Ermanno Lavorini was just twelve years old when he was found buried in the sand on the beach of Marina di Vecchiano, in Viareggio."Killed by that gay gang that hung out in the pine forest near the beach"" was the first – initially indisputable – version of the facts traced by the justice system and the unleashed media in that distant 1969. In reality – but this reality only came to light in the subsequent stages of the trial, starting from 1976 – Lavorini had been the victim of a kidnapping for extortion purposes set up by the boys of the Viareggio Youth Monarchist Front, the same teenagers who frequented the cruising near the beach. That case, which went down in Italian history as the first kidnapping but also as the first case of subversion pointed out by the justice system, is one of the very rare breaches through which a overlap between far-right movements and homosexuality.
Only in that case, in essence, did Italy talk about homosexual far-right militants, young people who, like Italo, the purist of the Bologna Pride campaign, "hate fags but love their comrade". The case of Ermanno Lavorini is one of the stages of the rigorous excursus that Marco Fraquelli, a Milanese scholar of right-wing culture, included in his essay "Omosessuali di Destra" published by Rubbettino. The two-hundred-page volume examines a variety of historical portraits, documents, and testimonies to trace the contradictory interconnection of homosexuality and Nazi-Fascist ideology, from the late nineteenth century to the present day.
On Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 9:00 pm, at the Gay Suffrage stand at the Cassero at the Festa dell'Unità in Bologna, don't miss the meeting with the authors Marco Fraquelli and Franco Grillini, and with the presence of Luca De Santis and Sara Colaone, authors of In Italia son tutti maschi.
Dr. Fraquelli, when you began this essay, who did you imagine your reader would be: a curious left-winger or a right-wing homosexual?
""This is how I start an interview by stating something banal: I imagined my reader would be curious, and that's it... Jokes aside, the book was born out of a specific cultural interest of mine, which is the analysis of the Right, and the radical Right in particular. I've tried in my books, starting with the first one on Julius Evola and then the one on right-wing anti-globalization, to explore little-known themes. The contradictory relationship between the far Right and homosexuality seemed to me to be a theme consistent with this research of mine.""
""Better fascists than fags," Alessandra Mussolini said a few years ago. Yet her book recounts that in many cases, fascists—and even more so, Nazis—were homosexual. In short, fascists = fags. This very equation, which clearly contradicts one of the cornerstones of the homophobic right, was represented in the Bologna Pride communication campaign by the character Italo, who "hates fags but loves his comrade." Paradoxically, however, rather than making Alessandra Mussolini jump out of her seat, Italo sparked outrage among the far-left wing of the gay-lesbian movement, and even Sabina Guzzanti, a "standard-bearer" of the disillusioned left, lashed out against that campaign from the stage in Piazza Navona. How do you explain this short circuit?
""I confess that I really don't understand Guzzanti's reaction to Pride in general, and specifically to the image of Italo that she cites (which I find extraordinarily ironic; in fact, I confess that I even keep a copy on my desk, and I boast that the idea came to the graphic designer after reading my book...). The same goes for Bertozzo and company. I don't know, I'd say that those who had indignant reactions perhaps looked at the flyer very superficially, misunderstood... Or perhaps – with less superficiality and more fundamentalism – they wanted to express dissent towards a line, that of the less extreme gay left, of wanting to promote a more ecumenical policy towards right-wing gays... Ultimately, comrade Italo is treated with a lot of irony, but, all things considered, also as a subject who deserves, in some way, attention, an attention that perhaps could have been annoying. Especially if you look at it with a prejudice. I, for example, noticed the irony and the provocation. But after all, I've written a book about right-wing homosexuals...""
Berlin in the early twentieth century, where National Socialism gradually took shape, was a gay-friendly city: 30 gay bars in the early years of the century, and as many as 130 by 1933. Then came persecution, concentration camps, and extermination. What were the factors that brought about this sudden change?
Undoubtedly, the Nazi regime bears a decisive responsibility for what you rightly call a radical and traumatic reversal of the trend (from more open tolerance to the repression of homosexuality). Generally speaking, though the great historian George Mosse has explained it much better than I, it was a matter of defending a respectability and behavioral orthodoxy that were fundamental to the value system that underpinned the Nazi state. The entire rhetoric of the pure race—and the need to promote the strong growth of this race, linked to Hitler's expansionist aims—certainly could not tolerate sexual behavior that, on the contrary, necessarily proved sterile. In this sense, the speech (which I reproduce almost in its entirety in the book) that Hitler's deputy, Himmler, gave in 1937, behind closed doors, to Nazi leaders, significantly titled "The Racial and Biological Dangers of Homosexuality," is exemplary. In reality, however, the process of repression unfolded over the course of years. This is a true escalation that begins with the 1934 liquidation of the homosexual Roehm and his SA (although, as I explain in the book, homosexuality was merely a pretext for political reasons) and culminates in the concentration camps. Ultimately, to draw a parallel, it's a bit like the "Final Solution" to the Jewish problem: the Holocaust, the Shoah, is only the final stage in a long process of harassment, discrimination, and violence."
In many of the portraits in your book, one seems to discern a distinction between homoeroticism, a sexual practice, and homosexuality understood as a recognition of identity. In short, sex between men was often tolerated as long as it didn't undermine virility, didn't corrupt a man's identity, and didn't impair his ability to fulfill "male" roles in society. Where would you place the distinction between practice and identity in right-wing homosexuality, both in the past and today?
"In the book I start from a premise: in my opinion, homosexuality concerns exclusively a person's sexual orientation, and not their identity. However, you make this distinction, a distinction that a colleague of yours made to me some time ago, arguing that being homosexual means expressing one's sexuality; being gay means expressing one's identity. And you also made comparisons: Zeffirelli is homosexual, Cecchi Paone is gay. Mishima was homosexual, etc. To say that a homosexual would never participate in a Gay Pride parade, a gay man would. In short, beyond the fact that I'm not entirely convinced by this distinction (which I also find very interesting and profound), I must admit that it can, in some way, serve to answer your question: it's true, this distinction has been made since ancient times; everything could be done – on a sexual level – as long as it didn't affect the virile image. Of course, there are different traditions. As I write in the book, while in Greece pederasty prevailed and, therefore, a fundamentally more open conception (even if we shouldn't (Think, as many mistakenly do, that homosexuality was normally accepted…) of homoeroticism, with even philosophical and pedagogical implications, the tradition of tribal rape prevails in Rome and, therefore, of the homosexual act as a manifestation of power – for the perpetrator – and of humiliation, submission – for the victim. This leads, as you say, to the stratification of a tradition that, to simplify, clearly distinguishes active from passive homosexuality. With the former ultimately more tolerated, and the latter less so. The former was more tolerated, provided, however, that it was not flaunted. In this, I believe that the Left – which for centuries and up until recent times was certainly not immune to homophobia – has evolved. I don't think the Right has done the same. Both at a radical and more moderate level. To stay within our own house, today even Fini recognizes that ultimately one of one's own sex can do what one wants with it, as long as it remains confined within the walls of home…""
The Vatican's presence on Italian soil is considered by many to be the main reason for our country's difficulty in "secularizing" politics. What role did Catholic culture play in crystallizing homophobia within far-right movements in Italy and abroad?
"The presence of the Vatican, and the resulting extraordinary predominance of the Catholic religion and culture in Italy, have certainly contributed significantly to fueling and crystallizing homophobia. Of course, it's clear that today (but also a long time ago) the Church no longer thinks about burning people at the stake. We are truly in another universe. I would like to say that there is – objectively – much more Christian "charity" in addressing the issue. But the Church, as we know, does its job, and certainly cannot accept the phenomenon. To answer your question more specifically, I must say that certainly the Italian Right (both historically, i.e. with reference to Fascism, and currently), by embracing the Catholic religion, has found itself completely on its homophobic positions. Positions, I repeat, which today fortunately are no longer – for the most part – of a repressive nature, but which persist. If anything, and this seems to me the most relevant fact, another influence that the Church, in my opinion, has exerted on the Right should be considered. For example, to historicize, on Fascism, and it's the influence of hypocrisy. Regarding the hypocrisy of much of the clerical world (it would be unfair to generalize) regarding homosexuality, I think there's little to refute: I'm not just referring to the tragic phenomenon of pedophilia, but, after all, the topic of homoeroticism present in seminaries, etc., is traditionally well-known. And yet, woe betide anyone who mentions it. Likewise, Fascism was the protagonist of an absolutely hypocritical approach to homosexuality (except for some repressive tendencies, completely marginal compared to the Nazi experience). Just to give you an incredible fact, I recall, even in the book, that the evening before publication, the article that punished homosexual crimes was removed from the Fascist Penal Code (the Rocco Code). Liberalism of the regime? Not a chance, the concept was different: inserting such an article would have meant having to publicly tell the world that the homosexual problem existed in Italy too... In other countries, for example. To close and respond to her, less influenced by the Catholic religion, beyond the repressive phenomena, see Germany, the Right has always shown less hypocrisy. Which obviously did not mean tolerance, on the contrary, unfortunately repressive violence.""
""Italy risks a return to fascism," Famiglia Cristiana denounced a few weeks ago, head-on attacking the Berlusconi government's decisions. Do you agree with this warning? Do you think it also contains a warning regarding homophobia?
"Look, everyone knows my political positions, my background, etc. I have never voted, nor will I ever vote for Berlusconi or center-right parties. However, I must admit that Famiglia Cristiana's statement seems excessive to me. I'm not saying this just because, as a scholar of Fascism, I'm making a nominalistic issue of it. I truly believe the situation isn't that dramatic. Of course, I'm concerned about certain initiatives, and I'm always terrified that the League might convince the government to overturn the Constitution, as it tried to do in the past... But comparing Berlusconi to Mussolini seems a bit forced to me (even if it includes some "caricatures" that might recall the Staraces...). And I also believe, personally, that it's a mistake to overestimate Berlusconi's "duke-like" power. A mistake, moreover, that I think the Left has paid for... The same goes for homophobia. It's one thing to oppose de facto unions, another to heavily discriminate against people based on their gender. homosexuality. Clearly, there are incidents that contradict my vision. It's clear that the fashion designer is "forgiven" for his cheerfulness, while the plumber or the bank teller is less so; it's true that even today—I'm thinking of small, provincial communities and elsewhere—many young homosexuals have to deal with the narrow-mindedness that surrounds them, if not humiliation, etc. But it would seem excessive to me to speak of widespread homophobia.’
Even Madonna, during her first stop on her world tour in Cardiff, Wales, in front of 40,000 people, projected the faces of McCain, Hitler, and Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe considered a bloodthirsty dictator, during the song "Get Stupid." These images are associated with images of destruction and pollution. How do these messages affect you?
"I'm going back to what I was saying before. In my opinion, projecting McCain's face next to Hitler's isn't the way to gain support for the Democrats. Unfortunately, politics has rules that are far more cynical than emotions. And ultimately, even more complex rules. We are the children of a generation that has experienced a devastating phenomenon: marketing. And what does marketing tell you? That, ultimately, promoting detergent or cancer drugs, a quality book or a politician is the same thing. So, you can promote a clothing brand by showing people dying of AIDS. Those who take part in these initiatives think they're provocateurs, nonconformists. In reality, they're just 'executors' of the Universal Law of Marketing.’
In "Right-Wing Homosexuals," an entire chapter is dedicated to AIDS. How different was the reaction to the outbreak of that epidemic on the right and left?
"I confess that this is a question I don't know the answer to. In my book, I cite one case, but it's just one case: that of a group of right-wing extremist French doctors, the Positif Group, who published a periodical called "Sida tout va bien" (Sida tout va bien), which constantly attacked official medicine (also claiming that AIDS was the result of a sort of global conspiracy perpetrated by capitalist powers), but which, above all, fought to ensure that hospital beds were reserved only for French people with AIDS and not for foreigners in France...""
The final chapter of the essay is dedicated to GayLib, the center-right Italian gay association. Its founder, Enrico Oliari, comes from far-right circles. However, he also co-founded the association in 1977 with Alessandro Gobbetti, who later became the leader of Arcigay Ancona; Marco Jouvenal, from the FUORI collective; and Marco Volante, now the spokesperson for GayLeft and formerly a member of the LGBT advisory board of the Democrats of the Left. In short, in Italy, there is a peculiar political transformation among gays...
""But, I don't know to what extent we can talk about opportunism... I opened the interview with a banality and I'm about to close it with another banality: as I was saying, I start from the assumption that homosexuality concerns a person's sexual orientation, it doesn't define their identity. This is especially useful to say that, in my opinion, there's no reason to be surprised if a homosexual decides to embrace an ideology like that of the Right. I'm not surprised if there's a gay surveyor, or a gay university professor, or if a gay person has a passion for stamps... why shouldn't there be a gay person on the Right? (Then, if I have to fully express my opinion, it's that I still find this possibility strange. Embracing the ideology that, in some way, produced the Holocaust is a bit like Obama being a Ku Klux Klan supporter. But let's move on.) So, if we free ourselves from this prejudice, we can analyze the various political repositionings of the people as they deserve, that is, as simple changes of heart. Of course, she says, the homosexual component of the people she mentions isn't entirely secondary, and she's right. But, I repeat, in my opinion, it's not so relevant, from an identity perspective, as to exhaust their personality.’
Finally, a prediction: who do you think will sign Italy's first civil unions law: the Berlusconi government or a center-left government?
"I would rule out a Berlusconi government. I would also rule out a center-left government, as long as the Left continues to overestimate (because for me it overestimates itself) the weight of the Italian Catholic electorate. However, I will make a prediction—and I'm sorry to end this pleasant conversation on such a pessimistic note. I'm 51 years old, and I hope to live at least another 30 years (and if I stopped smoking, perhaps I'd even have the chance...): I'm convinced I'll die without having seen a law on civil unions come into being..."
