Friday, January 26, 2007

of sexuality and identity

I started writing this post in May last year and then left it as a draft, but partly because (with all the travel) this place has become a bit what-I-did-at-the-weekend-ish of late, (i.e. lacking my usual abstract musings/navel gazing) and partly because it's on a topic that keeps coming up for me, I thought I'd revisit what I'd written, add to it and post it. Appologies if I get a bit soap-boxy in places, and for using even more footnotes than usual.

Over the last year or so one way and another I've given a fair bit of thought to my sexual orientation and how that impacts (or doesn't) on my day to day existence, and on my future. On one hand I've been watching my two siblings forge happy conventional relationships for themselves, and finding myself part of a steadily growing family without really having a sense of how my role in that family might develop as it grows, or if/how my own relationships might someday contribute to that growth*. On another I've just enjoyed a six month long holiday, (afforded in part by a non-conventional lifestyle) exploring new places, and along the way exploring who I am.

Surrounded as I am by thinkers and (in many cases) fellow misfits in one sense or another, it's a topic that gets a fair bit of discussion, especially when something raises the issue to the surface. One such discursive catalyst was that gay cowboy movie which everyone got thoroughly sick of hearing about soon after it hit the cinema and which has since disappeared quietly into celuloid history. At the time I read lots of things about how groundbreaking it was for all sorts of reasons that barely seemed current, let alone 'groundbreaking' to me. I also read a lot about how brave the actors were for... acting. Again that seemed like nonsense to me, but at the same time, the film struck me pretty hard emotionally when I watched it in the cinema. Even seeing it again on the back of an aeroplane headrest a few weeks ago, it left me with a vague feeling of having encountered a social sea-change of sorts.

When it was released some people lambasted the movie for presenting modern gay men with an outdated, negative, hopeless model for our relationships: the idea being that the characters could have made a life together elsewhere, and that endlessly presenting gay relationships as tragic failures is a form of oppression. They are admittedly frustrating characters because there's a potential there (it wouldn't be a love story if there weren't) but does a love story need to have a happy ending to be a positive social phenomenon? Coming at it from a creative/critical perspective I can't see how a happy ending version of that story could have been anywhere near as powerful or moving. Sure they could have moved to 'the city' and had a life together and Maupin and others have proven there's some milage in stories about gay society... thing is though these two characters weren't gay, they were just a couple of homosexual men.

That disticntion (if you can grasp it) is what I think made the film timely, and is also (I think) at the core of one of the most interesting developments in terms of sexuality and identity now. 'gayness' is gradually becoming mainstream: the whole counterculture idenity that homosexual men in the C20th built up around themselves is beginning to be woven into the fabric of mainstream popular culture**. That's great for what it is, but it doesn't really do a whole lot for those of us who are just homosexual - Personally I've no truck with "gay culture" - it's a fun place to visit now and then, but it offers me nothing with which to identify in terms of who I am myself. I'm none of the things a that make a gay man, except that I'm ardently homosexual - that's my sexuality, and for what it's worth I'm proud of it, but it's only my sexuality, it isn't my identity.

Getting back to the film, Jack and Ennis could have upped sticks from their rural existence and lived out a happy life somewhere more accepting, but especially in the early second half of the C20th (with events like the Stonewall riots shaping the burgeoning contemporary gay culture,) that would have meant adopting an identity that was not their own - an identity based narrowly on just their sexuality rather than who they were in a wider sense.

Don't get me wrong here: I think that that shift among many gay men and women in the 1960s and 70s from hiding, to confronting social inequality by open and defiant difference was hugely important. I also recognise that it's in large part why I enjoy many of the rights and freedoms I do today. I also think that the time for defiant difference has passed now, and that little is left to be gained by homosexuals defining ourselves by what makes us different. The "gay community" today (at its worst) serves only as a license for us to treat each other appallingly. Little if anything of the supportive inclusive aspects of a "community" remains. That in itself is perhaps the biggest sign that it's time for something else.

By writing a story/making a film now about the pressures of an unaccepting society and how it ultimately destroys two lives by outlawing their love, in a sense Proulx/Lee are each underlining that acceptance of that loud attention grabbing C20th "gay culture" is not enough, that it misses the point which is that many (most?) homosexuals aren't actually gay! Increasingly examples of "normal"*** homosexual and bisexual characters are cropping up in the media and the idea that sexuality governs any aspect of character beyond those directly relating to sex, is starting to be challenged. The optimist in me sees a growing recognition in the mainstream that exactly that gay culture which has been steadily gaining acceptance is not what really needs to be accepted.

Briefly coming back to the movie, (by way of bringing this rambling post to a close before it sprawls into a fully fledged essay) by not having the two characters fold and adopt the available (albeit it difficult) gay identities which would have allowed them to live as a couple, the film highlights that gay culture doesn't necesarily represent homosexuals, being instead just a response to the repression of the sexual orientation/sexual identity which it purports to represent. Arguably (now it has served its social purpose) it's even just another form of repression... but maybe that's a whole other post. For myself back in the real world I'm just going to have to keep puzzling out as an individual how the assorted aspects of who I am fit with the world as I find it... and of course hope that I don't end up in a long term relationship with a shirt. ;)

* By which I mean my reasonably well documented failure to date to form a lasting adult romantic relationship. I'm not talking about the thorny issue of gay parenting, just wondering if/how a partner (should I ever find one) would fit into the family. My family would be friendly and welcoming I know, but the last person I was seriously interested in voiced reservations of his own about ever feeling like part of someone else's family and that angle wasn't one I'd considered before

** in my experience in Europe at least, but also in the more civilised parts of North America and the wider western world. Also throughout this post I'm using media portrayal as an imperfect measure of social climates - and yes I realise that's a flawed approach but this isn't science, it's just me thinking aloud

*** That is normal as opposed to stylised and/or stereotyped. For example characters like Jack Harkness or David Fisher whose (non-standard) sexuality is presented as an incidental aspect of who they are, rather than as their primary character trait. Meanwhile characters like Daffyd Thomas emerge (though usually more subtly like Ken the steward on Pacific Air flight 121) showing neatly how little "gay" as a character trait has to do with actual sexuality - Daffyd for example being "the only gay in the village" while also patently not homosexual

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nice post!

I'm not really arguing with anything you've said. But two things came up for me:

1) I still can't see Brokeback Mountain as anything but regressive, even socially irresponsible. People's ability to accept stories in which gay people are stifled, unhappy, and ultimately killed is not a move forward. It's as self-loathing as that horrible dirge The Boys in the Band. How we're represented, what gets put into the collective culture, is still important because, much as we'd like to be finished with this topic, we're not there yet.

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang was able to play lightly and be matter-of-fact about the Val Kilmer character's sexuality because it was a modern story, in which the sexuality really was incidental. So why not keep going with more of that? Or like your Torchwood and Six Feet Under examples?

Constantly going back to portraying ourselves as not being included keeps that reality in place. Creating visions of the alternative gives people a way to imagine something better. It's like adult authors who keep trying to validate their pain by telling coming-out stories. Those are important for young people in that situation to have access to, but as grown-ups, we need to move on.

2) Of course your family will be fine with your partner, whoever he is. Lord, they've been willing enough to accept me as that person. Can your partner handle it? Mine did for years, and it raised our relationship to another level of respect and possibility. If your partner can't handle being part of your family, then he has issues which will probably also make a relationship impossible.

Chris said...

I sobbed for 20 solid minutes after the end of Brokeback. That's because I'm a Big Girl, I know, but I find the 'negative stereotype, always a tragic end' comment a bit fallacious. There are plenty of media which depict women's past as a subjugated class, but no-one thinks that's not a reasonable story to present. Yes, there's a disparity between the amount of progs and films that display tragic ends for gay relationships and those that present them as 'usual', but still.

Oh - and in Saudi Arabia, amongst other places, they execute you for being homosexual, so I don't know if we should stop banging the drum just yet.

Patrick said...

Wow, this post really got you guys thinking eh? ('ve been a few emailed replies/comments too) hurrah!

Hame: I do take your point there (and yes, apsects of the post are in response to your oft cited celuoid closet take on the movie). Without wanting to sound cheeky I wonder if the gap in our ages is showing through here? Your sexual identity often seem to have a much more ingrained layer of politicisation than I feel is present in mine...

I think what I failed to get across in the post is that I don't think the film is simply a positive indicator, there are certainly darker aspects to what's being said about sexuality and identity, but my focus is on the positive partly because I'm unsure how useful the "oh there goes the evil media portraying us in repressive ways" approach is these days, and partly because I think it's far more interesting to look at the positive aspects unless there's some overt axe being ground (and in the case of Brokeback I just don't think there is)

Also is it fair to limit portrayal of same sex relationships to contexts in which those relationships can succeed? There are other stories to be told and (just as with hetrosexual relationships) sometimes those stories are sad. You're absolutely right though that there must also be visions of the alternative - happily I know at least one first rate author who's good at providing those ;)

Chris: I sobbed too (ask Liz) and I'm a man. Men sob. Interesting parallel with feminism there too - I think there's a lot of mileage in that comparison. Feminism has largely outgrown the need for defiant difference, at the same time as recognising that there are still issues to be tackled.

You're quite right too to mention that we can't (yet) rest easy in a tollerent and egalitarian world, but I think maybe we can stop banging the drum since we've got the attention & recognition we picked it up for in the first place. (at the risk of overstretching your metaphor) I think it's time we recognised the music needs to be more complex and involving now, instead of shouting at the world to recognise the existence of something they (for the most part) already ave.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, we've had this conversation before. And debate does nothing. I'm busy trying to put the alternative into the commons, and I've educated my share of people just by being something other than what they thought "gay" meant. So I'm satisfied that I'm doing my part.

In terms of media, though, I think we're very poorly represented. I'm sick of the sadness, the murders, and the frivolous dandies. Of course certain stories shouldn't be off-limits, but most of the stories that exist in the public sphere are out of touch with reality. And when those stories are publicly funded, that's an issue.

There's a great report by the Stonewall group called "Tuned Out". It's a very straightforward analysis of the representation of gays, lesbians, trans-- you know, all that stuff -- on television. This becomes significant when you realise how many people pay for television licenses and then never see their stories on TV, or see themselves presented badly.

Here's a summary of what Stonewall found when they did a survey of an average week of TV.

The full report can be downloaded as a .PDF here.

Patrick said...

"I'm not in the mood for a debate" I'll let you off with but I'm a firm believer that debate is an important and powerful thing. Ideas grow best when they're cross fertilised in an open minded environment.

I'll take a look at that Stonewall report later, cheers, though that issue of our different attitudes to sexuality politics is present here again: you mentioned it as a straightforward analysis, I can't help thinking of anything that comes out of Stonewall as highly politicized and tend to view it all through a filter of their percieved agenda (which includes maintaining the perception that they themselves are a relevant entity with an important role...)

Still, should be interesting and as always I love getting your perspective on ideas.

Chris said...

Arrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhh. Just spent twenty feckin' minutes writing a reasoned and marvellously well balanced reply and the chuffing internet lost the lot.

There was a small bit of witticism along the lines of..."So, men sob, but they don't drink fruit beer?"

And then, "Yes, our existence is recognised but not necessarily with any sanguinity." - only I had references and tied up interpretations.

Grrrrrrrrr.

Anonymous said...

The portrayal of Africans and Muslims (to name but two groups)remains abysmal in the mainstream media and they comprise far greater proportions of the population than homosexuals do, and I therefore expect a more reasoned portrayal of come much further down the line - we are at the back of the queue. I enjoyed Brokeback as a short story and I enjoyed the film (without tears) in much the same way as I enjoy Brief Encounter and In the Mood for Love, but I don't look to the media to represent me, and would question if there really is an "us" to represent. The characters in Dr Who, Six Feet Under, Priscilla, Hollyoaks and the Archers are diverse as the homosexuals I know. Perhaps what you are talking about Patrick is not gay/homosexual but queer?

Patrick said...

Thanks for your thoughts mysterious Mr. e - I was really just using media portrayal as a convenient (albeit crude) social litums paper, rather than looking to be portrayed, and I agree that the idea of there being an "us" is questionable... in fact that's kind of the gist of the whole post, but I'm not talking about queer, that label presupposes a connection between sexuality and identity again and that's pretty much exactly what I'm calling into question. I chose the word homosexual carefully, because it doesn't have any connotative baggage beyond simple sexual preference.

Anonymous said...

With respect to Patrick's first foot note I have decided to respond on personal experience level rather than take an academic or clinical approach to voicing my opinion

Having lived the past months bordering on years with to much of a shared life with my Ex, we have found ourselves back together and currently designing kitchens and choosing curtains ;) Seriously though Steve's family have been nothing but loving in welcoming me into Steve’s and ultimately their life. Steve’s extended family is very large and very close knit. Sexuality aside, to think that someone couldn’t be part of another person’s family shows to me a lack of maturity on their part.

You sort of know when things are starting to form the rhythm of life when you find yourself sitting down to the Sunday roast with your partners 3 siblings their respective partners and dare I say your mother in law and you have all nine of the nephews and nieces competing for Uncle Eric’s attention.

Or getting into an argument with family members because you did not want to be a God parent because it would make me a hypocrite. I did refuse on the grounds of not being a religious person and feeling that would make me a hypocrite. Sexuality just didn’t come into it.

Or being apologised to at the office for assumption that your partner was female.

At first I found myself a little unsettled at first by the level of acceptance people have had of me, I think in part due to society’s attitude to people who are different to the norm. But have learnt that this acceptance has been driven by my strength of character and not the fact I like blokes.

In fact the most negative responses I have found in my life so far, have not been from family or the heterosexual community, but from those I have given unyielding support for and consider to be as close if not closer than any family member.

After seeing the examples of gay community in Perth, Sydney Melbourne Paris, London, Amsterdam, Munich and Rome as well as listening to the experiences of friends with “gay” life in other countries I have yet to visit. I’m of the opinion that there is no sense of gay community and wonder if there really has been since the 60’s 70’s. I think the gay scene has evolved into a meeting point for those whom are unable to distinguish themselves as a person from their sexuality. They seem to feed and off each others co-dependent affected attitudes. And if you don’t fit their Idea of a good day well then….

I seem to remember drinking more than a few pints of James Squire at Fibber McGees with Patrick on this subject. Isn’t it amazing the effect of a double hopped beer on the intellectual ramblings of two drunken lads ;)

Have you ever heard the lyrics from the song Vampire from the musical Closer to heaven by the Pet Shop Boys? I think it describes the hardcore gay scene well!

*slides soap box back under the bench*

Eric