Welcome back to another fast-paced edition of my blog. As you can tell, things are still in a work in progress. School recently started back up, and in between training sessions for new grad students and orientation for other on-campus positions, life has left me to the wayside to die. But surprise! I'm not dead yet.
This week began more with a whimper than with a bang. It's syllabus week, which is simultaneously relieving and groan-inducing. Gone are the hectic clamoring to finish assignments, and here are the dos that move by at a snail's pace-- where we try to muster up the energy to even go to class. I can't be alone in thinking this. Thankfully, though, this gave me some time to sit down and read. And when I say read, I really do mean Read... with a capital R. What with thesis work and this independent study, I needed to buckle down and get to work.
Without divulging my personal weekly agenda, let's stick to the content of this study, shall we? I tried to keep it simple and straightforward for the first week. If you noticed below, I ordered my own book for this course and I really challenged myself in what I read: the whole introduction. A whopping nine pages. But immediately, I knew that this independent study I chose to tackle would not be as easy as reading and then writing about what I read. Quite the contrary, actually. In those nine pages, Thomas Peele challenged the very foundation on which I thought my study was built around.
He opens by discussing a formula, one that I am sure we are all familiar with in some capacity. He points to recent works of literature that write a narrative that supports a cultural narrative, that "once people know better, they will change their views" (Peele, 2011, p. 2). He relates this to texts that ask for the acceptance of queer characters. Instantly, he regards these characters as the Other and that they must be welcomed into the dominant community. Ummm hello?! This is entirely problematic, and it aligns itself with plenty of other readings I have witnessed in the past few months. It could go without saying, but Peele then urges his readers to understand that we are constantly shaped by what we see on television, what we see in the theater, what we read. We are taught about our own identities and the identities of those around us. What is so troubling about this idea, especially in relation to queer acceptance, is that by creating this dichotomy of wanting to be accepted vs. accepting others is that, as Michael Warner points out, it "overlook(s) the desirability of queer culture" (xxi). Essentially, when we think of something that is merely something that should/could be accepted, we eliminate any examination of the queer identity beyond one that can be tolerated, rather than can empower.
Listen, y'all. I get it. On some level, it was important for gays, lesbians, everyone to be accepted into a mainstream audience in order for them to garner any exposure. But then again, this has to happen with any community. I could go on a spiel about how this seemingly simple notion of "acceptance" is damaging in so many ways to so many people, but in order to save you all from potential rants, let me clarify. As Suzanna Walters states, "The complexity and diversity of the gay and lesbian community needs to be represented, not promoted as simply heterosexuality with a twist" (p. 24). Peele incorporates these thoughts into his introduction for a reason: to expose the readers to this idea that maybe, just maybe, we still don't understand queer texts. Which is totally okay! One some level, we are never going to completely understand how queer identities function in the dominant ideologies, particularly those that are represented through the media. You guys, it's okay not to know everything.
Look around you. We are surrounded by queer texts and queer artists everywhere. Peele turns to Glee, Modern Family, The Hours, Boy Meets Boy, Richard Hatch from Survivor (which, by the way, HUH?). Some of these texts are beautiful, some are problematic, others are entertaining. But ultimately, as Peele urges us to consider, there is no "right" way to do queer. That is impossible. It is the antithesis of what queer is. The more we try to figure it out, the less is actually queer. But what we should take into account, and what I hope you take from this first article, is that it is okay for ideas, identities, and concepts to be blurred, to remain ambiguous. This works beyond the level of acceptance, but rather, it functions as one of molding. And not the gross kind. I mean shaping, developing, and understanding by our own terms.
No comments:
Post a Comment