In his book The Trouble With Normal, Michael Warner has a lot to say about the politics of sex and shame. Warner says our culture's inability to cope with queer identities and behaviors has led to stigmatization, internalization, and eventual adherence to a restricted vision of normalcy. The process is explained in terms of a gay man who feels embarrassment in his sexuality, in his personal sex acts, and recognizes that "this stigma is something he does not deserve by his actions." He therefore "finds in the behavior of others in his group the real cause of his own stigma." In other words, the stigma absorbed by a dominating ideology is so influential that an individual who recognizes independently this ideology's oppressive mechanisms on his or herself is unable to perceive those mechanisms operating against members of their same social group. In fact, this individual may even be responsible for other verbal/intellectual harms committed against others. This is justified, at least unconsciously, by the individual's belief that the reason they are suffering this stigma is because the actions of others in the group are both warranting and deserving of this stigma. It's almost funny how easy it becomes to absolve yourself of the same behaviors for which you are demonizing others.
We are guilty of being hypocritical at times, and maybe a lot of the times, but the concerns of queer identities and behaviors are politicized by our culture's understanding of sex and what is and isn't shameable, and this makes hypocrisy, particularly the hypocrisy floating through queer communities, much more weighted, much more substantial than when it is typically just annoying. It appears that in order to avoid shame, then, individuals who are operate in the realm of abnormal must make a choice. The most clear of their options is to curtail who they are entirely, or in the very least arguably crucial aspects of their identity, in order to adhere to what their culture's dominating conception of normal looks like. This looks like abandoning defining traits of queerness; for Warner this probably means ditching homosexual, polyamorous, nonprocreative, casual, public, wild intercourse for something that resembles a heterosexual, monogamous, procreative, committed, private, vanilla relationship. These "abnormal" sexual practices created the opportunity for stigma, as the dominating cultural ideology accepted relationships embodying the second list of qualities as more valuable, respectable, mature, etc. Queerness was associated with all of these "abnormal" sexual practices, so much so that in order to attain cultural equality the majority of those definable as queer began to amputate themselves to better fit into the normal mold.
Thus, as more queers begin to challenge society for access to normalcy, it became easier and easier for them to recognize behaviors warranting stigma and shame in others, regardless of what social group they belonged to. Years after the publishing of Warner's book, I still notice the rhetoric stigmatized individuals employ against other stigmatized individuals. Literally, a little over a year ago, I even wrote an article about it, called Nobody Likes a Gay Guy, Especially Other Gay Guys. (I can't believe I'm about to quote myself, but here it goes.) In this article, I suggested that gay men I encountered online and in person who described who they were by demeaning others ("straight acting" or "masc for masc" or "no femmes") had internalized societal homophobia and were attempting to distance themselves from the stigmas surrounding homosexuality by posturing themselves as masculine, normal men. It was my understanding then, and now, that identifying as "straight-acting" was indicative of a(n) (un)conscious idea that homosexuality was less valuable, less deserving dignity and respect, than heterosexuality. I wrote, "you are telling boys everywhere, boys like you, and boys like me, that you consider a very large facet of their identity - and your identity - to be unacceptable. You are telling boys who have grown out of their shame that you are still living in yours."
It was confusing to me that people who identified openly as homosexual were attempting to garner more respect and equality from others by acting in ways that are - at least rigidly - opposite. Whenever I encountered someone who was "straight-acting" I recognized how postured they were; how much effort they put into looking, walking, talking, acting, appearing as straight. Everything for them was conscious and forced, which was a direct contrast to the more effeminate gay men I knew, who described themselves as having "always" been that way. Adherence to dominating notions of normal appeared to me as a form of self-amputation. So many people cut off bits of who they were to reduce the amount of shame they felt, to undermine the stigmatizing forces they encountered. But Audre Lorde reminds us, "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." Many people have written that, in the wake of marriage equality, there remains little work to be done in terms of LGBTQ+ rights. There are others who suggest the opposite. Regardless of what one believes, it stands that the struggle for marriage equality was fueled largely, if not entirely, by queer self-amputation, by adherence to standards of normalcy that are in themselves biased and unbalanced. In many ways, as Warner argues, the fight for marriage equality was less about equality and more about the smothering of queer identities under a large, monogamous, procreative, committed, private, vanilla, heteronormative, and (often white) foot. Worse, this struggle nearly extinguished other efforts for LGBTQ+ individuals that Warner argues deserve much more attention, so much so that now many believe there is no more stigma, that the war is over, that there is no more dismantling of the master's house to be done. With empty toolboxes, we must develop more intricate ethics to tackle growing issues, such as HIV and health care, media coverage, immigration, antigay violence, AIDS prevention, repeal of sodomy laws, gender inequality, etc. We can turn to someone like Warner who suggests, "one's task in the face of unpredicted variations is to recognize the dignity in each person's way of surviving ... to recognize that dignity in this context need not be purchased at the high cost of conformity or self-amputation."
No comments:
Post a Comment