This essay was originally written for an English Literature course at CCAC. I examine queerness in the poetry of Walt Whitman and Langston Hughes, focusing on how both writers used coded language and ambiguity to express queer identity. I also look at how race, social expectations, and public perception shaped the different risks each writer faced when making that identity visible.

Queerness in the Poetry of Hughes and Whitman

Throughout American history, and even today, queer people have not been allowed to exist in public as their authentic selves. Historical and classic American literature provide firsthand accounts of real people—queer people—in a heterosexual society. I will focus on two great American authors, Walt Whitman and Langston Hughes. I will also be using the term “queer” as an umbrella term for LGBTQ+, and to describe what is not heteronormative. Whitman and Hughes both became major American literary voices while also writing under pressure not to make queerness too plainly visible. But the conditions around them were not the same: Whitman could often hide queer affection inside nineteenth-century ideas of comradeship and masculine friendship, while Hughes wrote under the added pressures of race, police surveillance, and respectability politics. With much of their work comes the question: who gets to exist and be seen in public space as they are; how does the cost of being seen change depending on who is being seen, and what dangers are attached to that reading? With visibility comes interpretation, and visibility means losing control over how one’s identity is recognized. Both Whitman and Hughes had to encode their queer identities within their work, for both similar and different reasons. Whitman used acceptable public language to make queer identity visibile without naming it outright. Hughes was more subtle, as he used ambiguity and coded public spaces to protect queer identity from dangerous interpretation. Walt Whitman and Langston Hughes write under this condition, encoding their intentions and building poems that survive being read two ways at once—plain and harmless to the public that would punish them, while fully legible to readers who share what they are (Beckerman; Vogel).

Public visibility means losing control over how one’s identity is interpreted. For the purpose of my argument, I am defining “public space” as any room or space where someone can read you. Anything from published poetry to the classroom to the whole world. A poem can also become a public space because once it is published, the writer no longer controls who reads it or what they think they see. A poem becomes a place where private identity is exposed to public interpretation. A sympathetic reader might recognize hidden queer feeling, while a hostile reader might turn that same feeling into accusation, obscenity, or moral danger. This is why visibility by itself is not the whole problem. The real danger begins when visibility becomes interpretation, because interpretation gives other people power to name the person being seen.

Once an identity enters a public space, it is up for interpretation. Other people can read it, name it, and decide what they think it means (“Queer Theory”). That reading becomes dangerous when interpretation turns identity into a public category: “friend,” “comrade,” “sodomite,” “degenerate,” “criminal,” “threat,” “national poet,” or “respectable Black writer” (Beckerman; Strauss; Darling; Vogel). The danger of visibility is not equal for everyone, because some identities are already treated as dangerous before queerness is even recognized.

Visibility sounds positive at first, especially from a modern perspective where “being seen” is often treated as empowerment. But for Whitman and Hughes, visibility is unstable. The problem is that once queer identity becomes apparent, it enters someone else’s vocabulary. A sympathetic reader may see love, intimacy, or recognition, but a hostile reader may see obscenity, criminality, or degeneracy. That gap between what the writer means and what the public decides it means is where the danger is.

In Whitman’s world, affection between white men could sometimes pass as ordinary masculine friendship, giving his queer expression a degree of cover. Hughes, however, wrote from a position where race, sexuality, public space, and respectability all collided. As a Black man, he was already subject to racial scrutiny, and any suggestion of queer or interracial intimacy carried risks Whitman did not face in the same way. Whitman could hide queerness inside acceptable white male comradeship; Hughes had to write from inside overlapping dangers (Strauss; Darling).

Walt Whitman (1819–1892) is one of America’s major classic poets, and the same themes that made his work feel so American—including the body, comradeship, democracy, and belonging—are also where his queer identity becomes visible (Beckerman). Whitman uses language his public audience can read without immediately treating it as sexual, obscene, criminal, or threatening, while still letting queer identity appear through ideas like comradeship, friendship, brotherhood, and male affection. In Whitman’s poetry, queer identity is presented as sacred, joyful, bodily, national, and alive. The danger comes from public interpretation, where intimacy between men could become an accusation of sodomy, sin, crime, or obscenity.

Whitman uses “comrade” as a public-facing word in part because modern gay identity language was not available to him in the same way. The term “homosexual” was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1868, but during the following decades, doctors and sexologists increasingly classified same-sex desire as a medical or psychological abnormality (Beckerman; American Psychological Association). This newer vocabulary gave the public another way to identify, categorize, and pathologize queer people. On the surface, it can come off as platonic male friendship. But in Whitman’s poetry, it also lets him recognize men who share his queer identity without naming that identity outright. In “In Paths Untrodden” and “Whoever You Are Holding Me Now in Hand,” the word “comrade” lets Whitman suggest queer recognition while still using a term his public audience could read as friendship or male fellowship. The word “comrade” holds plausible deniability because it can mean friendship, brotherhood, democracy, or national belonging. Beckerman explains that Whitman’s poems worked for two audiences at once: queer readers could recognize the meaning, while “civilian” readers could read the same lines as harmless male friendship. Whitman even leaned on the deniability himself, calling the homosexual reading of “Calamus” “disavowed by me and seem damnable” (“Walt Whitman and Queer Theory”).

“In Paths Untrodden” makes that coded identity feel private, chosen, and separate from ordinary public life. Whitman places the speaker on a path that is not commonly traveled. He is not describing identity as something safely accepted by the public; he is describing it as something that has to move away from the main road. When he refers to the “secret of my nights and days,” the secrecy is not just about one hidden feeling. It suggests that this identity belongs to his whole life, even though it still cannot be openly named in public. That makes the poem feel like a quiet coming-out without the safety of actually coming out. Near the end of the poem, Whitman says, “I proceed for all who are or have been young men, / To tell the secret of my nights and days, / To celebrate the need of comrades.” Whitman can celebrate his “need of comrades,” but he has to do it in language that can still pass as friendship or brotherhood. Whitman does not describe comradeship as casual friendship or social preference; he calls it a need. That word makes the feeling emotional and necessary. He is not simply saying that he enjoys male friendship; he is saying that this connection is part of what lets him live honestly. At the same time, “comrades” gives him cover because it can still sound public, masculine, democratic, and nonsexual. That double meaning is exactly why the line works. Whitman can confess the intensity of his attachment to men without using language that would force hostile readers to name it as queer desire. The need is visible, but the exact nature of the need remains protected.

This is not abstract in Whitman’s poetry. Again and again, he turns comradeship into physical gestures, especially hands, holding, and touch. If “comrades” gives him a public word for queer attachment, then hands give him a public image for it. Touch lets Whitman make male intimacy visible without making it too easily punishable, because hand-holding could still be explained as friendship even when the emotional charge underneath is much stronger. Hands are a recurring theme within Whitman’s work, and hands and touch work the same way: two men holding hands was not automatically abnormal during Whitman’s time. Whitman could make queer recognition physically visible while still keeping it protected because of what society deemed acceptable. “A Glimpse” is the clearest example of this because the hand-holding happens in a barroom-like social space, where private intimacy is visible but can still be read as ordinary male affection.

The setting of “A Glimpse” is in public, but subtle. Whitman does not describe a dramatic confession or an openly sexual scene. Instead, the emotional center of the poem is small: a young man comes near him and holds his hand. That smallness is part of the protection. To an ordinary public reader, this can remain a sentimental image of male friendship. To a queer reader, though, the gesture carries more weight because the hand-holding is chosen, secretive, and emotionally charged. The moment is brief, but it gives Whitman exactly what his public world usually denies him: a visible sign of queer attachment that does not have to announce itself as queer.

“A Hand to Hold Under the Table” connects this kind of touch to Pfaff’s beer cellar and to Sedgwick’s idea of a continuum between homosocial friendship and homosexuality, whlich helps explain why the gesture can hold both meanings at once. Poems like “Of the Terrible Doubt of Appearances” and “Whoever You Are Holding Me Now in Hand” use hands, holding, and touch in a similar way, as signs of physical intimacy that can pass as friendship but still suggest queer connection. Beckerman supports this double reading by pointing to the hand-holding in “A Glimpse” as the kind of line that reached gay readers personally while remaining easy for “civilian” readers to miss.

But that plausible deniability is not equally available to everyone—it also depends on race. Whitman can use hand-holding, comradeship, and male affection as cover because he is writing about white men. A hand held between two white men could be explained away as ordinary friendship or comradeship. A hand held between a white person and a Black man would not be read the same way, because race would change what the public thought it was seeing. This is why Whitman’s whiteness is significant. His queer expression is still risky, but it has more cover because white male closeness could be treated as innocuous, respectable, and socially acceptable.

“Whoever You Are Holding Me Now in Hand” pushes Whitman’s hand imagery further because the poem makes reading feel like physical contact. The reader is not just looking at Whitman from a distance; the title imagines the reader holding him “in hand.” This turns the poem itself into a public space where intimacy and interpretation happen at the same time. Whitman wants to be recognized, but recognition is risky because the wrong reader can misunderstand, expose, or condemn him. The poem asks for closeness while also warning that closeness is dangerous. This fits the larger pattern of “Calamus,” where queer identity can appear only through language that survives being read two ways at once: as ordinary male affection for the public, and as queer recognition for the reader who understands him. Whitman makes this problem clear when he tells the reader, “I am not what you supposed, but far different.” The line turns interpretation into a direct issue. The reader thinks they know what they are holding, but Whitman warns that his public image does not fully match his private truth.

“We Two Boys Together Clinging” is possibly Whitman’s most explicit poem about sex between men. The line “Up and down the roads going, North and South excursions making” works on a literal level as travel imagery, but it is easy to read as a sexual innuendo for kissing and oral sex. Whitman then follows it with “Power enjoying, elbows stretching, fingers clutching, / Arm’d and fearless, eating, drinking, sleeping, loving,” which makes the bodily pleasure much harder to explain away as ordinary comradeship. The movement and loving all point toward an openly physical relationship, so although the poem still leaves a thin literal reading available, it is barely hiding what the two men are doing.

Whitman’s poems show queer identity trying to become visible inside language that the public could still accept. Words like “comrade,” images of hands, and scenes of male closeness let him write queerness into public poetry without naming it in a way that would make it immediately punishable. His strategy depends on double meaning: the same line can look like friendship to one reader and queer recognition to another. Whitman’s poetry creates a public space where queer identity can appear, but only by hiding inside forms of affection that nineteenth-century readers could explain away.

Langston Hughes (1902–1967) was one of the most important writers of the Harlem Renaissance and became known for poetry that centered Black American life, music, language, and culture. He was also writing under pressure to represent Black identity respectably within a racist society, which made any suggestion of queer identity especially risky. Unlike Whitman, Hughes could not rely on white male friendship as an easy source of plausible deniability. His Blackness already made him subject to public scrutiny, and queer visibility added another danger to that scrutiny. Hughes therefore uses ambiguity and coded public spaces to protect queer identity from dangerous interpretation. In “Café: 3 A.M.,” “Port Town,” “Boy,” and “Desire,” queer meaning appears through atmosphere, setting, suggestion, and uncertainty instead of direct statement. This lets the poems create space for queer recognition without making that recognition fully available to hostile outsiders.

“Café: 3 A.M.” depicts queer identity existing in public under surveillance. The title already identifies the café as a queer space because New York clubs had to close at 2 A.M. A café still open at 3 A.M. was therefore an illegal afterhours venue, and those afterhours venues were where queer nightlife continued after the city’s legal nightlife had ended. The title tells the reader what kind of place this is before Hughes even mentions “fairies” or a “lesbian.” The people inside are not simply queer people who happen to be in a café late at night; they are part of a queer social world that could only exist after ordinary public life had shut down. Shane Vogel explains that these afterhours spaces allowed queer people to gather, recognize one another, and form community outside the hours and spaces controlled by respectable society. That freedom was still dangerous because the same illegal status that made the space possible also made it vulnerable to police surveillance. The vice squad is there because the café is open after legal closing time and is known as part of queer nightlife. “3 A.M.” therefore establishes the poem’s central conflict immediately: queer people can be visible to one another in this space, but that visibility also makes them targets.

Hughes then confirms what the title has already suggested: the vice squad is “spotting fairies,” and the poem later names a possible “lesbian.” The poem begins in a recognizably queer world, and the police enter that world already looking for people to identify and punish. Through this setting, Hughes is not showing queer identity hidden completely away from the world. He is showing queer people in a shared public space where visibility is possible, but dangerous. The police do not see community, intimacy, or belonging; they see “fairies” and “degenerates.” Understanding these labels is important because identification is the step that turns a person into a target. Once the police decide what someone is, that label can be used to harass, arrest, shame, or expose them. Hughes also shows that misidentification is dangerous because the police do not have to be right to cause harm. The ending—“Police lady or Lesbian / over there? / Where?”—makes identity hard to sort. Someone could be queer, undercover, mistaken for queer, or mistaken for police. That uncertainty matters because the police are not responding to anyone’s full, actual identity; they are responding to what they think they see. A queer person can be punished for being recognized, but a cisgender heterosexual person can also be punished if the police misread them as queer. Hughes shows that the danger is not identity itself, but the power of hostile people to turn their interpretation into punishment. The final “Where?” breaks the authority of the watcher. The vice squad enters the poem believing it has the power to identify people, but the poem ends with uncertainty instead of exposure. Nobody is fully pinned down. The possible lesbian may also be a policewoman, or the policewoman may be mistaken for someone inside the queer crowd. The people who are supposed to be watched are also watching back. That reversal protects the café because the poem refuses to let the police gaze become the final truth.

“Port Town,” “Boy,” and “Desire” can be read together as a coded queer story arc: “Port Town” stages the encounter, “Boy” gives the beloved figure shape through recognition and love, and “Desire” shows the fragile aftermath of intimacy. I am not claiming that Hughes intentionally wrote the poems as a literal sequence, but reading them together shows how a queer story can exist without appearing plainly on the surface.

In “Port Town,” Hughes begins with encounter. The poem takes place in a temporary public space where people arrive, leave, and meet without being fully known. The speaker can call out to the “sailor boy” directly while still staying partly hidden. The lines “Come with me,” “Come here, I love you,” and “Come and be mine” sound openly intimate, but Hughes never clearly identifies the speaker’s gender. A public reader can assume the speaker is a woman and read the poem as an ordinary port-town seduction, but the poem does not actually require that assumption. That uncertainty creates the queer possibility.

“Boy” moves from encounter into recognition by giving the beloved figure emotional weight. Hughes describes him through mythological figures: Ariel, Puck, Bacchus, and Pan. Those references make the boy feel playful, beautiful, disruptive, sensual, and difficult to categorize. He is not described in plain romantic language, but the speaker’s attention clearly lingers on him. The poem notices his body, his energy, and his refusal to behave respectably. When the boy says he would “rather be a sinner” and “go to hell,” the poem rejects the idea that goodness means fitting into society’s approved categories. That line lets the beloved figure choose his own identity, even if the public would condemn him for it.

“Desire” carries the arc into the aftermath of intimacy, where the connection has happened or nearly happened, but still feels fragile because it cannot safely settle into plain language. The poem describes desire as “a double death,” which makes the intimacy feel intense and endangered at the same time. On one level, the phrase suggests the overwhelming feeling of physical closeness, where two people briefly lose themselves in each other. But “double death” also suggests that this kind of intimacy carries risk for both people involved. The “unknown strange perfume” disappears quickly, which makes the moment feel beautiful but temporary, almost impossible to hold onto. Hughes does not turn the scene into a clear confession. Instead, he uses compressed, mysterious language to show intimacy that is real but unstable, present for a moment and then gone.

“I, Too” widens the Hughes section from coded queer identity to public identity more broadly. The poem is not mainly about queerness, but it is about who gets to be seen as part of America and who gets pushed out of public view. The speaker is sent away from the table, but he does not disappear or accept that exclusion as permanent. Instead, he insists that he is also part of the nation, even when the people around him refuse to recognize him that way. This is relevant to my argument because Hughes’s queer coding happens inside a larger problem of visibility, interpretation, and belonging. As a Black writer, Hughes was already writing under a public gaze that tried to decide what kind of person he was allowed to be. His queer identity adds another layer to that pressure, but it is not separate from the racial one. “I, Too” helps show why Hughes’s poems have to be so careful: public recognition can be powerful, but it can also become dangerous when the public controls the meaning of what it sees.

Hughes’s poems show a more pressured version of the same problem. His queer meanings do not usually appear through open declaration, but through atmosphere, setting, uncertainty, and code. In “Café: 3 A.M.,” queer identity exists in public but under the threat of police interpretation. In “Port Town,” “Boy,” and “Desire,” queer intimacy appears through temporary spaces, uncertain speakers, mythological language, and compressed emotion. Hughes’s ambiguity is not emptiness or avoidance. It is the method that lets identity survive. His poems make room for queer recognition while protecting that recognition from people who would turn it into shame, crime, or punishment. For Hughes, being visible means being vulnerable to being read wrong, so his poetry keeps queer identity present but difficult to capture.

Later American writers make the queer lineage in earlier literature more visible by directly returning to Walt Whitman as a figure of queer inheritance. In Allen Ginsberg’s “A Supermarket in California,” Whitman is directly addressed in a modern setting, closing the distance between nineteenth-century poetry and twentieth-century queer experience. This direct address signals that Whitman is no longer only a canonical literary figure, but someone later writers can recognize as part of a queer tradition that persists across time. Ginsberg’s invocation of Whitman shows how queer meaning in earlier literature can become newly legible to later writers, even when it was originally forced into indirect or coded forms of expression (Beckerman; Walt Whitman and Queer Theory).

Bryan Washington’s Memorial extends this by presenting queer relationships in a more openly articulated form than earlier American literary moments allowed. Where Whitman and Hughes often rely on coded language shaped by social pressure and interpretive risk, Washington’s work reflects a later literary environment in which queer identity can be stated more directly, even while still being shaped by family dynamics, race, and social expectation (Zaidawi et al.; Darling). This shift does not eliminate constraint, but it changes the way constraint operates, moving from strict encoding toward more explicit representation that still remains vulnerable to interpretation.

Akwaeke Emezi’s The Death of Vivek Oji expands this pattern beyond American context while still reinforcing the central argument about visibility and risk. In this novel, queer identity is subject to misunderstanding, erasure, shame, and cultural misrecognition. The work demonstrates that even as queer visibility increases across time and geography, it continues to be filtered through the limits of how communities interpret gender and desire (Zaidawi et al.; Vogel). Across Ginsberg, Washington, and Emezi, queer literature shows a consistent movement toward greater visibility, but never toward a state where visibility is free from danger or misreading.

These later writers show why Whitman and Hughes still matter to American literature. Ginsberg can speak to Whitman more directly, and writers like Washington and Emezi can present queer identity with more openness than Whitman or Hughes safely could. But the basic problem does not disappear. Queer identity may be easier to name in later literature, but it is still shaped by who is watching, who is judging, and what consequences come from being seen. These works show that queer visibility changes over time, but it does not stop being risky. Later writers may be able to name queerness more openly, but they still return to the same question Whitman and Hughes were working through: what happens when private identity becomes publicly readable?

Walt Whitman and Langston Hughes show that queer identity in American literature has often had to survive through double meanings. Their poems do not simply hide queerness; they reveal the conditions that made hiding necessary. Whitman uses comradeship, touch, and male affection to make queer identity visible inside language his public audience could still explain away. Hughes uses ambiguity, nightlife spaces, and compressed emotion to protect queer identity from being turned into shame, crime, or public danger. Their strategies differ because the risks surrounding them differ. Whitman’s whiteness and the nineteenth-century acceptance of close male friendship gave him more room to make queer affection visible, while Hughes wrote under the combined pressure of racism, police surveillance, respectability politics, and increasingly recognizable categories of sexual deviance. Both writers, however, understood the same basic danger: once identity enters public space, other people gain the power to interpret it, name it, misread it, and use that interpretation against the person being seen.

Their poetry responds by turning the poem itself into a different kind of public space. Inside it, queer identity can become visible without becoming fully available to everyone. A hostile reader may see friendship, mythology, nightlife, or an ordinary romantic encounter, while a queer reader may recognize affection, desire, fear, and belonging underneath. That double reading is not evidence that queer meaning is absent. It is the method that allowed queer experience to be preserved at all. Later writers may be able to name queerness more openly, but visibility is not the same as understanding, safety, or control. Whitman and Hughes therefore leave readers with more than a historical record of concealed identity. They force us to consider our own role in interpretation: whether we recognize people as they understand themselves, or turn what we see into another category imposed upon them. Their poems survived because they could not be captured by only one reading, and within that refusal to be fully captured, queer identity remains present, recognizable, and alive.

Works Cited

American Psychological Association. “Discrimination Against Homosexuals.” American Psychological Association, http://www.apa.org/about/policy/discrimination.

Beckerman, Jim. “Walt Whitman Is Our National Poet, and a Gay Icon.” North Jersey Record, 22 Apr. 2019, http://www.northjersey.com/story/entertainment/2019/04/22/walt-whitman-200-one-worlds-great-gay-literary-icons/3429639002/.

Botoman, Eleonor. “A Hand to Hold Under the Table: Tracing Whitman’s Homosexuality.” Academia.edu, 2020.

Darling, Harper-Hugo. “Langston Hughes.” Making Queer History, 3 June 2016, makingqueerhistory.com/articles/2016/12/20/langston-hughes-the-poet.

Emezi, Akwaeke. The Death of Vivek Oji. Riverhead Books, 2020.

Ginsberg, Allen. “A Supermarket in California.” Howl and Other Poems, City Lights Books, 1956, pp. 29–30.

Hughes, Langston. “Boy.” The Collected Poems of Langston Hughes, edited by Arnold Rampersad and David Roessel, Vintage Books, 1994.

—. “Café: 3 A.M.” The Collected Poems of Langston Hughes, edited by Arnold Rampersad and David Roessel, Vintage Books, 1994, p. 406.

—. “Desire.” The Collected Poems of Langston Hughes, edited by Arnold Rampersad and David Roessel, Vintage Books, 1994.

—. “I, Too.” The Collected Poems of Langston Hughes, edited by Arnold Rampersad and David Roessel, Vintage Books, 1994.

—. “Port Town.” The Collected Poems of Langston Hughes, edited by Arnold Rampersad and David Roessel, Vintage Books, 1994.

Strauss, Dean. “Walt Whitman.” Making Queer History, 31 Oct. 2020, makingqueerhistory.com/articles/2020/11/2/walt-whitman.

Vogel, Shane. “Closing Time: Langston Hughes and the Queer Poetics of Harlem Nightlife.” Criticism, vol. 48, no. 3, summer 2006, pp. 397–425.

“Walt Whitman and Queer Theory.” Nineteenth-Century Literature Criticism, Gale, 2023. Gale Literature Resource Center.

Washington, Bryan. Memorial. Riverhead Books, 2020.

Whitman, Walt. “A Glimpse.” Leaves of Grass, 1891–92 ed., The Walt Whitman Archive, whitmanarchive.org.

—. “In Paths Untrodden.” Leaves of Grass, 1891–92 ed., The Walt Whitman Archive, whitmanarchive.org.

—. “Of the Terrible Doubt of Appearances.” Leaves of Grass, 1891–92 ed., The Walt Whitman Archive, whitmanarchive.org.

—. “We Two Boys Together Clinging.” Leaves of Grass, 1891–92 ed., The Walt Whitman Archive, whitmanarchive.org.

—. “Whoever You Are Holding Me Now in Hand.” Leaves of Grass, 1891–92 ed., The Walt Whitman Archive, whitmanarchive.org.

Zaidawi, Issa Radhi, et al. “Encoded Desires: Langston Hughes’ Gay Poetics as Social Subversion in the Harlem Renaissance.” Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, vol. 13, no. 3, 2026, pp. 110–27. doi:10.14738/assrj.1303.20128.