In her discussion on “Queer in the Great City,” Julie Abraham exemplifies the ontological associations that exist between homosexuality and urbanity. Abraham argues that queer people are culturally approached as signifiers that represent the differences between urban and rural spaces, and more specifically, she claims that their very presence “marks a place as properly urban” (290). Abraham attests that the transition of “gays from urban saviors to urban signs” (293) is due not only to the aforementioned ontological association, but also to the reinvention of the city “as a site of noneconomic values” (293) and the increasing linkage between gayness and consumption. Abraham points out that flânerie, sex, institutions and domestic life are ways (at least in fiction) in which it is possible to frustrate homosexuality as an urban place marker—though she does not elaborate on how this is accomplished.
Novelists still write about gay and lesbian lives in those cities, as do University of Chicago sociologists. Offering elaborate portraits of queer urbanity, these works resist the reduction of homosexuals to urban place markers, whether their subjects are flânerie, as in Samuel Delany’s Time Square Red, Times Square Blue or Edmund White’s The Flâneur (2001); sex, as in Edward O. Laumann and his colleagues’ Chicago study The Sexual Organization of the City (2004); politics and institutions, as in Davina Cooper’s Sexing the City (1994), on London and Manchester, and Moira Rachel Kenney’s Mapping Gay L.A. (2001); or marriage and domestic life, as in Armistead Maupin’s return to his tales of San Francisco with Michael Tolliver Lives (2007). (Abraham 297-298)
Furthermore, she does not explore how self-awareness of one’s status as a queer marker or urbanity allows gays to recover their standing as political actors. Through this discussion, I hope to add richness to Abraham’s phenomenal discussion on gay cities by exploring further alternatives for refusing homosexuality as a signifier of urbanity, particularly as depicted in an episode of Will & Grace.
In the Will & Grace episode entitled “Sour Balls,” Jack and Will (two of the show’s main gay characters) consider purchasing a house in Middleborough, New York, which Jack describes as the city’s “next big hot gay getaway.” While visiting the house, they soon realize that Jack confused Middleborough, NY with Middleborough, New Hampshire, and they decide to leave without buying it. As they attempt to leave the house, they soon become surrounded by neighbors—a group of oddball characters that celebrate the possibility of gay men moving into the area because “When the gays come, the property values shoot up. And they fill the place with cute restaurants and adorable shops.”
Jack and Will, two gay men who come from the urban metropolis of Manhattan, are viewed by the townsfolk as what Abraham would call “icons of an authentic urbanity” (289). The townsfolk believe that the presence of gay men would stimulate “the revival of, an authentic (that is, modern) urbanism” (Abraham 290) in a town desperately in need of economic and social development. After Jack and Will mention that they have no plans of purchasing the house, the neighbors respond by stating that “some people might not take kindly to gays moving out of the neighborhood.”
The neighborhood tries to prevent Will and Jack from escaping the house. The house is surrounded by people throwing “gay” foods such as quiche, banana bread, and jam through the house’s window. The house is also surrounded by a high school marching band playing a perpetual loop of “We Are Family,” and an angry mob of townsfolk holding scented candles in lieu of torches. This scene is illuminating when approached through the lens of Abraham’s discussion, for there is an entire community of people who attempt to trap two gay men in a house through the use of material signifiers of urban homosexuality. The neighborhood’s desire for what Abraham calls the “romance” of the gay community is so strong that those who desire the queer signifiers become the signifiers themselves.
As Jack and Will become increasingly horrified at the coercion of the townsfolk, Will decides to intervene by stating that the neighbors “can fix up this town and make it fabulous all on [their] own!” Will embodies a “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” persona and lures the neighbors blocking the front door into the bathroom, in order to show them how he “upgraded [it] in half an hour.” Once the neighborly “guards” enter the bathroom, Will and Jack lock the door and make their escape. Thus, Will and Jack avoid their positionality as markers of urbanity and modernity by usurping the very characteristics that attempted to define them as such.
“Sour Balls” depicts an instance in which gay men recognize how they are being viewed as markers of gay urbanity, and how they thwart this signification by performing the very acts that are expected from them. It is interesting to observe how popular culture represents and challenges the issue of gays as desirable amenities—and how these representations offer concrete, albeit exaggerated, solutions for breaking this queer and urban chain of signification.
Abraham, Julie. “Queer in the Great City.” Metropolitan Lovers: The Homosexuality of Cities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010. Print.
“Sour Balls.” Will Grace: Season Seven. Writ. Laura Kightlinger. Dir. James Burrows. NBC, 2007. DVD.
Cleveland Rainbow Terminal Tower by Koji Kawano.