The debate between homosexual and heterosexual has always been based on the couple “inside” and the couple “outside.” They define themselves in terms of what they are not, for example heterosexuality defines itself in contrast to what it is not: homosexuality. The figure known as inside/outside encompasses language, subjectivity, while at the same time makes the structure of exclusion, oppression, and repudiation. But what makes outsides and insides come about? Where does the “pure and natural heterosexual inside” leave off and “an impure and unnatural homosexual outside” begin?
Heterosexuality has gotten the status as compulsory because it has presented that it is a practice that is driven by some internal obligation. The language and law that establishes heterosexuality is that of defense and protection. It is protecting itself from homosexuality, which is continually making advancements. Homosexuality is working through a similar defense pattern because it is not the norm and is a complicated choice.
The difference between hetero and homo, stated by Fuss, is that homo becomes the excluded which means that it stands out because it is the less likely choice for someone to make. Fuss believes that the homo is related to the hetero in the same way that the feminine is related to the masculine, one is more dominate over the other.
There has been recent work that states that any outside that is formulated is the consequence of there being a lack internal to the system it supplements. The greater the lack on the inside the greater the need for it on the outside. To protect itself against being recognized of the lack of the inside, the self defends itself against others. The borders that are set up are usually very unstable and heterosexuality can rarely ignore the closeness of the homosexual other.
‘Out’ seems to carry a double valence to gays and lesbians. On one hand it brings up the negative term in the hetero/homo binary. While on the other hand it suggests the process of coming out, a movement into a certain presence, speech, and cultural visibility. To be out, according to gay parlance, is to be inside the realm of the visible, the speakable, and the culturally intelligible. Nowadays many people would say that it is ‘in’ to be ‘out.’ It has been more culturally acceptable in recent years to be gay then is has been in the past.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Diana Fuss made some interesting points when she said that hetero- and homosexuality are thinkable in terms of inside- and outsideness. To be outside is to be alienated, excluded and oppressed. She stated that sexual choice isn’t a simple matter; it is a “result of the complex interactions of social conflicts, historical pressures, and cultural prohibitions” (391). People create defensive boarders to protect themselves , but they are unstable.
Fuss says that at the historical moment homosexuals first “appeared” as a “species” was also the same moment that they disappeared into the closest. As soon as a label was created, there also became a misunderstanding and fear of gay behavior. This led to discrimination and violence, which forced homosexuals to hide their identity.
Later came the practice of “outing” suspected homosexuals. At some point it became necessary to expose those who may be threatening (or at the least trying to fool us) and to force unworthy insiders to the outside, and possibly “precipitate that figure’s fall from power and privilege” (392). However, in the recent climate with its ever-changing acceptance, it is impossible to predict how the de-closesting will affect the individual. Smith noted how it has become “in” to be “out” (of the closet). Ellen DeGeneres reached the height of her fame after announcing she is a lesbian. Will and Grace won dozens of Emmys. Clearly American culture has become more accepting of homosexuality.
I feel like the post and the comment really got right to the point. The way I was thinking about this issue was by relating it to conflict theory. In conflict theory the dominant people in the population are always trying to keep the minorities in check. I'm not sure if I'm saying that exactly right but that's exactly what came to my mind while reading this.
It's almost like heterosexuals are trying to make sure the homosexuals don't take over by making them feel inferior. I'm not sure if I explained that exactly how it worked out in my head but I hope you get my point!
I think that all of these post are very insightful. I think that the main point that I got from Fuss is that the inside/outside explanation is a way to explain Homo/Hetero by explaining what one isn't. I thought that she was trying to make the point that the reason we can define what heterosexuality is because we can define what homosexuality is which is the opposite of heterosexuality. I also think that her discussion about homosexuality becoming the excluded is prevalent because it explains why heterosexuality is the socially preferred choice.
I also thought that this writing touched on the fact that there is not black and white when it comes to homo/hetero discussions. She makes a point when she writes "Every outside is also an alongside; the distance between proximity is sometimes no distance at all." What I got from this is that there really is no cut and dry in human sexuality and that each person may display a little bit of each side.
The in to be out discussion was relevant to the fact that many celebrities or important people can make the act of coming out be the in thing to do. So "outing" as Fuss put's it can actually be "inning" or getting an "in " in society. Which normally homosexuals wouldn’t have.
Fuss's chapter begins with talking about the polarity that is homo and heterosexuality and how we as a society sees them as opposites of each other.
I found the part in the first full paragraph on page 392 intriguing when Fuss said:
"Heterosexuality can never fully ignore the close psychical proximity of the terrifying (homo)sexual other, anymore than the homosexuality can entirely escape the equally insistent social pressures of (hetero)sexual conformity. Each is haunted by each other..."
I find that part seemingly true, though I feel like in both ends of the sexual spectrum, there are people who thrive off being either the other or the accepted majority.
I also think its important to focus on the double meaning of "out" for the gay/lesbian community. Out being a negative term as literally an outsider who goes against the grain when it comes to societies views on sexual preference. Out can also have a positive spin on it as liberating yourself from living in secret and being a visible "out" person of the homosexual community.
I really enjoyed this reading and think these chapters will bring up a great class discussion.
I found Diana Fuss a difficult read. Her sentence structure was dense and choppy, but I was able to abstract some information from it. I believe that Fuss was trying to state that over the years heterosexuality has been systematically presented as the stronger, natural, and right kind of sexuality. The language used to describe both Homo and Hetero sexuality separates the two to be to a point where they are more opposites than just coexisting sexualities.
Once the homosexuality and heterosexuality are separate than using the same language that separated them it can also make them unequal. People begin to say what is natural and explain why heterosexuality is normal and what causes it. It was said that heterosexuality is a biological compulsion and that is why it is natural and why it is right. By saying that heterosexuality is right and natural it automatically infers that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong because it was established that they are indeed opposites.
According to Diana Fuss heterosexuality and homosexuality are opposite and unequal due to societies state of mind. And unfair treatment is based on superficial beliefs. The problem is society views these bases as genuine and true and due to that they are able to make reasons to justify separation and inequality.
Post a Comment