|
[previous
page 1 | 2
| 3 ]
The question remains:
Should gay rights activists perpetuate the dominant cultural hegemony,
and work for assimilation into it, or should heterosexual power regimes
be actively questioned and subverted? Should queer bodies be put on the
same cultural standing as heterosexual bodies (ie. assimilating into the
norm), even if this potentially means a forced ‘tolerance’ of homophobic
treatment? Gamson's series of interviews with talk show viewers clearly
indicate a high majority of people don't 'mind'26
if people are gay, but question why they should feel the need to constantly
air their sexuality (as if it was their dirty laundry) in public, preferring
them to remain in the bedroom, stay in the closet. One male interviewee
exclaims;
'"Why can't it be
'don't ask, don't tell?'" he asks. "They don't want to be
satisfied with that
today. It's not hatred against them, believe me when I say I have a feeling
for them and what they're going through, but damn it, don't tell, keep
it in the closet."'27
And a female caller
to a 1992 Donahue show;
'"All they seem
to do is cause problems. If we all got together and talked about it, maybe
we could figure out what could be done with them. I really think they should
all go back in the closet and make life peaceful again."'28
In an always already
heterosexual world, one is assumed to be heterosexual until it is said
(or 'suspected') otherwise. Without announcing sexuality, by staying in
the closet the hetero-norm is not challenged, and everyone out of the closet
(the heterosexuals that where never in it) are happy. Their place as the
original is not questioned, other than from inside - from a constant failure
to realise the ideals they mimic daily. The heterosexual hegemony remains
secure (or as secure as it can ever be).
With queer bodies
out of the closet, the constant mimesis is called into question. Does the
presence of a homosexual body potentially threaten or reaffirm the dominant
position of the heterosexual body? In 'essence', the queer body that desires
to be similar to, to be accepted, assimilated, by the heterosexual dominant
only acts to reaffirm the cultural hegemony, albeit in a potentially denaturalising
way. The conscious parody of some instances of drag acts to question the
stability of the masculine and feminine in regards to the biological male
and female sexed bodies. The flamboyant or 'stereotypical' queer body can
act to disrupt the dominant heterosexual matrix, challenge the dominant
hegemony depending on contextual situations. But what are the consequences?
Are these isolated instances of disruption enough in themselves to disrupt
a power regime that is always already heterosexual?
According to Gamson,
as talk shows became more sensationalised, middle class gay activists using
talk shows to forward their own political agendas found they were sidelined
in favour of apolitical queer people. There is a concern amongst activists
that these people, 'often flamboyant, unaffiliated, untrained in political
agendas, and of lower educational, economic, and social status--threaten
the mainstreaming agenda of many in the gay movement.'29
There seems to be a common feeling that these disruptions of the hetero-norm
act negatively on the gay community. The disruptions make it harder for
queer people to be accepted in society, harder for them to gain equal rights.
Queer people are being 'implicated by imagery that sets them outside the
bounds of the normal, a place they decidedly don't want to be.'30
The appearance of
potentially transgressive queer bodies in drag on talk shows depicts drag
as a site of ambivalence. Their appearance doesn't necessarily equate to
a subversion of the hetero-norm. It can be seen as to aid both the subversion
and reaffirmation of the heterosexual matrix. Butler comments that
the contradictory nature of drag works to illustrate a 'general situation
of being implicated in the regimes of power by which one is constituted
and, hence, of being implicated in the very regimes of power that one opposes.'31
In other words, because the queer body is constituted through a heterosexual
hegemony it is part of this discourse, and is forced to work within it,
even though it opposes its constructs. So even when a disruption of the
heterosexual framework (and therefore media as hetero-spectacle) occurs,
it is constituted within the bounds of the heterosexual hegemony.
While talk shows
do provide the grounds for a disruption of the capitalist and ideological
model of media as spectacle through a subversion of hetero-norms, this
potential disruption occurs only infrequently. More often than not, heterosexual
norms are denaturalised and re-idealised rather than actively disrupted.
This being the case, a consideration of the breakdown of the heterosexual
hegemony appears unrealistic through such infrequent acts of subversion.
These acts of subversion remain to be seen as arguably either positive
or negative. Looking at the smaller picture, acts of subversion are perceived
as negative by some gay rights activists who prefer an assimilation into
the dominant heterosexual hegemony. This view tends to position heterosexuality
as a legitimate original in the face of homosexuality as copy.
On the other hand,
transgressive queer groups look to the wider picture. They are interested
in breaking down negative stereotypes, and reducing homophobia and queer
victimisation, however they don't want to achieve this at the expense of
a reaffirmation of the heterosexual hegemony. For real equality to be achieved,
it seems that the always already heterosexual framework inherent within
society must be constantly disrupted. But realistically, the goal of assimilation,
working within, yet potentially against the heterosexual matrix is more
attainable than a disruption of that matrix. The TV talk show illustrates
this by the ways in which different queer bodies both appear on, use and
subvert the genre to their own means - whether for fame or for political
means. This is not to say a normalisation through assimilation is a positive
step at all. The heterosexual matrix, in its false belief of itself as
original, and with this position of domination constantly being threatened
(if not occasionally subverted) by the queer body, along with an ostracising
nature which aims at limiting bodies of excess, does not seem the type
of power regime one would want to be assimilated into as a mere 'copy'.
[previous
page 1 | 2
| 3 ]
[bibliography]
26
Possibly they only 'not mind' because it is seen as bigoted, (as homophobic,
racist, sexist), to openly admit a hatred towards any grouping in society.
By 'not minding as long as they aren't confronted with it', the (always
already hetero) consciousness is 'cleared' of such guilt.
27
Gamson, 1998, p205.
28
Gamson, 1998, p198.
29
Gamson, 1998, p185.
30
Gamson, 1998, p193.
31
Butler, 1993, p125.
Bibliography
Butler, Judith,
Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, 1990.
London: Routledge.
Butler, Judith,
'Imitation and Gender Insubordination' in inside/out: Lesbian Theories,
Gay Theories, Fuss, Diana (ed), 1991. London: Routledge.
Butler, Judith,
'Gender is Burning: Question of Appropriation and Subversion' in Bodies
that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex", 1993.
New York: Routledge.
Gamson, Joshua,
Freaks Talk Back: Tabloid Talk Shows and Sexual Nonconformity,
1998. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
'Hey, Girlfriend,
You Can Stop Complaining About Your Man, 'Cuz Today I Take Him Off Your
Hands!'. Prod. Andrew Scher , Dir. Bob McKinnon, Ricki, Exec.
prod. Gail Steinberg, TV2, New Zealand, May 2000.
'I Married a Man…
Now He's a Woman!'. Prod. Gregory Piccioli, Dir. Adam Simons Sorota,
Sally Jesse Raphael, Exec. prod. Maurice Tunick, TV3, New Zealand,
May 2000.
'One Date With Me
and You're Mine!'. Prod. Andrew Scher , Dir. Bob McKinnon, Ricki,
Exec. prod. Gail Steinberg, TV2, New Zealand, May 2000.
Oprah, Prod.
Jill Barangik, Dir. Joseph G. Terry, Exec. prod. Dianne Atkinson Hudson,
TV3, New Zealand, May 2000.
'Secret Sexy Confessions:
Its Time to Confess and get this Sexy Secret off My Chest'. Prod. Andrew
Scher , Dir. Bob McKinnon, Ricki, Exec. prod. Gail Steinberg,
TV2, New Zealand, May 2000.
Swirl: Terms
and Definitions, retrieved from the World Wide Web on April 14,
2000:
http://www.sou.edu/ENGLISH/IDTC/Terms/terms.htm#anchor42031
'What Sex is my
Child?'. Prod. Gregory Piccioli, Dir. Adam Simons Sorota, Sally Jesse
Raphael, Exec. prod. Maurice Tunick, TV3, New Zealand, May 2000.
|
