4.6 Article

Homonormative aesthetics: AIDS and 'de-generational unremembering' in 1990s London

Journal

URBAN STUDIES
Volume 56, Issue 14, Pages 2993-3010

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0042098018806149

Keywords

AIDS; built environment; community; creativity; culture; displacement; gender; gentrification; London; sexuality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article historically contextualises the origins of a transnational gay male aesthetic many now think of as homonormative. While typically understood as a depoliticisation that 'recodes freedom and liberation in terms of privacy, domesticity, and consumption' (Manalansan, 2005: 142), homonormativity also has an associated look defined by a set of slick surface appearances relating both to the body and design. Recognisable in various locations across the globe and in multiple settings including cruise ships, resorts, and gyms, this aesthetic is, above all, associated with gaybourhoods and gay villages. Using Soho's gay village in London as a case-study of the emergence of this generic style in the 1990s, its branded emphasis on 'affluence', minimalist interior design and idealised gym bodies is contextualised with references to yuppification and AIDS. Constituting a 'clean break' with earlier forms of urban gay culture now stigmatised as 'dirty' and 'unhealthy', the homonormative aesthetic can be viewed as an example of 'de-generational unremembering' following the first traumatic phase of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s (Castiglia C and Reed C (2011) If Memory Serves: Gay Men, AIDS, and the Promise of the Queer Past. Minneapolis, MN, and London: University of Minnesota Press, p. 9). By placing AIDS at the centre of a discussion of homonormativity, some of the assumptions about its privilege can be queried while at the same time maintaining a critique of how class-specific 'aspirational' imagery was deployed to detract from the stigma of the health crisis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available