Multiple normativities: Language, gender, sexuality and men’s induction into the U.S. military during World War II

Departing from traditional treatments of hetero- and homonormativity as singular formations (Duggan 2003, Lewin 2009, Warner 2003), this paper argues that normative demands and their regulatory consequences can be as variable and flexible as are depictions of compliance, resistance or refusal (Menon, 2008, Pêcheux 1982). To this end, this paper focuses on the conversations taking place at military induction sites during WWII by means of which military personnel determined whether candidate for induction should be barred from military service because of their (alleged) homosexuality. The military personnel had not been given uniform criteria for making these assessments. Each evaluator made his own judgements about the sexuality of each candidate that he interviewed. So details of embodiment, vestment, language use, of allure that disqualified some candidates could also be ignored as other candidates were admitted to service with problem. As a result, 5,000 of the 16 million men who entered the induction system were entry to service for reasons of inappropriate sexuality. Had consistent surveillance criteria been applied, that figure should have been closer to 160,000 rejections. Through the use of a scavenger methodology (Leap in press, following Halberstam 1998), this project has assembled a diverse collection of narratives about World War II induction experiences from military personnel and induction candidates, men and women from diverse social backgrounds. A close reading (Levine 2015) of these narratives provides the basis for the analysis proposed here. Importantly, among other findings, the candidate and military personnel narratives agree that multiple normative stances -- what is or is not evidence of acceptable sexuality -- does not weaken regulatory power of normative rule, whereas multiple responses to normativity can be the first toward a manipulation