 13 September 2014, At: 14:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of HomosexualityPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20

“We’re Not in Oz Anymore”: ShiftingGenerational Perspectives and Tensionsof Gay Community, Identity, and FutureDustin Bradley Goltza

a College of Communication, DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois, USAAccepted author version posted online: 07 Aug 2014.Publishedonline: 11 Sep 2014.

To cite this article: Dustin Bradley Goltz (2014) “We’re Not in Oz Anymore”: Shifting GenerationalPerspectives and Tensions of Gay Community, Identity, and Future, Journal of Homosexuality, 61:11,1503-1528, DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2014.944042

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.944042

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Homosexuality, 61:1503–1528, 2014Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0091-8369 print/1540-3602 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00918369.2014.944042

“We’re Not in Oz Anymore”: ShiftingGenerational Perspectives and Tensions of Gay

Community, Identity, and Future

DUSTIN BRADLEY GOLTZCollege of Communication, DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois, USA

This essay analyzes the writings from a gay male intergenera-tional project, wherein the process of generating creative prose,poetry, and fiction are used to explore differing understandingsof age, aging, and future across gay male cohorts in Chicago.The project suggests one’s age strongly informs one’s perception ofpower dynamics and one’s perceived access to power. Specifically,youthist logics and lingering cultural myths surrounding theaging gay male shape and constrain intergenerational relations.Furthermore, the study marks and theorizes an emergent gener-ational divide in the conceptualization and articulation of “gayidentity” as well as how this identity is understood in relation to“the gay community.” The essay concludes by examining the impli-cations and potential of this research to expand models and logicsfor meaningful gay male intergenerational exchange, or a queeredform of generativity.

KEYWORDS LGBTQ, generativity, gay aging, gay identity, gaycommunity

It seems my generation’s work was focused on creating a gay present,a gay presence in the present, but now the focus seems to have shiftedto the past so that we might imagine a future. (Older gay male researchparticipant)

I wasn’t aware at the time that I was also catching the tag-end of an era,when “passing” as straight and using feminine nicknames was giving wayto “gay pride” and “coming out.” Nor was I conscious that the role of the

Address correspondence to Dustin Bradley Goltz, College of Communication, DePaulUniversity, 2320 N. Kenmore Ave., Chicago, IL 60614, USA. E-mail: dgoltz@depaul.edu

1503

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

1504 D. B. Goltz

older mentors, whose stories I lapped up with hypnotic (and sometimesneurotic) delight, was about to change forever. (Loughery, 1999, p. 39)

In the fall of 2010, as Dan Savage launched the highly successful and con-tentious It Gets Better campaign, five “older” gay men (ranging from mid-50sto early 80s) and five “younger” gay male college students (ranging from19 to 21) participated in a series of workshops to explore generationaltensions, obstacles, and meanings circulating within gay male culture, pop-ular culture, and their own personal experiences. Participants contributedresponses to writing prompts and other creative assignments, and thesetexts became the foundation for a weekly workshop discussion. Althoughthis project was organized prior to the highly publicized suicides of BillyLucas and Tyler Clemente that fall, and Savage’s project in response, thetopics of gay suicide and the It Gets Better campaign were ever present andunavoidable.

Tim,1 a gruff and unapologetic late-60s White male with an appreciationfor drugs, leather, and sexual exploration, wrote his thoughts on the emerg-ing campaign, titled “Hey Kid, Don’t Do Yourself In.” He praises the spirit ofIt Gets Better but suggests the campaign should have a different emphasis.

One of the reasons you are special is you are perceived as part of thecommunity. As an older gay male, I am pleased to welcome you. Youhave a responsibility. You gotta come out. You gotta take action. Yougotta reach out to the community or call.

Tim’s words attest to the strength and connection he derives from hisgay community, and the significance he places on gay intergenerational rela-tions. Tim’s written message, however, also assumes and projects a distinctconception of what the gay community is, how it is framed, and what valuesit represents—a conception that research suggests is not uniform across gaycohorts.

Scholars have worked to trace the multiple changes facing gay com-munities and gay identities in light of increased gay-mediated representation(Battles & Hilton Morrow, 2002; Goltz, 2010; Gross, 2001; Russo, 1987), newtechnologies for gay social networking (Corey & Nakayama, 2012; Gross,2007; Harper et al., 2009), and the reconceptualization of sexual identityacross age cohorts (Fox, 2007; Westrate & McLean, 2010). As these shiftstransform understandings, perceptions, and architectures of gay identity andcommunity across age cohorts, the fostering of intergenerational dialogueswithin gay culture—between age cohorts—is faced with multiple obstacles.These obstacles include lingering cultural myths of the predatory and mis-erable aging gay male and gay cultural youthism’s (Berger, 1982) projectionof extreme value on gay youthfulness to the devaluation of gay male futureand longevity (Goltz, 2010).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

We’re Not in Oz Anymore 1505

Examining these obstacles, this study utilizes a creative focus groupmethodology where “younger” and “older” gay male participants cometogether to creatively produce experiential narratives, memories, hopes,opinions, and imagined dialogues. This creative methodology is coupledwith focus group dialogues where writings are shared, processed, and chal-lenged. Together, the writings and group discussions generate a uniqueunderstanding of the underlying assumptions of differing age cohorts aroundthemes of gay aging, future, community, and identity. The essay begins witha brief overview of relevant literature to set the theoretical framework forthis study, followed by detailing the critical qualitative methodology. Thefirst analytical section examines how participants narrate youth and age assignificant factors in determining one’s social power and gay male culturalvalue. The section highlights dialectical tensions between the figure of thepredatory “dirty old man” and the kindly and asexual grandfather role. Theemergent tensions, produced through youthist logics and lingering culturalmyths surrounding the aging gay male, both shape and constrain inter-generational possibilities. The second analytical section marks and unpacksgenerational divides in the conceptualization and articulation of gay identityand community across age cohorts. Emergent dialectical tensions in this sec-tion include the gay community as a place versus a commoditized idea andthe perception of gay community as respected inheritance versus a develop-mental obstacle. Within this section, differing conceptions of the role of theaging gay male are narrated, as well as an emergent tension around queeridentity and politics. The essay concludes by examining the implicationsand potential of this research to expand models and logics for meaningfulintergenerational exchange, or a queered form of generativity (Goltz, 2010;Hostetler, 2009).

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Tragedy for LGBTQ Futures

A body of growing research has outlined and supported a series of con-tradictions, obstacles, and tendencies that shape the experiences of LGBTpopulations. The majority of this research unearths or emphasizes the neg-ative, if not traumatic, elements in the lives of LGBT persons (Harper et al.,2012). Studies suggest more than one third of LGBT youth report sexuality-related victimization in school or from close relations (Haber, 2009), whilealmost half of the LGBT youth surveyed report losing a friend as a result ofdisclosing one’s sexuality (Bybee, Sullivan, & Zielonka, 2009). In addition,and perhaps in conjunction, LGBT youth are twice as likely to report feel-ings of isolation (Button, O’Connell, & Gealt, 2012) and continually indicatehigher tendencies of suicidal ideation, previous suicidal attempts, and hope-lessness (Langhinrichson-Rohling, Lamis, & Malone, 2011; see also Button,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

1506 D. B. Goltz

O’Connell, & Gealt, 2012; Bybee, Sullivan, & Zielonka, 2009). The challengesfacing the daily lives of LGBT youth are multiple. However, the presence ofincreased hopelessness and devaluation of longevity (indicated through sui-cidal ideation and suicidal attempt) speak to additional obstacles that existbeyond the lived experiences of LGBT youth—specifically, perceptions ofthe future.

The future, as a discursive production, marks a communicative site ofpolitical contest that has garnered much attention in recent scholarship. “Thegood gay life,” discursively, presents an oxymoron (King, Burton, & Geise,2009). The hopelessness of gay and lesbian populations is tied to an expecta-tion of future obstacles and a belief that culturally valued systems that oftenscript a positive (normative) future, such as children and marriage, are lesslikely to be attained (Lanhinrichson-Rohling, Lamis, & Malone, 2011). Writtenoutside culturally heteronormative logics of future, what can be conceptual-ized as “straight time” (Halberstam, 2005), departure from a straight identityalso creates a sense of loss of a straight future (Doerrbecker cited in Cooper,2011, p. 23). Although this distancing from straight time and heteronorma-tive future can be theorized with queer potential, one where queer lives canpotentially rewrite and extend beyond norms tied to marriage, procreation,and consumer-based citizenry (Goltz, 2009; Halberstam, 2005), one’s inabilityto see and articulate a vivid and salient future has been linked to a loweredsubjective well-being (King & Smith cited in Cooper, 2011, p. 6). Thus, whilethere is a queered liberation from the conventions of straight time and future(p. 6), the future becomes abstract, uncertain, and seemingly less reflec-tive or connected to the lives many have grown up around. Differing fromminority groups and stigmatized identities that often share identity with theirimmediate family, LGBT identity formation often emerges in and against aheterosexual culture and a heterosexist society. Given the dearth of visiblemodels of life, future, and possibility (beyond straight time), LGB youth faceunique obstacles in locating systems of social support to combat feelingsof isolation and for locating potential role models (Langinrichson-Rohling,Lamis, & Malone, 2011).

Aging as Tragedy

In the absence of direct LGB role model interaction, larger discourses workto shape, define, and foreclose the meanings and stories of LGB agingand future. Popular culture continually reifies a story of the aging gaymale as tragically punished, lonely, a failure, and in a perpetual state ofloss (Goltz, 2010). Carrying on homophobic cautionary tales and culturalmyths that have demonized gay men for decades, mainstream culture depicts“older” gay males as perverts, predators, and lonely, miserable failures(Corey, 1998; Goltz, 2010; Gross, 2001; Russo, 1987). The 1990s introduced

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

We’re Not in Oz Anymore 1507

a wave of more “positive” gay male representation in film and television,exemplified in such texts as Will & Grace, My Best Friend’s Wedding, andDawson’s Creek. Usually White, upper-middle-class, mid-30s, cisgendered,and invested in normative institutions of marriage and procreation, therepresentation of the gay male future shifted from tragedy to normativeassimilation. The 1990s representational trend has continued into the newmillennium, as exemplified in texts such as Glee, The New Normal, Brothers& Sisters, and Modern Family. This assimilation, however, has been criticizedby queer media critics for rhetorically achieving “positive” representationthrough the represented gay male’s unwavering commitment to normativehegemonic systems. Part of this rhetorical normalization was the distanc-ing of the “progressive” gay male from gay communities and gay politics(Battles & Hilton-Morrow, 2002; Brookey 1996). Thus, gay males unwilling toenact proper homonormative citizenship (Duggan 2002)—the child-desiring,monogamous, marriage-bound, non-promiscuous, apolitical, not “too gay,”White, upper-middle-class, masculine gay man (Goltz, 2010) —continued toface tragic consequences and remained future-barren.

Beginning in the 1990s, as well, there was an emergence of gay teens inmainstream media, which, prior to that time, had been nearly absent (Fejes& Petrich, 1998; Gross, 2007). The youthism or youth centrism that hadbeen marked as culturally normative in gay male culture became increasinglyvisible in mainstream media, yet there remained a negative value assignedto the gay male future, the gay aging process, and the site of the aging gaymale body (Goltz, 2007, 2009, 2010). Both in mainstream media and in gayniche media, the future marked a space of anxiety to dread, fear, or dismiss,suggesting that the aging gay male is confined to the early stereotypes of thetroll (Fox, 2007), who should be locked away, hidden from sight, miserable,and shunned.

These cultural stories of gay aging misery, isolation, depression, anddoom, while reified in popular media, have repeatedly been challenged inresearch (Berger & Kelly, 2001; Brown et al., 2001). There is indication thatgay and lesbian youth do face increased mental challenges (Bybee, Sullivan,& Zielonka, 2009, p. 151). The research suggests, however, that after theirmid-20s, gay and straight identified individuals are quite similar in their men-tal well-being, indicating less anger and depression, increased self-esteem,and greater emotional stability (p. 151). Thus, refuting popular mythologiesthat suggest gay aging gets harder, lonelier, or more difficult for gay males,it is gay youth who face the greatest mental health obstacles. Herein marksan important and dangerous contradiction. The cultural/discursive story ofthe aging gay male and the gay future has claimed a series of problematic“truths”—youth equals value, age equals loss, and the future is either oneof cultural heteronormative assimilation or miserable isolation—yet researchrefutes these logics.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

1508 D. B. Goltz

Gay Generational Tensions and Obstacles

Amid these false assumptions and contradictions surrounding gay agingmythologies, it is not surprising that generational interaction between agecohorts in gay communities has shown mutually beneficial effects. Boththrough the Internet and through traditional forms of gay community social-ization, connecting to other gay women and men and establishing a senseof belonging within gay culture, gay organizations, or gay community canprovide buffers from several of the elevated risks facing gay youth (Harperet al., 2009; Langhinrichson-Rohling, Lamis, & Malone, 2011). Along thesesame logics, the presence of role models and diverse media representa-tions has been reported to challenge gay youth isolation and hopelessness(Gomillion & Guiliano, 2011). Countering the wave of messages about gayfuture and aging that are “all so negative” (pp. 347–348), role models offeredpossibilities that dispelled cultural myths (Cooper, 2011) and opened newways of imagining gay lives. Furthermore, cross-generational interactionsprovide a space and outlet for aging gay males to foster and experiencea sense of satisfaction and meaning through contributing to the growth anddevelop of future generations, marking alternative models of generativity(Hostetler, 2009). Extending beyond traditional generative forms of childrea-ring and grandparenting, Hostetler marks and claims additional ways aginggay populations can “pay it forward” through contributing to the future ofgay communities, gay youth, and the preservation of gay cultural traditions.

A series of obstacles complicate access to the multiple benefits ofcross-generational gay interaction. On a broader cultural scale, longsuffer-ing mythologies of gay male predation continue to circulate, reifying AnitaBryant-esque fears of youth corruption and/or recruitment that are usedto justify “protecting” youth from access to older gay voices, narratives, orrole models. It is these PTA, church, and school board barriers that DanSavage sought to bypass with the It Gets Better campaign. However, withingay male communities, additional obstacles emerge. While aging myths andyouthist logics work to sever and segregate age cohorts, research also sug-gests differing age cohorts may have significantly different understandingsof “gay identity” and its relation to the gay community, gay culture, and gayhistory (Westrate & McLean, 2010). In an age with the Internet, increasedgay representation, gay visibility, gay support networks, people are comingout at earlier ages (Gross, 2007; Harper et al., 2009), and where the entirenotion of coming out has shifted its meaning, many of the taken-for-grantedassumptions from previous generations demand reconsideration. As Coreyand Nakayama (2012) questioned, perhaps “We need a new epistemologyof the closet” (p. 19). The tensions between discourses of gay future andlived reports of gay future, coupled with the obstacles and shifting under-standings of gayness and gay community across age cohorts, present a seriesof questions: How do issues of age, future, and perceptions of social powerimpede interactions of older and younger gay males? Within intergenerational

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

We’re Not in Oz Anymore 1509

dialogues, what logics, assumptions, or understandings of gay identity andgay community are presented, and how might they differ across differentgenerations? What is this “new epistemology of the closet,” and what aresome alternative models for generativity in the shifting landscape of the gaycommunity?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Participants

As a volunteer at a local gay and lesbian center, I worked with SAGE (Supportand Advocacy for Gay and Lesbian Elders) to organize a creative writinggroup for older gay men for a full year prior to this study. Simultaneously, asa college professor with an emphasis on queer performance, I had developedstrong ties with several younger gay students from my classes and extracur-ricular performance projects. Situated within these two gay male age groups,2

I proposed a series of intergenerational workshops that would bring thesegroups together. The older SAGE participants would generate, workshop,and process their writings through intergenerational discussion. Studentswould journal and construct creative texts in the workshop, and eventuallytranslate their experiences and perspectives into a staged performance.3

Role of Researcher

Throughout the process, everyone was an active participant in the processand was regularly reminded that a study was taking place—a study that theparticipants continually expressed personal interest and investment in con-tributing to. As a gay male, while occupying the role of researcher andfacilitator, I sought to create a space where voices could speak frankly,honestly, and experientially. At 36 years old during these sessions, I fellsomewhere in the middle of the age cohorts and contributed my own expe-riences and perceptions if prompted. My positioning in this study resists anyclaims to distance or neutrality. My personal experience as a gay male is cen-tral to my interest in and navigation of this work, and I embrace the role ofco-creator in this process. Informed by participant action research (Kemmis& McTaggart, 2005), this critical qualitative methodology actively works todisrupt and trouble designations between researcher and participant.

Generative Focus Groups and Data Collection

Enlisting the model of generative pedagogical focus groups (Goltz, 2009)and creative analytic practice (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005), the researchmethodology paired exploratory creative writing production with generative

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

1510 D. B. Goltz

focus group discussion and dialogue. This study departs from traditionalfocus group research, consciously violating protocols of the neutralresearcher/observer.4 Extending focus group research through critical, peda-gogical, and creative research design (Goltz, 2009; Kamberelis & Dimitriadis,2005), the research sought to offer both a generative and a criticallytransformative space of exploration with researcher and participant. Thestudy enlisted artistic expression (Finley, 2005) as a method for creativelyexpressing, sharing, complicating, and reflecting personal experiences andperspectives through the crafting and sharing of aesthetic texts.

The generative focus groups were loosely structured, allowing anorganic and topical flow of discussion. The sessions began with everyoneat a table, writing in their notebooks in response to a general discussionprompt. The writings they brought in as homework, the writings they com-pleted on the spot, and their experiences in the writing process becamediffering points of entry for discussion. Some prompts included asking every-one to reflect on “what it means to age successfully,” “what are the best(and worst) things about being older,” “what are the best (and worst) thingsabout being younger,” and their own metaphors for age and youth. Althoughwe would return to their writings regularly, it was the exchange and dia-logue between participants, responding to others’ writings, that proved themost fruitful, challenging, and generative (both in my estimation as well asthrough feedback from the participants). They wanted to talk, ask questions,and experience the very thing at the heart of this study—intergenerationalsharing. In addition, we experimented with more creative methods of dia-logue. For example, after being given a disposable camera, everyone wasassigned to take 24 pictures that communicate hope for the future. Theseimages were developed and then used as points of entry into discussion.

The workshop dialogues and discussion were recorded through hand-written scratch notes (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002), which were then typed intofield notes. In addition, all of the participants kept a journal with their writ-ings, thoughts, and reflections that were submitted at the end of the study.Participants were asked to tear out any individual pages they did not wantincluded in the study. These writings took the form of poems, lists, narratives,reflection essays, and short journaling sessions following different group dia-logues. In addition, all homework writings were included in the data set. Thefinal data set included each participant’s journal, as well as over 50 single-spaced typed pages of field notes, and over 150 poems and short stories.Enlisting a grounded theory approach, the coding process began with openline-by-line coding (Charmaz, 2001), which moved to the use of the sen-sitizing concepts (Taylor & Bogden, 1998) of “Youthism,” “Ageism,” “GayIdentity,” “Straight Time,” and “Queer Time” to direct the analysis. The datawas coded into 16 first-level codes5 to highlight the emerging themes in thedata (Taylor & Bogden, 1998). These 16 codes were organized under thefollowing five themes: “Age,” “Youth,” “Gay,” “Future,” and “Generativity.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

We’re Not in Oz Anymore 1511

The emergent themes were developed into theoretical memos (Charmaz,2001) that detailed emergent assumptions that I could continually bring backinto the workshops for further exploration. The analysis concluded witha focused coding system within two major analytical categories. The firstworked to name the ever-present “elephant in the room” of power, whereinage strongly shapes the perception of power and value in interactions acrossgay male cohorts. The second category, “we’re not in Oz anymore,” namesand examines how perceptions of gay community and its relationship to gayidentity are articulated differently across age cohorts.

POWERFUL TWINKS AND DIRTY OLD MEN: OUR CHICKEN/TROLLLEGACIES

The true “wisdom of the aunties,” in the phrase of one California man,was in their attempt to create a fresh perspective, a counter-mythology tomainstream images of perverts, predators, or hopeless misfits. (Loughery,1999, p. 40)

This ordinate value placed on the young reduces my appreciation ofmyself and my contemporaries. It’s counterproductive and frustrating.(Older male participant)

The first analytical section explores the perceived correlations betweenpower and age in gay intergenerational interactions. When asked to writeabout their perceptions of aging (not specifically gay aging, but aging ingeneral), the older men in the workshop produced writing that was positiveand celebratory, enlisting such metaphors as an older book, a classic Chevyconvertible, or a fully grown garden. “The garden bursts with variety. Theredbud tree still shows its beautiful heart-shaped leaves changing from greento bright red and soon joined by berries even redder.” In contrast, the oldermen used more critical metaphors to describe youth, such as an undevelopedgarden or an overly flashy Audi convertible. “New wine [. . .] tries to give ahundred feelings with each sip It hasn’t learned to tantalize the tongue withsomething felt before.” In addition, when the older gay men wrote abouttheir lives in relationship to other older gay men, these relationships werewritten as supportive, equitable, and valuable. Their stories centered on alter-native models of “family,” large parties, vacations, the joy of shared histories,and collective accomplishment. When the older men spoke or wrote abouttheir experiences with younger gay men, however, age-related tensions andperceived power disparities were ever present—perpetually haunted by that“dirty old gay guy.” The older men repeatedly marked and emphasized howtheir bodies and their sexual desires, in the presence of younger men, werecoded as threatening. This threat, this predatory and libido-driven “dirty oldman” stigma (Fox, 2007) became a ghost that tacitly informed, in varying

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

1512 D. B. Goltz

degrees of visibility, every intergenerational dialogue or account in our work-shop. Rarely did this sinister character fully appear, however. Often a distantpart of the gay cultural scenery or a peripheral joke to mock, “that guy”was ever present yet silent. Within intergenerational dialogues, older gaymen would write and explicitly vocalize themselves in opposition to theselurid monsters, arguing “I’m not like that” or “That’s not who I am.” In theshort story “Coming Together,” written by a gay male in his 60s, a nameless“old” and “drunk” male repeatedly and aggressively propositions a 21-year-old character named David. “‘Hey young man, how would you like to havesome fun with me?’ An older guy slurred as he tried to grab me by theshoulder. I slapped his hand away and said, ‘Leave me the fuck alone!’”The drunk man harasses David, the sympathetic victim who was recentlykicked out of his home after coming out, until Chris, a second older gaymale character, intervenes to protect him. David asks, “Why can’t the oldsget it?” He is suspicious of Chris’s motives, assuming he is trying to “pick himup” because “everyone is.” Chris interjects, “Well I am different! I don’t wantanything from you, I have a life partner. I don’t need sex on the side.” Chrisis rhetorically positioned as a kind, if not saintly, older gay male who is non-sexualized, monogamous, and traditionally paternal to David. The story isabout their friendship, and the older drunk man merely provides a lecherousbackdrop for Chris to emerge as the noble “not him.”

Power of Youth

Wherein this aggressive, lonely, predatory villain that was concretized in1960s film and 1970s Anita Bryant rhetoric still haunts intergenerational gaydynamics, the workings of age-related power in the older men’s narrativeswere far more visible through the lens of youthism. Although the hovering“threat” and assumed “horror” of older gay male sexual desire for youngergay males was ever present, the older participants consistently wrote youngergay men into the position of power in intergenerational scenarios. Applyingthe metaphors of Fox’s study of older gay men, gay youth were written asdesirable chickens and the old men were the trolls. The metaphors reflectcultural meanings wherein the older men should stay away and hide in caves,out of sight (Fox, 2007), for the cultural story of the gay future is continuallyone of isolation and bleak, shameful secrecy (Cooper, 2011).

Several stories written by older participants recounted older men beinghumiliated by the unrequited love of a younger boy, defined by physicalbeauty and flirtatious butt-wiggles that bring old men to their knees. Youth isconstructed as “a trophy to be paraded around,” “a young bird” with limitlessfreedom, and a commodity to be sexualized, possessed, and bragged aboutfor scoring the “hot kid.” While these older men objectify and commoditizeyouth, marking access to some forms of initial power (often financial), it isthese same older men who are exposed as foolish, pathetic, and ridiculous

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

We’re Not in Oz Anymore 1513

in the end of the stories. Less trolls or predators than “bumbling fools in theirpresence,” the older gay males were scripted as out of touch, “humiliated bytheir beauty,” “awkward,” or “just invisible.” Thus, while the older men feeldisciplined by the haunting presence of the Anita Bryant “militant homosex-ual” mythology—the horrifically homophobic rhetorical construction of gaymen as cancerous Pied Pipers marching through town and recruiting andcorrupting youth—the older men were twice disciplined by this story. Whilefirst being cast as monsters for their desire, they are then exposed as foolishand vulnerable to the powerful beauty of younger men.

Get Off the Stage, Mary!

When does a four star gay become a two star pain in the ass? (OlderParticipant)

Falling victim to the “Sunset Blvd syndrome,” as one older participant dubbedit, older gay men need to know when to “get off the stage, Mary!” Mockedin one of the writings of a participant in his 80s, he claimed he was “overthe hill at twelve” and his “joy juice came out crying.” Hardly a recent phe-nomenon, many of the older men reflected on the power once afforded tothem in gay culture, when they were young. One SAGE participant calledthis “The rewards that being 19 can bring: I could do no wrong in gay town.I was driven everywhere, taken to the theatre, opera, restaurants, vacations,flattered with words, gifts, and money. . . . And yet, by age 25 I began notic-ing diminishing returns.” Another wrote, “In my life, growing up I was neverenough . . . Coming out at 18, I discovered I did have one gift my new com-munity deemed to be ‘enough’: youth.” Youth, he writes, “was the key thatunlocked doors for me, gave me status and success. Youth—just youth, withits beauty, power, magnetism, ability to attract—to insure I was not alone,this was its ephemeral magic.”

The magic of youth and power it affords, however, returns as a punish-ing theme in their stories of aging. “Aging robs me in little increments, littleteaspoons of loss,” narrates one older participant.

When I was young I used my good looks and gymnast’s physique to mygreatest advantage. My body was my pride, an instrument of conquest.[Now . . .] I go to acceptable bars for men my age, not necessarily becauseI like them, but to avoid situations or locales where age is conspicuousand cause for rejection. Initiating a conversation with a younger manmay receive a disdainful frown, and indulgent smirk, a pitying pucker ofa ‘maybe I can use you’ look.

Herein youth becomes a centralized site of power in intergenerationaldialogues, at least from an older perspective. Even when challenged to do

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

1514 D. B. Goltz

so in an explicit assignment, the older men still struggled to write intergener-ational interactions where younger gay men were not in positions of power.In a short poem, this relationship is encapsulated in a moment when a youngand fit gay man runs up the steps of his apartment building, two steps at atime, returning from a glorious spring run. In his bounding steps, he nearlyknocks over his older gay neighbor in the stairwell.

“That boy charged me like some bull at Pamplona” he thought to himselfas his half-dressed neighbor charged up the stairs. “What the blazes wasthe hurry? On your way to a fire?” Not dressed like that. But Oh what asight! Almost a thrill to be knocked into by this sun bronzed hero. He[The older man] took the stairs slowly . . . He nears the door and sighs.Opening the door, he’s greeted by a kiss of the golden sunlight on hisyellowed skin. Ah bliss! So many golden moments now gone, all gone.

The speed and hope of the young runner, returning to his awaiting loverin bed, is countered with the slowed uneasy pace of the aging neighboropening the door to his empty apartment. The sun from the window—warming his wrinkled face—is but a reminder of memories now past. Justas the old man in the hallway stumbles and almost falls in the wake ofthe booming and swift confidence of the youth, gay male aging is narratedas a sight of weakness and loss. In the short story, “Really?,” a youngerman aggressively flirts with an older man, who is oblivious, apologetic, andashamed. The older character is terrified of sending the wrong message, feelsfoolish for his outdated cultural references, and apologetically clarifies, “I amnot like that”—again, referencing the “dirty old man” ghost. As reflected inthe title, which expresses weary disbelief, the younger character is flirting,but it is only after the boy didactically and explicitly initiates interest, whileoverexplaining his interests, that the man trusts the advances. Navigating thethreat/permission of the “sexualizing daddy” strategy found in Instinct mag-azine (Goltz, 2007), it is not until the younger gay male explicitly opens thedoor and unequivocally initiates sexual interest that an older gay male is per-mitted to be a sexual being without shame or ridicule. If the man expressesdesire prior to being sexualized by the youth, thus offering all power to theyouth in the exchange, he is quickly recoded as a fool, joke, and predator.

The younger men in the workshop reiterated this power dynamic,wherein the mention of an older gay man in a sexualized context was disci-plined through humor. For example, when an older male suggests Tim Gunnis a sexy older gay male, a younger participant quickly commented, “I don’twant to see that sex video, ewww.” This was followed by several chuck-les by other young participants. Older gay male sexuality was mocked, andstudents continually affirmed stories and narratives like “Coming Together,”featuring a grandfatherly and desexualized character. In reflecting on hisinteraction with older gay men at the annual Pride parade, one student said,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

We’re Not in Oz Anymore 1515

“It’s like, I appreciate everything you did for me but I don’t want you tohit on me.” When unpacked in the dialogue, the student elaborated thatage differences seem to escalate sexual tensions and anxieties, though herealized it was problematic and limiting. The student turned his attention tothe older men in the workshop and said, self-critically, “It’s like we wantyou in a trophy case or something.” Calmly, an older participant replied,“Well, we are supposed to be asexual,” marking a firm awareness of theways he is disciplined in gay spaces. “Whoops,” an older male playfullyblurted out, followed by a round of laughter. The students laughed, too,and discussed how they have come to see older gay men as sexual threats,yet didn’t have any significant experiences to recall. “In fact, guys my age[early 20s] are far more aggressive.” The students continually referenced non-gay spaces and their interactions with straight men to help understand andempathize with the stigma of consistently (and unfairly) being perceived asa sexual threat. In those contexts, the younger men understood how gaymen are always—already—hypersexualized and could relate to the ongo-ing labor of putting straight guys at ease. Navigating this threat helpedbridge understanding about the elevated “threat” posed by older gay malesexuality.

One factor that complicated these narratives of gay youth power wasin reference to the role of money. Tim, one of the older members withoutspoken passions for sex and drugs, explored youthism in a series ofshort narratives. The first dialogue between an older man and his youngerhustler “friend” presents an argument that “we are all whores just tryingto get by,” and people will always use whatever leverage they have. Thenarrative embraced the logic of a youthist economy and argued any accessto power (money, youth, etc.) is something to be exploited. Tim’s secondnarrative, narrating how a younger boy takes advantage of an older man formoney and drugs, ends with the moral “Don’t let your expectations leave youwith your pants down and your wallet empty.” Rejecting the logic some ofthe men asserted, which claims, “In gay society thinking, I don’t exist,” Timunderstood aging as a loss of power, yet accepted alternatives to navigatepower in the gay youthist economy.

Although Tim acknowledges the power of youth, he refuses to submitto its discipline, deny his own sexual desires, or “abandon the trappingsof gay culture.” In dialogue with the younger participants, Tim was quicklybranded in their writings as “kinda pervy” and “the creepy man.” Some ofthe younger guys said that if Tim approached them in a bar, they would feeluneasy, suggesting that his unapologetic sexuality was “way too much” foran older gay man. Tim points out that in the leather community, ageism isnot as extreme. He said, “it’s there, but they will probably still have sex withyou.” Within the workshops, as well as in casual conversations before andafter the workshops, however, Tim was a constant topic of discussion for theyounger guys. They “love that guy,” “really like when he talks,” and find him

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

1516 D. B. Goltz

“hilarious.” When pressed what they “love” about him, they expressed howhe was far more “relatable” than several of the other men. He was describedas “gruff,” “sarcastic,” “unapologetic,” and “queer,” within the students’ jour-nals, offering “a totally irreverent but pretty exciting” role model. One wroteabout the “paradox” of Tim’s “creepy” threat and his “realness.” There is avalue for gay youth in having older gay representations comfortable express-ing desire, and yet, those representations will be mocked and rejected by gayyouths, through ageist/youthist logics. While the saintly, sexually closeted,and grandfatherly models written by the majority of the other men wereviewed more favorably by all, and the younger guys preferred this form ofinteraction, none of the younger guys expressed any personal recognitionof their future in these grandfatherly performances. Thus, Tim is simultane-ously disciplined for his sexuality and mocked as being “way too much,”yet his refusal to fully submit and conform to the logic of youthist powerand “proper gay aging” provides a more tangible and sexually emancipatedpicture for the younger participants to envision themselves within.6

Not in Oz Anymore: Shifting Identity and Community

Memories of quaint gay aunties,Piss-elegant grand old queensYoung gay men being put at easeIn wonderful bric-a-brac houses.Opera, show tunes, Piaf, Garland,Secured across generationsSurrogates, mentors, manners, lovers,Devoted to art and drama.Navigating paths, exchanging masks –A gift of rainbow hues.The sublime gay guides of youth, now gone.Who is their legacy? (Older participant)

Departing from previous generations who describe their gay identity witha communal voice and politic, there is a tendency for millennial gays toclaim a more personal and individualized narrative (Westrate & McLean,2010, pp. 236–237). These generational differences in approach to gay iden-tity can be framed as tensions between gay identity/queer anti-identity,gay identity/post-gay identity, or essentialist/constructivist approaches toidentity. Gross (2007) questions how this newest gay cohort will be fun-damentally different within a world of visibility, Internet, representation,coming out earlier, and greater access to support systems. These questionsare central to this section, wherein emergent themes underscore shiftingvalues, perspectives, and understandings of gayness across the gay malecohorts.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

We’re Not in Oz Anymore 1517

Finding Oz: The Legacy of the Auntie

The data from this project indicate that different age groups discuss andunderstand gay identity and community in generationally divergent ways.For the older men, gay culture is both something hard won, but also aplace to be discovered. Phrases such as the gay world, gay space, and thegay community are commonplace in their writings and discussions. The gayworld was something once hidden, uncovered, and requiring a process ofinitiation and introduction. It’s spatialized and discrete. As one of the oldermen pointed out in our discussion, “coming out” when he was 20 meantsomething else than the students’ usage. In his 20s, one was rarely ever“out” to everyone in your life, for it was dangerous. To come out was tomake yourself known to other gay people and to enter the gay underground,which was a secret society (Fox, 2007, p. 50). The “gay world” was once aseries of physical spaces such as Marlin Beach, or the first “gay ghetto” ofChicago at North and Wells that predated the Boystown in Lakeview. Thegay community was about physical spaces to be moved in and out of, themagical land of Oz, with its own language, codes, and traditions (Loughery,1999) that one could visit but never live within.

The gay culture the older men narrate “coming out” into was less abouta public declaration of identity than a process of initiation and socialization.Gay culture, as they discuss it, was a sensibility and a strategy for navigating“dual worlds,” and the older mentors of their day were central figures in“teaching us the ropes.” The “gay aunties” and “gay mothahs” were signif-icant in many of the older men’s introduction to gay culture, marking oneform of gay generativity that appears to have dissipated over time. “Theywere our bar guides. They were the equivalent of the magazines [or] whatyou see at the movies . . . the people who gave you the lay of the land”(Loughery, 1999, p. 39). One participant recalls how back in the 60s and 70s,the older gays were looked up to, and the younger gays aspired to knowand be like them. “Not today,” he laughs, “I think that is gone.”

Within the narratives of the older men’s personal experiences of comingout, the “gay world” is a cherished inheritance, a coming home as much asa coming out, for those who once believed there was no one else “like me.”These discoveries are recounted with passion and nostalgia, such as oneSAGE member’s “life changing” vacation trip to San Francisco in the 1970swhere he peered over the balcony at a disco and was blown over by howmany thousands of “us” that there were. “Ray gets the biggest smile that Willhas ever seen on his face and shouts, ‘Look at that, there really are more thanyou and me Will! A lot more! Now I know! I’m not in Kansas anymore!’” This“found” community is written as a space of healing, discovery, support, andfree expression in a highly homophobic culture—one where different ages,races, genders, and sexual expressions were, at one point, “all in it together.”Reflecting on the Chicago gay community the men now live within, there

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

1518 D. B. Goltz

was a general agreement that this nostalgic memory of inclusion (whetheror not it was ever really true) was not the perception of today’s Boystown,the most recognized gay neighborhood in Chicago. The men listed a seriesof bar names and let out collective groans, followed by ageist stories of “thelast time I stepped foot in that place . . .”

Although the older men have no illusions about the inclusiveness ofmany gay bars and were aware the culture had shifted, the core notion of“a gay world” consisting of “us” remains central in their worldview. Whenthe older men crafted intergenerational stories, a familiar narrative modelemerged that seemed more about their experiences in the 1950s, 1960s,and 1970s than those of youth today. The youths in the older men’s storieswere sad, lost, and looking for their place in the world. Once an older(nonsexual, saintly) character clarified they were not coming onto the boy,the older gay man fulfilled the role of cultural tour guide, recommendingsupport services, organizations, and general endorsements of the communityas a space of refuge and healing. In these dialogues, the hopeless and jadedyouth slowly gains trust in the older gay mentor, is thrilled by his coming-outstories, and is appreciative of his tips for navigating gay culture. In addition,the young man expresses comfort for talking with someone else who “hasbeen there” and “knows what its like to be gay and in the closet.” Thesestories end with a “thanks, mister” completion of newfound friendship andcommunal respect. The older male has dispelled myths of old gay men,emerging heroic and priestly, and the young gay has been introduced to thisnew “gay world.” In other words, while constrained in their sexuality, theolder men are writing themselves as the modern-day aunties. This reflects, asLoughery (1999) described, the “important” and “the implicit understanding”for an auntie’s mentee; “that, when the time came, a man would provide thesame opportunities for the next generation of gay men” (p. 40).

Getting Over Oz

The story of “finding Oz” and the gay auntie imparting wisdom, however,appears to have little correlation to the narratives, perspectives, expecta-tions, or experiences of the younger participants. The words of the oldermen, and the ways they have written youth, appear presumptuous and moreabout their own memories of youth than the reality of youths today. Lessabout space or a community of people “like me,” the youths articulate “gaycommunity” and “culture” as a limiting facade produced through televisionshows, films, magazines, music, and a broad range of texts that have alwayspermeated and circulated their lives. No longer a space in need of discovery,initiation, or acculturation, gay community produces a constricting identity—an intertextual assemblage to negotiate, navigate (and resist) in the process ofunderstanding and claiming one’s sexuality. Thus, in the commoditized spaceof postmillennial gay culture, gay meanings, significations, expectations, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

We’re Not in Oz Anymore 1519

norms never seemed hidden to these young men. They never needed to“find” gay culture, but as they come to terms with their sexuality, this cohortis always wrestling with their identity in relation/reaction to it.

The individualizing trend Westrate and McLean (2010) identified in gayyouth also reflects the logics of an emerging homonormative neoliberalism(Duggan, 2002), wherein gay political collectivity is downplayed in favor ofprivatization. In their writings, the younger students often claimed a queeredanti-identity position, while distancing themselves from gay culture, whichthey criticized as “vacuous,” “sad,” “vapid,” “hollow,” “shallow,” and “devoidof meaning.” One student wrote, “When you become gay, you lose yourname. . . . It’s more constricting than liberating.” Another argued, “Sorry, butI’m not gay twenty-four hours a day.” “Being gay is overwhelming,” anotheradded. “I don’t know where I am at in this community. I am young, but alsoLatino and heavier-set and hairy. It’s not my home.” One student argued thatwe need “gay role models for straight men,” “a more masculine gay image,”and “something less confining.” The community is critiqued as “hypersexu-alized” and is too “lazy to figure out complete people.” The students markedcontemporary gay culture as a hollow burden of trendsetting, physical attrac-tion, fashion, and parties that was once important, “but now it’s a joke—aplayground.”

Unlike the “discovery” narratives of the older men, where the gay com-munity brought about hope and a sense of home, the students expressedgreater satisfaction and hope outside the confines of the gay community.One student wrote his most “hopeful moment,” where he saw two men,holding hands in public, “as if it were normal.” When asked to elaborateon how this student saw an ideal future, he said, “Coming out would be athing of the past. It would be about individual pride as much or more thancommunity pride” wherein “We (gays) would no longer have to do thingsbecause we are supposed to.” Another supported this, arguing, “We shouldpush for integration rather than community. Gay, in itself, means nothing.”

When asked to describe their view of “successful aging,” the studentsequated success with a distancing from gay norms and gay culture, mark-ing success as a life beyond gayness. One student replied, “To be old,have (or had, if deceased) a great relationship with family/parents, havea partner/husband or have strong memories—that’s what I want. There areothers who may not be as hopeless a romantic as I, who may see “aged suc-cessfully” as a hot body, still have your hair, still be able to get it up withouta pill.” This attitude reflects recent studies that show an increasing numberof younger gays and lesbians both desire and expect to get married or livewith a monogamous partner by 30 and raise children (D’Augelli, Rendina,& Sinclair, 2007). In addition, the sarcastic mocking of the “others” whofall victim to the vain trappings of gay culture, which here is equated withage anxiety, fixations on sex, and body obessesion, suggests how success iswritten in opposition a (limiting) perception of gay culture.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

1520 D. B. Goltz

Strongly contrasting the older men, the youth continually scripted gayculture as a stumbling block to self-discovery and the pursuit of passion,growth, and desire. One student wrote, “Being gay, for me, doesn’t give methe answers for what I want out of life.” Another sarcastically commented,“Aging successfully means having abs at 49, at 60 having pictures shirtlessnext to 19 year old go-go boys. These pictures must suggest a common-ality, not sexuality. It’s better if you and your partner are laughing in thephoto.” The tone and the conception of “gay community” radically differedfrom older men, who articulated successful ageing through gay communityinvolvement and community-based relationships.

Whose (Who’s) Queer

Alongside dismissals of gay community, several of the students criticized thelimits of embracing a gay identity, enlisting a (explicitly marked) queer anti-identity critique. This argument solicited some defensive responses from theolder participants, who reject the term queer as well as anti-identity positions.“My partner has a pink triangle on his gravestone. It was important to him,and to me, that it be there. That he was gay. That this was visible. Maybein the future, it won’t, but it did to him. It does to me.” Though the termqueer is not favored, the older men, the community they narrate, and theexperiences from which they emerged arguably enact a stronger “queer” (asin politicized and contra-normative) politic than the “queer” students. Theolder participant’s sexual paradigm was developed prior to the mainstreamedassimilation of gay culture. While many of the students wrote their identities,futures, and hopes within and through normative systems of straight time,the older men produced stronger critiques against “the fight for marriage”and “all the other things straight people do.” One of the older men wrote,in response to the push for gay marriage, “Let’s not be copycats, let’s invent.Let’s set out our own table of traditions.” Another argued:

We have given up some of our deviancy. Things have changed. We didn’twant marriage or military. That was our joke, remember? ‘What’s the bestthing about being gay?,’ and now its all some seem to want. It’s different,I guess. Nowadays, we go home for Christmas.

Although several of the students initially claimed what they termed aqueer position against the commoditized White, homonormative gay cultureand community, they came to see how their critique was strongly dehistori-cized. The earlier gay communities narrated by the older men appeared farmore racially and economically inclusive, sexually experimental, and inher-ently politicized—and so arguably more “queer”—than the bars of today.One older man argued that the political dimensions of the community werenot a choice, but a necessity. “Put simply, if you were not an activist in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

We’re Not in Oz Anymore 1521

’80s, you weren’t gay.” “Today, folks come out of the closet and wear ‘gay-ness’ as a fashion accessory. Could we have a little thought, a little angst,please?!” Although the students were more “queer” in their questioning ofsexual identity labels, the older men narrated and embodied a history ofqueer culture, queer history, and queer sexuality that did reject, rewrite, andreimagine the confines of heteronormativity. Given the ever-presence of gayculture in their lives today, it required historicizing the culture to under-stand how gay, not so long ago, was more “queer” in many ways. With gayidentity now commonplace in pop cultural representation, and gay culturemeans Pride parades with politicians, a video bar playing show tunes, or achatroom web address, gay historical struggles may appear deceptively longago and far away. When the students were discussing Grindr, a social net-working app on smart phones for locating gay men in the immediate area,one of the older men commented, “What if in the 1940s in Germany, all theJews were on Grindr?” The students laughed, finding the humor in this, andthe older men chuckled along but were quick to point out how not longago at all “we lived in constant fear.” Tim narrated an awkward moment,when at an orgy a few weeks back, “this kid pulls out his phone and wantsto start taking pictures.” The older men were horrified, but the students hadlittle reaction. “Remember when you followed vague instructions to get tosome unmarked joint with no address and had to know the door person?”Several older men share a smile and acknowledgment but do not elabo-rate, leaving the sexual content buried in a wink and a smile. Even within aheated discussion around the suicide of Tyler Clemente, after his roommatevideotaped him and another male and then broadcast the video, there wasa strong divide across age groups of “what this is about.” The older menwere confident this was about homophobia, but the students argued it wasan issue of privacy, and “gayness was inconsequential.” “It’s really about netneutrality and transparency. If it’s out there, well it’s out there.” The closethas turned digital.

One prompt asked all the older men to introduce someone amazingwhom the rest of the group never got to meet. All but one of the men wroteabout a different gay activist. In an additional assignment, the older menwrote a fictitious obituary for a gay man who was born in 1996 (projecteddeath year was up to them). Each painted a life of a man who derived successin many ways, but each was an active member and gay community leaderof some kind. Gay community, for these men, is constructed as a traditionthey inherited, one they wish to (perhaps long to) share, and one they arecommitted to preserving. However, mainstream media and new technolo-gies have displaced the role of the auntie, while narrating and producing adehistoricized gay community and identity that obscures a legacy of queerwork. When the younger students wrote their own obituaries, their successesand efforts were located mostly outside the gay community. The one excep-tion was a student who was a Tony-winning director for a revival of Angels

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

1522 D. B. Goltz

in America, wherein he listed participation with several celebrity-sponsorednational charities. The local community was not mentioned, and the chari-table work was mainstream. In their future, gay was something to get past,a revival to be remembered, but was not seen as a significant dimension inarticulating their futures.

CONCLUSION: GENERATIVE POTENTIALS ACROSS THE AGEDIVIDE

So much information available,A queer tap of laptop keys,The narrative of the old gay mentor,Banished to things now pastThey know so much, and sooner now,Who and what and how to be.It may be roles have been reversed,That youth is teaching elders,Still hard to change a lifetime’s habits,Our elder voice is hoarse (Older participant)

In discussing the future of gay culture, both age groups believed there wouldbe a continued move toward normalization. Their futures anticipated large-scale assimilation such as “the first (out) gay president” and the legalizationof gay marriage on a federal level, but also in more localized normaliza-tion, such a decentralization of gay ghettos, a “gay bar on every corner,”or no need for gay bars or uniquely gay establishments at all. There werediffering attitudes about this assimilation, but all believed “that’s just the wayit’s going.” Returning to the notion of generativity, the final section of thisessay explores alternative models of non-procreative generativity in gay com-munities. Historically, traditional forms of generativity and homosexualitywere constructed as opposing ideas, as procreative generativity is linkedto progress and a brighter future, and homosexuality was seen as cultur-ally destructive and future-barren (Hosteteler, 2009, p. 403). Gay generativityis not merely a substitute for heteronormative forms of generativity (suchas parenting and grandparenting), as these are not the only ways genera-tive contributions can be made (Hostetler, p. 399). Decentering the assumed“rightness” of this singular generative model is an important space of cul-tural intervention, and while procreative generativity may not be accessiblefor some members of the gay community, for many it may not be desir-able. Also, in creatively thinking about models of gay generativity, thereis a history of queer generative innovation that has been lost or dimin-ished through cultural assimilation (p. 412). The aunties and the “FredAstaire dance lessons” of pre-Stonewall America embodied and performeda queer generativity that both instilled a community connection in the older

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

We’re Not in Oz Anymore 1523

participants and also forged a promise of generativity that seems to havebeen broken. The desire for generative interaction, sharing stories, and thepassing of traditions is something the older men continually narrate, value,and hope for. As Saul stated in Hostetler, “I feel we have a legacy to leave.I feel that I was an architect that helped with this” (p. 415). One older par-ticipant wrote, “There is treasure chest of humor, experience, and wisdomfor those who would seek it. Mothah, I have no doubt, would love to tell allabout it.”

While there is a desire for generativity through intergenerational inter-action, this study has worked to articulate where there are obstacles for thisform of work, as well. One generative model is exemplified in “ComingTogether,” where the priestly Chris performs a sanitized and paternal oldermale figure that enacts gay cultural liaison and support system for theyounger David. This story was written by an older gay male who openlyexpressed fears of “not having anyone to carry on my name,” who does“fear being forgotten,” and who is afraid he will “not leave any mark onthe world.” Through the fictionalized relationship between himself and theyounger David, he extends his temporal reach into the future and finds sat-isfaction in a meaningful relationship. However, this generative relationshipis forged through the perpetuation and demonization of “that old gay guy”whom Chris defines himself through opposition. Chris’s “goodness” is tied tohis asexual grandfatherly role, constructed through his denial of sexual lifeor desire. In the end, it endorses a normalized, sexually disciplined imageof generativity and aging that, as seen through the students’ reactions, mayseem comfortable in the present but fails to provide a new picture or pos-sibility for their future selves. In addition, the cultural tour guide model ofintroducing “the gay world” does not reflect the gay cultural reality of thestudent participants, who already have a story and relationship to gay culturethat is produced through mainstream discourse.

While they were uncomfortable with Tim’s frank sexual discussion, itwas his maintenance of a positive sexual identity that offered a hopefulimage for their futures. His life excited them, fascinated them, and challengedthem in ways that the grandfatherly model did not. Tim’s negotiation of thisrole was “a process,” “where I need to constantly reinvent myself, not justmy older self, but my older gay self.” But he is explicit that he refuses tolet the promiscuity go. While Tim enjoys interacting with youth, whetherintellectually, politically, or socially/sexually, he refuses to bracket off theseparts of himself to accommodate an increasingly prudish and ageist gayculture.

Another possible approach that was alluded to in the workshop requiresa queering of how we think about age, knowledge, and passing of tradition.One older participant marked his mentor as a 6-year-old, challenging thelogic of linear temporal progression of information with age. In reflectingon the narrative of “coming together” and the many other intergenerational

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

1524 D. B. Goltz

dialogues crafted by the older men, several things were assumed aboutthe younger gay male. One, it was assumed they needed (and wanted)advice, guidance, and wisdom about gay identity and community. Youthwere scripted as eager vessels awaiting the knowledge of the elders, muchlike the experiences of the older men coming out in the 1960s and 1970s.Two, it was assumed gay identity and gay community meant the same thingacross age divides, wherein section two detailed a broad rift in how theseare conceptualized. Three, within the older men’s writings, the youth werenever assumed to have skills, insights, or perspectives that might be of valueto the older gay male. The youth were only silent, generic, and eager forthe wisdom of age to transform his life. Four, the physical body and beautyof youth, while a source of power, was always forefronted. To say this inanother way, as one of the students did in response to “the worst thing aboutbeing young,” was “no damn (nonsexual) respect!”

In considering relational generativity as a mutual give-and-take, theseemergent obstacles to gay intergenerational dialogues need to be examined.For example, the students continually expressed appreciation in listening tothe older voices that displayed pleasure, joy, and cracked “inappropriate,”“twisted,” and “sarcastic” jokes. The students enjoyed hearing about experi-ences, journeys, and trajectories from the mouths of men who have made alife as gay men. This was the “coolest thing, just hearing them talk.” “Listeningto them, I imagine me and [his best friend] having that conversation whenwe’re seventy. Love it!” The students weren’t necessary looking for the gaycultural tour guide, a grandfather figure, or an “auntie.” These older repre-sentations failed to tap into the questions and interests of the students, whichwere most interested in experiencing what it might my look like, feel like,and be like to be an older gay male. The gay culture they have been raisedon has provided very few models for this form of work, which is why itmust remain an ongoing project. It speaks to why generativity, in itself, is acreative project. Summed up nicely by one of the more skeptical participantson our last meeting, “I think I figured something out. I’ve always had such anegative reaction to gay culture. I’ve been reacting, not contributing. I thinkit’s about contribution.”

Working together to build community and shape identity is surely arich space for articulating gay forms of generativity, but it also speaks tosomething even more fundamental in the react vs. contribute dichotomy.Contribution implies a sense of ownership and commitment and ongoingprocess, and it satisfies a desire to belong. Freeman (2007) asks us to thinkof belonging both in terms of ties of kinship, but also in terms of temporalimpact—a desire to be long (p. 299). This need to be long, to offer someenduring contribution that will live and extend beyond one’s present is thecornerstone of generativity (p. 398). As Tim, in his “Don’t Off Yourself Kid”essay, calls for troubled youths to reach out, he argues that they are specialfor their belonging to us, to a community. This “us,” this mode of belonging

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

We’re Not in Oz Anymore 1525

that Tim evokes, is very different from the commoditized gay community ontelevision and in film, which regularly forefronts heteronormative communi-ties, families, and modes of belonging. As Freeman argues, heterosexualityworks to determine who is our kin, while casting all other forms of kinshipas unthinkable (p. 297). Tim claims an “us,” a belonging, and a communitythat he once found and worked to build. He looks to extend this invitation, apaying it forward and extension of himself (Hostetler, 2009) to this unnamedgay boy in crisis. Yet there is a lack of language (Freeman, 2007) and sharedunderstanding or agreement across generations of who Tim is to this boy,who he might be to this boy, and how that relationship extends into theunknown future.

Generativity, at its core, is a desire for connection—a desire forbelonging—that sits at the foundation of a gay cultural creativity. In theprocess of mainstream representation, so much of that creativity has beenobscured. Where are the daddies, the families of choice, the aunties, the mul-tiple activisms, the gay ghettos, and the multiple queer forms of generativecontribution and belonging that once were—back before mainstream culturewasn’t the audience of gay culture and gay culture wasn’t a consumer-drivenentity? This critical project works in the spirit and commitment of Hostetler(2009), who reminds us generativity must be approached as a collective, cre-ative intergenerational project that need not make rigid distinctions betweenassimilation and accommodation. The creative workings of generativity ispersonal and communal, exploratory of the future yet historicized within ourpasts, and is, at its core, disruptive to social norms that try to determinewhose life matters, how life matters, to whom we matter, and who shall beremembered.

If younger gay men no longer feel motivated to socialize with older men,then so be it. Still, one cannot help but wonder what’s being lost in per-spective and continuity, in our knowledge of past rituals and styles. The“wisdom of the aunties” wasn’t just about long-outdated feminizing argotand cruising tips. It was about sharing and supporting other people in asimilar situation; it was about wit and survival, about forging a workablelife in the present while imagining a richer future. (Loughery, 1999, p. 41)

NOTES

1. When discussing larger themes in this essay, there will be more generic reference to “older” and“younger” voices, specifying the members of SAGE (Services and Advocacy for Gay and Lesbian Elders)and the college students. However, when the specific experience of one of the participants is a focusedsubject of discussion, such as with “Tim,” a pseudonym will be used as a point of reference for the readerto assist in following the development of the discussion.

2. Given the broad range of experiences across LGBTQ populations, and the complex intersectionsthat exist across identities and experiences within LGBTQ populations, generalizing LGBTQ experiencesis always a contested endeavor. This study works to focus on gay male culture, which as a porous cultural

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

1526 D. B. Goltz

identity has certain unique values and meanings attached to aging, future, and youthism. Lumping gay,lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer voices into a singular study is problematic (Haber, 2009, p. 277).Of the 10 participants in this study, two identified as Latino, one as African American, and seven identifiedas White or Caucasian. The economic statuses of the participants were highly varied and were also variedacross the life spans of the older members.

3. Although it was always explicitly clear (both through IRB approval and obtaining informedconsent) that the workshop was a research project, I felt it was important to craft a series of outcomesthat would immediately benefit and extend the personal and immediate interests of all the participants.The writings from the older men’s group were featured in an edited collection in 2011 titled “Our Legacy:Writings From Chicago’s Older Gay Men,” which I served as editor. As for the students, their texts fromthe workshop were used in a student multimedia performance project, which I directed. The performancewas presented in several venues in 2011, titled “The Unspeakable: A Gay Future Project.”

4. As a critical qualitative project, the intersubjective knowledges produced in this research do notclaim generalizable truth but rather offer useful, productive, and generative understandings of intergen-erational dynamics, produced through our collective work. The group of men came together because theolder men attended classes at the community center and the younger men were students I had met onmy college campus where I teach. Rather than framed as limitations, however, this assembly of partic-ipants, the creative methodology, our shared investment in these issues, and my nontraditional role asparticipant/researcher worked to produce a different form of data.

5. The coding scheme was organized as follows: (1) Age: as loss (AAL), as gain (AAG), as pow-erlessness (AAPL), and powerfulness (AAPF); (2) Youth: as loss (YAL), as gain (YAG), as powerlessness(YAPL), and powerfulness (YAPF); (3) Gay Community/Culture: Identity (GCI), Belonging (GCB), (GCNB)not Belonging (4); Future: Positive (FP), Negative (FN), Specific (FS), Abstract (FA); (5) Generativity:Traditional (GT), Queered (GQ).

6. In an exploratory assignment where participants were asked to write the description for thebook they would like to see written, Tim described a book about gay male aging that offers practicaladvice about the social and medical issues yet also includes erotic images of older gay men, celebratingtheir sexuality, beauty, and desire. While the younger gay men in the workshop are acting out ageistmyths about the “creepiness” of older gay male sexuality, they were also drawn to the discussion, for itprovides hope and possibility that they, as aging gay males, can retain beauty, passion, eroticism, anddesire.

REFERENCES

Battles, K., & Hilton-Morrow, W. (2002). Gay characters in conventional spaces:Will & Grace and the conventional comedy genre. Critical Studies in MediaCommunication, 19, 87–105.

Berger, R. M. (1982). Gay and gray: The older homosexual man. Urbana, IL:University of Illinois Press.

Berger, R. M., & Kelly, J. J. (2001). What are older gay men like: An impossiblequestion. In D. C. Kimmel & D. L. Martin (Eds.), Midlife and aging in gayAmerica (pp. 55–64). New York, NY: Harrington Park Press.

Brookey, R. A. (1996). A community like Philadelphia. Western Journal ofCommunication, 60, 40–56.

Brown, L. B., Alley, G. R., Sarosy, S., Quarto, G., & Cook, T. (2001). Gay men: Agingwell! In D. C. Kimmel & D. L. Martin (Eds.), Midlife and aging in gay America(pp. 41–54). New York, NY: Harrington Park Press.

Button, D., O’Connell, D. J., & Gealt, R. (2012). Sexual minority youth victimizationand social support: The intersection of sexuality, gender, race, and victimization.Journal of Homosexuality, 59, 18–43.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

We’re Not in Oz Anymore 1527

Bybee, J. A., Sullivan, E. L., & Zielonka, E. (2009). Are gay men in worse mentalhealth than heterosexual men? The role of age, shame, guilt and coming out.Journal of Adult Development, 16 , 144–154.

Charmaz, K. (2001). Grounded theory. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary fieldresearch (pp. 335–352). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Cooper, J. F. (2011). Gay men’s experience of the future: An exploratory study.Unpublished dissertation, Rutgers University, NJ.

Corey, F. C. (1998). The personal: Against the master narrative. In S. J. Dailey(Ed.), The future of performance studies: Visions and revisions (pp. 249–253).Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.

Corey, F. C., & Nakayama, T. K. (2012). DeathText. Western Journal ofCommunication, 76 , 17–23.

D’Augelli, A. R., Rendina, H. J., & Sinclair, K. O. (2007). Lesbian and gay youth’s aspi-rations for marriage and raising children. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling,1(4), 77–98.

Duggan, L. (2002). The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neoliberalism.In R. Castronovo & D. D. Nelson (Eds.), Materializing democracy: Towards arevitalized cultural politics (pp. 175–194). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Fejes, F., & Petrich, K. (1993). Invisibility, homophobia, and heterosexim: Lesbians,gays and the media. Critical Studies in Media Communication 10, 395–422.

Finley, S. (2005). Arts-based inquiry: Performing revolutionary pedagogy. InN. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rded., pp. 681–694). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fox, R. C. (2007). Gay grows up: An interpretive study on aging metaphors andqueer identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 52(3/4), 33–61.

Freeman, E. (2007). Queer belongings: Queer theory and kinship theory. InG. E. Haggerty & M. McGarry (Eds.), A companion to lesbian, gay, bisexual,transgender, and queer studies (pp. 295–314). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Goltz, D. B. (2007). Laughing at absence: Instinct magazine and the hyper-masculinegay future? Western Journal of Communication, 71, 93–113.

Goltz, D. B. (2009). Investigating queer future meanings: Destructive perceptions of“the harder path.” Qualitative Inquiry, 15, 561–586.

Goltz, D. B. (2010). Queer temporalities in gay male representation: Tragedy,normativity, and futurity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gomillion, S. C., & Guiliano, T. A. (2011). The influence of media role models ongay, lesbian, and bisexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 330–354.

Gross, L. (2001). Up from invisibility. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Gross, L. (2007). Gideon who will be 25 in the year 2012: Growing up gay today.

International Journal of Communication, 1, 121–138.Haber, D. (2009). Gay aging. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 30, 267–280.Halberstam, J. (2005). In a queer time and place: Transgender bodies, subcultural

lives. New York, NY: New York University Press.Harper, G., Brodsky, A., & Bruce, D. (2012). What’s good about being gay?

Perspectives from youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 9, 22–41.Harper, G. W., Bruce, D., Serrano, P., & Jamil, O. B. (2009). The role of the Internet

in the sexual identity development of gay and bisexual male adolescents. InP. M. Hammack & B. J. Cohler (Eds.), The story of sexual identity: Narrative

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014

1528 D. B. Goltz

perspectives on the gay and lesbian life course (pp. 297–326). New York, NY:Oxford University Press.

Hostetler, A. J. (2009). Generativity and time in gay men’s life stories. In P. M.Hammack & B. J. Cohler (Eds.), The story of sexual identity: Narrative perspec-tives on the gay and lesbian life course (pp. 397–424). New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2005). Focus groups: Strategic articulations of ped-agogy, politics, and inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbookof qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 887–908). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

King, L. A., Burton, C. M., & Geise, A. C. (2009). The good (gay) life. In P. M.Hammack & B. J. Cohler (Eds.), The story of sexual identity: Narrative perspec-tives on the gay and lesbian life course (pp. 375–396). New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Lamis, D. A., & Malone, P. S. (2011). Sexual attractionstatus and adolescent suicide proneness: The roles of hopelessness, depression,and social support. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 52–82.

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Loughery, J. (1998). The other side of silence: Men’s lives and gay histories. New York,NY: Henry Holt.

Loughery, J. (1999). The wisdom of the aunties. Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review,Fall, 39–41.

Richardson, L., & Pierre, E. A. S. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp.959–978). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Russo, V. (1987). The celluloid closet: homosexuality in the movies (rev. ed.). NewYork, NY: Harper & Row.

Taylor, S. J., & Bogden, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods (3rded.). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Westrate, N. M., & McLean, K. C. (2010). The rise and fall of gay: A cultural-hisotricalapproach to gay identity development. Memory, 18, 225–240.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an F

ranc

isco

] at

14:

51 1

3 Se

ptem

ber

2014