On Seeing What We Want To See
Posted in History, Logic, Thinking Critically on | 3 minutes | 8 Comments →
Time-warp back to WWI around 1920, Newport (Rhode Island) Naval Training Station. The United States government per the Navy recruited male volunteers to pose as gay decoys to infiltrate the growing homosocial subculture the Navy had come to dislike.
The investigation led to the arrest of over twenty sailors and sixteen civilians, whom decoys then testified against in a series of both naval and civilian trials. One vein of entry the decoys used to gain access into the gay male subculture was the local "cruising areas," which are essentially a phenomenon of any underground subculture. Dopers, pill heads and any other kind of recreational drug user have theirs, as do artists, musicians, writers, bikers and skateboarders. People crave fellowship, and this intrinsic need does not simply disappear because the mainstream disapproves of a particular group.
In essence, the Navy sent their decoys to the local cruising areas so they might embrace the subculture the Navy found so offensive. The problem is, the Navy's strategy was akin to a policeman posing as a stoner actually smoking multiple joints with multiple people, then ticketing only those who hit it while he himself remains beyond legal purview. If you don't mind a blunt question full of pun, nobody bought that Bill Clinton didn't inhale, so why should we buy that the Navy decoys didn't impale? That was essentially the defense used to blame the "gang" and exonerate the decoys.
Worse, although ostensibly Naval officials used specific acts to determine culpability, in reality it wasn't so much whether or not a specific person committed a specific act, but whether they belonged to a specific subculture. The decoys that participated freely in such behavior initially evaded criticism. My goal is not so much to determine if entrapment has occurred, but to note the potential cultural bias that seemed to drive the entire investigation. As one historian notes,
Naval officials never considered prosecuting the many sailors who they fully realized were being serviced by the fairies each year, because they did not believe that the sailors' willingness to allow such acts "to be performed upon them" in any way implicated their sexual character as homosexual. Instead, they chose to prosecute only those men who were intimately involved in the gang…
-George Chauncey, Jr., Christian Brotherhood or Sexual Perversion?
Really? One wonders how the Navy might reasonably identify the criteria that actually implicate one's sexual character as homosexual? Whatever those criteria turn out to be, one then has to wonder how decoy initiative is to be judged.
The real issue here is just a semantic battle to redefine homosexuality, and the whole thing just seems a bit silly if you ask me. The Navy's approach was essentially to create a semantic wedge between homosexual and non-homosexual male-male sexual conduct. If that sounds confusing, perhaps it is.
To me, it's very obvious what was really driving the Navy. These incidents seem to confirm a very reasonable hypothesis we can sustain logically: No people are infallible, and all systems of jurisprudence are composed of people, so no systems of jurisprudence are infallible.
The lesson is to always be on the lookout for those instances where personal motivation and prejudice might be masquerading as justice.
John Evo
says...You express some doubts as to whether the decoys could have “done their job” without partaking in the activities. I have no idea how this sting was set-up and you could be right. However, I have to point out that police around the country arrest prostitutes (male and female) by using stings in which the officers do not sexually participate.
That out of the way, what I find disturbing is that anyone would be put on trial for homosexual acts. I’m heartened though that your example comes from 1920 and not something current. Which makes me question, why you didn’t describe some more recent event to sustain your call for vigilance? Certainly you are correct, and certainly there are many examples you could have found.
cl
says...Expressing doubt wasn’t so much the point, as “the activities” were certainly partaken in. Rather, I say it’s hypocritical to for the Navy to use homosexual decoys to prosecute particular homosexuals they found undesirable. That’s what makes this so different than the prostitution stings you mention – homosociality was being punished although homosexuality was the statute.
And it wasn’t a “call for vigilance,” rather a simple desire to write about something other than (a)theism. Falling into ruts can be dangerous in life and writing. I also enjoy studying history, and there are many logical lessons to be learned in its reading.
Brad
says...“non-homosexual male-male sexual conduct”
Squares are round, two and two make five.
John Evo
says...Man, you remind me of an old friend of mine. I couldn’t say ANYTHING, even in agreement, that didn’t get an argument. I’m sure it’s fun for you though. It was for him.
You said:
“And it wasn’t a “call for vigilance,”
From the concluding line of the post:
“The lesson is to always be on the lookout for those instances where personal motivation and prejudice might be masquerading as justice”.
OK, cl… I got it entirely wrong. “Uncle”!
cl
says...Evo,
You’re correct. I honestly have no idea why I would have said said that. Maybe I simply spaced out, maybe I made a knee-jerk reaction based on the predominantly disagreeing nature of our relationship, maybe my mild dyslexia translated vigilance into something else, I don’t know (and I’m not being sarcastic about any of that).
Believe me, it’s neither fun nor productive to argue the way we usually do, and in spite of my blunder, I had fully acknowledged that your comment was a deliberate attempt to agree for once and just have a decent talk. I appreciated that, probably much more than you think. I wasn’t trying to make an argument where there shouldn’t have been one, and again, I apologize.
If I might share a few of my feelings back, I feel exactly as you do 98% of the time I’m on the internet. Using yourself, Philly and Chaplain as examples – save your original comment here – I’ve never seen a response from any of you to something I’ve said that wasn’t in a spirit of disagreeance or downright rudeness (the latter applies near-exclusively to Philly and Chaplain).
To contrast, I really do make it a point to leave constructive criticisms and compliments, and have done such several times with Philly and the Chaplain in spite of their disagreeance and rudeness. To date I’ve only commented on like 2 or 3 of your posts, and I’m not trying to make it out like I’m some big wind of positive encouragement on your blog. But as (if) we continue, you’ll see this evidence for yourself. Last we left off, you seemed to opine that a certain level of non-disclosure precludes civil discourse, and I still disagree with that.
Brad,
It’s hard to tell if you’re roasting me or the Navy, but I agree that the string’s logic is flawed, and I submit that the string was theirs, not mine :)
cl
says...Evo,
You’re correct. I honestly have no idea why I would have said said that. Maybe I simply spaced out, maybe I made a knee-jerk reaction based on the predominantly disagreeing nature of our relationship, maybe my mild dyslexia translated vigilance into something else, I don’t know (and I’m not being sarcastic about any of that).
Believe me, it’s neither fun nor productive to argue the way we usually do, and in spite of my blunder, I had fully acknowledged that your comment was a deliberate attempt to agree for once and just have a decent talk. I appreciated that, probably much more than you think. I wasn’t trying to make an argument where there shouldn’t have been one, and again, I apologize.
If I might share a few of my feelings back, I feel exactly as you do 98% of the time I’m on the internet. Using yourself, Philly and Chaplain as examples – save your original comment here – I’ve never seen a response from any of you to something I’ve said that wasn’t in a spirit of disagreeance or downright rudeness (the latter applies near-exclusively to Philly and Chaplain).
To contrast, I really do make it a point to leave constructive criticisms and compliments, and have done such several times with Philly and the Chaplain in spite of their disagreeance and rudeness. To date I’ve only commented on like 2 or 3 of your posts, and I’m not trying to make it out like I’m some big wind of positive encouragement on your blog. But as (if) we continue, you’ll see this evidence for yourself. Last we left off, you seemed to opine that a certain level of non-disclosure precludes civil discourse, and I still disagree with that.
Brad,
It’s hard to tell if you’re roasting me or the Navy, but I agree that the string’s logic is flawed, and I submit that the string was theirs, not mine :)
Brad
says...Navy – that should be obvious… (How could I have been shooting at you?)
Personally, I suspect the sting’s “logic” and “semantic battle” was merely a formality to get the paperwork finished. Perhaps they were conscientious all along they were playing a double standard.
cl
says...Well, that was my paraphrase of the Navy’s position, and it seemed plausible that one could disagree on grounds that my paraphrase was inaccurate.
That makes sense and seems to fit the evidence..