After reading Boystown, I began to question the authenticity of space. What qualifies as an authentic space and what doesn’t? Can authenticity be temporary? In Boystown, the gay clubs and bars were part of the “safari.” People, predominantly women, visited Boystown because it partly fulfilled their fantasies and was a form of entertainment. I was interested that the atmosphere of the bars and clubs changed when straight women inhibited it. Spaces like “Manhole” seemed to lack its originality and authenticity because of the presence of straight women. Yet, in order for Boystown to be authentic there needs to be a certain level of exclusivity. Exclusivity is partially enforced by requiring visitors to remove their shirts or wear particular accessories; however, it fails to create an authentically queer space. As a result, I found that the queer spaces in Boystown were always moving or shutting down.
I couldn’t help but compare Boystown to social preservation. Boystown is becoming increasingly more popular amongst outsiders (heterosexual population) and this inherently pushes out the locals (homosexual population) or forces the locals to find refuge elsewhere. I align the heterosexual population going “on safari” to Boystown with the social preservationists. These visitors do not necessarily change the space but would much rather share the space with the locals in order to create authentic experiences. The homosexual population who frequently visit Boystown, the “old-timers” are used for the benefit of the social preservationists. Similar to a lot of other cities and neighborhoods that undergo social preservation, Boystown is not being preserved. Some bars and clubs in Boystown are marketing toward the outsider population (straight women) and providing the “safari” experience.
I have yet to come to conclusion if authenticity can exist within temporality. Throughout the semester we have discussed communities existing virtually and temporarily. For example, gaming communities are both virtual and temporal. Authenticity may not have to be associated with a physical space or a permanent community. Rather, authenticity may exist as more of an abstract concept. The straight women were disturbing the authenticity and originality of Boystown; however, the gay men were able to reproduce an authentic experience wherever they went as long as they were surrounded by people with common interest.
I’m very interested in your discussion of the potentially temporal nature of authenticity, and agree that it is very relevant to discussions of “social preservationists” as well as gentrification more broadly. It is particularly relevant in the context of Brooklynization, which was at the center of one of the Midterm #2 questions. A desire for authentic places and experiences drives Brooklynization in urban spaces nationwide, but ultimately (ironically) seems to result in creating spaces that are less authentic, perhaps trivializing or appropriating aspects of a longstanding place-based culture/identity. Given your discussion of temporarily, however, I’m curious if authenticity is neither absolutely lost nor preserved in these Brooklynized spaces. Is it possible for a group of long-time residents to still experience a space authentically even amid an influx of dissimilar newcomers? How are long-time workers on Portland’s working waterfront unavoidably affected by the dramatic changes in it and surrounding neighborhoods over the past 30 years?