An interesting idea, Mr. Self, and one which I would normally be happy to get on board with. Unfortunately, I fall into the group of people who do know something - however little - about Foucault. In case you've not read Dorian: An Imitation, then I will explain what I'm talking about: it is, in its most basic terms, a rewriting of Oscar Wilde's infamous The Picture of Dorian Gray. Anyone unaware of the homoerotic subtext of that novel should probably stop reading now. Good. Taken as a given that you're aware of the story, I'm just going to ramble about queer theory for a while, and why I think Foucault would be spinning in his grave if he could see the gay community as they stand. Please be aware that for the purposes of simplicity I will be using the term gay community; if my plan is at all followed then I will explain why it is problematic, and thus italicised - but if I ramble too much or forget what I was going to say then at least you know that I do not believe the term gay community has any validity in 21st-century life. Good-o.
So, yeah, some context. Having recently read, and then studied, some queer theory I started to note a trending thought. First off, just for accessibility, queer theory is basically the appropriation of a derogatory slur for a basis of critiquing and criticising literary texts and works (as well as broad societal trends). Having read around queer theory for a couple of months it wasn't until today that some more of the pertinent critics were pointed out to me (in the form of a lecture). These, I think, are the more interesting ideas which have developed since the creation of, as coined by Foucault, the 'homosexual species'. Basically, towards the end of the 19th Century we suddenly made a conscious decision to categorise homosexual acts as creating a homosexual person. Previous to this sodomy was merely a facet of life: practised by many, and accepted by most -- the 'homosexual' as an identity didn't really exist until we started proscribing characteristics (which were the precursors to stereotypes) towards this section of society. It was then when we vested meaning behind the action that we started to develop prejudices, slurs, and began to make the association between décadence and homosexuality. Context is fun. Lectures are fun.
Prevalent among the gay community is the thought that 'we are homosexuals. Homosexuals is what we are, how we are, who we are.' I have always strongly opposed this view, arguing that in fact homosexuality is just a tiny facet of self; and thus have been increasingly unpopular among the more vociferous of my gay friends. They think that my argument trivialises the hardship that a minority faces, and particularly their minority. They also seem to think that I'm a bit of a self-hating queen, and that I view homosexuality as laughable. None of these things are true, but I cannot be bothered to justify what - to me - seems self-evident. Hopefully with the argument I'm laying out here it will become clear precisely why I think the way I do.
So with the creation of the 'homosexual identity' also came the thought that homosexuality was an identity. Well, no, it wasn't: it was an enforced label. Anyone at home with labelling theory? Me neither, but apparently it exists. Judith Butler, in Gender Trouble, argues that gender identity is inverted when analysed: that homosexuality is a set of acts and behaviours which demonstrate how a person exists in society, but doesn't define who they are. My lecturer today suggested that she is saying 'gender is performative'. Seems like a reasonable assertion to make, non? I mean, I'm struggling to think of a counter-argument against that. She, just the same as I, is not suggesting that we consciously decide to act in a certain way, but that these are simply that: acts. Seems like a wonderful suggestion, and has some fairly obvious real-world examples. If we accept that gender is not an inherent characteristic, then we could start to identify why such things as transgenderism exist. Please note, as well, that I'm not confusing gender and sex. We are talking about gender roles. Good. Anyway, further on from this - and taken again from today's lecture - is Sedgwick's view that "homosociality [bromance]... [is] actually on a continuum with homosexuality; heterosexual and homosexual desires [are] not opposed." That would go down atrociously within the gay community, I can imagine. Again, however, I agree with what they're saying.
Further on from this, as well, is Michel Foucault's idea that the creation of the "homosexual species" was a good thing. He suggests that as soon as a group of peoples are identified and categorised then they can start a resistance. Seems reasonable, again.
Now that I've parroted the views of a few people I will just tell you where I stand: I agree with all three of them. I think there are people who put too much value on an intrinsic sexuality, and it's not something that can be justifiably done. I would go further than Foucault, however, and suggest that the biggest obstacle - and thus reasoning behind contemporary queer theory - is the gay community themselves. Whilst there was an adoption of the view that if people invert the slur, they have a platform on which to launch an assault - there is a confusion of ideology. People have taken the identity to mean a person as a single, and it should be used as a collective. It's silly to use it as a grounding for launching revolution, and then continue to put so much emphasis behind it yourself. It says 'Look at us. We are a collective group, with individual voices, trying to fight for good. But also, we have no cohesive thought on homosexuality and continue to invest more meaning behind it than it deserves. Your bigotry makes a mockery of our identity.' Nope, it doesn't. The biggest obstacle is you, my friends. Further on from this is the idea argument which pervades Will Self's Dorian: An Imitation; that 'gay culture' (or 'gay community') is a problematic term -- that it is essentialist propaganda and misappropriated use of words. It doesn't make any sense, basically. I agree, I don't understand what gay community means -- and I have often been on the receiving end of vitriolic comments because of my usage of it. It's separatist isolationism, with a plea for inclusion, from a non-cohesive body: 'Look at us. We are defined by our sexuality, but in the meantime you shouldn't refer to us as such.' Makes no fucking sense. I want a total dissolution of the idea of 'gay community', but I also want said community to stop being hypocrites. We are people, we are not sexualities. It's not a difficult concept as far as I am concerned.
Blah. I basically just wanted to talk about the people I had been taught about. It wasn't meant to be quite so... lecture-y, nor did I intend to pretend that a lot of the views were opinions I had thought up by myself. Full credit goes to the three critics I mentioned, to whom I would owe the foundation of my opinions. I merely wanted... idk, people to be aware of why I get so irritated with gay people sometimes. It's so... unnecessary.
Bleh. Oh well. Weekend. Woo.
P.S. "You said you want to fix this; I'd rather burn these bridges..." ♥♥♥♥♥
No comments:
Post a Comment