|
October 09, 2006
fear of shame that won't speak its name
While the expression "coming out" is associated with homosexuality, it's a lot more associated with speech than with activity. I've long thought that the real "homophobia" does not involve fear of homosexuality so much as it involves people being uncomfortable talking about it. In the old days, this discomfort was because of the taboo nature of the subject (i.e. "the love that dare not speak its name"), and while this traditional discomfort has not died out, a new discomfort has arisen which I'll call "fear" for lack of a better word. While it hasn't completely replaced the old fear, it's subtly insinuating itself into the well-worn, time tested touchy spots in the human psyche. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that there was a covert psy war operation going on. To make sure that old prejudice is replaced by new fear, perhaps? Might not it be worth at least addressing the old fear before it's been completely replaced by the new fear? Let me admit my bias. I don't like traditional anti-gay prejudice, and I've discussed it in more posts than I can remember. However, I don't like the way gay identity politics has stifled discussion of things which need to be discussed. It is my thesis that discussing the gay issue in anything other than a politically-approved manner has become politically and professionally risky. Under the rubric of "gay rights," identity politics is generating a brand-new fear which is rapidly replacing the old one. Homophobophobia? Is such a thing possible? The answer seems to be no. Wikipedia has deleted the word as well as discussion of it as a topic, but defines it anyway in its list of protologisms. 1. the fear, abhorrence, discrimination, prejudice, and all other perceived bias and intolerance against political, religious, spiritual, and/or other groups who demonstrate signs of disagreement or confrontation of - or even the desire to help or restore to wellness and good health persons living with - homosexualism, or against those challenging the medical condition of homosexualism itself 2. The unmerited or erroneous perception, classification, allegation, or name-calling of persons displaying certain characteristics - based on their religious, spiritual, political, or otherwise personal preference - as being homophobic 3. The fear of being, or appearing, homophobic 4. Deleting a WikiMedia article in regards to homophobophobiaI'd say the last three definitions are what I'm talking about, but it's not a word. What's Wikipedia afraid of? Unending cycles of contradictory definitions and counterdefinitions? Dare we call it homophobophobophobia? Whatever any of this might be called, it's pretty clear that the love that once dared not speak its name may not be safely discussed in an unapproved manner. Yet at the same time this is happening, many of us are forgetting how profoundly divergent are the cultural viewpoints in the debate over gay rights. This "debate" (for lack of a better term) includes "sides" which might as well not be living in the same society, much less arguing on the same page in history. I am deadly serious: imagine trying to have a debate between people who want to bring back sodomy laws and people who want gay marriage. And the people who still believe in sodomy laws are nowhere near as fringy as an even fringier fringe which thinks in terms of the death penalty for "sodomy." For those who didn't grow up in a gay ghetto, sodomy laws existed until fairly recently in a number of states, and while they weren't enforced, they reflect a tradition which was once mainstream. To deny this is to deny reality as well as history. Times were changing gradually, but the "old guard" still exists, and it fought hard to keep the sodomy laws in the minority of states which still had them. For the most part, this old guard has to content itself by spearheading opposition to same sex marriage. While that's what leads gay activists to denounce opposition to same sex marriage as "bigotry," the fact that 70% of the public (including the leadership of the Democratic Party) also think the country is not ready for same sex marriage seems to receive less attention. However, admitting opposition to same sex marriage, mainstream though it is, is these days an easier way to be called a bigot than voicing opposition to affirmative action. The result of all this is that homosexuality remains the sensitive topic it has always been. A new taboo has quickly arisen to replace an old taboo. But a taboo is a taboo. Like it or not, the social and political taboo is there, and I think it's getting worse. Open and honest discussion of this issue in which people are free to say what they think is more often than not hopeless. Liberals are allowed to voice support for gay rights and same sex marriage (an excellent way for them to obtain Official Certification of Non-Bigoted Status, BTW), but conservatives are generally in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. Factor in privacy, and factor in a discomfort with public discussion of dicey sexual issues, and the general consensus is that the topic is best avoided. This is especially true in politics, and Republicans are a lot more uncomfortable with discussing the gay issue than are Democrats. And what about the repugnance factor? To deny that the traditional repugnance towards homosexuality is very much alive is to deny reality. Yet denial of repugnance is all but demanded -- especially for anyone involved in politics. Those who find homosexuality repugnant have learned that this repugnance must not speak its name. Not because they don't have the feelings of repugnance, but because it is one of the quickest ways to be labeled a bigot. And very, very few people want to be labeled bigoted. Thus, whether they realize it or not, their repugnance is quickly shoved in the closet. Traditional and personal repugnance runs head-on into identity politics, and the fear of being called bigoted. It's truly a no win situation, and the best resolution is usually the route of doing the politically expedient thing, and keeping repugnance in the closet. Jonah Goldberg touched on this phenomenon last week: So much of this current brouhaha revolves around the fact that Foley did at least one thing right: he resigned when confronted with the repugnance of his own deeds. This left a lot of angry people without someone to flay in public. Which in turn left the social conservative base of the GOP looking for a scalp at the same time the Democrats were eager to relentlessly exploit the issue for partisan gains. These high pressure and low pressure systems helped create the perfect storm we are in.But the Republicans couldn't sit and let this thing drag out. And even though the answer was staring me in the face, it still took me days to figure out why. That's because it seemed counterintuitive. People on opposite sides of the fence are driven by completely different forms of shame. On the one side are people who associate shame with homosexuality and on the other are people who associate that very same shame with bigotry, and declare that shame should be a source of more shame. Literally these cycles of shame each fuel the other. Who on earth wants to step into anything so toxic? Add the aroma of pedophilia (and the aroma is there, even though the reality is not), and it's painfully obvious why the Republicans were not about to sit around and hold hearings in which one of their own leaders would be forced to explain that yes, he thought the boys were very cute, but no, he did not have sexual relations with them. This can be called many things, and I have tried to identify some of the factors. But to call it a "coverup" as the Democrats are doing is disingenuous. This is not to say that someone didn't coverup something, as scandals inherently involve the making public of things that people wanted kept secret. But I think shame is at the heart of it. Not a "coverup" in the ordinary political sense of the word but an unwillingness to deal with uncomfortable feelings. If this is a coverup, it's the same sort of coverup which causes many a father of many a gay man to change the subject whenever the subject of his son's homosexuality comes up. Nothing like a national scandal involving an issue that people don't feel free to discuss. Well, some people are more free to discuss it than others. At least, people think they're more free to discuss it than others. Maybe the people who imagine they're freer will overplay their hand. (Hey, that it might lead to freer discussion, but I'd hate to end an essay like this on a note of optimism....) MORE: Ann Althouse thinks that the morals voters are not as naive as commonly believed, and that they can see through political opportunism: There is a tendency to assume the morals voters are naive, that you can play them and even talk about how you're playing them and they won't see the whole picture that includes you trying to play them. The aggressive politicization of the Foley story is itself a story and the voters witness it and react. It's hardly surprising if they've reacted with revulsion to politicians for their expedient use of the story to claw toward power, which really is more repugnant than self-indulgent sexual expression. Would it shake your preconceptions to find out that even hardcore morals voters see that?(Via Glenn Reynolds.) A lot of people can distinguish between real and fake repugnance. And it wouldn't surprise me if they found the latter more repugnant than the former. MORE: Be sure to read Mrs. du Toit's very thoughtful comment below. I think she's right that there's not much of a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual attraction to teens, but I think the latter is more touchy and more awkward to deal with for the reasons I discussed. There's just a visceral, teeth-set-on-edge reaction which wouldn't be the same had Foley talked dirty to young women. Its very nature makes it tough to acknowledge, much less discuss openly. AND MORE: Commenter Anthony has pointed out that the Wikipedia discussion (of the deletion of "homophobophobia") is still there, and here's the link. It seems to me that no matter what they do with the word (or who owns it), fearing the imputation of "homophobia" is as legitimate as many other fears. The refusal to attach "phobia" to it makes about as much sense as using the word "phobia" to denote bigotry or hatred in the first place. If "homophobia" is in fact an actual fear, then why aren't "homophobes" treated with the same compassion accorded sufferers of agoraphobia or arachnophobia? posted by Eric on 10.09.06 at 12:06 PM
Comments
The discussion regarding deletion of "homophobophobia" is still there, just not on the talk page. Anthony · October 9, 2006 04:27 PM I didn't realize that your comment section stripped links. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Homophobophobia Anonymous · October 9, 2006 04:30 PM I didn't realize it either! I'll try to fix it so it doesn't happen again. Thanks for the link. Eric Scheie · October 9, 2006 04:40 PM I didn't realize that your comment section stripped links. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Homophobophobia Anthony · October 9, 2006 04:41 PM Anthony: It does not strip links. You left out the "a" which should go in front of the "href" within the carrots. Eric Scheie · October 9, 2006 04:48 PM Our society really hasn't progressed much since the days of Cotten Mather. In fact, we seem to be regressing when even liberals find joy in pointing out the sexual peccadillos of others, but hide behind a pseudo-moralism of outing hypocrisy. Frank · October 10, 2006 01:55 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Two (I hope) related points:
1. Sodomy laws were on the books for a very long time, and applied equally to everyone. (I remember as a child being with a theatre group in NC and have two unmarried people marched down the center of town, to jail, for sharing a hotel room). I won't suggest that laws remained on the books which were impartial to preference, but it is important to keep the general "no sex unless married" taboo in perspective with the time (it was only 10 years after the taboos against any kind of extramarital affairs began disappearing that anyone thought about applying to to gays, too).
2. The military (and government) have rules about sexual affairs. This doesn't have as much to do with sexual taboos as it has to do with being blackmail proof. Someone who has put themselves in a compromising position has made the country vulnerable. The "it was just lying about sex" mantra was ridiculous for exactly that reason. It is BECAUSE it is the area where people lie the most frequently, and risk their personal relationships/family and are most likely to be vulnerable to blackmail, that just such rules were in place.
Now we seem to have come full circle with some of this. I don't think this is as much a gay issue as many people think it is (or as the Dems are trying to make it out to be). It is, for many of us, not a question of the type of sex or the younger age of the prey, as much as it is about character and judgment.
I realize that for many it is about it being a gay issue, but it is much more important than that.
Beyond that, however, Foley violated a trust. He had impressionable young people in his charge and gave them the impression that he was concerned about their personal welfare (that's how he appeared to gain their personal email addresses)--that he actually cared about them AS PEOPLE. That was not the case. He was only interested in them as sexual objects. It is my belief that that is the most horrific of betrayals by any adult, especially one in a position of authority and power and TRUST.
This Foley creep certainly knew that the outing of his actions would jeopardize his ability to properly represent that people of his district. This could have been a financial indiscretion or any other matter which would have shown a weakness in his judgment and character (and his self control). The fact that he was warned/counseled and he continued to engage in risky behavior, demonstrates a serious lack of character and integrity on his part.
That, beyond any of the other issues in this fiasco are the most troubling to me.
I would feel EXACTLY the same way had it been a female page, a female representative, etc. The sex or sexual preference of the individuals is not relevant to me. I felt EXACTLY the same way out BJ Clinton, with Monica Lewinsky. The fact that she was of legal age was irrelevant. She was vulnerable and the President of the United States took advantage of that vulnerability and his power. The interns and pages are not your personal harem from which to shop for sexual partners. Those young people are there on an educational mission and to serve their country, and the adults and elected officials are their wards. Add the lying bit to Clinton's escapades and I think the guy should have been put before a firing squad, ditto for Foley.
I don't experience the icky/revulsion thing around gays and lesbians, but I know that other people do. They have as much right to own and have those feelings as gays and lesbians have about it in reverse. Everyone is allowed to have whatever attraction/revulsion impulses and feelings they experience. How they act on them and whether or not they allow them to cloud their good judgment or use their most base instincts to excuse intolerance is what defines our humanity. Have the feelings, yes, just like it is perfectly normal to be fearful or uneasy around people of other ethnic groups, but if you act on those feelings to disparage or hate others, well... then you are not a human being.