What I Learned Over Summer Vacation: Blog 3

Maybe the most important thing I have learned is that homosexuality, as an identity rather than an act, is an invention. Between Jagoes and Foucault, this point became very clear to me. I like how Foucault points out that 1870, sodomy was simply an act that could have legal consequences, but it was not a sickness, a diagnosis, or an identity that anyone took on to themselves. Foucault has an awesome sentence on page forty three that sums this point up nicely: “Homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphroditism of the soul.” I read this to mean that sodomy went from being an act, one that may or may not be punished, to an identity that meant something... it meant that you were mixed up inside, your feelings were androgynous, and your “soul” was “deformed.”

This leads me to my second point: identity and who it serves. Throughout my research for my class project, I see many trans (and gay/lesbian) people privilege other cultures, specifically native Americans, for having a place in their society for people of “Queered” genders or sexualities. Two-Spirit is mentioned the most. People tend to like the idea that a trans or gender nonconforming person in these cultures often held a special place or role, often as priest or caretaker to children. While I think it is interesting that these older cultures were able to make a place for folks of nonstandard gender and we in our modern/progressive times have not been able to, I also find it sad that by being gender nonconforming you had to fulfill a role – your path was already chosen for you. I'm bringing this up because the notion of “having” or “being” an identity is problematic. This is what we learn from Butler. Gender is something that we do, but also something that is done to us. In the case of the Two-Spirit folks mentioned above, they may elect (note that “elect” and “choose” do not have the same meaning) to express nonstandard feelings they have, but by doing so the society/culture puts them in a box. Butler talks about how gender is a failure – always. How we can never really “be” a gender. In the documentary Butler says, “There are many people who argue that we should all have a place. That we should feel at home in our bodies or at one with ourselves. I don't think this is a possibility. I am always slightly misidentified with any position. I don't belong well.” The same people that argue that we should all have a place are likely the same people that feel that we should all have a label, because they really are the same thing. By claiming a place, by adopting a label, we, in Butler's words, “are made by the norms of gender, but also prevented by the norms of gender to make ourselves.” I feel like I went a long way out of my way simply to say: identity is limiting for anyone who claims to have one.

Important to note here, is something Jagose points to in giving here background history on gay and lesbian movements: adopting an identity is one of the only ways to make progress. When we look back on the homophile and other movements we can feel like they were not radical enough, that they did not push hard enough for rights, or the things that “we” want today. But that isn't fair. Because some brave folks were able to claim homosexuality they were able to include it in the DSM which at the time allowed for better treatment (and I don't mean medical treatment); then because some more brave folks were willing to fight homosexuality got taken out of the DSM allowing for the formation of homosexuality as an identity without the medical connotation. Little by little, people who were willing to claim an identity have allowed for progress. However, currently, and in light of my previous paragraph, I wonder if now is the time that progress should/could be made by not claiming an identity at all.

Another thing I found interesting is the way Foucault tied the notion of “population as power” to the urge to control people's sexuality and to create the family unit. I was really surprised by how much sense this made. A family is a self replicating unit that does work (labor) and makes soldiers to fight and protect the governments land – of course population equals power! When I think about this idea applied to the world in terms of sexuality it explains a lot. Take the Down Low phenomenon for example; in some circles it has become acceptable to be on the down low as long as you still get married and make babies. As long as you go forth and multiply, keep the factories and the armies stocked, it doesn't matter what you do in your downtime. And this isn't isolated only to the DL in American culture; similar things occur around the world. I have seen several Bollywood films that focus on this theme. All that being said, I wonder why we haven't backed off from this idea. In a dystopian novel by Anthony Burgess, The Wanting Seed, the world has become over populated and the government not encourages homosexuality, discourages marriage, and over taxes people with children. I wonder what the tipping point is; when does population no longer equal power, but trouble?

While this is something I found in my own research for the PK project, before this class I did not know about the notion of “GenderQueer” people. I like the idea of this. From what I understand, GenderQueer folks do not claim either gender... they think that either neither gender fits, or that they are somewhere between the two along the spectrum.

In short, five things I have learned from my work in this class are:

1. Homosexuality as an identity is constructed.
2. Identities can serve the culture and not the person.
3. Claiming an identity has been necessary for progress in the past.
4. Legal control over sexuality is tied to the idea that population equals power.
5. There is an identity that claims neither gender identity: GenderQueer.