From 1896 through 1931, German author and former schoolteacher Adolf Brand published “Der Eigene,” the world’s first periodical explicitly devoted to the promotion and celebration of male homosexuality. The title of his magazine, “Der Eigene” was intended to mean “self-owner” -- culled from the work of anarchist writer Max Stirner, of whom Brand was an ardent fan. Indeed, “Der Eigene” began as an anarchist publication devoted to the concept of personal sovereignty and freedom from authoritarian structures, but within two years had morphed into a pithy journal that sought both a revival of “Hellenic standards of beauty after centuries of Christian barbarism,” and later dedicated itself to “male art, culture and literature.”
Using his magazine as a forum for like-minded individuals, he also became an integral (if dissenting) part of the first known homosexual advocacy group—before he started his own to combat it. In 1897, Magnus Hirschfeld founded the Scientific Humanitarian Committee (Wissenschaftlich-humanitäres Komitee) in Berlin, primarily to combat Paragraph 175 of the German Penal Code, which criminalized homosexuality. Hirschfeld , a physician and closeted homosexual, built upon the “urning” theory of homosexuality to advance his cause. The “urning” theory of homosexuality was conceptually devised in 1852 by Ludwig Casper, who suggested that preference for homosexual sex was an inborn trait that suggested a “hermaphrodism of the soul.” Around 1864, lawyer Karl Heinrich Ulrichs published brochures in which he actually coined the term “urning,” drawing from a mention in Plato’s famous “Symposium,” which seems to suggest the goddess Uranus (no pun intended) was a patron of “noble” homosexual love. Ulrichs’ “urning” was not a true man, but rather a man with a woman’s soul. He was supposedly unable to copulate with women, and it was his nature (as someone who was a woman on the inside) to seek out another male body. The argument then followed, that if “uranism” was his inborn nature—if he didn’t have a choice—then it was indeed cruel to punish him for acts in accordance with this nature. This is of course at best inaccurate fluff, and at worst complete bullshit—but it served a purpose. It evoked sympathy by stigmatizing homosexuality not as a sin, but instead as an incurable medical malady. Hirschfeld, who could be called the father of the modern Gay Rights movement (though the term “gay” was not adopted by homophile activists until several years later, in America), also realized the potential of this position. As a doctor, he set about proving the theory by “studying” known homosexuals and eventually became known as something of an expert on “uranism”—often called to testify in legal hearings when suspicion of homosexuality was involved in a case. He made the theory of “uranism” the central argument of his campaign against Paragraph 175, and very nearly achieved victory, though his progress was stifled as Nazi influence in Germany grew. However, due to his influence, many medical professionals began to accept the theory of “uranism,” and the foundation was laid for the acceptance of both a necessarily feminine homosexual identity and the notion that homosexuality was an innate natural affliction. Adolf Brand initially supported Hirschfeld’s organization, the Scientific Humanitarian Committee, as they worked together on a political campaign to abolish Paragraph 175. However, he took a marked dislike to that key strategy—medicalizing homosexuality and advancing the emasculating theory of “uranism” because this seemed the most feasible way to evoke public support for individuals committing acts previously considered abominable. Brand and his associates instead took a more principled than obviously pragmatic position; in “Der Eigene,” writers denounced the theory of “uranism” and railed against the ridiculous religious asceticism that was the very cause of anti-sodomy laws in the first place. Brand et al. delivered fiery essays damning the religious establishment and disputing supposed dangers associated with homosexuality. They even went so far as to make somewhat dubious arguments for encouraging homosexual behavior among young men, in the interest of the health of the nation and the race. In Brand’s essay, “Friend Love as a Cultural Factor: A Word to Germany’s Male Youth,” he insisted that “friend-love” was congruous with “the right of self-determination over body and soul,” and that: “One must say to the other that the prohibition of all same-sex relations for male youth is a monstrous swindle of the people and a severe mortal sin against our race, since such reactionary measures only drive young men into the arms of prostitution and into the poisonous baths of general contamination.” Writers for “Der Eigene,” like Edwin Bab, also suggested that the women’s movement demanded a complement, Brand’s movement for male culture, lest things become unbalanced. A common theme among these sexual revolutionaries was the idea that, to ensure that women were treated equally, marriage and heterosexual sex should only be the product of a true desire for family and heterosexual love—never a side effect of mere lust or need for sexual release. They saw homosexuality, or male bonding, as a sensible alternative to heterosexual sex, which of course resulted in unwanted pregnancies and, according them, abuse of women. Unsurprisingly, as Brand’s positions often conflict with the feminist-driven modern gay rights movement, he is often labeled a misogynist. But his sentiments on the issue of women (he was also married) actually seem to have been more complex, if the essays he published are of any indication. In 1925, Brand published a manifesto for the G.D.E (Gemeinschaft der Eigenen = Community of Self-Owners), entitled “What We Want,” and launched it with a quote from Nietzsche. A few of the more salient points include: The very Greek stipulation that mere carnal lust is base and mudane, but that sincere “love” is a high, noble ideal that is, “the sanctity of life itself.” This noble love can occur between those of the same sex or between those of opposite sexes. That sexual appetites are natural and must find an outlet; humanity would do better to promote noble physical expressions of noble “love” than to repress sexual desires—which only leads to an overflow in lust that causes individuals to seek the kind of thoughtless, vulgar discharge that is essentially bad for mankind. The notion that all persons are bisexual to some degree, and that both same-sex and opposite sex attractions are equally positive—if sincerely expressed. Seduction of young women without intent to marry “is a great meanness and a severe wrong.” As love is noble and animal lust is vulgar, prostitution should be condemned. If people were permitted to express their sincere sexual feelings more freely, Brand believed prostitution would be unnecessary. Masturbation (Onanism), should not be shameful or prohibited. Specifically, Brand notes that, “kept to a judicious and prudent measure the matter absolutely cannot be harmful.” The G.D.E. called, “for the promotion of a noble nudism,” which Brand states is, “in the interest of racial improvement, sexual health, and advancement in general.” (Brand hoped to open a nudist facility, but his plans were not realized.)
In addition, Brand called for the repeal of Paragraph 175, but his main concerned seemed to be to inspire the renewal of “friend-love” among men (and specifically among young men), and made several arguments outlining the benefits of “friend-love” to any society. Admittedly, sometimes Brand comes off as a licentious old perv trying to craft some sort of total environment where young men exercise naked and make out with each other for his entertainment. One does get the feeling, however, especially knowing that Brand was widely regarded as a fiery character, that he was truly passionate about righting the wrongs he perceived. The thought progression from young anarchist to advocate for sexual freedom is easy to trace. But perhaps what is most distinct about Brand was his refusal to submit to the popular notion that homosexuality was a “hermaphroditism of the soul,” that manhood and man-love were in some way mutually exclusive. Instead, Brand zealously championed a cultured appreciation of masculinity and noble love among men. Brand married late in life, and modified his views (only slightly), as Nazis gained influence in Germany. As his obsession had always been male strength and camaraderie, he simply downplayed the sexual aspects of his work and continued his attempts to inspire a generation of young men. Hirschfeld, as a Jew, was forced to flee Germany during WWII, whereas Brand, something of a German nationalist to begin with, was permitted to stay, and eventually died at home in Berlin during an Allied bombing in 1945. Hirschfeld died in 1935, and is today regarded as something of a patron saint by sexologists and gay rights activists. In comparison, Brand’s legacy has nearly been lost—probably because his occasional advocacy of nearly Greek-style pederasty is impossible to pass through the politically correct gay rights whitewash. However, Brand is an incredibly important dissenting voice in the history of homosexual liberation; his principled opposition to the spread of the inaccurate and emasculating “urning” theory of homosexuality for merely political purposes foreshadowed today’s move away from disproved theories of inborn homosexuality and those who insist, for political and emotional reasons, that their sexual identity is absolute.
Primary Source: Homosexuality And Male Bonding In Pre-Nazi Germany - The Youth Movement, The Gay Movement And Male Bonding Before Hitler’s Rise: Original Transcripts From Der Eigene, The First Gay Journal In The World (Includes essays by Adolf Brand, Edwin Bab, Benedict Friedländer, et al.) Translation, commentary and editing by Harry Oosterhuis, PhD., and Hubert Kennedy, PhD. Harrington Park/Hayworth Press, 1991 |
