Reflections on Sexuality and Society

 Note: The impetus for these musings was a research project proposed by a former Funding Co-ordinator of Inside Out Gay and Lesbian Film and Video Festival. He felt it important to explore the continued obstacles to the true acceptance of the queer community and wondered whether film as a medium could address these issues. In doing the readings for this project, I took note of my responses to them in addition to reflecting on my own life experiences.

March 6, 2005

I just finished a great article called “The Politics of Inside/Out: Queer Theory, Poststructuralism, and a Sociological Approach to Sexuality” (Ki Namaste) that contains insights into the notion of sexuality in the context of identity and marginalization. Specifically, this article focuses on how poststructuralism may be used to develop a new approach to the study of ‘queer theory’.

One of the highlights of the article is the notion of how the term ‘homosexuality’ had its inception in the 19 th century when it was used in the study of literature, psychiatry and law to distinguish it from heterosexuality. From here the article reveals how binary opposites – in this case the idea of heterosexuality/homosexuality – wouldn’t exist without the other. Indeed, the term homosexuality wouldn’t exist without its opposite, and vice versa. To examine the subtle layers beneath such binary opposites, in other words, to engage in deconstructionism, would facilitate revealing the effect and interpretation of these concepts. In identifying the effects and interpretations of homosexuality – in essence, its construct – we can perhaps identify who it excludes, how it can be contested, where its boundaries are and how we comprehend this ensuing co-dependency and antagonism.

This article may have been timely reading as I’m currently looking to incorporate the notion of sexual orientation into my thesis scheme as a possible factor that inhibits discourse and proactivism in the classroom. In another context, it may also be the starting point for the research I’m doing for Inside/Out, which is to ascertain whether film or media can have an impact on mainstream culture and can entice people within it to attend screenings of films whose topics would provoke thought, discourse and gradual change.

March 8, 2005

Another great article read; this time about Queer Theory and how it applies to the field of archaeology. The article is called “Why Queer Archaeology? An Introduction” by Thomas A. Dowson and it identifies the problem of heterocentric thinking applied to archaeology that gives a very different interpretation of some of the findings than when a Queer Theory approach is applied. First of all, Dowson defines Queer Theory as an approach that isn’t only focused on homosexuality or even sexuality. Indeed, he is adamant about defining it as an approach that takes into consideration viewpoints other than heteronormative ones. By taking on an approach other than the dominant, Dowson hopes that a more inclusive, considerate approach to archaeological research may be effected.

“Queer theory actively and explicitly challenges the heteronormativity of scientific practice. Queer Theory derives from, and continues to be grounded in, politics outside academia. Queer Theory is not a fashionable post modern condition as so many people believe. ‘Queer’ began as a challenge to essentialist constructions of a ‘gay’ identity. In contrast to gay and lesbian identity, queer identity is not based on a notion of a stable truth or reality. As Halperin explains ‘”queer”’ does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers.’(1995: 62), (2000: p.163, Dowson)”

I appreciate such an approach because from an historical point of view, much of how our society is constructed today is based solely on a heterocentric approach. This is particularly true of how there is such an emphasis on the notion of the ‘Family’ and how this has tremendous impact on societal views about such issues as gay marriage and the subsequent political response to its potential threat to those who don’t necessarily subscribe to it.

By opening ourselves up to the notion of ‘otherness’, I believe we wake up to possibilities, particularly to that which has kept us unaware of our complicity in our own subjugation. It’s refreshing to be learning about the work of those who have pioneered the way to societal freedom.

March 10, 2005

Went to York U. yesterday to attend a panel discussion on sex and the law. The panel consisted of three prominent experts on the law, including two law professors and the owner of Spa Excess who’s been politically active for over 25 years. All astutely and articulately explicated the current bawdy laws and how law enforcement officers freely access these antiquated rules to justify raids on gay bath houses, harass easily intimidated individuals, and turn a blind eye to vulnerable sex trade workers. What was particularly interesting was how law enforcement agencies exploit the privilege of cross-agency co-operation to justify their conduct, which, in the past, has included raiding and destroying bath houses, arresting individuals based on laws predicated on vague notions of indecency and failing to recognize the rights of all to be protected from harm.

The panel was advocating the repeal of the bawdy house laws as they believe they constitute a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The discussion also focused on the public misunderstanding between the terms ‘decriminalizing’ and ‘legalizing’, and how people need to become more educated on the ramifications of complying with this level of ignorance.

March 11, 2005

A friend and I ended up at the Cellar (bath house) Wednesday night. It was the first time for me to be there, and though the idea was a novel one and exciting at the time, it didn’t take long for the excitement to wear off. It was too small a space, a fact driven home by the copious amount of tobacco smoke wafting in the air that was inescapable. Also there wasn’t anyone there that I felt particularly attracted to. My friend felt the same way; hence we left and went to Spa Excess, which turned out to be significantly better.

I commented to my friend how in places like ‘The Cellar’, where there is a significant number of men playing the hyper-masculine role of ‘daddy’ and ‘leatherman’, someone of my physical stature and demeanour feels intimidated. I later reflected on this in light of this article I’m currently reading entitled “Virgins and Queers: Rehabilitating Heterosexuality?”, which talks about queer theory and how it can be used to refer to the many non-compliant, non-normative individuals who don’t fall into the category of “heterosexual”. The article connotes this term as being “the primary means through which people are constituted as women and as men, and as inherently oppressive of women” (p.444, Gender and Society, Vol.8, no.3 Sept. 1993). Further, the article believes that the term also alienates homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and others non-compliant with its highly limited definition.

I wonder whether my intimidation and complaint have to do with the stigmas related to this term. Indeed, by being physically small, effeminate and sensitive, I am non-compliant with heterosexuality as it is defined. A section of the article dares one to challenge this stigma, instead encouraging a ‘playful’ stance of defiance. “There are, of course, many ways in which humans can differ from each other: “heterosexuality” could mean sex between two people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds (regardless of their sex) or between people of different religious or political persuasions, or between two people from different socioeconomic groups” (p.444-445). By feeling intimidated, therefore, am I simply pandering, and in so doing, adhering, to the stereotypes of “what is seen, in some sense, as the fundamental “difference” – the male/female division”(p.445)?

I suppose I could be. However, how easy is it to defy this system of oppression? Indeed towards the end of the article, where the author attempts to answer the question of whether it is possible to ‘rehabilitate’ heterosexuality, she implies that it isn’t. This could be due to the fact that it is a paradigm that is too ingrained, so that the best we can do is reform it. Indeed, the article hypothesizes that a straight SM relationship is often more tolerated than a ‘vanilla’ lesbian one (p.459), so women – even feminist lesbians – feel more comfortable taking a less confrontational stance. “What seems to be missing in these continuous attempts to rehabilitate heterosexuality, is any sense that it is still necessary to critique and analyze it as an oppressive mechanism of social control” (p.459).

March 14, 2005

Just finished another JStor article called “Queer Encounter: Sociology and the Study of Sexuality”, where the author bemoans the seeming shift from the traditional study of sociology and its application to the field of sexuality, which has been replaced by the new paradigm of Queer Theory. The author doesn’t condemn this new paradigm, but rather proposes that to focus solely on it may be limiting as it is a relatively new perspective, drawing on circumstances that took place earlier in the 20 th century. Sociology, however, contains insights which, despite their traditional roots and maybe because of them, take into consideration aspects of sexuality – and particularly where they pertain to the external impact of sexual orientation on the individual – can play a role in the analysis of this impact. Indeed, the author believes that a bridge can be built between the discipline of sociology and modern-day Queer Theory as a legitimate medium to understand modern-day cultural and sociological issues.

For me, it’s important to have an initial understanding of the discipline of sociology before embarking on learning about Queer Theory because the latter is an offspring of the former, the study of would be crucial to truly knowing, or indeed, having a background of the other. It is only through knowing about the rules, that one can proceed to break them.

March 16, 2005

A new book I just started by Jeffrey Weeks and entitled “Invented Moralities: Sexual Values in an Age of Uncertainty” is, like the other works I’ve been reading, proving thought provoking and inspiring. I’ve barely gotten into it, but its premise has to do with the idea of constructs and how these are often used as a way to exercise power over others, particularly when they are presented within the pretext of morality, values and notions of right and wrong. Weeks doesn’t denounce the notion of values. Indeed, he believes in their overall purpose. “Values provide a series of principles from which we can deduce goals, and then develop ways of life and appropriate political responses. Values help us to clarify what we believe to be right and wrong, permissible and impermissible. They should also, I believe, enable us, in a complex and pluralistic world, to ensure that what we think is right is not necessarily what other people think is right, and to find ways of living with difference in a tolerant and democratic fashion” (p. 10, Weeks).

Weeks, however, regrets how the criteria for ascertaining moral values on most aspects of our lives have not been applied to debated on sexual values. Specifically, he bemoans how society has been subjected to debates that espouse the values of religious zealots touting the legitimacy of their beliefs, with the hope of inculcating others desperate for some reassurance of salvation. “Phrases such as ‘family values’, generally encoding a series of hostile responses to changes in family life and sexual behaviour, the impact of feminism and the insurgency of positive lesbian and gay communities and identities, have tended to hegemonise the debate, usually throwing the liberal and radical left on to the defensive.” (p.10-11, Weeks).

The fact of the matter is life is forever evolving, so any value-laden judgements we make about others should be taken within this context. Values should be recognised as mutable, ever a reflection of the vicissitudes of life, not within the context of absolutisms with which, in the end, no one can comply. I look forward to further insights from this book.

Read a really good section of a chapter from the Weeks book. In it, he focuses on the forgotten notion of uncertainty as it pertains to life in general and how we must try to respond to life with this notion in mind. He cites, as an example, the tragedy of AIDS, which, with all its implications can make one aware of, not only the fragility of life, but also its contingency, precluding
the seeming desperation for a 'guarantee' for a life well lived. But as Weeks contends, "that does not mean we should abandon the effort to articulate and clarify the values that do inform our behaviour. There can be agreement on the importance of valuing, even if the conclusions we come to are different. The responsibility  for valuing lies not in some Platonic heaven of eternal certainty, but in human action and creativity - in us, with all our uncertainty" (p.44, Weeks)

I once read something similar in many of the New Age book N. Baby lent me long ago. In the end, regardless of which resource it comes from, revelatory insights are similarly and profoundly impacting.

March 18, 2005

This book by Weeks is quite good. Already I’ve discovered some remarkable insights, particularly in the context of values and how they’re societal inventions meant to create parameters, but that often been misconstrued to have more meaning than they were meant to have.

“The problem is not our lack of values, but the hierarchies in which they are trapped, which claim truth, concepts of right and wrong, as their exclusive prerogative. To say that these notions must always be contextual and relative is not to abandon our ability to measure and judge actions. It is simply to say that we need to be clear why we are making the decisions we do make, what values inform our practices. Only in this way can we engage in the endless conversation about values, different values, that is the human lot.” (Weeks, p.50)

However, Weeks touches on society’s lingering desire to maintain a moralism that presupposes much of the New Right, and whose philosophies are often predicated on absolute notions of right and wrong. But what is overlooked is the binarism that is fundamental to this way of thinking; a ‘truth’ that panders to the restrictions of gender and sexual conventions that are narrowly defined. There also exists a societal propensity for the search for truth of morality, failing to realize that we already live in a moral world.

“We would do better to study its internal rules, maxims, conventions and ideals, rather than detach ourselves from it in search of a universal and transcendent standpoint” (Weeks, p.52).

“The problem of invented traditions, (Michael) Walzer goes on, is that they make truths, they seek to provide what God and Nature unaccountably forgot to provide, a universal corrective for all the different social moralities. They have attempted to provide a goal, an end – whether justice, political virtue, goodness, or some other truth; this has demanded the bending of human wills, energies and desires into a preconceived ideal, where unorthodoxy or resistance have been the ultimate sins” (Weeks, p.52-53).

According to Weeks, the focus on morality needs to change “away from a morality of acts, which locates truth and rightness or wrongdoing in particular practices, and the expression of certain desires, and towards an ethics of relationships, and choice of relationships, which is intent on listening to how we engage with one another, and respond to one another’s needs as fellow human beings” (Weeks, p.54).

March 20, 2005

One of the ideas that Weeks focuses on in his book is the notion of authenticity. He claims that the sexual self, or eroticism underscores authenticity and affirms the self.

“If the self is an imposition, a prison which limits free choice, then the escape from, or perhaps better, a transcendence of the self, has it appeal. Our culture has all too readily justified erotic activity by referencing to something else – reproduction or the cementing of relationships usually – and has ignored the appeal of the erotic as a site of freedom, joy and pleasure” (p. 68).

“Pleasure, joy, happiness are desirable goods, and the erotic is a prime source of them, for men and women, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. But pleasure as an end in itself seems a limited goal if it ignores our complex involvement with others” (p.68).

“It is not the form (whether legal or illegal, socially sanctioned or consciously transgressive) but the content, the meanings we attach to the actions we undertake in the name of the erotic with which we should be concerned” (p.69).

Authenticity, if it is to have any useful meaning in relationship to sexuality, must involve more than either a realization of a putative true self, or a dissolution of the self in the pursuit of polymorphous pleasures. It requires some perception of the meaningfulness of our practices of freedom; what we exercise them for. The autonomous self does not exist outside of time and context. It has to be created” (p.69).

Foucault is an advocate of self-creation, however, he also insists that the recognition of the care for oneself is the care of others. Weeks also quotes Agnes Heller. “In her book Everyday Life Heller counterposes what she describes as the aristocratic style of the aesthete to the democratic seach for a meaningful life:

In the meaningful life….the role of conscious conduct of life is constantly expanding, leading the individual on in confrontation with new challenges, in perpetual re-creation of life and personality, coupled with safe-keeping of the unity of that person and of the chosen value-hierarchy. (1984, p.268).

March 23, 2005

In the next chapter of Weeks’s book, the focus is on identity and the challenges and repercussions which arise in engaging in the process of identification. Much of what plagues the notion of identity is the myriad contexts in which it can exist. How we identify ourselves is often predicated along, gender, political, religious, sexual and cultural lines. No wonder, it isn’t merely the process of distinguishing ourselves from one another nominally, but also through our sexual orientation and the kinds of lifestyles we cultivate. It’s important to note that even those who purport not to belong to any affiliation still identify, and as a result assign, themselves to a category. In this regard, the chapter focuses on the paradoxes that exist in the process of identification, often leading to confusion, and often as a result from our inherent desire to belong. The difference simply lies in our desire to belong to differing – as opposed to similar – groups.

Paradox 1: sexual identity assumes fixity and uniformity while confirming the reality of unfixity, diversity and difference (Weeks, p.88)

Paradox 2: identities are deeply personal but tell us about multiple social belongings. (Weeks, p.90)

Paradox 3: Sexual identities are simultaneously historical and contingent (Weeks, p.92)

Paradox 4: Sexual identities are fictions – but necessary fictions (Weeks, p.98)

According to Weeks sexual identity is particularly difficult because it is simultaneously highly personal as well as public. It also dictates our lifestyles and how we conduct ourselves in both public and private realms. As a result, social influences, insofar as they prefigure our desire to belong, presuppose our identity, rendering them forever in a state of flux. This is a significant idea to me because my presumption has always been that my identity is fixed; that who I am today is who I’ve always been. Now I do agree with this to an extent, insofar as much of what I hold to be ‘true’, I believe I’ve held to be as such for a long time. However, I do admit to being influenced by what I see in the media, the people with whom I interact – particularly those whose viewpoints I respect, admire and emulate – and society at large. Indeed if the diversity of people I’ve considered friends throughout my life are any indication, then I have evolved as a person, and subsequently so has the way I have identified myself.

March 26, 2005

I just finished a journal article called ‘Queerscapes in Contemporary Hong Kong Cinema” by Helen Hok-Sze Leung. In it she lends insight to the differences in audience reactions, perceptions and, thus, expectation in Hong Kong and the West. This is particularly true when it comes to queer issues and how sexuality is generally portrayed in Asian and Western films. Leung contends that unlike in the West, where a healthy independent film industry thrives, Hong Kong alternative film makers need to appeal to mainstream culture in order to survive, despite their personal preference to create work that is more provocative and challenging. Since sex between men was only de-criminalized in 1991, the general public support of gay communities in Hong Kong remains limited, even within gay communities themselves. In addition, there is the strong filial bonds that often results in adult children still living with their parents (or vice versa), and where notions of privacy are privileges more than the norm. The resulting effect is anything but favourable of same-sex unions, a stance that results in the public denial of one’s true sexual identity and the opting for a fence-sitting middle ground.

Because the industry depends entirely on the market, any experimentation must straddle what Pramaggiore called the “industrial fence” that is, the inroads into minority markets must be made without alienating mainstream consumers….even the most artistic Hong Kong films aspire first and foremost to be marketable commodities. (Leung, p.426)

Such circumstances present some interesting dichotomies which Hong Kong film makers interested in creating queer-based projects must work within. For instance, when filming movies that have, as their protagonists gay characters, they are often not identified as openly gay but those who play a secondary, supportive role to the heterosexual ones, a clear deference to mainstream Hong Kong society, which refuses to acknowledge itself.

Much of the themes explored in recent films made by Hong Kong directors are ones whose themes exemplify loss and discovery: loss of bygone times and hope for a better future. As a result characters must call on exceptional strength and battle enormous odds to triumph over adversity, often to their own detriment and demise.

Leung quotes Rey Chow in her article, referring to Chow’s suggestion that “nostalgia is most acutely felt in Hong Kong cinema not as a quest for a definite object in the past but as “an effect of temporal dislocation – of something having been displaced in time”.

Nostalgia is first and foremost a register of the movements of temporality. This is why the narrative structure of Rouge, like many films made in Hong Kong in the 1980’s and 1990’s is itself nostalgic. These films are not, despite their often explicit subject matter, nostalgic for the past as it was; rather they are, simply by their sensitivity to the movements of temporality, nostalgic in tendency. Their affect is tenacious precisely because we cannot know the object of such affect for sure. Only the sense of loss it projects is definite.

Leung provides two recent examples of Hong Kong-made films that illustrate the aforementioned sentiments, and extensively explicates on how each is a worthy example of the difference in attitude between Hong Kong and North American film makers. Whereas in the former, one cannot be overt about his or her treatment of the subject matter and character, transparency seems to be the only effective way to convey the plight of the LGBT in the latter.

March 29, 2005

Just finished reading another article, this time on the subject of action films and the recent popularity of female roles that flout the traditional, heteronormative ideals of feminine beauty and behaviour. “Queering Hollywood’s Touch Chick – The Subversion of Sex, Race, and Nation in The Long Kiss Goodbye and The Matrix” by Theresa L. Geller provides a profound analysis of the role of the ‘tough chick’ and how, in embodying a persona that goes against conventional expectations of what it is to be a woman, the ‘tough chick’ invites discussion on how western society categorizes individuals according to sexist and racist lines. In creating a space for discourse, such a role uses queer theory as a way to subvert traditional heteronormative values, requiring individuals to adhere to strict codes of morality, culture and gender. In these two films, the article contends that the two female characters play more than just highly eroticised, fetishistic fantasies of strong women; their roles are actually crucial to the overall story. This is because they either engage in self-transformation themselves (Long Kiss Goodnight) or facilitate it in others (The Matrix). In inflicting violence – even death towards (straight, white) men, these ‘tough chicks’ metaphorically smash any form of oppression traditionally imposed on women in general. A similar form of oppression inflicted on black men by white men is also discussed in the article. Not coincidentally, the women in these two films – Trinity in the Matrix (Carrie-Ann Moss) and Carly in The Long Kiss Goodnight (Geena Davis) ally themselves with black men, who, though powerful and intelligent in their own ways, are subjected to the same forms of brutality and abuse as slaves. The white women in these two films, though not romantically involved with the black men, do not see them as threats in the way they see the white men being.

The article purports that because the medium of film can be focalised, it is relatively easy to cogently re-assign symbolic significance/identity to characters and in so doing can present to the spectator/audience a forum worthy of discourse.

The continuous process of constructing affiliations, necessary to reproduce a coherent national imagery, produces a myth connection between nationhood and personhood in the form of a story of how the nation arises naturally from the character of its people. The maintenance of such myths requires control over discourse in general and over the dominant story of national origin in particular, for many identity claims, expressed within national societies, do not aid and abet the coherent project of the state (J. Michael Shapiro, Cinematic Political Thought).

This is a revelation because it confirms the power of film making as a medium to convey a message to its viewers. Even within cultures where film makers are not at liberty to create work that invokes thought to the extent that those in the west can, he or she can still effect changes through the subtle layering of character development, context and historical narrative.