Perspective

A recent comment by one of my colleagues reminded me of this topic, and i think it's important enough that it should be shared. It doesn't have much to do with architecture, but my argument does, so i hope to bring this post full circle by the end.

So then, homosexuals.

I believe rather strongly in the concept of "live and let live," so i really don't care one way or another what people prefer sexually. It doesn't affect me in any way, shape or form, so i have no objection to it -- homosexuality doesn't cause global warming or unrest in the middle east. The LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community doesn't rail against psychology like, say, the Church of Scientology. I think many people will agree with me on these points.

Of course, there are a large number of people who do not. Some fundamental Christians, for example, find homosexuality a perversion of the natural order of life, or a sign of moral degeneration. I have no desire to argue with those people. They're welcome to their beliefs. Just don't push them on me, or anyone else. No one is forcing you to be gay, why would you force them to be straight?

Never mind those people. Let's talk about the people that fall halfway between the two. Tolerance is "trendy" these days, which i suppose is good, but it also means a lot of people have no idea what they're talking about, which doesn't do much good convincing this halfway group of the error of their ways. Before i continue, let me define the group.

These are the people who use "gay" and other references to homoesexuality as a pejorative. "This test is gay. What a faggot! I got gayed by some kid on Halo. (This, interestingly, shares a syntax with the older "I got jewed by..." slang). That guy was a total cock-gobbler." I apologize if i've offended anyone's sensibilities with these examples, but they're all too common. This kind of language is absolutely rampant in middle schools and high schools, and there are more than a few that continue to speak this way in college.

The odd thing is that these people do not consider themselves to be homophobic, or in any way gay bashing. If confronted, they'll make excuses like "Well, i didn't mean it to be offensive to gay people. I have gay friends!" (This, interestingly, shares a history with the older "I'm not a racist, I have black friends!"). Or, they might say "I was using the word ghey, which isn't the same thing as gay." I even know people who consider gay bashing to be acceptable within the confines of their own home, as though it's acceptable as long as there aren't any gay people around.

All of these excuses are completely irrelevant. They may, in fact, all be true excuses, but they have nothing to do with the problem at hand. The problem is the zeitgeist. Every time anyone uses an epithet involving homosexuality, or speaks of homosexuality in a pejorative tone, it fosters an environment of intolerance. Translated by the independent observer, the speaker is saying "Being gay is not acceptable. People who are gay are social misfits."

This information is interpreted in two major ways. The first way is to understand that the speaker is biased against homosexuals. The second is to be afraid to admit that you are yourself homosexual for fear of social suicide. The fear of this information reaching the speaker may cause intense distress. I posit that no one should live in fear because of a personal choice, be it religion, sexuality, profession, or otherwise.

It doesn't matter how you meant it. What matters is how it is understood.

This poses a problem. Perhaps i say to a friend "Man, that pop machine totally gypped me", without realizing that i had just made a racial epithet. It's against gypsies, if you're wondering. By my above bolded statement, it should be my fault that i had been interpreted as racist. In this case, ignorance truly is a legitimate excuse. However, knowing that i can avoid insulting gypsies in the future, i ought to cease the usage of that particular word. If i were to continue its use, it would be my fault again.

Some people will continue to argue that it is irrational to be offended by the pejorative usage of the word "gay". "It means something different now," they might say. This is almost a good argument, but it has a massive flaw. Before this argument would hold, you would have to prove that being gay was irrational (any argument for that is far, far beyond the scope of this blog). Consider this absurd analogy; "You shouldn't be insulted when i take the Lord's name in vain, because God doesn't exist anyway. It's irrational to believe in God."

You can't force other people to understand you a certain way. But if you want people to understand a certain thing, you can gauge the context of the situation and use certain language, gestures...typefaces? I bolded the take-home message of this post. I'll write it again, for gravitas.

It doesn't matter how you meant it. What matters is how it is understood.

Ok, so what does this have to do with architecture? Everything. Substitute speech for architecture and you're done. I don't know that the built environment can be racist or homophobic or whatever by itself (a drinking fountain is just a drinking fountain, until you only allow, for example, whites to use it. But the drinking fountain isn't reinforcing racist stereotypes, the sign is.) Still, the Parthenon means something entirely different now than it did to the ancient Greeks. Like art, architecture means whatever the observer gets out of it. Whether the observer be an architectural historian or a 4 year old kid, the perspective is equally valid.

And we should all be aware of the impact of our choices, regardless of what those choices may be.