America: The Home of Gay Rights?

[fredv3b]

I would love to PA, however I the answer remains a mystery, even to me.

[Wintereis]

While I agree with you regarding philosophy, I have to admit holding the standard view with regard to sociology (I see them as separate if partially overlapping entities). The extent of Marx's influence is particularly notable since he wrote so little about what the historical inevitability of communism would be like, how it would be ordered, etc.

Yes, I should have been clearer. I meant only to conflate philosophy and sociology within the context of Queer Theory, since the particular field in which it exists seems up for debate. At the same time sociology as well as all other field of western study are historically branches of philosophy and were considered so until fairly recent times.

If you look at the biographies of Butler and Sedgwick on Wikipedia, they refer to them as philosophers and/or theorists. So, I imagine the fact that these fields, matching contemporary trends, are considered interdisciplinary, which is likely the reason for confusion.

Another reason, perhaps, is because of the quote I used. I did say that it would either clarify or confuse your understanding of Queer Theory. Yes, Sedgwick is talking about a group of characters in a Proust novel, but this does not mean that it has nothing to do with reality. If you watch that video of Butler I posted, she talks about her family trying to fit in or duplicate the Hollywood model of gender. All societies have had similar models of gender, sex, and sexuality which are normalized and we, as a part of that society, attempt to imitate. You can think of knightley in "Emma" as a model of the British gentleman of the early nineteenth-century.

These models, as Butler and Sedgwick indicate, are an abstract ideal which have nothing to do with reality. Their concern in these issues is deconstructing those models in relationship to how gender is truly enacted. If we consider Sedgwick’s quote for an instant, you can see how these models within our society are contradictory and wrong and indeed break down under scrutiny.

Take the ideal of masculinity for instance: Men are supposed to prefer hard things to soft, active things to passive and dominant things to subordinant.

On the other hand, the traditional ideal feminine within our society is supposed to like soft and beautiful things, prefer an inactive "homebody" life, and be subordinant.

Here you can already see the incongruity when we begin looking at the nexus between norms of gender and norms of sexuality.

How, for instance, does the heterosexual norm fit with these normative behaviors of gender? How can the male model be attracted sexually to that which he is not supposed to be attracted to in every other aspect? Whether there is any truth to the cliché that opposites attract becomes quite mute, as in every other aspect of a male’s interest it is supposed to be similarity that attracts. The same applies with females. The fact is, people do not nor cannot measure up to the ideals set forth by our society in models of gender, sex, and sexuality. So, basically, Queer Theory is very interested in these incongruities between real behavior and practices and the social fictions which those behaviors and practices are measured against.

"Rock Hudson (gay actor, closeted during his reign as silver screen leading man in the 50's and 60's) stars with Doris Day in Pillow Talk.":

[fredv3b]

I understand what they are saying. However there is an underlying assumption that 'normal' human behaviour unaffected by cultural influence is a meaningful idea. To my mind the human being is the definitive social animal, and human behaviour devoid of culture is by definition abnormal. Comparison between different cultures may be interesting and meaningful, but comparison with some 'natural state' unaffected by culture isn't, to my mind.

[Wintereis]

I understand what they are saying. However there is an underlying assumption that 'normal' human behaviour unaffected by cultural influence is a meaningful idea. To my mind the human being is the definitive social animal, and human behaviour devoid of culture is by definition abnormal. Comparison between different cultures may be interesting and meaningful, but comparison with some 'natural state' unaffected by culture isn't, to my mind.

Non, mon ami. If that is your perception of it, then indeed you do not understand what they are saying. Like you, they hold humanity to be a gregarious species, but they do not hold that there are essential or "normal" human behaviors unaffected by cultural influences. Indeed, the cross-cultural analysis of gender and sexuality is perhaps the quintessential root of Queer Theory. Observing such things shows difference which indicates a lack of culturally neutral or universal behaviors when it comes to much within these subjects.

But, I think your confusion on this point is due to the word normal, since you put scare quotes around the word. When I or a Queer Theorist says normal or any variation of the word we are referencing Foucault's coinage of normalization:

"Normalization refers to social processes through which ideas and actions come to be seen as "normal" and become taken-for-granted or 'natural' in everyday life. In sociological theory normalization appears in two forms.
First, the concept of normalization is found in the work of Michel Foucault, especially Discipline and Punish, in the context of his account of disciplinary power. As Foucault used the term, normalization involved the construction of an idealized norm of conduct – for example, the way a proper soldier ideally should stand, march, present arms, and so on, as defined in minute detail – and then rewarding or punishing individuals for conforming to or deviating from this ideal. In Foucault's account, normalization was one of an ensemble of tactics for exerting the maximum social control with the minimum expenditure of force, which Foucault calls "disciplinary power". Disciplinary power emerged over the course of the 19th century, came to be used extensively in military barracks, hospitals, asylums, schools, factories, offices, and so on, and hence became a crucial aspect of social structure in modern societies."

Interestingly enough, Foucault's "Discipline and Punish" is the book in which he introduces the theory of panopticism. Panopticism is derived from our previously mentioned philosopher, Jeremy Benthum's plan for prsions and other social institutions.

[fredv3b]

Well then Queer Theory seems to have utterly eluded me, I seem no better informed than when we started this conversation.

[princealbertofb]

Was für eine interessante Frau, diese Judith Butler.

[Genersis]

..... If it were not for the philosophy of Marx China, Cuba, North Korea and even large swaths of European and American governmental systems would be quite different. The philosophy of people like Heidegger and Spencer is as much to blame for the Holocaust as the mishandling of Darwinian Theory. It is true, philosophy has long been engaged in trying to locate the Platonic ideal, but it is not without its real life implications.

I thought holocaust was caused by the Nazi party spreading propagander stating falsities against the then sizable jewish comunity, that the jews were trying to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!(of course!*) As I'm pretty sure christianic asociated Nazism would want as little to do with Darwinian Theory as posible.:tongue:
Unless thats what you meant? Judging how you're stating the impact of philosophy in the rest of the paragraph though I'm guessing not.

Sorry to point out something a while back in the disscusion, but I couldn't let it lie, even if it is unrelated to the topic.:redface:
Feel free to corect me if i'm wrong.

*Internet joke:biggrin:

[fredv3b]

I thought holocaust was caused by the Nazi party spreading propagander stating falsities against the then sizable jewish comunity, that the jews were trying to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!(of course!*) As I'm pretty sure christianic asociated Nazism would want as little to do with Darwinian Theory as posible.:tongue:

I think the point is about the thinking/philosophy that underlied Nazi ideology. Without (a rather corrupted) version of Darwinian theory talk of the 'Master Race' is somewhat meaningless/absurd. The holocaust required a belief in genetic, not just cultural, superiority, it makes the inferior irredeemably inferior and their inferiority contagious on 'pure Germans'.

*As an aside I suspect that the propaganda regarding the dangers of the Jews in Germany, was more effective than claims of a global Jewish conspiracy.

[Wintereis]

I thought holocaust was caused by the Nazi party spreading propagander stating falsities against the then sizable jewish comunity, that the jews were trying to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!(of course!*) As I'm pretty sure christianic asociated Nazism would want as little to do with Darwinian Theory as posible.:tongue:
Unless thats what you meant? Judging how you're stating the impact of philosophy in the rest of the paragraph though I'm guessing not.

Sorry to point out something a while back in the disscusion, but I couldn't let it lie, even if it is unrelated to the topic.:redface:
Feel free to corect me if i'm wrong.

*Internet joke:biggrin:

I meant to find some information to educate you on the role of Eugenics in Nazi Germany, but I ended up educated myself. Previously, I stated that it was a mishandling of Darwinian Theory. This is apparently incorrect, as Darwin seem to call for Eugenics. The Eugenics Movement began in Britan shortly after Darwin publishes his greatest work and it spreads to parts of the United States and to Germany and other nations. It was only after the rise of Nazi Germany that Britan, the U.S. and other nations abandoned their attempts at Eugenics.




Interestingly enouph, if you have ever heared of "The Scopes Monkey Trile", it was not necessarily the contradiction of Christian Creationism that the prosecuting council, William Jennings Bryan, was apposed to. He feared what part Eugenics played in Darwinian Theory, as he was a great advocate for the poor and the African American community. In this clip from "Inherit the Wind", he is called Brady.

[Wintereis]

Sorry, that last one was a bit off topic. Though "Inherit the Wind" is full of inaccuracies about "The Scopes Trial", it is full of great writing and acting. I think it actually can give some insight into why the Gay Rights Movement in the U.S. has been so slow. We have a tendency here to have to argue a point incessantly before we do anything about it. This can be a good thing and it can obviously be a bad thing.