"The ethnic model, by contrast, was committed to establishing gay identity as a legitimate minority group, whose official recognition would secure citizen ship rights for lesbian and gay subjects (61)."
This quote literally blew me away.
I never thought about it like that before. All of this fighting we had been doing has been just to establish ourselves as minority groups under this culture. We didn't destroy the system, we conformed to it, thinking we made a name for ourselves, when in fact all we have been doing is creating another minority under a majority.
This minority, being ruled by certain preconceived notions of the definitions of gay and lesbian aren't perfect in themselves either. We don't take into account the many different sexual and erotic subcategories of gay and lesbian, and we just want to throw everything into one of these two labels.
In the end, we are in fact labeling ourselves into categories of gay and lesbian by attaching those labels to everyone who identifies as "queer," and I think Jagose is telling us to step away from these notions and look deeper into these preconceived "labels" for the future, where we can hopefully become the strong, community we've always intended to be.
On this note that Daniel brings up, I have always wondered at how many people say they want equality but create a disjunction within their own cultures, at times. For example and on a personal experience level (so take it with a grain of salt), I used to view the LGBTQAA... community as this all inclusive peoples advocating for the rights of sexual freedoms (within reason). Yes. I was naive. Since then, I've come across a lot of surprising opposition to the idea of 'bi'. It's like the B in that label (don't you love that?) doesn't even exist sometimes. I've come across people, gay, trans, who have actually denied me my right to be attracted to people in general. That I'm "undecided". The basic connection I am trying to note is that everyone creates labels but it doesn't always meet the goal it was meant to and I believe that this article made a beautiful argument for the fluidity of identity and the problem with such labels.
It was also interesting that, on page 38, there was a note of identity as a weapon. "COMING OUT- for yourself so you won't be subjected to anti-homosexual acts against yourself...", as a way to fortify yourself and to create a way to build equality. Turning an aspect of yourself into a pride-induced article of armor takes away a weapon of shame from another party. It was just a pleasant thought in passing that I liked.
Laura I think you bring up a great point about how we often "create disjunction within our own culture", while loudly and openly proclaiming our need for equality and acceptance.I think that alot of our innate want and longing to feel apart of and belong to a community or safety net larger than ourselves often causes us to alienate others in order to feel closer to the ones that fit our own definitions of what the "us vs them" should look like. We try to lump ourselves into different categories that often rely on similar shared experiences. This need to conform and pool together goes back to the quotation on 61 which illustrates our desire as an entire community to be apart of the larger one. If we can end this desire, we'll be better able to accept each other for our differences which I believe will increase our acceptance from those outsides our imaginary drawn lines.
I believe during our class discussions of Giovanni's Room, the question came up several times of "What was Baldwin trying to accomplish with his work?" I feel like this reading has helped clarify it some (at least to me). "Among certain sections of the homosexual community in the late 1960s there was a growing dissatisfaction about the quietist position assumed by many groups dedicated to improving conditions for homosexuals" (page 30). While I would by no means argue David was seeking to improve conditions for homosexuals, he was struggling to resist certain labels with which he was not comfortable. Indeed, he spent the entire novel living his double life in the shadows only reaching some semblance of peace in the end. I'd like to include my concluding paragraph of my Paper 2 essay I wrote on Giovanni's Room here: "James Baldwin makes extensive use of the gaze in Giovanni’s Room. When used as a means of nonverbal communication, much more information is exchanged between characters than what is simply being said. David’s tragic flaw however is his inability to use this tool to his advantage. Between his frequent moves to avoid meeting another character’s eyes and his refusal to look into himself, he is left detached from not only his potential community but from himself as well. By portraying David in such a manner, Baldwin creates a queer man that resonates through the ages – one who is isolated by the shame he feels. While such men can still be found trying to dodge the queer community today, Baldwin was writing during a time of “a distinct change in the temper and tempo of the gay movement” (Gittings 1:12:24). A growing sense of militancy in the queer community was gathering in the attempt to affect social change. By crafting such a character as David with all his faults and shortcomings, Baldwin casts a lighted gaze on a particular subset of the queer community that could most benefit from stepping out of the shadows and joining the fight for equality all the while illustrating the tragic end awaiting those who refuse." I guess the point I am trying to make here is the importance of the text as a precursor to the homophile and gay liberation movements. Perhaps the only thing worse than settling for a label that does not quite fit is not accepting one at all.
I think that when you try to break something down and formulate certain ideas, you're forced to pull from outside sources whether that be; stuff you've read, learned, grew up with or discovered, and you try to make sense of something. However, in the process of whatever it is you're trying to discover, some of your evidence and work tend to contradict each other and then you find yourself removing the information you don't want inorder to "better" what ever it is you're arguing or fighting for. I see this a lot in society too and I think within the reading, this was present. I saw a lot of movements, organization and bitternes between people, sexuality, and the government and so many different organizations and political movements are arguing for different freedoms and it turns into a bigger argument and different people are pulling from different aspects and there can only be "one" definite answer because thats what were searching for right? Within the reading, For example, whether bisexuality is considered a "real" sexuality or if children have a sexuality and or a right to sexual agency,the list goes on and and it breaks down to who's right and who's wrong and who has the power to determine who's right and who's wrong.
The chapter on Gay Liberation was the one that resounded most strongly in my mind after I finished the reading. It led to much dwelling after the reading. If only for the sheer reason that my mind was blown by the difference between the homophile movement and gay liberationists. Before the reading, I assumed that these two sub cultures were the same organizations that just had multiple names. After reading though, I began to draw strong parallels to other minority parties that I had never even considered before. Yes, I knew that homosexuality is a minority just as much as any other ethnicity or race. But I didn't realize that there was disagreement within the community as much as there was in said minority groups. I related the homophile vs. gay liberation movement to (get ready for the obvious) the difference between passive resistance and aggressive resistance in the civil rights movement. The reading was clear in stating that homophiles were more for assimilation and acceptance, whereas gay liberationists were pushing more for recognition of the gay community as it is. This compares ridiculously strongly to Martin Luther King wanting only equality for blacks whereas Black Panthers wanted to be recognized as the superior race. By no means were the gay liberationalists close to that sort of arrogance or violence, but ultimately it's a matter of wanting to either blend in with the majority or wanting to be supported, respected, and wanted as a minority.
I thought it was interesting that a number of people in class today were opposed to "labeling", as though it were some inherently dangerous thing. To me, language and communication is, in its basest components, just a tool, and so is terminology. In their denotation, words are just an attempt to share complex feelings and ideas, and to make associations, in an easily communicable way. This is why the term "homosexual" rather than "gay" or "lesbian" doesn't bother me. By definition, it simply means someone attracted to the same sex - it's only when people begin to ascribe connotative values to it that "homosexual" may become problematic. Although "labeling" may have its limitations, that does not mean it lacks value or is not an important part of how we determine our affiliations within ourselves or with those around us. I don't think that there's anything wrong with saying "I'm gay" if that is a label that you feel accurately describes the way you perceive yourself, but I also don't feel that there's anything wrong with pointing out that gay does not fully encompass how you feel, and is thus inaccurate for you, personally.
Labeling yourself in a particular way can be empowering, factually informative, and facilitate interactions between groups of people. Therefore, I don't that think eradicating terminology or "labeling" is a necessary step in gay liberation, I think it's more just a matter of dissolving the stigma associated with particular terms. Culture that eliminated "labels" as a whole simply due to points of contentions would be homogenized in a way that borders on Orwellian newspeak territory.
Again, this "gay liberation" focuses on aggressive approach to fight for the common cause for lesbians and gay. I think the central idea of the reading was that," in order to liberate homosexuality, gay liberation was committed to eradicating fixed notions of femininity and masculinity" I think this sums up what we talked about during class. This act of labeling ourselves such as tall, short, skinny, fat, woman and man tend to apply only around physical appearance. However, our psychological state is more intricate and differentiated than our mere bodily looks. For example, being gay is not necessarily associated with man dressing up as woman and chasing after man and vice versa. There are other many people who like cisgenders as opposed to transgenders or those of different genders and don't act like women. I think in this sense being gay is more of consciousness and ideological. I believe the author is asserting that this gay liberation is to overthrow the system of labeling ourselves and, "produce a world in which all social and sensual relationships will be gay and in which homo- and heterosexual will be incomprehensible terms." This is pretty strong suggestion in that gay liberation completely dismantles kind of natural order of woman and man and created a new society where gender doesn't exist but separate individuals do. I understand where this strong emotional statement comes, which is primarily due to how gay people were subjected to discrimination and modern-day witchhunt, But, as long as human spices roam this planet, heterosexual people will be the dominant group to subjugate minorities like gay and lesbian. I think both parties of gay and 'normal' people need to find the common ground to establish some sort of rules to go by and respect each other. However, as it is in humans nature, we will always label each other, and queer people will fight the same fight as feminists and civil rights activists did in the past.
"The ethnic model, by contrast, was committed to establishing gay identity as a legitimate minority group, whose official recognition would secure citizen ship rights for lesbian and gay subjects (61)."
ReplyDeleteThis quote literally blew me away.
I never thought about it like that before. All of this fighting we had been doing has been just to establish ourselves as minority groups under this culture. We didn't destroy the system, we conformed to it, thinking we made a name for ourselves, when in fact all we have been doing is creating another minority under a majority.
This minority, being ruled by certain preconceived notions of the definitions of gay and lesbian aren't perfect in themselves either. We don't take into account the many different sexual and erotic subcategories of gay and lesbian, and we just want to throw everything into one of these two labels.
In the end, we are in fact labeling ourselves into categories of gay and lesbian by attaching those labels to everyone who identifies as "queer," and I think Jagose is telling us to step away from these notions and look deeper into these preconceived "labels" for the future, where we can hopefully become the strong, community we've always intended to be.
On this note that Daniel brings up, I have always wondered at how many people say they want equality but create a disjunction within their own cultures, at times. For example and on a personal experience level (so take it with a grain of salt), I used to view the LGBTQAA... community as this all inclusive peoples advocating for the rights of sexual freedoms (within reason). Yes. I was naive. Since then, I've come across a lot of surprising opposition to the idea of 'bi'. It's like the B in that label (don't you love that?) doesn't even exist sometimes. I've come across people, gay, trans, who have actually denied me my right to be attracted to people in general. That I'm "undecided". The basic connection I am trying to note is that everyone creates labels but it doesn't always meet the goal it was meant to and I believe that this article made a beautiful argument for the fluidity of identity and the problem with such labels.
ReplyDeleteIt was also interesting that, on page 38, there was a note of identity as a weapon. "COMING OUT- for yourself so you won't be subjected to anti-homosexual acts against yourself...", as a way to fortify yourself and to create a way to build equality. Turning an aspect of yourself into a pride-induced article of armor takes away a weapon of shame from another party. It was just a pleasant thought in passing that I liked.
Laura I think you bring up a great point about how we often "create disjunction within our own culture", while loudly and openly proclaiming our need for equality and acceptance.I think that alot of our innate want and longing to feel apart of and belong to a community or safety net larger than ourselves often causes us to alienate others in order to feel closer to the ones that fit our own definitions of what the "us vs them" should look like. We try to lump ourselves into different categories that often rely on similar shared experiences. This need to conform and pool together goes back to the quotation on 61 which illustrates our desire as an entire community to be apart of the larger one. If we can end this desire, we'll be better able to accept each other for our differences which I believe will increase our acceptance from those outsides our imaginary drawn lines.
ReplyDeleteI believe during our class discussions of Giovanni's Room, the question came up several times of "What was Baldwin trying to accomplish with his work?" I feel like this reading has helped clarify it some (at least to me).
ReplyDelete"Among certain sections of the homosexual community in the late 1960s there was a growing dissatisfaction about the quietist position assumed by many groups dedicated to improving conditions for homosexuals" (page 30). While I would by no means argue David was seeking to improve conditions for homosexuals, he was struggling to resist certain labels with which he was not comfortable. Indeed, he spent the entire novel living his double life in the shadows only reaching some semblance of peace in the end. I'd like to include my concluding paragraph of my Paper 2 essay I wrote on Giovanni's Room here:
"James Baldwin makes extensive use of the gaze in Giovanni’s Room. When used as a means of nonverbal communication, much more information is exchanged between characters than what is simply being said. David’s tragic flaw however is his inability to use this tool to his advantage. Between his frequent moves to avoid meeting another character’s eyes and his refusal to look into himself, he is left detached from not only his potential community but from himself as well. By portraying David in such a manner, Baldwin creates a queer man that resonates through the ages – one who is isolated by the shame he feels. While such men can still be found trying to dodge the queer community today, Baldwin was writing during a time of “a distinct change in the temper and tempo of the gay movement” (Gittings 1:12:24). A growing sense of militancy in the queer community was gathering in the attempt to affect social change. By crafting such a character as David with all his faults and shortcomings, Baldwin casts a lighted gaze on a particular subset of the queer community that could most benefit from stepping out of the shadows and joining the fight for equality all the while illustrating the tragic end awaiting those who refuse." I guess the point I am trying to make here is the importance of the text as a precursor to the homophile and gay liberation movements. Perhaps the only thing worse than settling for a label that does not quite fit is not accepting one at all.
I think that when you try to break something down and formulate certain ideas, you're forced to pull from outside sources whether that be; stuff you've read, learned, grew up with or discovered, and you try to make sense of something. However, in the process of whatever it is you're trying to discover, some of your evidence and work tend to contradict each other and then you find yourself removing the information you don't want inorder to "better" what ever it is you're arguing or fighting for. I see this a lot in society too and I think within the reading, this was present. I saw a lot of movements, organization and bitternes between people, sexuality, and the government and so many different organizations and political movements are arguing for different freedoms and it turns into a bigger argument and different people are pulling from different aspects and there can only be "one" definite answer because thats what were searching for right? Within the reading, For example, whether bisexuality is considered a "real" sexuality or if children have a sexuality and or a right to sexual agency,the list goes on and and it breaks down to who's right and who's wrong and who has the power to determine who's right and who's wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe chapter on Gay Liberation was the one that resounded most strongly in my mind after I finished the reading. It led to much dwelling after the reading. If only for the sheer reason that my mind was blown by the difference between the homophile movement and gay liberationists. Before the reading, I assumed that these two sub cultures were the same organizations that just had multiple names. After reading though, I began to draw strong parallels to other minority parties that I had never even considered before. Yes, I knew that homosexuality is a minority just as much as any other ethnicity or race. But I didn't realize that there was disagreement within the community as much as there was in said minority groups. I related the homophile vs. gay liberation movement to (get ready for the obvious) the difference between passive resistance and aggressive resistance in the civil rights movement. The reading was clear in stating that homophiles were more for assimilation and acceptance, whereas gay liberationists were pushing more for recognition of the gay community as it is. This compares ridiculously strongly to Martin Luther King wanting only equality for blacks whereas Black Panthers wanted to be recognized as the superior race. By no means were the gay liberationalists close to that sort of arrogance or violence, but ultimately it's a matter of wanting to either blend in with the majority or wanting to be supported, respected, and wanted as a minority.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that a number of people in class today were opposed to "labeling", as though it were some inherently dangerous thing. To me, language and communication is, in its basest components, just a tool, and so is terminology. In their denotation, words are just an attempt to share complex feelings and ideas, and to make associations, in an easily communicable way. This is why the term "homosexual" rather than "gay" or "lesbian" doesn't bother me. By definition, it simply means someone attracted to the same sex - it's only when people begin to ascribe connotative values to it that "homosexual" may become problematic. Although "labeling" may have its limitations, that does not mean it lacks value or is not an important part of how we determine our affiliations within ourselves or with those around us. I don't think that there's anything wrong with saying "I'm gay" if that is a label that you feel accurately describes the way you perceive yourself, but I also don't feel that there's anything wrong with pointing out that gay does not fully encompass how you feel, and is thus inaccurate for you, personally.
ReplyDeleteLabeling yourself in a particular way can be empowering, factually informative, and facilitate interactions between groups of people. Therefore, I don't that think eradicating terminology or "labeling" is a necessary step in gay liberation, I think it's more just a matter of dissolving the stigma associated with particular terms. Culture that eliminated "labels" as a whole simply due to points of contentions would be homogenized in a way that borders on Orwellian newspeak territory.
Again, this "gay liberation" focuses on aggressive approach to fight for the common cause for lesbians and gay. I think the central idea of the reading was that," in order to liberate homosexuality, gay liberation was committed to eradicating fixed notions of femininity and masculinity" I think this sums up what we talked about during class. This act of labeling ourselves such as tall, short, skinny, fat, woman and man tend to apply only around physical appearance. However, our psychological state is more intricate and differentiated than our mere bodily looks. For example, being gay is not necessarily associated with man dressing up as woman and chasing after man and vice versa. There are other many people who like cisgenders as opposed to transgenders or those of different genders and don't act like women. I think in this sense being gay is more of consciousness and ideological. I believe the author is asserting that this gay liberation is to overthrow the system of labeling ourselves and, "produce a world in which all social and sensual relationships will be gay and in which homo- and heterosexual will be incomprehensible terms." This is pretty strong suggestion in that gay liberation completely dismantles kind of natural order of woman and man and created a new society where gender doesn't exist but separate individuals do. I understand where this strong emotional statement comes, which is primarily due to how gay people were subjected to discrimination and modern-day witchhunt, But, as long as human spices roam this planet, heterosexual people will be the dominant group to subjugate minorities like gay and lesbian. I think both parties of gay and 'normal' people need to find the common ground to establish some sort of rules to go by and respect each other. However, as it is in humans nature, we will always label each other, and queer people will fight the same fight as feminists and civil rights activists did in the past.
ReplyDelete