Multiple Discourses, Similar Objectives
Multiple Discourses, Similar Objectives
In closing his essay Essentialism and Queer History, Rictor Norton has this powerful reminder for his readers: “It is naive to think that one theory or the other will inevitably affect the predominantly negative attitudes of modern Western society,” and suggests that, in place of abiding by one monolithic theory of sexuality, especially in regards to sexual minorities, activists working to secure equal rights for queer people “employ strategies suggested by both schools of thought.” He finds common ground between the two virtually incompatible arguments here: that homophobia is a construct, while homosexuality is innate (16).
This pragmatic consideration seems quite important to bear in mind, that, as Norton writes, the political value of a theory does not lie in its essential verity, but rather in its “power of persuasion or coercion,” (16). Both essentialist and constructionist ideas can be drawn upon to build arguments for queer civil rights; one need not be an ideological puritan and adhere to only one set of beliefs. Additional research, writing, and teaching from scholars on the subject of queer identity and rights, whether constructionist or essentialist, should only be seen as positive, as thought and ideas from both sides of the divide can be used to further the political objectives of queer people.
In considering the essays by Weeks and Norton in light of our visit to the Museum of Sex, these closing thoughts from Norton’s essay seemed to stand out as critically important to me. It is easy, when reading the writing of scholars such as Weeks and Norton (and Foucault, as well), to distance oneself from the issues of the present day, and to be immersed in the ideas and arguments presented by the authors, trying to decipher which side is ultimately “right” or “correct” in their formulations. The ideas and issues being considered are, naturally, grounded in history, and, as Peiss writes in the introduction, history is “the relationship between present and past,” (xvii). As such, it truly seems that in discussing and considering these matters, what is important is the journey—discussion, consideration of multiple viewpoints, and simply being able to speak about matters which too often go unspoken—than finding an ultimate truth, if that is even to be found.
These thoughts seem most applicable to the exhibit on condoms at the museum. In viewing the exhibit, I thought of something Dan Savage, author of the famous (infamous to some) syndicated sex column Savage Love likes to remind his readers from time to time: that condoms may be narrowly defined as “birth control” by some people (politicians especially), but they are so much more than that, in fact, they are “death control,” in reference to the use of condoms in the prevention of the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. In the public education and dissemination of information regarding condom use, it matters that scholars such as Jeffery Weeks have confronted ideas about sexuality, challenging notions that a “natural domain with specific effects” of sex exists that is separate domain from that of society (6). At the same time, it is also crucial that Rictor Norton (amongst others, I am sure), has introduced into the scholarly discourse a refutation of the assertion that the homosexual is “an invention of the medical profession or the product of capitalist urbanization,” (11) but rather has taken a longer view of queer identity in history, finding an evolution of the place of the queer person, not a construction. Thought from both sides of this debate serve, in the end, to open a larger dialogue about sex and sexual minorities. If this dialogue can exist on a scholarly plane, it is more likely to also find a place in the larger public dialogue about these issues, replacing prejudice and knee-jerk reactions with historically-grounded realities, and, in the end, reminding policy makers and those who engage in sex at large that a condom is much more than simply birth control: wearing protection truly serves a greater good, for queer people and straight people alike, in the prevention of disease transmission.
Tags: condoms, Dan Savage, essentialism, homosexuality, queer, social construction
February 20th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Joe, your discussion of both essays in light of the Condom exhibit and Dan Savage’s remarks on the way labels can narrow meaning or enlarge it is wonderfully discerning about the power relations at work in regard to sexuality. The importance of continued dialogue is key. I also particularly appreciate your pointing to Norton’s own pragmatic approach to the essentialist/constructionist debate at the close of his essay. For the next post on the rest of Foucault’s book, it would be most helpful to class discussion if you would apply these insights to what Foucault means by “where there is power, there is resistance” (95, continuing to 96). This is not to limit your post—just to suggest an avenue of important exploration that you could bring into our discussions.