Peacocks, Chameleons, Centaurs: Gay Suburbia and the Grammar of Social Identity (review)

In Peacocks, Chameleons, Centaurs, Brekhus details the results of in-depth interviews conducted with gay men living in suburban areas. The main focus of the book is on three ideal types of identity management strategies used by men who vary the density, duration, and dominance of their gayness. In later chapters, the identity grammars are applied to other demographic and interest groups in order to demonstrate the applicability of the theory to a wide range of settings.

The first of the strategies presented is the peacock, or gay lifestyler. Brekhus uses secondary data to describe these men, who choose to enact their gay identity with one hundred percent intensity, one hundred percent of the time (high density, high duration), typically in urban spaces. The rationale underlying the method of data collection is popular (and perhaps academic) culture's reliance on this potent and visible element of gay male culture as its only depiction of gay male life.

What Brekhus adds to the study of gay identity is his analysis of the subtler, less political and visible range of the spectrum. The chameleons, or commuters, are those gay men who literally move to a different locale, sometimes a local gay establishment, more often the nearby city, to enact their gay identity. This group of men values their adaptability and prefer to not only fit into a variety of settings but to excel at fitting in anywhere they choose to. This group is one hundred percent gay, fifteen percent of the time (high density, low duration).

In contrast to the first two groups, who differ in terms of the duration of their gay identity, Brekhus describes the centaur, or integrator, who refuses to privilege his gay identity over other relevant personal characteristics. This ideal type of gay man is what Brekhus would describe as fifteen percent gay, one hundred percent of the time (low density, high duration). The integrators feel it necessary to hide their gay identity nor feel that it is ever necessary to flaunt it. Rather, the various components of the self, such as gay, white, suburban, et cetera, are blended and not seen as being in competition with one another.

Another contribution to the literature is Brekhus's examination of how the ideal types view each other's strategies. Lifestylers regard the commuters and integrators as having sold out their true, core identity as gay men in favor of politically neutral, hetero-friendly ones. The commuters view the lifestylers as overly committed to one style of self-presentation and lacking adaptability. The integrators do not feel that either of the previous two groups have developed the maturity necessary to incorporate multiple selves simultaneously.

Interlaced with these fundamental cross-cultural differences are a number of fascinating observations about the ways these differences affect each group politically, economically, and geographically. Age, race, income, and relationship status are also taken into account as structural determinants of why gay men may be more likely to lay claim to one of the above identities. Brekhus is also quick to point out that these are, indeed, ideal types and that life-course transitions as well as personal complexity make it unlikely that any given person will fit perfectly into any given category.

My main criticism lies with Brekhus's extension of his gay male identity schema to other groups. Brekhus's application of the theory visible, ascribed characteristics such as race and gender is not as fully developed as it might be, especially when one thinks of the reception by others of stigmatized identities, as opposed to their presentation alone. I was not convinced that this identity management model is as well suited to these characteristics as it is to relatively more concealable ones, nor to I believe that an "avid birdwatcher" identity carried with it the same sorts of economic and social penalties that "woman" or "black" do. However, Brekhus does a fair job of anticipating...