It is not my habit to use words like "love" or "respect" when I do work in queer theory. The theory's academic grounding makes such things difficult. It is with humanity that I address these topics now, for without this project, I am lost. My theoretical mental space, when denied heart, is not full. It does not in essence come from me, rather, it is merely a rough tracing of my true intention.
My intention is to imagine community, relatibility, a sense of identity, and an ideal world constituted through love and respect. This will take place on three levels. First, I will outline a project of the care of the self, not a prescriptive, self-help work-it-out-for-yourself care, but as a general understanding that a full self cannot function lovingly and respectfully until care is given to the self. Secondly, this care will translate to our relationships, how we relate and care for each other with love and respect. Thirdly, I will transform this care into a sense of radical community.
Pain
We continue to hear it, some every day, some every moment. Some of us say it to ourselves. "Faggot." It has the power to unsettle, to disrupt, to force us into conformity. It may call to mind a flood of painful memories of violence and exclusion. We might recall when we have used it to negate, abase, or to hide. It is a word of unquestionable power. Its cultural visibility, its profile, its clout all seem to be current.
I start here to consider for a moment how one might care for himself in light of such an oppressive force, which may stand for violence, but which certainly stands for exclusion, and voices the strictness of gender and polices the norm of heterosexual sexuality. The implied recipient of such a word may or may not participate in any of the implied practices of faggotry, but he may all the same be damaged by the word's use.
In light of the word's profuse existence, it would be unreasonable to suggest that we can ignore it, "take it with a grain of salt" - care of the self incorporates the circumstances of the environment with the goal of love and respect for the self. Showing love and respect for agents of change and resisters of oppression is easy. Showing love and respect for the agents of hate and oppression is difficult. It must be done. Homophobia comes from many places, and many of those places are not the ground of hate. Misunderstanding, a lack of exposure, closets, replication of normative behavior, fear, and memory, not to mention a complex web of these factors as well as too many more to list all are at the root of homophobia. While the product of homophobia in the use of a word is hate, it does not follow that hateful people promulgate hate. It is rather a system, set in a current location, that reproduces the language and outcomes of hate. I refuse to believe that the victims of homophobia (i.e. everyone) are the target of a discrete group of hateful people. Every time we are complicit in the acceptance of hateful language, we agree in some sense to the proliferation of hate. This is not always a choice. The threat of violence, or other things that create deeper scars (alienation from family, exclusion, loss of jobs and loved ones) always stand as barriers from speaking out against hateful language.
We are, however, often in a position to risk a certain loss or exclusion that will be recoverable. What is at stake on one hand is an uncomfortable situation, a look, forms of social criticism, or reputational concerns, but on the other hand, at stake is our radical freedom. I don't believe that I could make the choice any clearer. When we experience inexplicable moments of strength, we must be opportunists for the sake of our freedom. When we are weak and afraid, we must stand in quiet, even clandesdine support of our brothers who can fight, who are strong. Self care is self knowledge. We can learn when and why we experience our own strength, and this knowledge is powerful. We will know how to prepare for the necessary confrontation for the sake of our freedom.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Some Critics of Queer
A brief overview of the arguments against queer. I have used Jagose for the summary, and have made additional comments.
Jagose, Annamarie. Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York: NYU Press, 1996.
Destabilization
Susan J. Wolfe and Julia Penelope note that queer works to generalize marginal sexual identities. Their particular fear is that lesbian identity, which had previously been marginalized in the feminist movement, would be co-opted by the use of queer, another strategy using lofty, poststructuralist theory to disguise while patriarchal hegemony. Other critics lament the disappearance of identities (chiefly lesbian and gay) whose legitimacy has not yet been realized or appreciated (i.e. Terry Castle, 1993). In some cases, critics understand the importance and usefulness of queer in the gay and lesbian studies discouse, but express the fear that it has come at the wrong time. These critics are working in the early '90s, and while their criticism reads today as somewhat reactionary, a critical analysis of queerness continues to seem relevant for some specific reasons I will list:
- National gay and lesbian strategies rely an the stability of these two categories (gay and lesbian) to advance the agenda of "equal rights." Queerness upsets the apparent unproblematic representation of classes of people for whom equality is desired.
- Queer has a self-marginalizing effect, and its use as a title for discourse engenders exclusionary theoretical practice, both as opponents say within the myriad queer subjects, and from other critical theorists, other types of scholarship, and certainly from mainstream or popular discourse.
- Of particular interest to me in this endeavor is the way queer makes people feel. Assuming that its radicalism is a part of its functionality, the discourse may exclude people that have not yet come to terms with other identities such as lesbian, gay, trans, bi, etc. In lieu of a pervasive societal homophobia, perhaps queer upsets the wrong boundaries.
The Gay Generation Gap
A simple explanation offered as to the reasons one might contest queer comes from the very relevant observation that queer is the buzz word, and even perhaps the hope of a new generation. It follows that memories of the slanderous use of the word exclude previous generations, for whom again the terms is offensive and conjures up the pain of coming to age in sexual silence, perhaps encountering solidarity through a disease epidemic, and having to have previously fought for the legitimacy of "gay" or "lesbian" identity. Only time will (has) show(n) the degree to which this critique will hold.
- As a member of this so-called new queer generation, I think it is important to continue to evaluate the term and its uses. This is one reason I'm interested in faggot. Its negative effects are still palpable in my mind. I still react emotionally and physically to its utterance.
Political Utility
In an era of "gay marriage," the political utility of queer is an important criticism. Fighting for queer rights or engaging in a queer agenda again linguistically constructs queer as other in a potentially damning way. There is also perhaps no subject of queerness, and therefore it may be difficult (in a discourse of rights) to identify the subject of these rights.
- As a counter to the political utility argument, I might suggest that the burgeoning list of identifying acronyms is equally cumbersome and may delegitimize the core for whom they represent.
Naming Strategies
From within the world that might certainly find the most comfort in queer, the critical theorists, comes the criticism that queer is useful because it shifts the focus of discourse from the subject to politics, a move that fosters a certain anonymity of the subject. Queer functions, then, purely as a discourse, and it becomes difficult to claim such a thing as queer rights. It certainly becomes almost impossible to define a queer community or a queer politics as doing so fixes a center to something that is constructed to be dynamic.
Jagose, Annamarie. Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York: NYU Press, 1996.
Destabilization
Susan J. Wolfe and Julia Penelope note that queer works to generalize marginal sexual identities. Their particular fear is that lesbian identity, which had previously been marginalized in the feminist movement, would be co-opted by the use of queer, another strategy using lofty, poststructuralist theory to disguise while patriarchal hegemony. Other critics lament the disappearance of identities (chiefly lesbian and gay) whose legitimacy has not yet been realized or appreciated (i.e. Terry Castle, 1993). In some cases, critics understand the importance and usefulness of queer in the gay and lesbian studies discouse, but express the fear that it has come at the wrong time. These critics are working in the early '90s, and while their criticism reads today as somewhat reactionary, a critical analysis of queerness continues to seem relevant for some specific reasons I will list:
- National gay and lesbian strategies rely an the stability of these two categories (gay and lesbian) to advance the agenda of "equal rights." Queerness upsets the apparent unproblematic representation of classes of people for whom equality is desired.
- Queer has a self-marginalizing effect, and its use as a title for discourse engenders exclusionary theoretical practice, both as opponents say within the myriad queer subjects, and from other critical theorists, other types of scholarship, and certainly from mainstream or popular discourse.
- Of particular interest to me in this endeavor is the way queer makes people feel. Assuming that its radicalism is a part of its functionality, the discourse may exclude people that have not yet come to terms with other identities such as lesbian, gay, trans, bi, etc. In lieu of a pervasive societal homophobia, perhaps queer upsets the wrong boundaries.
The Gay Generation Gap
A simple explanation offered as to the reasons one might contest queer comes from the very relevant observation that queer is the buzz word, and even perhaps the hope of a new generation. It follows that memories of the slanderous use of the word exclude previous generations, for whom again the terms is offensive and conjures up the pain of coming to age in sexual silence, perhaps encountering solidarity through a disease epidemic, and having to have previously fought for the legitimacy of "gay" or "lesbian" identity. Only time will (has) show(n) the degree to which this critique will hold.
- As a member of this so-called new queer generation, I think it is important to continue to evaluate the term and its uses. This is one reason I'm interested in faggot. Its negative effects are still palpable in my mind. I still react emotionally and physically to its utterance.
Political Utility
In an era of "gay marriage," the political utility of queer is an important criticism. Fighting for queer rights or engaging in a queer agenda again linguistically constructs queer as other in a potentially damning way. There is also perhaps no subject of queerness, and therefore it may be difficult (in a discourse of rights) to identify the subject of these rights.
- As a counter to the political utility argument, I might suggest that the burgeoning list of identifying acronyms is equally cumbersome and may delegitimize the core for whom they represent.
Naming Strategies
From within the world that might certainly find the most comfort in queer, the critical theorists, comes the criticism that queer is useful because it shifts the focus of discourse from the subject to politics, a move that fosters a certain anonymity of the subject. Queer functions, then, purely as a discourse, and it becomes difficult to claim such a thing as queer rights. It certainly becomes almost impossible to define a queer community or a queer politics as doing so fixes a center to something that is constructed to be dynamic.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Power, the Mainstream Media, and Faggot
I read Details magazine cover to cover while I was traveling over the break. The January edition profiled the top 50 most powerful people, ideas, and institutions of 2007. Can you guess which loaded word made the top 10?
9 // The Other F-word
Age: Forever young
If you take a look back, it appears that 2007 was the year of the F-word—but not the one you’re thinking of. America’s rent-a-quote harridan of hatred, Ann Coulter, used the word to slag presidential candidate John Edwards. Presidential candidate Bill Richardson used the Spanish version (maricón) to slam a guy on the Don Imus radio show. Controversy exploded after Isaiah Washington allegedly dropped the F-bomb on a fellow cast member of Grey’s Anatomy. It’s a word that anyone who ever spent time in an American school yard is familiar with: faggot. But some bullies grow up, get famous, and keep on using it. “I hate gay people,” blurted former basketball star Tim Hardaway. Tucker Carlson bragged about having given a dude who tried to tap toes with him in a men’s room a taste of his bow-tied brutality (“I . . . hit him against the stall with his head, actually”). Hmmm. The word faggot, it seems, is on the tips of a lot of men’s tongues. They can’t stop thinking about it. Without it they’d be lost, and that makes you wonder who really has the power.
The full list can be found here.
When a magazine for men (writ large) notices the import and significance of this word, are we encountering the potential for discourse or the all-too likely reconstitution of its power position? It's worth a thought. Apparently this word is more powerful than the Iraq war veterans who are currently speaking out against the war. Accuse them of being faggots, and their credibility goes out the window.
9 // The Other F-word
Age: Forever young
If you take a look back, it appears that 2007 was the year of the F-word—but not the one you’re thinking of. America’s rent-a-quote harridan of hatred, Ann Coulter, used the word to slag presidential candidate John Edwards. Presidential candidate Bill Richardson used the Spanish version (maricón) to slam a guy on the Don Imus radio show. Controversy exploded after Isaiah Washington allegedly dropped the F-bomb on a fellow cast member of Grey’s Anatomy. It’s a word that anyone who ever spent time in an American school yard is familiar with: faggot. But some bullies grow up, get famous, and keep on using it. “I hate gay people,” blurted former basketball star Tim Hardaway. Tucker Carlson bragged about having given a dude who tried to tap toes with him in a men’s room a taste of his bow-tied brutality (“I . . . hit him against the stall with his head, actually”). Hmmm. The word faggot, it seems, is on the tips of a lot of men’s tongues. They can’t stop thinking about it. Without it they’d be lost, and that makes you wonder who really has the power.
The full list can be found here.
When a magazine for men (writ large) notices the import and significance of this word, are we encountering the potential for discourse or the all-too likely reconstitution of its power position? It's worth a thought. Apparently this word is more powerful than the Iraq war veterans who are currently speaking out against the war. Accuse them of being faggots, and their credibility goes out the window.
Faggot
The purpose of this blog is to practice theoretical writing that avoids the loftiness for which I'm well known. I will be crass, base, hopefully a little offensive, and I will include other media such as videos, images, and references to other blogs and websites.
Melissa and I are doing work on Queer as theory, practice and politics. The inquiry has lead me to start meditations on faggot - is there a theory, practice and politics of faggotry? In my experience, the answer is yes. Faggot practice, for instance, is the insistence on non-normative masculine gender performance, as well as transgressive sexual (we don't need to get too specific) practice - acting like a faggot. The politics of faggotry is in our insistence to be represented without the liberal strategy of downplaying or demeaning our behavior. At the same time, the political faggot resists being codified in his behavior. Effeminate gay men on television are not faggots. They are characatures of our ideal constitution - weak, unimportant, comical, useless. The political faggot insists on his legitimate representation. The theory of faggotry will be my next project. It may borrow from the theory of Queer, although it may stand to counter it.
Melissa and I are doing work on Queer as theory, practice and politics. The inquiry has lead me to start meditations on faggot - is there a theory, practice and politics of faggotry? In my experience, the answer is yes. Faggot practice, for instance, is the insistence on non-normative masculine gender performance, as well as transgressive sexual (we don't need to get too specific) practice - acting like a faggot. The politics of faggotry is in our insistence to be represented without the liberal strategy of downplaying or demeaning our behavior. At the same time, the political faggot resists being codified in his behavior. Effeminate gay men on television are not faggots. They are characatures of our ideal constitution - weak, unimportant, comical, useless. The political faggot insists on his legitimate representation. The theory of faggotry will be my next project. It may borrow from the theory of Queer, although it may stand to counter it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
