Sexuality and… Crystal Growth?
The beauty of a liberal arts degree is seen when two seemingly unrelated subjects provide an understanding of each other. For example, a simple fact about crystal growth may provide clarity on the topic of sexuality within culture.
Given proper conditions of temperature, pressure and space a crystal will continue to grow with virtually no limit.
Most of the time this growth is interrupted, and crystals fall short of their full potential. Even then beautiful crystals can be observed. Many people have seen (or own) something like this cross-section of a rock with crystals growing inside.
cross section of crystal growth within a rock
Even more amazing is a recent discovery of massive gypsum crystals at the Naica Mine in Chihuahua, Mexico. People can travel 1000 feet below the surface of the earth to view these natural wonders in what is called the “Crystal Cave of Giants.”
National Geographic photo of "The Crystal Cave of Giants"
The important thing to note here is that, whether it grows to be 4 feet in diameter or remains a small pebble, a crystal is essentially the same material. The mineral gypsum still has the chemical composition of CaSO4·2H2O whether it is in its massive form found in the caves at the Naica Mine or in a dime sized sample in a college geology laboratory.
Learning about crystal growth made me wonder if sexuality is like a mineral with a crystal structure. It has characteristics and properties specific to itself. And it has a world of potential to grow and take shape. But the growth of it depends on the conditions surrounding its formation.
To put it metaphorically: the type of mineral that makes up a specific crystal would be what Rictor Norton, in his essay, “Essentialism and Queer History,” refers to as the essential or innate desire. The outside factors such as surrounding temperature, pressure, or other rocks would be the imposition of society and culture on the desire. According to Jeffrey Weeks’ essay, “The Social Construction of Sexuality,” sexuality is a construct of man. I would argue, along with Norton, that a piece of the puzzle is missing in that theory. There is no doubt that society and culture have a great effect on how people view sexuality, especially, as highlighted by Weeks and Norton, homosexuality. But there must be a basis in order for something to be shaped; a foundation for something to be built.
I wonder if the key to beginning to understand homosexuality is this: homosexuality, or “queer desire” as Norton refers to it, is something that is an absolute as definite as a chemical formula for a mineral. That does not mean anyone knows the formula, that does not mean people have the ability to define nor prove said formula; I am merely suggesting that an innate sexuality likely exists. And if it does exist its growth is very much dependent on the culture in which it is denied or encouraged to flourish. The culture cannot stop its existence. Society, no matter how many people are in denial of homosexuality, no matter how many people are ignorant of its reality, no matter how many laws are passed to shut it down, cannot stop it being what it is any more than external forces can stop a gypsum crystal from being gypsum. Yes, the outside, nurturing forces can greatly affect, and often cripple the gypsum from growing to become the crystal it could be, but it is still gypsum all the same. Homosexuality can be shut down, discouraged, restrained, repressed… but it exists and it will continue to exist. And some places will give it the space and conditions to blossom and grow, while others will continue to make an attempt to control it.
The Museum of Sex would seem to me an example of proper conditions for crystal growth. The way the exhibits used words, pictures, videos, sculpture, painting… and even sex dolls with the invitation to “Please touch gently.” showed sex in an educational, matter-of-fact yet playful manner. They invited the visitor to engage while keeping a safe distance, to entice and inform. I say the Museum provided proper conditions because it seemed to “tell it like it is.” It did not feel like an attempt to control and contain sexuality. On the other hand, it showcased aspects of sexuality and acknowledged the existence of an array of objects, practices, and ideologies that the museum-goer may not have been aware of.
I am neither an expert on crystal growth nor on sexuality, yet I see strong connections between the two that I would be interested in exploring further. (For example, the same mineral can take on a completely different appearance based on the conditions in which it was formed. This could be an explanation of how sexuality can seem so different across cultures, while remaining essentially the same.)
images from:
http://www.naturestreasures1.com/images/hc77919c_pj0a.jpg
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Episodes/Giant-Crystal-Cave/Images/caves-2.jpg
Tags: crystal growth, culture, essentialism, homosexuality, museum of sex
February 20th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Abby, first of all, these images are astounding. Thanks so much for including them. Your metaphor of crystallization works perceptively to describe how sex can have a history, one in which a wide variety of practices might emerge from a source of undifferentiated energy (sex). In saying that, I want to underscore the undifferentiated part because it seems that the discussion in your post of homosexuality is as if it were prior to social relations, as if it were a pre-historical orientation. But your metaphor actually suggests otherwise and is more in keeping with a perspective that combines Weeks and Norton’s approaches in a way that also goes along with the main elements of Foucault’s analysis. In other words, to be consistent with your metaphor, various forms of heterosexuality and homosexuality and bi-sexuality, etc., would all be already the result of history, that is, cultural patterns that have shaped that energy, labeled it, and evaluated it as normal or abnormal, socially acceptable or unacceptable, etc.
So, stay with this metaphor in your analysis (you could use it in your final essay, for example) but stay with it more consistently, seeing sex as a bodily force which has potential to take many forms, depending on the cultural milieu into which one is born.
For Sunday’s post on the rest of Foucault, I’d like to see you write about the way Foucault explores what you call the process of crystallization as it has occurred over the past few centuries. This is where his emphasis on power relations comes in. See if you can elaborate on that power/knowledge concept as a process akin to crystallization.
February 21st, 2010 at 8:26 pm
I see your point about hetero-, homo-, and bi-sexuality being included in the realm of sexuality that IS defined by culture and history. What I am wondering is if each of those identities could be its own independent energy, as you call it. And each one can be shaped by society and culture to look different. To go back into metaphor: Gypsum is always gypsum, no matter the size, shape, or color. Quartz is always quartz. But a gypsum crystal does not become quartz when it is subject to different conditions. This metaphor would suggest that sexual identity is something one is born with. That a person can be born and remain a homosexual, regardless of the lifestyle he or she chooses to identify with based on upbringing.
So I would definitely like to explore this metaphor on different levels. Fortunately I am taking geology this semester, so I will continue to learn more about minerals, crystal habit, etc. For example, as I was writing “gypsum does not become quartz” I remembered another type of rock that exists. Metamorphic rocks are rocks that experience a chemical change when they are subject to extreme temperature and pressure. An illustration like this could very much combine Weeks and Norton’s approaches in saying: yes, a person can be born with a certain form of sexuality, yet the culture and history surrounding it may totally change that.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:47 pm
I definitely have to adjust my metaphor. I am right that a piece of gypsum, for example, no matter how large or small it was able to grow, still has the same chemical formula. But it turns out minerals CAN undergo a chemical change and become different minerals. This would not happen on the surface of the earth. But part of the rock cycle is that minerals that are pushed under the layers of the earth return to a liquid magma form and, after being exposed to extreme temperature and pressure, can then emerge as a different mineral.
I have not yet thought out what this means for my metaphor, but what I learn in geology will continue to be food for thought about sexual identity.
What I have learned thus far is that neither are simple topics that can be explained away in one sentence.