Progress or Dystopia, Part 4

Equal Rights

The last main claim in support of progress is that modern society is so much more tolerant and progressive than “traditional” societies. We ended slavery. We ended Jim Crow. Women entered the workforce. Gays can serve in the military. Let’s pat ourselves on the back.

I addressed some of these claims in my post about issue based change versus systemic change. If you think the U.S. has eradicated its racial caste system, read Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow. If you think modern, industrial societies have successfully dealt with racism, read any comment thread that exists anywhere on the internet. If you think women are liberated, look at statistics concerning rape and eating disorders, examine the gendered division of labor in any industry or organization, and look at the images of women promulgated by the entertainment industry. If you think America (or any other industrial society) is a melting pot, pay attention to discussions (and I use that word lightly) about immigration. You do not need to look hard to find hateful language directed at any particular group of people. In fact, the internet has made it easier to disseminate this vitriol.

The fact of the matter is, all of the social/economic/political processes that demand structured inequality remain in place. It is important to note that the ideological basis of these divisions and prejudices are completely modern:

-The concept of “race” developed in the Enlightenment era as a means of creating divisions among the population of people oppressed by the nascent capitalist system. It has continued to function as a mechanism for segregating interests and obtaining free or cheap labor.

-The relegation of women’s work to the domestic sphere was a product of the new division of labor that emerged when production moved outside of the home and into the factory. Furthermore, the absorption of women into the post-WW2 labor force is a reflection of the need for cheap labor, an expanded labor force and a new market for manufactured goods (dishwashers! washing machines! mass-produced clothes!). The combination of these two forces (domestic responsibility and careers outside the home) has only served to double the burden that women must bear. Now women are expected to do it all.

-Michel Foucault argued that the idea of “homosexuality” (even more, sexuality in general) did not arise until the late 19th century, and has served to make sexual activities definitive of a person’s entire identity and consciousness as a human being. Some scholars have provided evidence that the creation of “homosexuality” as a pathological mode of being was born out of eugenicist fears that white reproduction was not occurring at a healthy rate. It should never be forgotten that “homosexuality” was a scientific/medical concept before it entered popular discourse.

-It can be just as convincingly argued that fears/abhorrence of immigrants, terrorists, Muslims, and the like, are byproducts of colonialism and nation-building, especially the creation of immutable state boundaries, the ideals of ethnically “pure” states, and all the various forms of neocolonialism that produce backlash against the modern world order.

The prejudices that modernity, in all of its enlightened glory, is supposedly ameliorating are the very prejudices created by modernity.

What Does It Mean To Be "Too Gay"?

Not too infrequently I hear someone complain that another person is “too gay.” They have no problem with gay people, they are sure to emphasize, but they get annoyed by those that are “too flamboyant” and act like stereotypes of a gay person. Just because you’re gay, doesn’t mean you have to act like that, they argue. On the surface, these arguments may sound somewhat reasonable.

But what they are really saying is that, while they don’t mind what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, they do have a problem with people transgressing gender norms. For example, I have heard people say that they prefer when gay people act “normal.” They cloak this preference in altruism by insisting that they just want gay people to seem like any other average person, rather than stand out as social deviants. But this line of thought rests on the assumption that “normality” should be measured by adherence to gender stereotypes.

I think that, deep down, what really bothers people about “flamboyant” gays, is that they turn our binary system of gender on its head. People are okay with men sleeping with other men (although being gay is about much more than sex), but they are not comfortable with men talking, walking, sitting, laughing, dressing, or expressing themselves in ways deemed “feminine.” The real telling thing is, people don’t seem to get quite as agitated by lesbians acting "too lesbian" or masculine. They don’t seem to have the same concern about lesbians appearing “normal.” And this is the sign that gender roles are at stake. For, it is always perceived as more shocking and abhorrent when members of a dominant group act like subordinates, than when the oppressed mimic their oppressors. The latter is seen as the natural aspiration of an underclass. Which is why there is greater stigma on men taking female roles than the reverse.

It is just as silly to dislike someone because they are “flamboyant” as it is to dislike a person because they are gay. Why not make judgments based on common interests and views, sense of humor, and character?

The Gay Gene

This Sunday on Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked U.S. Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty whether or not he thought it was a choice to be gay. Pawlenty essentially copped out by saying that he would leave it up to scientists to determine the answer to that question (even while asserting his committment to "traditional marriage").

This demonstrates, once again, the unassailable strength of scientific authority. It is simply unparalleled in the contemporary world. Even with the most contentious issues - evolution and global warming - debate centers largely around the question of whether the science is "good" or "unbiased." If anything is up for debate, it is only because human bias can occasionally taint the purity of scientic truth, not because the authority of scientists themselves should be subject to the same type of scrutiny that we apply to other sources of authority. In fact, those on the "pro-" side of the evolution and global warming debates often assert boldly that you can't question science! Science is science! Furthermore, it is very clear that, even while religious authority is rejected or critiqued/satarized by many, including the religious themselves, and those with political, economic, and social power are trusted even less, not even religious fundamentalists dare question the basis of scientific authority. Pawlenty's invocation of science as a "safe" response to Gregory's question demonstrates this quite well.

My series of posts on evolution focused on debunking this faith in science. However, Pawlenty's claim that only science can establish the true nature of homosexuality brings up another interesting domain in which to examine science as a social activity - deriving from and shaping the society in which it is embedded.

The terms "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" did not exist until the end of the 19th century and were not in widespread use until the 20th. In their earliest incarnation they were medical terms, and did enter the popular lexicon until later. Herein lies one basic flaw in Palwenty's reasoning: we are not waiting for science to determine the nature of homosexualtiy; science created the concept of homosexuality and has been defining it (and redefining it) since its inception.

In this light, it is interesting to see how the terms of the debate have shifted. At the beginning, homosexuality was defined within the medical establishment as a biological, pathological condition - like a disorder or a disease. The dissidents argued, in contrast, that it was a lifestyle choice and not a pathology. It was not until religious institutions and the concept of "sin" became involved that the positions completely reversed themselves. Now religious fundamentalists argue that sexual orientation is a choice, while "born this way" has become a rallying cry of the gay rights movement.

By allowing the "opposition" to decide the terms of the debate (essentially defining their positions in reaction to the heterosexist establishment, rather than on their own terms), these particular gay rights activists (who are certainly not representative of the entire movement) are placing themselves in a vulnerable and disadvantageous position. For example, there is the grave risk that if scientists were somehow to find a "gay gene," this would once again turn homosexuality into a form of deviance, on the order, say, of autism. Who will be able to argue against those that say being gay is "unnatural," when they are armed with the evidence that homosexuality is caused by a genetic mutation?

Scientists may find a "gay gene," but only because they can always find what they want to find. Am I arguing, then, that homosexuality has no biological basis? Is that why the concept did not emerge until the last century? Absolutely not. Rather, the concept itself is only one particular way of understanding, organizing and representing a far more complex reality (a reality that cannot be boiled down to the criteria used to define the differences and between homo- and heterosexualtiy).

First, sexual attraction is not as much a black-and-white matter as the homo-hetero duality suggests. No one is attracted to all men. No one is attracted to all women. We are attracted to particular people - maybe all of the same gender, maybe a mixture. Take two "straight" women, and one could be attracted only to very effeminate, androgynous men, while the other prefers the burly, masculine type. Furthermore, if you asked either of these women to rank order everyone that exists (hypothetically, of course) in terms of their willingness to be intimate with them, at some point women would start appearing ahead of some men.  (Who wouldn't prefer to snuggle with Natalie Portman over Ted Kaczynski?)  What does it mean, then, to say that you are "attracted to men"?? The variations of attraction are perhaps infinite. The basis of attraction may be biological (though it is surely social as well), but it is not a discrete, binary trait that can be controlled by a single or isolated set of genes.

Second, the ways in which people relate to one another are incredibly diverse. There is more than one kind of intimate relationship, and intimacy is more than just physical attraction or sexual impulses. Many gay people will contend that being gay is not just about who they are sleeping with: it is about emotional and intellectual connections; it is also an identity and a culture. Thus, the notion of "sexual orientation," as it encounters the richness and complexity of the human experience of intimacy, reduces it to its sexual dimension. It creates the categories of "homosexual" and "heterosexual" in order to induce homogeneity within the boundaries of each. (And to completely neglect those who cross or straddle boundaries - bisexuals, I'm looking at you!)

It is clear, then, that scientists, in pursuit of a "gay gene" (and proposing ridiculous evolutionary justifcations of homosexuality - gay people exist only to help care for their sibling's kids), are actively working to uphold a heterosexist social order. The entire experience of human intimacy is reduced to a simple binary, wherein one end is marked as a "default." Gay people then continue to be defined as a coherent, monolithic group; according to their difference from the norm; according to their sexual behavior; as a fundamentally different "type" or "essence" from the "straight" person. And then they continue to be treated differently.

"Leaving it up to science" means ceding more power to the white, middle-class, straight, male establishment. Which probably is precisely what Pawlenty would want.

Evolution and Gender

The inequalities and forms of oppression that exist in this world are multiple and varied, yet they are not unrelated. In particular, although people's experiences of marginalization due to race, gender, sexuality, social class, and the like are far from identical (there is even diversity of experience within each of these non-homogenous categories), evolution is the linchpin that holds together all of these forms oppression.

Following from the ideology of white supremacy, the key to the progress and development of the human race is the survival of the white race (the fittest) combined with the natural extinction of all the inferior races. However, for the white race to survive, the white race has to reproduce. One pressing concern among the inherently white supremacist intelligencia of the 19th and early 20th century was that the white population was not reproducing at the same rate as other populations (particularly the black population). Consequently, attempts to limit the reproductive capacity of women of color have continued even to the present. These attempts have included the forced use of potentially dangerous contraceptives. As a side note, it is for this reason that the framing of "reproductive rights" solely in terms of abortion is seen as a specifically white, middle class approach to feminism. For women of color, "reproductive rights" very significantly includes the right to be able to reproduce.

In addition to curbing the reproductive rates of people of color, ensuring the survival of the white race has also entailed the promotion of reproduction among the white population. For this reason, gender (like race, a social construct rather than a biological fact) was redefined in such a way that women were encouraged to stay home and take care of their children. While the social division of labor along gender lines and the subordination of women has more less always existed, historically and geographically women have had economic roles that extended beyond their reproductive capacity.

Related to these reformed gender roles were new attitudes toward sexuality. The concepts of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" emerged at this time. Within the framework of white supremacy, homosexuality is threatening because of its potential to subvert gender roles and sustain relationships that do not encourage white reproduction.

In this way, modern conceptions of race, gender, and sexuality were constructed at the same time and as part of the same project of white supremacy - itself only an effect of the overarching Ideology of Progress that sustains the social order.

It might seem that I am grasping at straws in order to make these connections among race, gender, and sexuality. However, my arguments are based on solid evidence. The same scientists who were writing about race at the time these ideas emerged were also writing about gender and sexuality, and doing so in almost exactly the same terms as presented above. I am merely repeating a discourse that was quite explicit. In the course of the 20th century, this reasoning may have become muddled and less obvious, but that has only helped to sustain its effects as the concomitant definitions of race, gender, and sexuality have become naturalized as their true raison d'etre becomes more obscured.

For further reading on this topic:

-The Heart of Whiteness:  Normal Sexuality and Race in America by Julian Carter
-Sex, Race & Science:  Eugenics in the Deep South by Edward Larson
-Killing the Black Body:  Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty by Dorothy Roberts
-Building a Better Race:  Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom by Wendy Kline
-Embodying Race:  Gender, Sex, and the Sciences of Difference (edited volume)