Global Gay Nation > Separatism vs. Assimilation

Gay Essence

<< < (2/4) > >>

vanrozenheim:
D. Stephen Heersink (gayspecies):


--- Quote ---I'm not sure what you are arguing for. You claim there is a "gay culture," but haven't cited a single example of one. Then you claim that fear and terror has prevented it from happening. If the latter is true, I would assume there is no former, which negates your claim.

You are certainly right to insist that we have a plurality of "identities," and being gay is exactly just such an identity. But you seem to insist that there is something more than identity, as essence if you will, and I need someone like you to tell me what that essence would be. I've met literally thousands of gay men, and other than a common interest of having sex with other men (and a characteristic of non-aggression), I can't discern any such essence.

What I have discerned is a "gay sensibility," but I must condition even that. Most of the gay men I've met have this sensibility, but many have not. And I can't and won't arbitrate who is or isn't gay based on a sensibility, since some gay men don't have this sensibility, but still identify themselves as gay.

I suspect it is this sensibility that is often added to the dynamic of our lives, a feature that is not particularly carnal, but a sense of brotherhood. If this sensibility is what you are calling "essence" then we are merely semantically different. Essence, though, is entailment, while sensibility is another of many variables. And since this sensibility is only prevalent, not absolute, I cannot insist it is an essence of being gay. One of the features of this sensibility is non-aggression, but there are others -- not an exhaustive list that fits every person, but a set of features than are common to us. Another feature of this sensibility might be drama, which may have limited application, but certainly not every gay man is dramatic. Another sensiblity is, for the lack of a better word, feminine -- gay men in the main seem to enjoy and revel in some feminine sensibilities, such as nurture, caring, comforting, and so on, but many gay men either don't have this feminine sensibility or suppress it. So it cannot be a part of a gay essence.

The problem, of course, is that there are no "essences." Such language is a holdover from Platonic epistemology that few of us still accept. And trying to fit individuals into epistemological categories that don't universally hold true seems to me, at least, a futile exercise. And while the majority of gay men I've known have this "gay sensibility," too many have not had it to make it a categorical imperative of being gay. Like the rest of the people on this earth, perhaps more so, gay men have a plurality of identities (emotions, interests, careers, etc.) but mainly sexual attraction as the sole common denominator that empowers them with a gay identity. For a large number of those who identify themselves as gay, exists a large subset that also has a gay sensibility. But that sensibility is not universal, and thus cannot be part of a gay essence.

Are gay men attracted to those aspects of our culture that pick out other men, especially other men being with other men? Absolutely! I daresay straight and gay readers of "Maurice" experience the novel very differently, but at its core it is a love story between men, which is still a love story. But I'd be hard pressed to call it "gay culture," just culture addressed to gay men. One could easily substitute the men with two women or a man and a woman and still have the same set of affairs around them. Maybe I'm missing what you believe to be distinctly and uniquely "gay culture," and maybe an example of what you mean might elucidate for me a distinction I cannot find. The only tentative idea I can think of is the gay bathhouse, but then too many gay men do not like that ambience to count it as a gay culture. It certainly is part of the gay scene, but again straights have had bathhouses too, so what does that do to the idea?
--- End quote ---


Vanrozenheim:


--- Quote ---I am afraid, you are a little bit polemic here in the course of defending your point of view. This might have prevented you from seeing what I actually was attempting to say.

What I did say, was that there very well is a gay culture, and I also said that "no gay art can develope in an atmosphere of fear and terror". Provided that I did not claim that fear and terror were omnipresent EVERYWHERE and IN ALL TIMES, you must agree that it is not the same as to say "that fear and terror has prevented it [gay culture] from happening [at all]."

If you look abroad, you will see that in those countries where homosexuality is penallized, there is indeed no CONTEMPORARY gay culture detectable - just go to Nigeria and try to find any literature or films on gay issues. The same way, "Maurice" was well written 1913-1914 but it was determined by E. M. Forster to be published post-mortem, and one shall not forget he died 1970 (!). Thus, while gay culture is summa summarum very well existing in this world, many, many works never see the daylight, and our culture is far from achieving its FULL POSSIBLE greatness because of exclusion of large numbers of gifted individuals from it, whereas in better circumstances they would contribute to it. What is illogical in this argumentation? I think it is below the level of this discussion to ask me to list examples of gay literature and gay art - we both know there are thousands of appropriate examples, and I am not intended to make a schoolboy from me by citing few of them.

To make my point more clear to you, I shall better summarize my objections:

1) Searching for the "gay essence", you, after a lengthy discussion, come to the conclusion, that there is nothing more behind being gay than feeling sexually attracted to the same-sex individuals. Well, being homosexual PER DEFINITION means feeling attracted to the same-sex individuals, for this you don't need to write an exposé. What you were looking for by writing this article was to prove the thesis that gays actually have nothing else in common than having sex with men. I think this thesis is wrong (and harmful).

2) You set up very different criterions for recognition of "gay identity" and "gay culture" than for any other identity and culture. Applying these arbitrarily SEVERED criterions, you argue against the mere existence of gay identity and gay culture, whereas you at the same time without any reservation accept e.g. the "american identity" and "american culture". In your reply, btw, you gently avoid any discussion of this obvious point.

3) By renouncing the significance of the gay identity, a person appears more qualified for the mainstream identity, e.g. for the american identity. If being gay were proven to be culturally irrelevant, there were no reason why a homo can't be "as good as anybody else". In essence of this article, you argue for inclusion into the superordinated (obviously, national) identity, while trying make us think gay identity irrelevant.

For me, it seems obvious that inducing or accepting such erosion of gay identity will INEVITABLY result in political impotence of gay people and in decline of gay culture, which is a somewhat high price for "inclusion". By accepting the irrelevance of gay identity, gays will indeed come down to the level of "men having sex with men".
--- End quote ---


Too bad, I forgot to mention that in "Maurice" it would be not possible to change characters to "man and woman", because contrary to Mr. Heersink's opinion not the beatiful love story, but the conflict between same-sex love and the surrounding Victorian society was the point of the roman. I can't imagine why this point slipped attention of Mr. Heersink, who has proven remarkable insight at other occasions.  :roll:

Vizier:
People! The dead links are horrible. While the Hicklin commentary is still there, the blog Vicky has inserted is gone. Please remedy?

Vizier:

--- Quote from: "vanrozenheim" ---Too bad, I forgot to mention that in "Maurice" it would  not be possible to change characters to "man and woman", because contrary to Mr. Heersink's opinion not the beautiful love story, but the conflict between same-sex love and the surrounding Victorian society was the point of the story. I can't imagine why this point slipped attention of Mr. Heersink, who has proven remarkable insight at other occasions.  :roll:
--- End quote ---


E.M. Forster's largely autobiographical Maurice was a real eye-opener for me, as it made me understand myself much better when it first appeared on film... after having closeted myself for years, it was nice to feel somehow strangely empowered enough to throw open the doors and come out to my family. That was 1998.

Heersink no doubt also has no problem with people changing the gender of love songs? Doesn't work either.  Try singing I'm Gonna Wash That Man Right Outta My Hair after transgenderizing it. Baaaaad!  :P

Feral:
The blog GaySpecies is alive and well. Perhaps being archived killed the link. The post with Vicky's comments is here.

vanrozenheim:
Dr. Heersink has posted a new contribution to the same issue, wrapped as Gay Art, Gay Culture? Here is a small extract from his post:


--- Quote ---Queer Theorists want to pigeon-hole all gay men and/or lesbians as having an ubiquitous essence that transcends and applies to all "gay-named" individuals. That desire is untenable, implausible, and impossible. Collect a hundred "gay-identified men," and one gets almost a hundred different "gay expressions," some perhaps overlapping others, some excluding others, but very few, if any, that apply to all hundred gay men equally. So much, for "gay essence."
--- End quote ---


Well, Dr. Heersink misrepresents Queer Theorists here. What he claims about pigeon-holing of gays is not true even for Gay Nationalists, even less for Queer Theorists. As in our previous discussion, the mistake in logic is so obvious I can not understand why he does not see it by himself: characterizing an Ethnos does not require that every individual is an exact copy of the other, it's about statistics. There is no necessity that a particular token is present in ALL individual of a race/ethnos/species, it is sufficient that this token is quite common among the described group. Usually, not only one token serves to describe a creature as belonging to a particular race/ethnos/species, but a set of a number of tokens. Not all ducks have two legs, but when we see a duck we can recognize it as duck -- because the one-legged duck still has a number of different "duckish" tokens. The same way, Gays might differ on an individual level, but as a group we statistically differ from straights on a plentitude of tokens -- and this statistical difference is the ONLY requirement to describe a "Group" or a "People" as different from others.

Though I see his post as provocative (at least for me), I will not respond. Dr. Heersink appears unable or unwilling to understand the antropological approach to culture and identity. Introducing false prepositions right from beginning (like some artificial "essence" being required for peoplehood and culture), he then logically comes to some conclusions which appear to contradict every empiric sense. Why so? Because starting with false axioms will lead you to false conclusions even by following formal rules of deduction.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page