I have always loved writing on people's walls on facebook…well not always, but you know what I mean. I think it is funny...but as I thought about it I couldn't but think about how Facebook was inevitably allowing me to do what I had been banned from doing as a child. I was able to write on the wall. Now there are advanced technologies for younger generations where there is a special paint that parent's can buy or special markers that parents can but allowing for their children to write on walls, but when I was growing up there was no such thing. Writing on walls was not allowed because it took hard work or another paint job to remove.
But now, in this world where the "real" and the "cyber" become less distinct, I can't but wonder if that wall that I write on and read is where childhood fantasies come alive, where I can finally write on the walls anything I want to...Is Facebook and its wall all about reliving the things we were stopped from doing as children? I thought so, but then I thought perhaps not
I can write on walls now but it is still sanitized. I am still disciplined from what I write for the wall owner can delete what I say along with the Facebook police deleting what I write because it was "reported". I also don't want to write anything too incriminating because someone else might see it and shit might just hit the fan. Yet, while I can write on walls, I cannot or am not supposed to write on my own wall. It is still uncool to write on one's own wall...perhaps because it is bad to deface one's own property not someone else's since well, you would have to clean up the mess if it was your own wall?
Yet, as Facebook has “evolved” or some might say “devolved” this has changed for we can now comment on our own wall…BUT, that comment is not literally on our own wall, it is on the cyber-wall constructed by an other on our “pages” wall. We comment on their wall posting on our wall…making the walls rather precarious for whose wall is whose and when? We still are not supposed to “write” on our own walls. We can write “what’s on our mind” but we cannot “write on our own wall” which one sees if one looks at one’s own profile and then an “others”. I can write on your wall…but I can only write what’s on my mind…not on my wall…
Perhaps after all this…we are still unable to fulfill our childhood fantasies…as we can only ever write on someone else’s wall, never fully capable of transgressing the taboo of writing on the walls of one’s own…our fantasies still barred from surfacing to “reality”?
Monday, May 18, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
The Humanizing Effect of Animals or the Animalizing Effects of Humans?
It was an animal themed day. I watched Oprah for the first time in years and had the (un)fortunate experience of watching X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Oprah was focused on animals, not as simply cuddly and cute creatures but as companions both to humans and to other species. X-Men too was about animals and the struggle between species - human and mutant. In both of these texts, the relationships between human and "other" was rather apparent yet to some extent very different. Oprah's guests, human and animal, illustrated the important relationship between species with one guest noting the emotional reactions and realities of his best friend - a grizzley bear. Animals in this instance are not merely pets...but they are companions capable of interacting on an inter-species level. This is of course not new...humans and animals have been interacting for perhaps all of time, with the advent of domestication altering these relationships to some extent. Yet, what is "new" is perhaps the change from animals as pets to animals as companions. Donna Haraway, feminist philosopher, has most poignantly explored this in her recently published book When Species Meet.
But, my interest is not in re-iterating Haraway - I've but read pieces of this work - and her thoughts underlie this exploration. My interest is in thinking about these two texts and what they perhaps allow us or perhaps just me to think about. X-Men Origins: Wolverine made numerous references to the Logan needing to let out the "animal" (Wolverine) for it is the animal as constructed in the film, that is irrational, blood thristy, without a moral code. The animal in this was not a companion to the human, rather its enemy. The animal side is something that must be fought against and "tamed". This dehumanizing of Logan to become a "killing machine" (animal) is not only seen in films though...but in "real" life whereby prisoners or criminals are called "animals" after they have committed heinous crimes. This of course makes "sense" as framing criminals as "animals" allows for them to be dehumanized - it allows for these humans to become un-human for what they have done and as such be ungreivable...placed in a cell, violated by the state apparatus, and in some instances put to death.
To the second text...Oprah, with the help of Glenn Close, showed a new program called puppies behind bars where inmates train service dogs for returning veterans suffering from traumatic brain injury. The inmates discussed how the puppies allowed them to love again, to experience love again since many of their lives were not filled with love, but rather violence. In this curious coupling of dogs (literal animals) with criminals (figural animals), both species found companions - companions that cared for and loved one another in the ways they knew possible. The animal and human merged whereby both species were transformed by one another and transformed one another...
One might argue at first look that the dogs humanized the inmates but that would make the animals "human" or capable of bringing out the "human" in "animals" or the "non-human"...This makes the line between what is human and what is animal rather blurred for while we might "humanize" animals (both literally through "domestication" and figuratively in literature/fairy tales) they simultaneously "humanize" us (i.e. make us "feel" seemingly "human" things). But "humanize" seems problematic since it is a one-way road to "becoming" human and I do not want to make animals human for doing so would deny their difference - creating sameness and would be rather "human-centric". It also would maintain the privlege of the "human" whereby the "animal" is always the Other, the instinctual, non-human other which allows for "us" to violate animals through abuse (i.e. dog fighting) or entertainment (i.e. circuses). What then is an alternative? Can we get out of humanism? When we critically analyze the relationships humans have with other species seeing them not as simply relationships of domination, but of companionship, do we find a path to create space where the human becomes unstable, unable to define itself against the animal AND the animal becomes unstable, unable to be used to define the human? Does this challenge how we engage the issue of when animals attack humans which often positions the animal as something dispensible, a risk to the human...when it is inevitably the human that is a risk for animals? This is of course tricky...navigating the terrain of interspecies meeting as companions would ask us to challenge our fundamental assumptions about being human, being animal, being humane...
I am not sure how to go about such navigation...
But, my interest is not in re-iterating Haraway - I've but read pieces of this work - and her thoughts underlie this exploration. My interest is in thinking about these two texts and what they perhaps allow us or perhaps just me to think about. X-Men Origins: Wolverine made numerous references to the Logan needing to let out the "animal" (Wolverine) for it is the animal as constructed in the film, that is irrational, blood thristy, without a moral code. The animal in this was not a companion to the human, rather its enemy. The animal side is something that must be fought against and "tamed". This dehumanizing of Logan to become a "killing machine" (animal) is not only seen in films though...but in "real" life whereby prisoners or criminals are called "animals" after they have committed heinous crimes. This of course makes "sense" as framing criminals as "animals" allows for them to be dehumanized - it allows for these humans to become un-human for what they have done and as such be ungreivable...placed in a cell, violated by the state apparatus, and in some instances put to death.
To the second text...Oprah, with the help of Glenn Close, showed a new program called puppies behind bars where inmates train service dogs for returning veterans suffering from traumatic brain injury. The inmates discussed how the puppies allowed them to love again, to experience love again since many of their lives were not filled with love, but rather violence. In this curious coupling of dogs (literal animals) with criminals (figural animals), both species found companions - companions that cared for and loved one another in the ways they knew possible. The animal and human merged whereby both species were transformed by one another and transformed one another...
One might argue at first look that the dogs humanized the inmates but that would make the animals "human" or capable of bringing out the "human" in "animals" or the "non-human"...This makes the line between what is human and what is animal rather blurred for while we might "humanize" animals (both literally through "domestication" and figuratively in literature/fairy tales) they simultaneously "humanize" us (i.e. make us "feel" seemingly "human" things). But "humanize" seems problematic since it is a one-way road to "becoming" human and I do not want to make animals human for doing so would deny their difference - creating sameness and would be rather "human-centric". It also would maintain the privlege of the "human" whereby the "animal" is always the Other, the instinctual, non-human other which allows for "us" to violate animals through abuse (i.e. dog fighting) or entertainment (i.e. circuses). What then is an alternative? Can we get out of humanism? When we critically analyze the relationships humans have with other species seeing them not as simply relationships of domination, but of companionship, do we find a path to create space where the human becomes unstable, unable to define itself against the animal AND the animal becomes unstable, unable to be used to define the human? Does this challenge how we engage the issue of when animals attack humans which often positions the animal as something dispensible, a risk to the human...when it is inevitably the human that is a risk for animals? This is of course tricky...navigating the terrain of interspecies meeting as companions would ask us to challenge our fundamental assumptions about being human, being animal, being humane...
I am not sure how to go about such navigation...
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Re-Reading Clothe Wounds
I am currently re-reading Kathryn Bond Stockton's Beautiful Bottom, Beautiful Shame: Where Black Meets Queer. In the text, Stockton is exploring the intersections between black and queer - melding queer studies and black studies through literary texts (i.e. Genet, Morrison, Feinberg). In the first chapter of the text, she examines the notion of clothing, in a sense, as a "second skin". This move is rather intriguing as often, when people compare the state of race and the state of sexuality, the argument is made that one cannot hide their skin color, whereas one can hide their sexuality because it is not worn like skin color. Stockton however argues that perhaps if we examine the notion of clothing, we will see a fascinating intersection - what she terms "switchpoints" - of blackness and queerness. She examines this proposition by examining various texts in which the queer body is understood/defined in part by the clothe that covers the body and how that clothe exposes psychic clothe wounds (Feinberg's butch/femmes, Genet's Querelle).
For instance, Stockton utilizes Feinberg's Stone Butch Blues to illustrate how clothing in the queer community has been something utilized by the homophobic community to ostracize and violate the queer body. Yes, it could be argued that queers could change their clothes and save themselves from assault, but by having to assimilate and change their clothing, these queers are violated - forced to assimilate into a world that has strict clothing restrictions based on gendered norms - restrictions that assault their selves on a psychic level. Of course, as one further explores this, it is perhaps problematic as the clothing of Stockton's examples are "white" bodies, neglecting how queers of color relate to clothe wounds and how clothing operates in different ways in different contexts - relating to class, race, religion, etc.
However, as I re-read this fascinating exposition on psychic cloth wounds, I thought about my own experiences as a (closeted) "gay" youth and as a (out) "gay" young adult, along with my interests in queer theory in education. Clothes are a powerful symbol, a symbol that can illustrate one's economic class, one's fetish for labels, one's desires, etc. But clothes are also raced, gendered, and sexed - as already alluded to. There are social stigmas and stereotypes associated with what we wear everyday. As a youth growing up in the rural Midwest, I tended to wear clothes that labeled me as a "preppy" boy, but also to some a "fag." I spent years, and at times even today, questioning my wardrobe and what it means to wear any particular outfit. How does our clothing, our second skin, portray us to those whose gaze we enter? What does that mean for that gaze when it is the gaze of students? Does it "out" us without having to make a speech act? Does it open us up to violence? Ostracism? Humiliation? Does it allow for the clothed body to play with "identity" and mess with how the gaze of the other can be troubled, confused, questioning "who" is behind the clothes...perhaps eventually realizing there is no "being" behind the clothes...but a "doing", deeds of wearing clothes that create a text of a body to be read?
As I study queer theory more though, these questions become more salient to me, but not from a position of fear, but from a position of performance. How do my clothes perform my "identities" and how do such performances 1) reaffirm the wounds of yesteryear when my second skin caused pain and suffering and 2) overcome those wounds to accept the "shame" that is associated with my second skin, making the psychic wounds livable or making reparations?
But, I cannot think about this solely from an individual perspective because their are queer bodies that do not have the same privileges and opportunities that I have had. The majority of my so called psychic clothe wounds occurred during elementary and high school. Therefore, how do we think about these wounds at the level of education? Do we institute uniforms so everyone conforms, so no psychic wounds because of clothing occurs? Or would "censoring" clothing preference create another psychic wound in which students are not allowed to express their performed identities? What statuses are "privileged" in school uniforms? Are they inherently heteronormative, white, middle class creations? Why do we grant clothing such power in detailing our identities and is our "second skin" that easy to hide in order to hide our sexuality, our queerness? What is the intersection of blackness and queerness in terms of the skin(s) we where? Is an argument against queerness as an oppressed category misinformed by the argument that it can be hidden...when for some, such hiding is nearly impossible and perhaps even deadly?
For instance, Stockton utilizes Feinberg's Stone Butch Blues to illustrate how clothing in the queer community has been something utilized by the homophobic community to ostracize and violate the queer body. Yes, it could be argued that queers could change their clothes and save themselves from assault, but by having to assimilate and change their clothing, these queers are violated - forced to assimilate into a world that has strict clothing restrictions based on gendered norms - restrictions that assault their selves on a psychic level. Of course, as one further explores this, it is perhaps problematic as the clothing of Stockton's examples are "white" bodies, neglecting how queers of color relate to clothe wounds and how clothing operates in different ways in different contexts - relating to class, race, religion, etc.
However, as I re-read this fascinating exposition on psychic cloth wounds, I thought about my own experiences as a (closeted) "gay" youth and as a (out) "gay" young adult, along with my interests in queer theory in education. Clothes are a powerful symbol, a symbol that can illustrate one's economic class, one's fetish for labels, one's desires, etc. But clothes are also raced, gendered, and sexed - as already alluded to. There are social stigmas and stereotypes associated with what we wear everyday. As a youth growing up in the rural Midwest, I tended to wear clothes that labeled me as a "preppy" boy, but also to some a "fag." I spent years, and at times even today, questioning my wardrobe and what it means to wear any particular outfit. How does our clothing, our second skin, portray us to those whose gaze we enter? What does that mean for that gaze when it is the gaze of students? Does it "out" us without having to make a speech act? Does it open us up to violence? Ostracism? Humiliation? Does it allow for the clothed body to play with "identity" and mess with how the gaze of the other can be troubled, confused, questioning "who" is behind the clothes...perhaps eventually realizing there is no "being" behind the clothes...but a "doing", deeds of wearing clothes that create a text of a body to be read?
As I study queer theory more though, these questions become more salient to me, but not from a position of fear, but from a position of performance. How do my clothes perform my "identities" and how do such performances 1) reaffirm the wounds of yesteryear when my second skin caused pain and suffering and 2) overcome those wounds to accept the "shame" that is associated with my second skin, making the psychic wounds livable or making reparations?
But, I cannot think about this solely from an individual perspective because their are queer bodies that do not have the same privileges and opportunities that I have had. The majority of my so called psychic clothe wounds occurred during elementary and high school. Therefore, how do we think about these wounds at the level of education? Do we institute uniforms so everyone conforms, so no psychic wounds because of clothing occurs? Or would "censoring" clothing preference create another psychic wound in which students are not allowed to express their performed identities? What statuses are "privileged" in school uniforms? Are they inherently heteronormative, white, middle class creations? Why do we grant clothing such power in detailing our identities and is our "second skin" that easy to hide in order to hide our sexuality, our queerness? What is the intersection of blackness and queerness in terms of the skin(s) we where? Is an argument against queerness as an oppressed category misinformed by the argument that it can be hidden...when for some, such hiding is nearly impossible and perhaps even deadly?
Monday, May 11, 2009
Fatty, Fatso, Fatass: On Fatness
I enjoy fat kids. In the summer when at the park or beach when all the kids are out playing...I revel in the fat kids...the fat ones that have their shirts off and are in their jiggly splendor but not ashamed of their beautiful fat bodies. I often want to go up to them and jiggle their fatness and tell them no matter what...their fat bodies are beautiful...to always run with their shirts off...and never be ashamed.
Why do I revel in the fat kids? Partially perhaps because I once was a fat kid...but one who was not told that fat was beautiful...but rather told to cover it up. Yet, I grew up and while no longer a "fat" kid, a part of me will always be "fat". In being "fat", I often find myself concerned about the constant discussions about childhood obesity. My concern however is not that kids are obese (although that is a valid concern) but how in focusing on obesity - say in education - it is possible that fat kids are further stigmatized, for it is the fat kid that I would argue is often the legitimate target of abuse. It is no longer acceptable to make fun of the gay kids or the "special ed" kids...but we can still make fun of the fat kid. Now, this making fun may not be blatant name calling, although I imagine it happens often, but rather this making fun comes often in the form of education as we educate that to be healthy one should be "thin"...meaning if one looks down and sees that one is not thin...one is not healthy...one is unhealthy. This occurs beyond education as several airlines charge fatties for an extra seat if they are too large. Some herald this as a good move...yet isn't such a move rather regressive, a bit discriminatory...in that because of your appearance and "width" we can treat you different...call you "fat" by making you pay up to take up two seats? Yes, I have set next to a fat person and yes I have been annoyed...yet, I would prefer not to further stigmatize a person for their fatness...yes, they may be able to do something about it, but then again they might not. Yes, they may be an extra burden on health care...but so are a bunch of other people with different issues.
So, while I recognize that obesity is a problem from a "health" or "medical" perspective...I wonder how in privileging those discourses or frames of living if we simultaneously delegitimate those bodies that we seek to make "thin" or a "healthy" size? Perhaps then this is the tension between prevention and care...as on one side we seek to "prevent" future kids from becoming obese...but in doing so are unable to care for those who ARE obese...finding it, in a sense, ok to "beat up" the fat kid, to make them less than all in the name of health, all in the name of the Child so that the Child will see tomorrow, never realizing that tomorrow is always a day away - as Little Orphan Annie maintains.
Why do I revel in the fat kids? Partially perhaps because I once was a fat kid...but one who was not told that fat was beautiful...but rather told to cover it up. Yet, I grew up and while no longer a "fat" kid, a part of me will always be "fat". In being "fat", I often find myself concerned about the constant discussions about childhood obesity. My concern however is not that kids are obese (although that is a valid concern) but how in focusing on obesity - say in education - it is possible that fat kids are further stigmatized, for it is the fat kid that I would argue is often the legitimate target of abuse. It is no longer acceptable to make fun of the gay kids or the "special ed" kids...but we can still make fun of the fat kid. Now, this making fun may not be blatant name calling, although I imagine it happens often, but rather this making fun comes often in the form of education as we educate that to be healthy one should be "thin"...meaning if one looks down and sees that one is not thin...one is not healthy...one is unhealthy. This occurs beyond education as several airlines charge fatties for an extra seat if they are too large. Some herald this as a good move...yet isn't such a move rather regressive, a bit discriminatory...in that because of your appearance and "width" we can treat you different...call you "fat" by making you pay up to take up two seats? Yes, I have set next to a fat person and yes I have been annoyed...yet, I would prefer not to further stigmatize a person for their fatness...yes, they may be able to do something about it, but then again they might not. Yes, they may be an extra burden on health care...but so are a bunch of other people with different issues.
So, while I recognize that obesity is a problem from a "health" or "medical" perspective...I wonder how in privileging those discourses or frames of living if we simultaneously delegitimate those bodies that we seek to make "thin" or a "healthy" size? Perhaps then this is the tension between prevention and care...as on one side we seek to "prevent" future kids from becoming obese...but in doing so are unable to care for those who ARE obese...finding it, in a sense, ok to "beat up" the fat kid, to make them less than all in the name of health, all in the name of the Child so that the Child will see tomorrow, never realizing that tomorrow is always a day away - as Little Orphan Annie maintains.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell: A Queer Perspective
There has been recent criticism and outrage about the lack of support the Obama administration has given to the "gays" and the issues impacting GLBT lives. Since his election, several states have gone all progressive and legalized same-sex marriage - including my home state of Iowa and the Matthew Shepard Act has made immense gains with possible passage in sight. There has also been movement in anti-discrimination rights in employment if my memory serves me correctly. Within this, a few weeks or perhaps months back it was made blatant that the military's DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL (DADT) policy would remain on the books for awhile longer because there are bigger things that the administration needs to worry about.
When I first heard this, I kinda giggled to myself, in part because it would seem to be rather simple to repeal the policy since it seems to lack much support and also because Obama was heralded as the candidate for change and highly liked by the GLBT community (a dangerous generaliation I know). Yet, now a couple of weeks later as I think about this further...I hope bigger things continue to be needed to be worried about in relation to repealing this act. I say this because I think this act provides for an "out" for people who do not seek or want to be in the military. By this I mean...one can "come out" to "get out" of the military or to refuse to be an explicit part of the military industrial complex. In doing this, one does not have to "be" gay...one just has to come out and then perhaps later go back into the straight closet once out. Now, of couse some might see this as unpatriotic, as using "gay" as an excuse not to do one's duty. However, what is one's duty? Is it to be apart of that "military industrial complex" as numerous social/cultural/political theorists call it? Is it to take orders and spread freedom in the name of freedom under the auspices of something that is really not "freedom"?
I don't know...but I think DADT in being a rather queer piece of legislation that rests on rather strange logic...perhaps even homophobic logic...is actually a piece of legislation that allows perhaps just momentarily to get "out" of the complex...a rather straight complex...that seeks in many ways to colonize others in the name of democracy. I wonder then if we embrace DADT in its homophobic logic if we are able to imagine a different purpose for the law...a purpose that is not (entirely) to discriminate against homosexual persons (or more so acts) but to allow those tired of being a part of a military machine - that often rhetorically works to be seen as spreading freedom, of "doing good" but has also historically violated the lives of the Other who is unintelligible to the machine - a way out, a way to subvert the complex.
Is then the drive by GLBT Rights groups to repeal DADT a rather short-sighted drive that is structured by the heteronormativity of the military and government? Does the drive for a repeal seek for "us" (gays) to be like "them" (straights) so that we can show we are as "manly" or "womanly" or "strong" or "proud" to be a patriot? What if one does not seek to be a patriot under such conceptualizations of patriotism? What if one wants a way out...is fighting for DADT a way to do that...to provide a space for those not interested in the military or perhaps disillusioned by the recent wars to move beyond the military industrial complex? Could it be argued that we could fight to make "them" (straights) become like "us" (gays) as we struggle to not fight, to not be a part of the military industrial complex - in part because we are not allowed to? Would such a fight further allow one to see a deconstruction of the "gay/straight" dichotomy since some "gays" want to be a part of the machine and some "straights" vehemently oppose such a machine? Is DADT a queer piece of legislation because it possibly allows "queers" (straight and gay) to put on a despised identity or "acts" to subvert the dominant notions of patriotism? of military service?
When I first heard this, I kinda giggled to myself, in part because it would seem to be rather simple to repeal the policy since it seems to lack much support and also because Obama was heralded as the candidate for change and highly liked by the GLBT community (a dangerous generaliation I know). Yet, now a couple of weeks later as I think about this further...I hope bigger things continue to be needed to be worried about in relation to repealing this act. I say this because I think this act provides for an "out" for people who do not seek or want to be in the military. By this I mean...one can "come out" to "get out" of the military or to refuse to be an explicit part of the military industrial complex. In doing this, one does not have to "be" gay...one just has to come out and then perhaps later go back into the straight closet once out. Now, of couse some might see this as unpatriotic, as using "gay" as an excuse not to do one's duty. However, what is one's duty? Is it to be apart of that "military industrial complex" as numerous social/cultural/political theorists call it? Is it to take orders and spread freedom in the name of freedom under the auspices of something that is really not "freedom"?
I don't know...but I think DADT in being a rather queer piece of legislation that rests on rather strange logic...perhaps even homophobic logic...is actually a piece of legislation that allows perhaps just momentarily to get "out" of the complex...a rather straight complex...that seeks in many ways to colonize others in the name of democracy. I wonder then if we embrace DADT in its homophobic logic if we are able to imagine a different purpose for the law...a purpose that is not (entirely) to discriminate against homosexual persons (or more so acts) but to allow those tired of being a part of a military machine - that often rhetorically works to be seen as spreading freedom, of "doing good" but has also historically violated the lives of the Other who is unintelligible to the machine - a way out, a way to subvert the complex.
Is then the drive by GLBT Rights groups to repeal DADT a rather short-sighted drive that is structured by the heteronormativity of the military and government? Does the drive for a repeal seek for "us" (gays) to be like "them" (straights) so that we can show we are as "manly" or "womanly" or "strong" or "proud" to be a patriot? What if one does not seek to be a patriot under such conceptualizations of patriotism? What if one wants a way out...is fighting for DADT a way to do that...to provide a space for those not interested in the military or perhaps disillusioned by the recent wars to move beyond the military industrial complex? Could it be argued that we could fight to make "them" (straights) become like "us" (gays) as we struggle to not fight, to not be a part of the military industrial complex - in part because we are not allowed to? Would such a fight further allow one to see a deconstruction of the "gay/straight" dichotomy since some "gays" want to be a part of the machine and some "straights" vehemently oppose such a machine? Is DADT a queer piece of legislation because it possibly allows "queers" (straight and gay) to put on a despised identity or "acts" to subvert the dominant notions of patriotism? of military service?
Friday, March 20, 2009
Sex and the Law
I recently attended an event, a very fine event, that engaged issues of sexuality and gender in education. During the event an attorney specializing in these issues, explored the legal terrain of LGBT rights and their relation to education. For instance, being in Michigan where there is no state anti-discrimination law, it is technically legal to fire someone for the sexual orientation or gender identity. This may not happen often and there are ways in which one can "get around" this lack (i.e. teacher unions can put a clause in the union contract). The information presented then was in many ways useful in thinking about this complex terrain. It was practical and important to be aware of and understand.
Yet, I am not a practical person. I prefer the excessive, the impractical. As I listened to these practical and important issues, I was surprised that often "sex" was either completely ignored or seen as irrelevant. I should note here that I am not talking about "sex" in terms of "biological sex" which in itself is a problematic notion, but about "sex" as in SEX, the act. I asked the lawyer why there was such an aversion to sex in the legal discourse around LGBT rights? Of course the response was, well housing discrimination has nothing to do with sex, having a job has nothing to do with sex, free speech has nothing to do with sex, sex is what happens in the bedroom...we dealt with sex with anti-sodomy laws (i.e. Loving vs. Texas - I believe). Yet, I persisted and disagreed noting that it is "sex" in part that defines sexuality and therefore "homosexuality" and sex can happen beyond the confines of the bedroom. I argued that the reason why judges perhaps operated in part in opposition to LGBT Rights or parents opposed LGBT literature in schools was because of the aversion to sex...that when such issues are engaged the image of "gay sex" enters the imagination and such images frighten, scare, and create an aversion to want to allow such persons to be fully human - the Symbolic is perhaps homophobic. The response again was not satisfying as the attorney noted a case where a girl wore a "gay pride" shirt to school and was asked to take it off because it was promoting "sex"...which was legally defended (successfully) as unconstitutional because it 1) wasn't about sex and 2) was about "pride"...
It was that response that exposed my point. What would the legal consequences of saying, "Yes, she is promoting sex" but even so, she deserves to wear such a shirt, she deserves to be fully human. Why, because sex is sex is sex...people have it, people like it, people don't like it. I want to believe, but I am no legal scholar, that instead of pandering to a de-sexualized society (and the political machine both democratic and republican) where sex is just in the bedroom and "pride" can be removed from the context of sex (perhaps law has forgotten the history of Pride) an engagement with the stigmatized concept of "sex" and embrace of the "homophobic fear" of such sex, different possibilities within the legal realm of discourse and the discourses that operate closely to it (i.e. medical, psychiatric, educational, political) could emerge...What these possibilities would be though is of course unknown, but no more unknown than the current strategies.
For readings that I develop my argument from see:
Leo Bersani (1988) "Is the rectum a grave" in D. Crimp (Ed.). AIDS: Cultual Analysis/Cultural Activism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Didier Eribon (2004) Insult: The Making of the Gay Self. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
David Halperin (2007) What do Gay Men Want: Sex, Risk, and Subjectivity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Yet, I am not a practical person. I prefer the excessive, the impractical. As I listened to these practical and important issues, I was surprised that often "sex" was either completely ignored or seen as irrelevant. I should note here that I am not talking about "sex" in terms of "biological sex" which in itself is a problematic notion, but about "sex" as in SEX, the act. I asked the lawyer why there was such an aversion to sex in the legal discourse around LGBT rights? Of course the response was, well housing discrimination has nothing to do with sex, having a job has nothing to do with sex, free speech has nothing to do with sex, sex is what happens in the bedroom...we dealt with sex with anti-sodomy laws (i.e. Loving vs. Texas - I believe). Yet, I persisted and disagreed noting that it is "sex" in part that defines sexuality and therefore "homosexuality" and sex can happen beyond the confines of the bedroom. I argued that the reason why judges perhaps operated in part in opposition to LGBT Rights or parents opposed LGBT literature in schools was because of the aversion to sex...that when such issues are engaged the image of "gay sex" enters the imagination and such images frighten, scare, and create an aversion to want to allow such persons to be fully human - the Symbolic is perhaps homophobic. The response again was not satisfying as the attorney noted a case where a girl wore a "gay pride" shirt to school and was asked to take it off because it was promoting "sex"...which was legally defended (successfully) as unconstitutional because it 1) wasn't about sex and 2) was about "pride"...
It was that response that exposed my point. What would the legal consequences of saying, "Yes, she is promoting sex" but even so, she deserves to wear such a shirt, she deserves to be fully human. Why, because sex is sex is sex...people have it, people like it, people don't like it. I want to believe, but I am no legal scholar, that instead of pandering to a de-sexualized society (and the political machine both democratic and republican) where sex is just in the bedroom and "pride" can be removed from the context of sex (perhaps law has forgotten the history of Pride) an engagement with the stigmatized concept of "sex" and embrace of the "homophobic fear" of such sex, different possibilities within the legal realm of discourse and the discourses that operate closely to it (i.e. medical, psychiatric, educational, political) could emerge...What these possibilities would be though is of course unknown, but no more unknown than the current strategies.
For readings that I develop my argument from see:
Leo Bersani (1988) "Is the rectum a grave" in D. Crimp (Ed.). AIDS: Cultual Analysis/Cultural Activism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Didier Eribon (2004) Insult: The Making of the Gay Self. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
David Halperin (2007) What do Gay Men Want: Sex, Risk, and Subjectivity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Exploring Chrianna, Protective Moms, and the Innocent Child
I love pop culture. It is like an aphrodisiac to me. It brings me so much pleasure. It is simply titillating. I realize that perhaps one is not supposed to “love” popular culture since it is popular and it is much classier to be in love with something not “popular”, less trashy, more “high class” or “high culture”. But, I come from the lower end of the class/culture spectrum and I prefer to stay there most of the time.
But, that is neither here nor there. My interest in popular culture, in part, is that it is a much more effective educational tool than most of the crap we do in education – in my opinion. This is not to say that what we do-do in education is worthless, only that students aren’t much engaged in it, it doesn’t captivate them, it doesn’t amuse them, it doesn’t excite/anger them. I mention something from “high culture” to my students and they look at me like I am crazy. I provide an interesting academic article and it is ok, but I relate it to popular culture (i.e. reality shows) and the conversation is off in rather interesting, provocative, and educational ways.
Yet, popular culture gets such a bad rap. Parents often times hate popular culture, especially TV, the most. In watching Real Housewives of New York, I was reminded of this as Alex said she and her husband did not allow TVs in bedrooms – sad day for their kids. I was also reminded of this when watching CNN and the Mom-Brigade was all in a tizzy because Nickelodeon would not remove Chris Brown from the ballot for a Kids Choice Award. Nickelodeon officials said they would not because the show is about “Kids Choice” and therefore would not intervene stating something to the extent that “the kids put him on the ballot and they, the kids, will decide who actually wins the award”. Of course the Mom’s retorted saying that Nick is not controlled by kids and that “kids don’t have the ability to make all decisions on their own”. I understand the mom’s concerns so I don’t want to be seen as a mom-hater. I just think they can get ridiculous sometimes as we all can I suppose. I want to explore the mom argument further for its implications in education. [Please note, after writing this, I learned that Chris Brown has removed his name from the ballot which adds more to this in my opinion]
The mom’s argument is that Chris Brown has set a bad example for young boys, that rewarding him the award would be awarding his behavior. Of course such an argument 1) assumes the kids understand what happened or even cared and 2) negates everything he did to get the nomination. Are we not allowed to fuck up without totally fucking up our lives anymore? The moms seem to want only “good” representation and good “role” models, but what exactly is good representation or a “good” role model? Chris Brown was not nominated because he is a great boyfriend, he was nominated because he is a good performer and in my opinion a rather good model for certain things.
But, let’s talk about the mom argument because they invoke the power of “popular culture” to educate and educate “wrong”. They demonize that which I love in order to make their point. In such demonizing of course they would probably hold up “other” more “upstanding” individuals who most likely have just not gotten caught. They would perhaps point to PBS for its wholesome representations, representations that will not pervert their kids and should be embraced as such. Their arguments seems to rest heavily on the notion that their children are innocent, that children need to be protected when perhaps such a stance is not fair (to us or children).
Now, before I go any further to take on this discourse around the Chrianna fiasco, I want to note that I am not arguing that violence against a person, any person, is justified. I do not think Chris should have beat up Rhianna, so move past that – that’s not my argument. My argument will engage this controversy, but to make it more complicated, to perhaps show that we are all victims and victimizers?
My interest is in the way that the mom’s invoke the victim narrative of the “female” but see no problem with the multiple messages that they might be sending young girls. They appear to want to send the message that it is not ok to allow someone to beat you up or violate you in any manner (be that physical, verbal, emotional). But, in such a lesson they propel forth another lesson - teaching perhaps that girls are still the weaker sex…that they need to be protected by a “universal” sentiment that “you shouldn’t hit a girl”? While I agree with the explict lesson, it is the implicit lesson(s) that is(are) ignored that concerns me. What is the cost of positioning the “girl” as weak, as needing a “universal principle” to protect her? What is the cost for the “girl” and what is the cost for the “boy”? Does the boy learn to take such violence from a girl rather than hitting back? (I hit back when I was a boy and when told not to hit girls, said whatever, if she hits me I’m gonna hit her back cause she’s bigger than me)
Does such rhetoric teach girls to be defenseless? Does it teach boys to be chivalrous (sexism in disguise)? Does it fail to recognize the complexity of human relationships – that in moments of passion people do irrational things and in doing so need to seek reparations afterward? Does this lesson teach boys or girls to walk away from relationships after such emotion-laden experiences? Does it fail to show that love is not always easy, that love can be violent? Diddy (Sean Puffy Combs), recently on Ellen, expressed his concern over this affair noting that relationships are difficult and things happen in them…people get emotional, people make mistakes, people fuck up. The difference, as he discusses it, is that 1) these are public figures and 2) the rest of us keep it quiet, don’t talk about it in our own private lives. Why don’t we talk about it? Why don’t we admit that humans are not entirely rational, that humans get emotional, that humans lose control and in recognizing this move away from shaming someone for such an action and talking about ways to ward off such an incident from occurring again? This talking of course may not cure the “problem” but it may take the scandal out of it allowing more people to see that “shit happens” and while “shit happening” is not an excuse for what happens (reparations should be made, apologies should be give) it should also not be an excuse to make an example out of someone or not talk to someone anymore. In talking with Patti about this, she said that NPR just had a story on abuse where an “abuser” couldn’t get help to change – turned away for being the victimizer and as such victimized, branded much like we brand sex offenders and put them on registries (I won’t go there now).
Yet, the issue gets more interesting if we move away from the mom’s and to various other discussions about this issue. Rhianna and Chris have subsequently gotten back together. Many see this as absolutely ridic (that’s the cool way to say ridiculous). I think it is what it is. I think if they love one another and want to work through these issues, repair the trauma and damage, then I say go get ‘em. Yet, others have scorned Rhianna for making such a decision – some saying she is suffering from “battered wife syndrome”. First, why do we have to pathologize her decision to return to the man she loved, who made a mistake? Now, this is not to say again that his actions were “cool” or “justified” – they happened and if we all look deep within ourselves we can find things that we have done that were not very nice, perhaps violent to an Other (physically, verbally, emotionally). Second, and this might get me in trouble, is it possible that (some of) those who go back to “battering spouses” (male or female) do so because of the thrill, because they get some pleasure out of such situations. Or perhaps even that their love overwhelms their rational senses? Now, obviously this is a bit difficult to swallow, but what role does pleasure and desire play in decisions made about our relationships with an other? Some engage in such actions consciously (S/M) but perhaps others find such a relationship, either unconsciously or due to an unwillingness to express it consciously because of the scorn such a statement might cause, titillating, exhilarating, pleasurable?
Basically, if we engaged popular culture and the ways it positions subjects can we engage students with issues that are so often simplified? What would it mean to not pathologize men or women who keep going back to an abusive relationship? Or to look at such cases much more closely? To produce a different story about love? It is easy to look at such high profile cases and to in a sense displace the issues by doing so…but in such displacement do we lose the opportunity to implicate ourselves in these issues, to take a look in the mirror and see that we are all fucked up and that’s ok...that the issue perhaps, as Kincaid notes, is the story we are being told and we need to write new stories, new descriptions of issues?
Heterosexual Jealousy
In further thinking about this issue, I was re-reading a chapter by Judith Butler (2004) where she discusses heterosexual jealousy in light of the “inescapable ways that heterosexuality and homosexuality are defined through one another”. In her exploration she discusses the ways in which a man’s woman lover wants another man and in such a dynamic the “male” exposes the inability for passions to be mutually exclusive – that his (our) desires are simultaneously heterosexual and homosexual [in part I believe because as Lacan notes “desire is the desire of the Other”].
How you ask? In that by being enraged at his woman lover he may desire in part, to be in her (imagined) receptive position and in such a position see her not as taking on the feminine position, but actually exposing his imagination of her in “a position of passive male homosexuality”. He is enraged in part because he imagines himself in her position, a position disavowed in a homophobic symbolic, but cannot take on such a position…illustrating heterosexual and homosexual desires or passions where desires are never mutually exclusive.
So, why do I add this? I add it because I want to explore how her argument could illuminate different possibilities in reactions to “cheating”. Many reports note that the “jump-off” between Chris and Rhianna started from a text from another woman. In seeing this text, Rhianna became enraged and in response Chris became enraged – violently assaulting her. Unlike, but related to, Butler’s example, this one places the female as the one who originally becomes enraged but in such a rage provokes a rageful response. Heterosexual jealousy still rears its head, but in a slightly different dynamic. It is the male who, as is traditionally seen, is the one doing the cheating and exchanging/using women. While Butler then focuses on the male homosocial and homosexual bond and desire wherein male rage emerges in part out of the disavowal of the homosexual and the inability to be such…can we read the Chrianna incident as exposing the lesbian homosocial/sexual bond and desire also? Did Rhianna in her rage, imagine herself not in the passive feminine position (she was not getting from Chris by his being with another woman) but in the active masculine position (that Chris was imagined to be in) where she was not just pissed that her man was cheating but that she could not enter such a position, that she could not, in a homophobic symbolic, engage in such a relationship with another woman? Was Chris’s response then, in part, a homophobic one where he did not imagine Rhianna in an adulterous relationship with another man, but with another woman as she took on the active “masculine” position – eliminating the “male” dynamic in the relation and “hurting” his male “masculine” ego. Was his violence in part against the homosocial and homosexual passions and desires of the “lesbian” that were operating simultaneously in Rhianna’s response. This is not to say that either are "homosexual" merely to ponder the contradictory and multifaceted aspects that desire may have...Chrianna, because of their current "status" are merely place markers for thinking about this contradictory and multifaceted read.
But, that is neither here nor there. My interest in popular culture, in part, is that it is a much more effective educational tool than most of the crap we do in education – in my opinion. This is not to say that what we do-do in education is worthless, only that students aren’t much engaged in it, it doesn’t captivate them, it doesn’t amuse them, it doesn’t excite/anger them. I mention something from “high culture” to my students and they look at me like I am crazy. I provide an interesting academic article and it is ok, but I relate it to popular culture (i.e. reality shows) and the conversation is off in rather interesting, provocative, and educational ways.
Yet, popular culture gets such a bad rap. Parents often times hate popular culture, especially TV, the most. In watching Real Housewives of New York, I was reminded of this as Alex said she and her husband did not allow TVs in bedrooms – sad day for their kids. I was also reminded of this when watching CNN and the Mom-Brigade was all in a tizzy because Nickelodeon would not remove Chris Brown from the ballot for a Kids Choice Award. Nickelodeon officials said they would not because the show is about “Kids Choice” and therefore would not intervene stating something to the extent that “the kids put him on the ballot and they, the kids, will decide who actually wins the award”. Of course the Mom’s retorted saying that Nick is not controlled by kids and that “kids don’t have the ability to make all decisions on their own”. I understand the mom’s concerns so I don’t want to be seen as a mom-hater. I just think they can get ridiculous sometimes as we all can I suppose. I want to explore the mom argument further for its implications in education. [Please note, after writing this, I learned that Chris Brown has removed his name from the ballot which adds more to this in my opinion]
The mom’s argument is that Chris Brown has set a bad example for young boys, that rewarding him the award would be awarding his behavior. Of course such an argument 1) assumes the kids understand what happened or even cared and 2) negates everything he did to get the nomination. Are we not allowed to fuck up without totally fucking up our lives anymore? The moms seem to want only “good” representation and good “role” models, but what exactly is good representation or a “good” role model? Chris Brown was not nominated because he is a great boyfriend, he was nominated because he is a good performer and in my opinion a rather good model for certain things.
But, let’s talk about the mom argument because they invoke the power of “popular culture” to educate and educate “wrong”. They demonize that which I love in order to make their point. In such demonizing of course they would probably hold up “other” more “upstanding” individuals who most likely have just not gotten caught. They would perhaps point to PBS for its wholesome representations, representations that will not pervert their kids and should be embraced as such. Their arguments seems to rest heavily on the notion that their children are innocent, that children need to be protected when perhaps such a stance is not fair (to us or children).
Now, before I go any further to take on this discourse around the Chrianna fiasco, I want to note that I am not arguing that violence against a person, any person, is justified. I do not think Chris should have beat up Rhianna, so move past that – that’s not my argument. My argument will engage this controversy, but to make it more complicated, to perhaps show that we are all victims and victimizers?
My interest is in the way that the mom’s invoke the victim narrative of the “female” but see no problem with the multiple messages that they might be sending young girls. They appear to want to send the message that it is not ok to allow someone to beat you up or violate you in any manner (be that physical, verbal, emotional). But, in such a lesson they propel forth another lesson - teaching perhaps that girls are still the weaker sex…that they need to be protected by a “universal” sentiment that “you shouldn’t hit a girl”? While I agree with the explict lesson, it is the implicit lesson(s) that is(are) ignored that concerns me. What is the cost of positioning the “girl” as weak, as needing a “universal principle” to protect her? What is the cost for the “girl” and what is the cost for the “boy”? Does the boy learn to take such violence from a girl rather than hitting back? (I hit back when I was a boy and when told not to hit girls, said whatever, if she hits me I’m gonna hit her back cause she’s bigger than me)
Does such rhetoric teach girls to be defenseless? Does it teach boys to be chivalrous (sexism in disguise)? Does it fail to recognize the complexity of human relationships – that in moments of passion people do irrational things and in doing so need to seek reparations afterward? Does this lesson teach boys or girls to walk away from relationships after such emotion-laden experiences? Does it fail to show that love is not always easy, that love can be violent? Diddy (Sean Puffy Combs), recently on Ellen, expressed his concern over this affair noting that relationships are difficult and things happen in them…people get emotional, people make mistakes, people fuck up. The difference, as he discusses it, is that 1) these are public figures and 2) the rest of us keep it quiet, don’t talk about it in our own private lives. Why don’t we talk about it? Why don’t we admit that humans are not entirely rational, that humans get emotional, that humans lose control and in recognizing this move away from shaming someone for such an action and talking about ways to ward off such an incident from occurring again? This talking of course may not cure the “problem” but it may take the scandal out of it allowing more people to see that “shit happens” and while “shit happening” is not an excuse for what happens (reparations should be made, apologies should be give) it should also not be an excuse to make an example out of someone or not talk to someone anymore. In talking with Patti about this, she said that NPR just had a story on abuse where an “abuser” couldn’t get help to change – turned away for being the victimizer and as such victimized, branded much like we brand sex offenders and put them on registries (I won’t go there now).
Yet, the issue gets more interesting if we move away from the mom’s and to various other discussions about this issue. Rhianna and Chris have subsequently gotten back together. Many see this as absolutely ridic (that’s the cool way to say ridiculous). I think it is what it is. I think if they love one another and want to work through these issues, repair the trauma and damage, then I say go get ‘em. Yet, others have scorned Rhianna for making such a decision – some saying she is suffering from “battered wife syndrome”. First, why do we have to pathologize her decision to return to the man she loved, who made a mistake? Now, this is not to say again that his actions were “cool” or “justified” – they happened and if we all look deep within ourselves we can find things that we have done that were not very nice, perhaps violent to an Other (physically, verbally, emotionally). Second, and this might get me in trouble, is it possible that (some of) those who go back to “battering spouses” (male or female) do so because of the thrill, because they get some pleasure out of such situations. Or perhaps even that their love overwhelms their rational senses? Now, obviously this is a bit difficult to swallow, but what role does pleasure and desire play in decisions made about our relationships with an other? Some engage in such actions consciously (S/M) but perhaps others find such a relationship, either unconsciously or due to an unwillingness to express it consciously because of the scorn such a statement might cause, titillating, exhilarating, pleasurable?
Basically, if we engaged popular culture and the ways it positions subjects can we engage students with issues that are so often simplified? What would it mean to not pathologize men or women who keep going back to an abusive relationship? Or to look at such cases much more closely? To produce a different story about love? It is easy to look at such high profile cases and to in a sense displace the issues by doing so…but in such displacement do we lose the opportunity to implicate ourselves in these issues, to take a look in the mirror and see that we are all fucked up and that’s ok...that the issue perhaps, as Kincaid notes, is the story we are being told and we need to write new stories, new descriptions of issues?
Heterosexual Jealousy
In further thinking about this issue, I was re-reading a chapter by Judith Butler (2004) where she discusses heterosexual jealousy in light of the “inescapable ways that heterosexuality and homosexuality are defined through one another”. In her exploration she discusses the ways in which a man’s woman lover wants another man and in such a dynamic the “male” exposes the inability for passions to be mutually exclusive – that his (our) desires are simultaneously heterosexual and homosexual [in part I believe because as Lacan notes “desire is the desire of the Other”].
How you ask? In that by being enraged at his woman lover he may desire in part, to be in her (imagined) receptive position and in such a position see her not as taking on the feminine position, but actually exposing his imagination of her in “a position of passive male homosexuality”. He is enraged in part because he imagines himself in her position, a position disavowed in a homophobic symbolic, but cannot take on such a position…illustrating heterosexual and homosexual desires or passions where desires are never mutually exclusive.
So, why do I add this? I add it because I want to explore how her argument could illuminate different possibilities in reactions to “cheating”. Many reports note that the “jump-off” between Chris and Rhianna started from a text from another woman. In seeing this text, Rhianna became enraged and in response Chris became enraged – violently assaulting her. Unlike, but related to, Butler’s example, this one places the female as the one who originally becomes enraged but in such a rage provokes a rageful response. Heterosexual jealousy still rears its head, but in a slightly different dynamic. It is the male who, as is traditionally seen, is the one doing the cheating and exchanging/using women. While Butler then focuses on the male homosocial and homosexual bond and desire wherein male rage emerges in part out of the disavowal of the homosexual and the inability to be such…can we read the Chrianna incident as exposing the lesbian homosocial/sexual bond and desire also? Did Rhianna in her rage, imagine herself not in the passive feminine position (she was not getting from Chris by his being with another woman) but in the active masculine position (that Chris was imagined to be in) where she was not just pissed that her man was cheating but that she could not enter such a position, that she could not, in a homophobic symbolic, engage in such a relationship with another woman? Was Chris’s response then, in part, a homophobic one where he did not imagine Rhianna in an adulterous relationship with another man, but with another woman as she took on the active “masculine” position – eliminating the “male” dynamic in the relation and “hurting” his male “masculine” ego. Was his violence in part against the homosocial and homosexual passions and desires of the “lesbian” that were operating simultaneously in Rhianna’s response. This is not to say that either are "homosexual" merely to ponder the contradictory and multifaceted aspects that desire may have...Chrianna, because of their current "status" are merely place markers for thinking about this contradictory and multifaceted read.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
On Love
I find myself often meditating on the concept of love. It is said to be many things. It is said to make the world go ‘round. Yet, in making the world go ‘round what else does it make us do? Does it make us go mad? Does it make us feel sad? Does it make us feel a connection to something in a world so often feeling devoid of meaning or is it that which gives us meaning,
what which makes the world bearable, livable?
What is it about love that makes us so…so scared? So happy? So vulnerable? What is it about love that splits us from ourselves, further than we are already as a split subject? What is it about love that is thought to be able to solve the problems...that if we just loved, things could be, would be, should be different?
Who is it that is allowed to love? Who is it that we are allowed to love? Who is it that we allow ourselves to love? Why is it that we hurt those we love? Must we inflict such hurt? Is such hurt, such pain necessary for love to be understood, known, felt?
How is it that we can walk away from love? Is it because we never know that it is love until, there, in the future, when we can look back on “now” and see that we had love? That we felt loved? That we loved?
Do we fool ourselves to believe that love is possible or do we fool ourselves to believe that love is impossible? Is love delusional? If love is delusional, what does it mean for those of us who love, or want to love, or have loved, or have lost love, or have, in an instant felt all of these – pushing and pulling us in different directions – this queer thing called love?
Do we ever walk away from love without knowing what we are walking away from? Is it easier to walk away from love, to re-fall in love somewhere else, some-time else so not to feel the creeping feeling that we will soon, fall and shatter the self, the self that we have produced and believe is real, true when perhaps that’s just it…we are not whole, we are always split, always divided? We can never love entirely for we know not ourselves entirely? Is love a failure because of this? Or in such a failure can love be something different? Something radical? Something strange?
Do we search for love and search for it often without ever asking what it is we are searching for or if what we are searching for is even something that can be searched for? Do we search for it when we’ve found it, hoping, believing, desiring, fantasizing that something different, something “better”, something of our dreams will finally come along? Or are we swept off our feet in a different time and place and in such a time and place have to just love and not look back…not looking back even if that means hurting the one we loved, there in a different time and place?
What happens to those who are left there, back there when others move, fall, or re-fall in love?
What do we do when we are left here, in the past, with our love there, somewhere there in a different time and place with a different love? Do we shatter further? Do we begin searching for love again, even if such a search is always in vain? Do we fall again…further in love in an attempt to fall out of love? Do we fall out of love and in doing so fall back in love…with someone else? With our self? Do we mourn our loss? Can we mourn such loss? Is such a loss grievable? What does such a loss require to be mourned?
what which makes the world bearable, livable?
What is it about love that makes us so…so scared? So happy? So vulnerable? What is it about love that splits us from ourselves, further than we are already as a split subject? What is it about love that is thought to be able to solve the problems...that if we just loved, things could be, would be, should be different?
Who is it that is allowed to love? Who is it that we are allowed to love? Who is it that we allow ourselves to love? Why is it that we hurt those we love? Must we inflict such hurt? Is such hurt, such pain necessary for love to be understood, known, felt?
How is it that we can walk away from love? Is it because we never know that it is love until, there, in the future, when we can look back on “now” and see that we had love? That we felt loved? That we loved?
Do we fool ourselves to believe that love is possible or do we fool ourselves to believe that love is impossible? Is love delusional? If love is delusional, what does it mean for those of us who love, or want to love, or have loved, or have lost love, or have, in an instant felt all of these – pushing and pulling us in different directions – this queer thing called love?
Do we ever walk away from love without knowing what we are walking away from? Is it easier to walk away from love, to re-fall in love somewhere else, some-time else so not to feel the creeping feeling that we will soon, fall and shatter the self, the self that we have produced and believe is real, true when perhaps that’s just it…we are not whole, we are always split, always divided? We can never love entirely for we know not ourselves entirely? Is love a failure because of this? Or in such a failure can love be something different? Something radical? Something strange?
Do we search for love and search for it often without ever asking what it is we are searching for or if what we are searching for is even something that can be searched for? Do we search for it when we’ve found it, hoping, believing, desiring, fantasizing that something different, something “better”, something of our dreams will finally come along? Or are we swept off our feet in a different time and place and in such a time and place have to just love and not look back…not looking back even if that means hurting the one we loved, there in a different time and place?
What happens to those who are left there, back there when others move, fall, or re-fall in love?
What do we do when we are left here, in the past, with our love there, somewhere there in a different time and place with a different love? Do we shatter further? Do we begin searching for love again, even if such a search is always in vain? Do we fall again…further in love in an attempt to fall out of love? Do we fall out of love and in doing so fall back in love…with someone else? With our self? Do we mourn our loss? Can we mourn such loss? Is such a loss grievable? What does such a loss require to be mourned?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Obama Dress Code
Today, while running and watching CNN there was an interview with the student body president of North Carolina Central University - Kent Williams Jr. While I could not find the interview, I was able to locate an article about Mr. Williams' dress code crusade. Mr. Williams was discussing his, I'll say, "mission" to clean up the student body by making them presentable. This "mission" in part emerged from an interview then Presidential candidate Barack Obama did with MTV where he noted that "brothers should pull up their pants". Now, I understand where this desire to have people pull up their pants is coming from. I recognize that wearing low-ridin' baggy jeans is not very professional and that in doing so individuals open themselves up to being judged as any number of things (i.e. thug, gangsta, etc.) not to mention the necessity to wear cute undies.
I found Mr. Williams to be very persuasive in his presentation of this idea - noting that he is not attempting to enforce a dress code, merely to bring the rules of "business professional" to his colleagues by handing out cards with dress rules such as not wearing one's pajamas to class, not wearing short skirts, covering up the cleavage when not in the clubs, and of course pulling up one's pants. His intentions are in many ways it seems to provide "rules" to enter the game - a game that is one fraught with issues related to race, class, gender, and sexuality.
However, as he was discussing, Mr. Williams made a rather interesting statement - noting that wearing clothes in such a manner shows a lack of self-respect. I found it rather odd, perhaps disturbing that in the attempt to clean up the image of fellow students, he had to do so by pathologizing, psychologizing the students...making it not possible that they are wearing these clothes because of the image they seek to produce, the image they want others to associate them with, or simply because such clothes are rather enjoyable to wear. While he is not trying to enforce a dress code, his language seems to provide no other option than to abide...for to not abide is to lack self-respect...when it seems that the lack of respect is on those who cannot simply imagine ways in which one's clothing is not solely related to their "mental state" and ability to respect themselves.
The notion of "respect" seemed rather persuasive in many discussions around the topic - seen in the article linked above and in President Obama's interview. What it is about clothes that provokes such anxiety and provokes individuals to feel disrepected because of what some "other" is wearing. Is the issue not about the respect, but about the desire for such individuals to fall in line and dress in a fashion that is "normal" and "normal" being linked with "respectful". One can think about the current fascination with President Obama's changing of the fashion in the oval office - making it much more casual in perhaps the same light. Is it disrepectful to the institution of the presidency to disrupt the norm of professional attire? I wouldn't think so, but then again, President Obama already, arguably, has earned a lot of respect and can "break" with the norms...
Of course, the issue that Mr. Williams brings about is not just about college students or what is worn in the oval office. One can look at dress codes in public and private K-12 schools and the ways in which discourse operates around these policies. I would argue in many ways such discourse is inevitably normalizing - seeking to produce students in a very limited way so that they are all "mentally healthy" and "self-respecting" according to those adults who are able to enforce such rules. Of course the joy then, is finding those students, those moments where subversion occurs and the dress code is utilized in perverse ways - perhaps Brittany's use of the "school girl uniform" is a recent incantation where the uniform comes to represent that which it intended to eliminate or minimize...
I found Mr. Williams to be very persuasive in his presentation of this idea - noting that he is not attempting to enforce a dress code, merely to bring the rules of "business professional" to his colleagues by handing out cards with dress rules such as not wearing one's pajamas to class, not wearing short skirts, covering up the cleavage when not in the clubs, and of course pulling up one's pants. His intentions are in many ways it seems to provide "rules" to enter the game - a game that is one fraught with issues related to race, class, gender, and sexuality.
However, as he was discussing, Mr. Williams made a rather interesting statement - noting that wearing clothes in such a manner shows a lack of self-respect. I found it rather odd, perhaps disturbing that in the attempt to clean up the image of fellow students, he had to do so by pathologizing, psychologizing the students...making it not possible that they are wearing these clothes because of the image they seek to produce, the image they want others to associate them with, or simply because such clothes are rather enjoyable to wear. While he is not trying to enforce a dress code, his language seems to provide no other option than to abide...for to not abide is to lack self-respect...when it seems that the lack of respect is on those who cannot simply imagine ways in which one's clothing is not solely related to their "mental state" and ability to respect themselves.
The notion of "respect" seemed rather persuasive in many discussions around the topic - seen in the article linked above and in President Obama's interview. What it is about clothes that provokes such anxiety and provokes individuals to feel disrepected because of what some "other" is wearing. Is the issue not about the respect, but about the desire for such individuals to fall in line and dress in a fashion that is "normal" and "normal" being linked with "respectful". One can think about the current fascination with President Obama's changing of the fashion in the oval office - making it much more casual in perhaps the same light. Is it disrepectful to the institution of the presidency to disrupt the norm of professional attire? I wouldn't think so, but then again, President Obama already, arguably, has earned a lot of respect and can "break" with the norms...
Of course, the issue that Mr. Williams brings about is not just about college students or what is worn in the oval office. One can look at dress codes in public and private K-12 schools and the ways in which discourse operates around these policies. I would argue in many ways such discourse is inevitably normalizing - seeking to produce students in a very limited way so that they are all "mentally healthy" and "self-respecting" according to those adults who are able to enforce such rules. Of course the joy then, is finding those students, those moments where subversion occurs and the dress code is utilized in perverse ways - perhaps Brittany's use of the "school girl uniform" is a recent incantation where the uniform comes to represent that which it intended to eliminate or minimize...
Friday, January 23, 2009
Memories Failed, Memories Disciplined
Robert Mapplethorpe (1987) ChestIn the beginning of the “camera”…it did not produce the photo…it produced an image that could only be captured by tracing the image… The images of the camera then were fleeting, rarely saved, rarely archived as they are in our postmodern world of scrapbooks, facebook photobooks, myspace accounts – archives of our lives. Yet, the fleetingness of the image is the same today, for the image captured is of but a moment, a moment caught in time and (re)produced in the hopes that in such production our memories can be captured just like the image itself. Yet, our memories are not our own. They are always, in part, those of the Other and what story, what memory the Other seeks from us or allows us to tell. I cannot reveal certain memories to you because they may be inappropriate, traumatic, inaccessible and therefore are disciplined from being told, hidden from view. My “photo” then is not “my” photo. That above is not, even if I would like it to be, my chest, my six pack, my pec. It is not me above. Rather, it is an image of someone I do not know created by a famous photographer, made famous by capturing such images – producing photos, producing anxieties, outrage, passions, desires. Yet, it is an incomplete photo, it is missing a part, but in missing a part is a “complete” piece of art, a complete piece of work provoking and evoking reactions.
My interest is in this absence, that which is not present, and the possibilities to be imagined. What will “we” imagine and will “it” in part be what we hope to be there, a normal mirror image of the pectoral muscle already present, for that is often the story that “incomplete” photos allow us to tell. That story makes the subject of the photo complete. Yet, what if we imagine it to be something else, a pectoral muscle “disfigured” by a burn, a tattooed pectoral muscle – tattooed with the image of a name - the name of a lover, a mother, a child, a lost love, a lost mother, a lost child? What possibilities does this incomplete image provide for the stories that the “image” can tell…perhaps illustrating that any photo whether complete or (in)complete illuminates that the memories constructed in the telling of such memories are always incomplete, failures because of the partiality of language…that language cannot tell us all that we wish it could tell. Does this incomplete image then perhaps allow us to explore our own anxieties of what is absent, what we wish was present, and how in such failure, such incompleteness we can encounter the Other in new ways?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)