As we have been talking about this semester, we have elaborate systems of categories and hierarchies based on our social constructions of race, class, gender, age, ability, and so forth. Remember it is not the categories that are the problems, necessarily--it is the values we assign to them, and the assumptions they come with. With these categories and hierarchies we label some people as “normal” and some people as “deviant” just as we label some behaviors as “normal” and some as “deviant.”
In our culture we don’t just label something as deviant and leave it alone; we demonize, we stigmatize, we fetishize--we make deviant bodies and minds the butt of our jokes. We bully people who are different.We have created a situation where to be labeled deviant is so terrible that we all tend to live in fear of being labeled.
We are so afraid of being labeled, and saddled with all of the negative associations, that we participate in the demonizing of the other ourselves, as a way of distancing ourselves from the scary point of difference. I am not saying each one of us actively bullies, but we do all participate, to some degree, in a system that perpetuates difference and dominance.
Think about the word “fag” and how it is such a hot potato, especially among young males. If someone calls you a fag, you have to pass it on and call someone else a fag as soon as possible. You do this to avoid the label sticking to you--you pass it on.
We are caught in this terrible vicious cycle you feel pressure to participate in the labeling so you don’t get labeled yourself, yet your participation keeps the label alive. We are all afraid of the label, yet we’re keeping the power of the label alive every time we laugh at a fat joke, or say “ew” when two guys kiss. We give labels power when we take the path of least resistance.
Because of all of this, we have absolutely impossible standards, when you really look at it. Let’s look at some examples we have discussed this semester so far as illustrations.
When it comes to size, as we know (according to society), it is bad to be fat, and good to be skinny.
But it's not that simple, is it? To some extent, it is okay for men to be fat, but not women.
But it's even more fickle than that. It is okay for women to be skinny, but it’s NOT okay for women to be too skinny. If you are too skinny, you are sick, are perceived to be mentally ill, and you deserve pity.
Even our drugs have a hierarchy. According to societal messages, alcohol is a good time. It can make you sexy, or even the most interesting person in the world. In general, it is a behavior that is rewarded by society. Despite what we learned about alcohol, it remains legal (once you are 21). By comparison, pot has historically been framed as bad, dangerous, even evil. And currently, it is illegal.
But it isn’t that simple for alcohol, either. To be a cool, suave social drinker is good, but to be an alcoholic is bad. If you binge drink with friends at a frat party, it is socially acceptable. If you binge drink alone, you are sick, and a problem that needs fixing.
How about our relationships? In general, though we know there are many, many forms of relationships, the ideal is two people, married, for love. Any other relationships are devalued, demonized or stigmatized. Some, in fact, are not legal.
That two person relationship (as long as it is heterosexual, married, and for love) is considered good. Being single, on the other hand, is bad - you must be lonely, and desperate, but don't worry--being single is always a temporary state, right? No one would want to be single, right?
I used this film as an example of this whole genre of films where the plot is “I’m a strong woman who is really into my career. But that’s just a cover up; what I really want is a man!” These films are almost a cautionary tale against choosing a career over love, and a reminder that to be single is pathetic. You must be unlovable if you can’t score a man! Remember, of course, that this only applies to women. If you are a man and single, you’re awesome! Suave..a player! And of course, don't forget how this image helps to keep the sexual double standard alive; she is looking for love in her mind, and he is looking for love in his pants.
Do not forget, of course, that a two-person relationship is the ideal...only if it is heterosexual.
But is same-sex behavior always bad? No way! Not when it’s two girls kissing!
But wait. It is good when two girls are kissing when they are young and feminine and men get to watch... But what if they are older? Or masculine? Or are not straight? What if it is because they dig each other? What if they’re not doing it for men’s pleasure, but they are doing it for their own?
In our society, lesbian women are bullied and harassed. But it is NOTHING compared to what happens to gay men. Lesbians are seen as far less threatening to masculinity and male power.
Remember the section of the course on bodies we consider deviant? In general, as you may remember, we consider able bodies (or at least bodies we perceived to be able) to be good, and differently-abled bodies to be bad. Who gets to make those decisions, on who is able-bodied and who is not? Who gets to draw the line? Though people with hearing impairments have an amazing amount of culture and history, and a beautiful language, because most people hear and use verbal language, we devalue sign language.
It is not that simple either, when it comes to people who are differently-abled. If you are young and cute and fit in with some of the archetypes, you can be good! But if you are old, or do not meet with our limited expectations, you are bad. We see a character like Artie, and we assume (1) he wants to walk, and (2) there is still hope for him. We look at the other guy, pictured below, and assume his life sucks. Hell, they even had to shoot him in black and white so we know to pity him! But maybe neither of these men feel like they are “disabled” or need to walk to have a fulfilling life. What would Mark Zupan say?
We also tend to think cisgender - good! Transgender - bad! This is one of the DVD covers for the film Transamerica. It was a hologram cover, where if you looked one direction, you saw Felicity Huffman as her beautiful cisgender self. When you looked at it another direction, you are supposed to be in shock and awe at the transformation Huffman had to undergo to become a transgender woman. The message is that transwomen are ugly, and masculine, and cannot possibly be sexy. That is not correct!
As we discussed this semester, within every subculture there is a good/bad undercurrent to keep everyone pitted against each other. Even in the transgender world there is good and there is bad. If you adhere to the gender binary, as a masculine transman or a very feminine transwoman - good!
If you are skinny and young - good!
If you are white - good!
But if you are not masculine or not feminine enough; if you’re fat or disabled or non-white...bad.
The woman pictured above is Duanna Johnson. A few years ago she was severely beaten by cops, which was caught on video. She filed a complaint and had to fight very hard to get taken seriously. Eventually, two cops were fired and the rest had to go through sensitivity training. A few months later she was found dead, shot in the head. Perhaps no surprise, there are no suspects. Transwomen, especially those who are not white, are routinely demonized, dehumanized, stigmatized and stereotyped as sex workers and drug addicts. Some of those stereotypes invade the transgender community itself, keeping them alive through internalized transphobia. There is a lot of pressure to "pass" as cisgender. There are similar and parallel pressures in a lot of marginalized communities, because of the ways we treat those who are perceived to be different.
These are, of course, just a few examples. I could make thousands of examples like these. In the end...we have made life almost impossible. The lines we draw between good and bad, between normal and deviant, are arbitrary. Fluid. Politicized.
And they totally change when you add in race, class, gender, ability, and so forth into the mix.
When we, as a society, insist upon a narrow definition of “normal” we make it so that almost nobody can fit into that definition.
Remember, it’s not the categories or the definition that is the problem, it is how we treat people based on those categories - it’s the social rankings we make. When the consequence of the label is to be shamed, humiliated, demonized, stigmatized, brutalized or even murdered...that is a problem.
Some of it is subtle, like a devaluation. An example is saying “that’s so gay." It is saying gay is bad, or dumb, or trivial. It’s subtle, perhaps, but it is devaluing, saying heterosexual > other options.
To say “he throws like a girl” is devaluing women as a way of insulting a male. It is saying to do something “like a girl” is a bad thing. Again, it may be subtle, but it is still devaluing, saying male > female.
Other times it is overt. For example, it is dangerous to be a transwoman of color in this country. One reason there is a pressure to "pass" as a cisgender woman is because of safety. Transwomen are killed, brutally murdered, at an alarming rate.
That’s when we need to think about our categories and hierarchies and ask ourselves why. Why do we have such a narrow definition of normal? And why are we so, so afraid of anything that could be seen as deviant?
Taking it back to kinks, what is so sexually exciting about what we label as deviant?
Think about the article I handed out the other day from the San Francisco Gate--maybe we all wish we could have a little more freedom to explore our deviance.
So I leave you with the question we have revisited often:
Do we as a society want a broad or narrow definition of normal?
No comments:
Post a Comment