Aesthetics
Asguard
An interesting article I've posted many a time before. It comes in the wake of the infamous Oregon Measure 9 of 1992:
Sedgwick argues, and it is true in the discourse surrounding Measure 9, that homosexuality often serves as a figure which condenses and stands in for "wider mappings of secrecy and disclosure, and of the private and the public, that [...] are critically problematical for the gender, sexual, and economic structures of the heterosexist culture at large" (71). Public concern about homosexuality is thus often sparked and bound up with other crises. These wider mappings inform every facet of the Measure 9 discourse, as homosexuality comes to stand in for and answer to other anxieties about class, the family, and the future.
In addition to these contradictions, popular epistemologies of homosexuality in the West since the end of the nineteenth century are also characterized by a co-dominance of what Sedgwick calls "minoritizing" and "universalizing" discourses. The minoritizing view holds that gays constitute a distinct minority, that there are a small number of people who, in some essential sense, "really are" gay. The universalizing view, on the other hand, holds that sexual desire (conceived of in some universal way) "is an unpredictably powerful solvent of stable identities" (85). The specter of a gayness which is distinct yet contagious haunts most twentieth century homosexual panics, and the contradiction inherent in this vision only serves as a spur for narratives which try to explain it. In the past twenty years, these narratives have usually been narratives of child seduction. In these stories, the child's "vulnerability" and "impressionability" help to explain why homosexual desire, although fundamentally alien and abhorrent to all but the "really gay" minority, can nonetheless be thought of as contagious. In my own experience, I can recall first learning the term "gay" in just such a narrative, during orange juice queen Anita Bryant's 1979 crusade against homosexual teachers.
Simon Watney notes that AIDS discourse only reinforced this figuration of homosexuality as contagion/seduction:
Two major streams of images and their related association converge to constitute this shadow. Firstly, the notion of homosexuality as a contagious condition, invisible and always threatening to reveal itself where least expected. And secondly, the spectacle of erotic seduction, in which "innocent," "vulnerable" youth is fantasised as an unwilling partner to acts which, nonetheless, have the power to transform his (or her) entire being [....] There is an important internal conflict at work [...] concerning the 'normal' person's 'disgust', and the seeming ease with which it is apparently over- ridden. (23) ....
.... Implicit in the image of the closet is an image of containment. In the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "closet" Sedgwick inserts before chapter I, the linguistic connection between the closet and other containers, such as the skin or the sewer, are explicit. The closet is: a small room; "a room for privacy;" a cupboard; "the den or lair of a wild beast;" a toilet; or "A sewer." "This skinne," says one example, "is also called the little closet of the heart" (65). That which resides in the closet is especially frightening (a skeleton, a wild beast), or especially filthy (shit). Danger, rupture, contamination, or death follow the breach of the closet. Thus, a paranoid thematics of containment attends on the closet, because that which is in the closet is that which cannot help but violate if set free. That which is closeted is intimately and inevitably involved with bodily orifices--both food (in the cupboard) and excrement (in the "water- closet," in the sewer) are closeted. Simon Watney discerns the paranoid point of truth behind the fear of homosexual contamination--the gay man, he says, really is a threat to the artificial rigidity of gender identity:
Above all, homosexuality problematises the casual identification of primary power with the figure of the biological male as masterful penetrator. It equally problematises the parallel identification of powerlessness and passivity with the figure of the biological female as submissive and penetrated. For the gay man is truly polymorphous: he may fuck and be fucked... (28)
Le'a Kent
And that doesn't even get into the juicy part about children.
But we do see the insertion (pardon the pun) of the idea of
aesthetics and the psychology involved therein.
"Billy and Chuckie" focuses anxiety on the male child as seducible weak point of the patriarchal family, and on a horrified vision of child sexuality per se. The patriarchal family is envisioned as a container breached by the penetrating, uncloseted gay man. In this scenario, the Porsche-driving gay man penetrates the child simply by being out of the closet and not evidently persecuted-- "Being gay hasn't hurt Mr. Carson, has it?" Although the seduced child becomes feminized and corrupt, the seducer is masculine and aggressive. Has this masculinity been stolen from straight family men by the economically successful, Porsche-driving gay man? This possibility runs throughout "Homosexuality, the Classroom, and Your Children," and is epitomized by a manifesto attributed to "Michael Swift, Gay revolutionary."
We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, however men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding.[2]
Whether the source of this polemic is legitimate or not, what is significant here is that it is reprinted (and evidently felt) as a genuine threat. "Feeble masculinity" is what is at issue here--Billy's feeble masculinity (the product of a divorced family), the feeble masculinity of divorced men who can't keep their families, the feeble masculinity of men whose prerogatives within the family are not what they once were, and, perhaps, the feeble masculinity of depleted and economically abandoned Oregon mill towns.
I quoted "Billy and Chuckie" at length mainly in order to make it available for textual analysis, but also to emphasize what a stunning creation it comprises. It is important, I think, to highlight the fantastic nature of this story. (Indeed, where else but in right-wing fantasy do grade- school teachers drive Porsches?) Somewhere, some OCA minion, some fine upstanding homophobic man or woman, composed this story of pre-teen seduction, and drew the accompanying illustration. It is through and through the creation, not of NAMBLA, not of the "gay agenda," but of the religious right. In this respect, it is like the portrait of the homosexual drawn by Jesse Helms's 1989 National Endowment for the Arts regulation, of which Judith Butler observes:
If the legal statute relies on this figure of the male homosexual, then perhaps the legal statute can be understood as its own kind of fantasy. [...] This law contains [...] a figure of homosexuality whose figurings, whose "representations," are to be forbidden [...] Is this a figure that the law contrives in order to prohibit, or perhaps, prohibits in order to produce--time and again--for its own...satisfaction? Is this a production of a figure that it itself outlaws from production, a vehement and public way of drawing into public attention the very figure that is supposed to be banned from public attention and public funds? [...] In a sense, the Helms amendment in its final form can be read as precisely that kind of pornographic exercise that it seeks to renounce. (Butler 117)
In the same way, "Billy and Chuckie" can be read as "precisely that kind of pedophilic exercise that it seeks to renounce."
Le'a Kent
So let's start the example with Joe. We can imagine Joe as an "average" American family man, part of that "middle America" that screams to be accommodated despite the Constitution.
Joe is raised to believe sodomy is morally and functionally wrong, and that there is something wrong with gays. Additionally, Joe is subject to any number of heterosexual worldview stereotypes. Joe is not a saint, but neither is he a horrible guy. One day, Joe starts to wonder if his son, Scott, is gay. What tips him off at first is that Scott is too pretentious about his own appearance. And something about Scott's voice seems mincing. Now, I as the narrator must insert my voice here to point out that I've known plenty of effeminate-seeming heterosexual males. And I've known plenty of masculine-seeming lesbians. However, I'm not Joe.
The first thing we might ask concerns Joe's criteria:
Are the points upon which Joe's suspicion fair?
I'm reminded of a day I went to a Portland State football game. I rode down with my father, who met up with an old friend from his coaching days. The man had two sons, my age and younger. The younger boy had gotten green ink on his hands somehow. I forget how. It's not important. As young boys do, of course, he showed his Dad. I think the joke was about "Swamp Thing". But the father wasn't amused. "You look like a goddamn faggot leprechaun!" he stormed. "Go wash your fucking hands!"
What's wrong with looking like a faggot leprechaun? I mean, no I don't like the shoes much, and the hat's not for me; nor would it have looked good on this young boy. But we both liked the cereal, so what's the problem with a faggot leprechaun that children like?
A common comedy routine about birth is the expectant, anxious father who doesn't know how to react when he finds out his child is a daughter. True, sonic imaging can solve this problem months beforehand, which is why we don't see the joke as much, but think sympathetically for a moment about that kick in the gut. Looking forward to teaching the boy to throw a baseball, swing a bat, or catch a football ... all that disappears.
Why does it disappear? Because of other social prejudices. The Canadian version of the joke might involve trading in bulky hockey skates for neat, trim figure-skating blades. In the U.S., nobody even considers the softball, so the father is supposed to drop the mitt while looking stunned while trying to hide his disappointment. But the whole bonding experience a father looks forward to, the teaching a boy to become a man--a fundamental reinforcement of the father's manhood--evaporates and that passage is left to be governed by a mother.
Getting back to Joe, we might consider what the poor chap is supposed to think when he finds out thirteen years later that his bonding experience, his leading a son to manhood, will be alien to his own manhood? He might as well, for all the value of cultural prejudice, have found out his son was a daughter.
.... homosexuality problematises the casual identification of primary power with the figure of the biological male as masterful penetrator
Translation:
Homosexuality undermines gender identity, challenges "manhood".
In this very flip, so many things fall apart. In addition to the collapse of common identity and transfer of manhood as rite of passage, internal standards--morals--are challenged in unfamiliar contexts. A manly man might well enough "respect" women, and teach a boy to "protect" his sister or be decent to women. But in a culture where "sex is violent" (Jane's Addiction) or "sex is a weapon" (Pat Benetar), repetition can take its toll.
Who among us who is sexually active for a period of years does not have in their history an encounter they regret for personal standards that give two fingers to social mores? For a man who values manhood, the thought that some faggot's penis will do to the son what the father did to the mother becomes intolerable. The man knows he's sodomized his wife. He knows it's not pretty. He knows how she clenched her fists and ground her teeth. He knows the primal sound she makes as he impales her. And now that image is irrevocably assigned to the son.
Facing the demons of his own sexual past, the father seeks to avoid the issue. The frustration builds, and the surrogate enemy is homosexuality.
.... (H)omosexuality shapes, is shaped by, and stands in for wider conflicts and tensions in society ....
.... (H)omosexuality often serves as a figure which condenses and stands in for "wider mappings of secrecy and disclosure, and of the private and the public, that [...] are critically problematical for the gender, sexual, and economic structures of the heterosexist culture at large" ... Public concern about homosexuality is thus often sparked and bound up with other crises. These wider mappings inform every facet of the Measure 9 discourse, as homosexuality comes to stand in for and answer to other anxieties about class, the family, and the future.
Thus, whether it is the scandalous memory of his own sodomite encounters with his wife or former girlfriends, the failure of his own sexual prowess, the collapse of his marriage, or the loss of his authority to govern the lives of his family, the father seeks to blame this concept--homosexuality--that is so alien to him and inserting itself into his local dynamic.
So Joe will lash out at his faggot son, even if for no better reason than causing a headache.
And this whole example is drawn
in media res. Note the lack of discussion of the
origins of cultural prejudice. The simple reality is that Joe's visceral reaction to his son's outing derives from concepts learned by rote instead of for their actual value. Like the kid in third grade who always scored well on his multiplication tables for memorizing them, but couldn't multiply. Every school has at least one.
And Joe doesn't even understand the processes of his own moral structure. Changing perspectives forced by the son's outing, or even Joe's mere suspicion--the son needs not necessarily be gay for the purposes of this example--are exaggerated against a blank backdrop. Joe doesn't know what to think or do, which condition makes the problem he perceives seem all the more pressing.
We might also point out that I have focused on men. There are two reasons for this. First, I'm male. The male dynamic is inherent in my perspective. The female perspective is most likely more foreign to my sensibilities than, say, the Canadian or Australian outlook regardless of sexuality. (Some would argue the point; not that the Canadian or Australian outlook is tremendously foreign, but that I'm more effeminate than I give myself credit for.)
Secondly, I might simply refer you to the article itself; there is a section called, "Sufficiently Invisible Lesbians", which asserts rather soundly that the gay fray in the culture seems to focus on the gay male:
Lesbians are elided within the General Voters' Pamphlet as well. Although one sentence in Argument in Favor 6 states that "Lesbian propaganda dominates Women's Studies courses at Portland State University" (GVP 96), the homosexual the OCA is concerned with is the male homosexual. Argument in Favor 4, submitted by the OCA, persistently uses masculine pronouns to refer to its "promoting homosexual:"
...if a person is using his job to promote, encourage or facilitate the behaviors listed in the initiative, inquiry by a superior is required....Remedial actions should be proportional to the degree that the individual has made his private sexual behavior a job-related factor. (95)
Although it's probably not surprising that the OCA, an organization responsible for a statewide anti- abortion initiative in 1986, would fail to use gender- neutral language, the elision of lesbians is even clearer in the catalogue of "homosexual practices" in Argument in Favor 5. In addition to drawing on the "child protection" and "family values" rhetoric prominent throughout the GVP, this argument attempts to marshal disgust through the following statistics, obviously chosen for visceral appeal: Studies by leading researchers show that the following practices are regularly engaged in by many homosexuals: fellatio 100%, fisting 41% (inserting fist and forearm into rectum), rimming 92% (licking rectum), water sports 29% (urinating on partners, drinking urine), mud wallowing 17% (defecating on partner), sadomasochism 37% (beating, piercing, another person for sexual pleasure), public sex 66% (public restrooms, bathhouses, parks), pedophilia 46% (sex with minors). (Nebraska Medical Journal, 1985 and Lancet, June 9, 1984).
Sodomy and other routine homosexual practices tear and rupture the tissue of the lower bowel and allow for easy transmission of viral and bacterial infections. It's no wonder that Portland's homosexual newspaper JUST OUT (July, 1992), reports that homosexuals account for 92% of all AIDS cases in Oregon to date....A 1982 Center for Disease Control study showed that homosexual men infected with the AIDS virus had averaged 1160 partners. (GVP 96)
In addition to its (mis)use of scientific authority [5], this list interests me for two reasons. First, although the list of statistics (as well as the legal force of Measure 9) is supposed to apply to all homosexuals, lesbians are completely elided in this argument ("fellatio, 100%"), as well as in most other OCA propaganda. [6] Historical lesbian invisibility, combined with the (near- )absence of lesbians from AIDS discourses, seem to collude to erase lesbians from this particular debate. As Eve Sedgwick has said,
...a certain anal-erotic salience of male homosexuality is if anything increasingly strong under the glare of heterosexist AIDS-phobia; and several different historical influences have led to the de-genitalization and bodily diffusion of many popular, and indeed many lesbian, understandings of lesbian sexuality. (35)
In other words, lesbians are not a target in Measure 9's discourse because they are already effectively closeted.
Le'a Kent
I actually disagree with Kent in part. Lesbians might be "effectively closeted", but lesbianism is also more accepted and traditionally more encouraged. Many who would support traditionalist-marriage notions or gay-exclusion laws don't recognize the conflict of the erection lesbian pornography brings them. I used to have (and may still, though I haven't seen it for a couple years) a
Penthouse issue (purchased for a different photo spread) that not only contained lesbianism in the form of two women with bodies airbrushed to mystical-rainbow-piano forms, but the women were
sisters. In Oregon, where regular customers of strip clubs are often homophobes--and supported the very measure Kent analyzes--the men stood up and cheered for the twins doing the sexy bump and grind onstage.
Kent may see lesbians as "effectively closeted", and I won't deign to argue, since there are aspects of her assertion that still reach beyond me, but the "sufficiently invisible lesbian" also owes her transparency to the fact that many homophobes simply don't think of lesbians as "homosexuals" unless specifically asked. No penis, no problem.
But the sufficiently invisible lesbian, for whatever reasons she is reduced to a shadow player in this drama, is subject to bigotry of lust instead of the bigotry of social supremacy.
And that's a big cue that this is about aesthetics. That the lesbian both undermines the prevailing phallocentrism in American society and challenge the exclusivity of masculine authority as well is enough to condemn her. Furthermore, listen to the savage jokes about lesbians. How many of them start with, "So these two dyke hotties walk into a bar ..."? Very few, and probably told by the lesbians more often than by the hetero men. Most jokes about lesbians require a bull-dyke, preferably in leather, and if she has a hairy mole on her chin, well, that just seals it.
Aesthetics. Appearances. The ugly dykes are ridiculed. The hottie dykes give men erections. There is an aspect of jealousy, there, but how long can I carry on with this post? It should suffice to merely suggest the possibility that the dyke is ridiculed in general for denying the heterosexual male another hole and heartbeat to choose from. And we can further speculate that the difference in how we treat lesbians based on their appearance has to do in the case of the hottie dykes with the fact that something desirable has declared a manly manhood's chance of proving itself nil, while the ugly dykes take the brunt of the frustration since the guy "wouldn't do her, anyway".
Style. Aesthetics. Appearances. Over and over the superficial bubbles up in this stew.
Would
Lysistrata be a classic if it hinged on sodomy?
And talk about a double-punishment. Not only is the husband denied intimacy itself, but he must also sit by excluded from what is widely acknowledged as being perhaps the most beautiful sexual act in the world--lesbianism according to the imagination of a virile heterosexual male.
When cornered, the homophobe will usually resort to the basic truth: the thought of the act is disgusting. When questioned if that opinion is worth screwing up the laws and trashing the Constitution, the homophobe will abandon that honesty and return to politics. Trying to pin down even a sincerely decent homophobe on the subject is a little like trying to tack up a poster while standing ten feet away from the wall. It just generally can't be done. Somebody, however, will eventually invent the finglonger. And then the women will have even less use for the men, but that's beside the point since it's sarcastic.
The whole public fight about sexuality stems from heterosexual insecurity that manifests itself every time a person looks in the mirror. Comparing the self-image and its necessity to the ill-understood image of homosexuality, the homophobe simply can't stand what takes place inside their own skull. The discord compels them to lash out irrationally, even hatefully.
But then, we must remember, that even the hateful homophobe does not actually hate gays, but merely wants to hurt them in any way they think is acceptable under the law. Apparently, there's a difference.
One should not take this indictment of homophobia as complete. The motivations of homophobia, like any other idea in motion, are as diverse as its adherents. But by and large, those diverse motivations can be classified with relative ease according to their underlying device. Aesthetics alone is not the sole motivating factor, but rather is emerging in my view as the primary culprit.
Take gay marriage, for instance. It will be very hard for the traditionalists to show injury warranting a legal response in the accepting of same-sex unions. Yet by playing on people's insecurities and juxtaposing those with cultural-aesthetic prejudices, homophobes can easily spread the fear of (nonexistant) injury to such a point that many people "who don't hate gays" are willing to hurt gays as much as the law allows.
And some of them won't stop at what the law allows, either. Some of the measures put before the people in Oregon would have legitimized the "acute homophobia" defense discussed in relation to the murder of Matthew Shepherd.
But that's not hate. It's merely aesthetics. And we know how important aesthetics are.
Watch the American gay fray closely enough, and you'll see the "hate-free" aesthetic revulsion bubbling to the surface.
____________________
Notes: