First of all, thanks to everybody who presented this
week. It was all really interesting and
informative. I wanted to talk a little
bit about the presentation on Sartre because I thought the concept of the
anti-Semite creating the Jew was particularly interesting. The group also asked us if we thought that
could be translated to the racist creating the Negro, and the general consensus
seemed to be, yes, it makes sense that the racist would also create the
Negro. It made me wonder if that could
also be extended to the homosexual. Is
it the heterosexual who creates the homosexual?
Again, not speaking of the homosexual in the specific but in the general
sense, it seems possible that heterosexuality defines itself in opposition to
homosexuality for the purpose of creating and maintaining the privileges that
go along with the heterosexual identity category.
All of these categories encompass groups of people who
existed in some form or another before they were placed into boxes where
stereotypes and extremely limiting definitions made them “identifiable” to
others. That is, Judaism is an ancient
tradition, variation in skin color and physical appearance has existed
(almost?) as long as we have, and variation in sexual preference and practice
is certainly nothing new. Yet all of
these things have, at some point or another, become identity categories that
signify much more than what might be expected.
Further, these identity categories shift with the needs and wants of the
majority culture over time, although some stereotypes and certain pieces of a
definition might remain. We’ve seen this
in the shifting understanding of race and it’s also clear in the history of the
persecution of Jewish people and differently, of homosexuals or those who
practice alternative sexualities or gender performances.
If the anti-semite, the racist, and the heterosexist or
homophobe hold the power to create the identity category, can those who are
meant to embody that category destroy it? After all, the Jew, the Negro, and the
homosexual are necessary for their counterparts to continue to claim hold of
their superiority and privilege. They
are essential to the definition of their counterparts, which has to hold some
kind of power. Fanon talks about
straddling the line between “Nothingness and Infinity” in his rejection of the
definition and objectification imposed on him. There is a chance that through his refusal to accept the "amputation" of objectification he will become invisible but also a chance that he will become so incredibly free. To give some kind of concrete example of revealing the cracks in the
strategies of oppression, we talked about drag in class for a moment. There is power in drag, in its ability to
reveal the performance of gender, the falseness of the created identity
categories. There is further power in
androgyny and its defiance of categories of both gender and sexuality. What do y’all think about the ways to subvert
the definitions and categories created and perpetuated for the means of
oppressing others? If we constantly reveal these constructions of identity categories and social norms as just that, constructions, can we destroy them?
Shit, Sarah, I thought you might know.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Sartre, the process of liberation comes about when the proletariat destroys the existing class structure. He envisions a sort-of utopia where each individual becomes an unhyphenated human being. (So, from African-human to simply human, or Jewish-human to simply human.) Of course, we have to ask ourselves a few questions: First, does a monochratic society really seem ideal, given that such a society would more than likely efface a historical, social, and perhaps religious reality that many people value in. Second, when we talk about race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexuality as being constructions, what do we in fact mean? Clearly, each of these categories contains a social reality grounded in performance, cultural products, language, history, and, especially with certain marginalized groups, a common inter-subjective consciousness of perpetual oppression and diasporic-depression (I use this term merely to point out, for the Jewish and African populations in particular, the impact displacement has upon notions of genealogy, history, and identity). What, then, would pointing them out as constructions really do? Clearly, it would raise a certain awareness of the ways in which they are reinforced, ossified, and naturalized. For some, like Fanon, this realization comes as a relief. Clearly though, with Sartre too, Fanon has a brilliant mind, a wonderful education, and a sense of self-worth grounded in his accomplishments as a student, an academic, a doctor, a soldier and a revolutionary. He has successfully thought his way out of the category of blackness while also recognizing the ways in which society still interpellates him. You could ask this of the white-collared proletariat as well: how does the reality of the construction of blackness, or white-ness, or nation-hood stand to support those who lack these privileges, who need in someway this pseudo-real ground to stand on? In both of these examples, with the poor white and black, their obdurateness comes from an unsteady situation made so by the absence of a solid financial situation. I could not agree with you more that these categories damage both binaries involved. When the homosexual is made by the heterosexual, the heterosexual also makes the heterosexual. Concomitant with this incipient, prohibitive, abject sexual identity comes a new role, full of restrictions, for the 'straight' person. For this reason among others, I'm hesitant to support gay marriage indivisibly. The concept of marriage reifies an object-based notion of sexuality that cordons off all other manifestations of desire, literally making them other, invisible. At this moment, queer sexualities, or simply object-based Gay sexual identities, stand synechochally for a whole horizon of un-acknoweldge, under-valued, and wonderful (depending on your preference) forms of erotic desire. It scares me that marriage, which is first and foremost a social and political relationship, should be the precipice for gaining sexual freedom, literally the symbol for acceptances of benign sexual variation. The political and revolutionary power of Gay politics stems from its perceived subversiveness. It seems to me that gay-marriage is just another way of hegemony co-opting that power.
Sarah these are all really interesting and important questions. Reading your post, I remembered a quote from Simone de Beauvoir, "it is in the knowledge of the genuine conditions of our lives that we must draw our strength to live and our reasons for acting." By pointing out the social constructions you refer to, hopefully people would become more aware of the fact that they are socially constructed and therefore are grounded in human made perceptions and what they have become are in no way their essence. Heightened awareness of this kind would ideally make people see that just as they were constructed, they can be destroyed. However, this is the ideal because like Tim says above, these examples are ways of hegemony co-opting power. During the presentation on Thursday, I was reminded of our presentation on the book "The Colonizer and The Colonized." The same questions you ask in your post can apply there as well. The ultimate question is, what happens to both groups when the construction falls?
ReplyDeleteI think there is an interesting parallel between the anti-semite/Jew relationship and the heterosexual/homosexual relationship. The concept of a non-normative sexual identity did not begin until urbanization in the late 1800's/early 1900's. The homosexual could only be defined by a negation of the heterosexual. But theorists argue that it isn't necessarily in that order: perhaps the heterosexuals define themselves by saying "Well we are not homosexual." The interesting parallel, I think, is that each of these identities rely very heavily on their 'other'. Without a gay identity, a straight identity would not make sense, and without the Jew, the anti-semite would not make sense.
ReplyDeleteAs far as whether we can destroy these, I think that we are getting closer in progressive circles. The idea of sexuality as a fluidity has gained a lot of traction recently, especially in academia.
As Andrea noted, homosexuality as non-normative did not develop until fairly late within global history. For a very long time, homosexual relationships were actually a very normal part of daily life, seen as compatible with not in opposition to heterosexual relationships within marriage. Some of the earliest foundational, leaders who have become national icons such as Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt flirted the line between what we see today as "normal" sexual behavior. The ways in which masculinity has been redefined over the years within America alone is a testament to the fact of its socio-politial construction. Restricting homosexual behavior as non-normative and defining its norms in opposition to that of heterosexual masculinity has led to the imposition of equally rigid roles for both categories involved. Unveiling these types of binary categories as arbitrary constructs is, in my opinion, crucial for their eventual destruction. However, I am not sure if simply calling for this recognition of social construction will be enough... I am curious as Esha as to what would happen when these constructions fail, but more importantly I find myself wondering, how much further do we have to go? What more can we do to realize this fall?
ReplyDelete