American Beauty... Beautifully Confusing.

Similar to my entry after Lars and the Real Girl, here are a few observations on American Beauty, particularly through the lens of our class readings.  There were a ton of issues related to gender, embodiment, and queer theory. I wanted to get these thoughts out prior to our class discussion to record them as unaffected as possible.

• The incest taboo was definitely present in this film as we discussed in class.  Colonel Fitts has homoerotic tendencies towards his son, which were really difficult to watch.  I found the tension between them, particularly the beatings, to have a very graphic and sexual undertone.  While the Colonel approaches Lester with his repressed longings, it feels like much of the homosexual desires he finally lets loose actually stem from his relationship with Ricky.
• This is the third time I’ve watched the movie, but this is the first time I really considered and focused on the gender tensions that are everywhere in the movie.  Lester is the poster child (man?) for performative masculinity.  Working out, being “cool” are all actions that he takes are surface-level attempts at embodying masculinity.  Angela and Jane also represent differing degrees of adolescent femininity.  In reading Halberstam’s passage on queer time being “stretched out adolescence” (154), the dynamic between Lester and Angela could totally be construed as adolescent and queer as much as it is heterosexual and, well, creepy.
• There’s definitely an air of subversion in the film, particularly with the Jims.  They’re the most normal, functional coupling in the movie, and they happen to be homosexual partners.  Their interactions are the most domestically sound, while Lester/Carolyn and Frank/Barbara are clearly troubled with deep-seated psychological and emotional issues.  I see this as a two-pronged attack against hetero-normativity.  The Jims represent the faithful, domestic bliss that hetero “time” represents, but subverted with the homosexual relationship.  Meanwhile, the “conventional” heterosexual couples are laden with some serious issues – Carolyn’s cheating, Frank seriously repressed sexual desires, Lester’s lust for a teenager – these all serve to question not only the legitimacy of hetero-normative institutions, but also the damage it can cause when forced and perpetuated onto the masses.
• I’m not quite sure what to make of Ricky and Jane.  Ricky seems to be the one person who “gets” it.  He turns his father’s supposed bigotry on its head, and sees the beauty in the simplest of things.  He relishes that the “faggots”(as Frank calls them) aren’t ashamed of their own identity, even in the midst of suburbia.
• I’ve always struggled with the ending.  While I’m almost satisfied with Lester finally coming full circle and ceasing to see Angela as an object of sexual desire, he’s killed by Frank in a blind rage after exposing his repressed homosexual desires.  There’s obviously the self-hate and melancholia that individuals like Frank must feel, but what does him killing Lester say about these multi-layered tensions of gender and alternative sexuality?  I’m still not sure what the overall message is, and viewing the film with our readings in mind only further complicated my thoughts. 

- terese

Works Cited

Halberstam, Judith.  In a Queer Time and Place – Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives.  New York: New York University Press.,2005. Print.

The Problem of "We"

This will probably sound more like a blog post for a sociology class, but I feel like our studies on queer theory have such close ties to sociology that I’m going to post anyway.

As we discussed in class today, I’m really struggling with the recurring “we” theme. At the very beginning, Butler’s questioning of “women as a subject for feminism” on the very first page of Gender Trouble seemed to really hit home for me.  How could we possible group together such massive collection of disparate individuals and their respective identities into a concise, all-encompassing label?  While I understand entirely that this collective mass is clearly effective in garnering social and political power to change (or at least make strides towards progress) the oppressive conditions of an otherwise oppressed class/category, it just seems like the benefit of “we” seems short term.  When constructing and defining this political body, it’s inevitable that the individual identity gets sacrificed for the greater good, but it seems like this sacrifice will only come back later to undermine the movement itself. 

Take today’s example in Chapter 5 of An Archive of Feelings. The masses of those affected by AIDS were indeed secular – gay men and African-Americans in particular.  And ACT UP created this coalition whereby those affected by AIDS and HIV+ joined arms for greater political mobility.  But what about each individual’s own identity, whether it be as a lesbian drug addict who happened to be HIV+ or a high-femme activist who was shamed by her own identity?  What about Eve Sedgwick’s idea that all it takes is a compulsion to identify with queer to be queer… that somehow, this revolutionary idea was less convincing from an individual that otherwise fit the expected, heteronormative American dream?   Or how the most convincing and supportive activists in ACT UP would be looked down upon, less effective if they were to partake in hetero pleasures?  It seems ironic that the plurality of “we” can become an oppressive singular identity.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with Sedgwick, but I don’t live in some fantasy world, wishing that everyone could just accept each other without categorization or expectations. Like I said, I understand the need for political and social mass in order to incite change.  But I guess this post is just me, trying to work through these tensions I feel in regards to any type of movement or collective “we.”  It’s something I’ve struggled with for quite some time.  In a similar matter of identity politics, I feel very strongly about the pan-continental term of “Asian-American” that is so readily applied to me.  My black hair, smaller eyes, yellow-toned skin are also irrevocable differences that will forever mark me as the “perpetual foreigner.”  And, like the AIDS movement, an Asian-American movement started in the mid-eighties in a quest dig out of the political margins to which ethnic minorities are often relegated. I don’t, in any way, shape, or form, want to minimize the mortality and pure significance of the AIDS movement by comparing it to Asian-American identity politics, but there are similar traits of erasure and denial that run through both. In the journey towards progress, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese and other ethnicities that shared a similar physical typecast were all suddenly Asian-American.  What is Asia really?  Why is Asian-American only coined for Southeast Asia, but not India, Russia, Kazakhstan?  Who decided all of this?  The differences and nuances between each country are astronomical, and our individual immigrant heritage was sacrificed in favor of progress.  So where does this leave me, who am I?  An Asian-American of feminine persuasion?  An American woman with Vietnamese heritage?  A woman?  A supporter of “queer” orientations, or perhaps more likely, queer myself? 

I draw this comparison, because I felt a similar sentiment in some of Cvetkovich’s testimonials, where individual identity is forfeited for a greater cause, where activists were ashamed and/or secretive about their own sexuality.  Can "we" ever get to a point where identities aren't so politicized?  Likely not, but I suppose we can keep working towards more expansive, accepting modes of identifying ourselves and others?  There’s obviously no answer to any of my questions, and I suppose I’m not really looking for one.  I’m just trying to reconcile this need I feel to recognize so many more facets of identity that go beyond the restrictions of discernable traits, whether physical, behavioral, or other.  I have no idea as to how this could realistically be facilitated, but I also have no idea how I could ever be okay with being relegated to choosing one, or even a few, comprehensive categories in which my true individual identity could fit.

- terese

Works Cited

Butler, Judith Butler. Gender Trouble, Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge Classics, 1990. Print.

Clare, Eli. "Stolen Bodies, Reclaimed Bodies: Disability and Queerness." Public Culture, Volume 13, Number 3, Fall 2001, pp. 359-365. Print.

Cvetkovich, Ann. An Archive of Feelings: Trauma, Sexuality, and Lesbian Public Cultures. Duke University Press. 2003. 

Musings on "Lars and the Real Girl"

Oh Lars. 

There were so many gems within this movie that I want to discuss in depth, but I thought perhaps I should save that for the paper, and list some quick hits here that I thought really made the movie. 

I really liked the blatant irony of Lars’ chaste relationship with a sex doll; that an anatomically correct doll actually underscores his decency and wholesome sincerity.  I also liked how shocked Karin is when seeing that Bianca was indeed anatomically detailed under her skirt.  I mean, really, what did she expect to see?

Gus and Karin represented the embodiment of heteronormative behavior to me.  Yes, Lars was socially awkward and a bit unstable.  But their concern form him made it seem as though his solitude and withdrawn nature was some sort of illness that could be fixed with a romantic relationship (with one of the feminine persuasion of course).  Gus asks to “fix” Lars who, aside from his single status and awkward mannerisms, seems completely functional.  He has a job, he drives, he eats, he exists.  Then, when he brings home exactly what they expected – a girl / companion – but in a form that didn’t fit heteronormative expectations, he was deemed to be even crazier.  This isn’t taking away from the fact that they seemed to genuinely care for Lars, it’s just that their desire for him to be “fixed” seemed to mean that he should land a girl, get married, settle down, and have children. In other words, a conventional heterosexual life that fits into the heteronormative hegemony.

Perhaps Sedgwick’s right, we’re all a little queer, a little crazy.  An entire town is convinced to not just tolerate Lars’ quirky behavior, but to see his delusion for themselves. At first pass, this can be a testament to some idyllic idea of the human condition, but it shows a little bit of a psychological weakness we all have in our capacity to empathize with others, particularly those we care about.  We care… so much so that we’re willing to personally identify with others, and applying it to Sedgwick, perhaps it takes mere identification with “queer” that makes us so.

I thought the tie-in of religion was brilliant.  If only all organized religion could preach and practice such tolerance and respect for one another, particularly those considered “queer.”   Mrs. Gruner and her friends are particularly endearing for some reason.  Older folks who display sage wisdom and overall sensibility always win.

The tie between childbirth and death was interesting.  Lars sees childbirth as dangerous, and explains this to the doctor.  Maybe part of his aversion to Karin’s touch is really his fear for her impending labor.  While this fear is easily explained by Lars’ mother dying during childbirth, it’s also an intriguing concept.  Childbirth, in most hetero situations, is a marker of life, a celebration.  But for homosexuals who are biologically incapable of producing life in the hetero convention (and are further denied from means of adopting and raising children in their own right), childbirth takes on a different meaning.

I drew some correlations between Bianca, Margo’s teddy bear, and his cube-mate’s action figures.  All of these are inanimate objects that are given human-like importance and characteristics.  These are akin to the dolls that are used throughout Misfortune.

Lars, like Rose from Misfortune, has some gender issues that are tied with coming of age and growing up.  When he tells Gus that Bianca’s culture has ceremonies and rites of passage that confirm an entrance into adulthood and manhood, I get the feeling that Lars himself is looking for ways in which he also can know that he is a man.  In the same vein, Rose never truly cements a stable identity until (s)he comes to terms with her physical and mental state of mind in terms of gender.  It almost feels like part of growing up, at least in these two works, means finding asserting a gender and committing to performing this gender, both in private and in public.

All in all, a thought-provoking movie that was funny, but more so at times, quite sad.  Feel free to share the moments and highlights that you found funny, ironic, profound, etc.  

-terese

You go girl!

CNN: Why Men Are In Trouble

So I read this CNN article and laughed, for many reasons.  “Why Men are in Trouble” by William J. Bennett.  While I recommend reading it (if anything, for a solid chuckle), here’s a quick synopsis, as defined by the story highlights:

•  William Bennett: Women have made huge strides in achievement
•  He says men have fallen behind, now accounting for less than half of college degrees
•  Men are more distant from families, many don't have jobs and lack maturity, he says
•  Bennett: We need to teach boys the things they need to thrive as men 

The article goes on the cite statistic after statistic that women have indeed made great strides as a gender.  The saying, “You go girl!” as apparently been adopted by all women, and now we should worry about men and their inability to perpetuate a society that is suffocatingly masculine.

Bennett focuses a significant portion of his argument on employment and marriage, on the “founding virtues – work, marriage, religion,” That women have seemingly taken over the working force, and are having babies willy-nilly without the involvement of the father.  The irony, to me, is that this is opinion seems so deeply rooted in capitalism and economics, as Foucault suggested.  Human capital is all we are in the eyes of society, right?  And now, the human capital is being swayed toward the supposedly feminine.  Women are taking jobs and salaries, and they’re adding new members into society that aren’t raised with the proper respect for the power of the penis.

My apologies if I don’t appear apologetic.  With all of there readings in class, I feel as though we’re back to square one – at least with this article.  Bennett works with two very defined categories – men and women.  There is no in between, only black and white.  Here is the real world, well, at least the world in which I reside, the grey matter is where most individuals fall.  Aren’t we all queer, really?  There is certainly some truth in Sedgwick's suggestion, that it only takes a thought, a “compulsion” to speak of ourselves as different to truly be different.

While I understand that, to make an effective social commentary, one must create these categories, to create the political unit, as Butler noted.  But to adhere to such an outdated, exclusive dichotomy suggests to me the very opposite of what Bennett is claiming.  We can’t have made so much progress if we feel we’re ought to focus on “teaching boys to be manly men.”  How about we teach our children to be good people?  To teach (and more importantly, demonstrate) what being an upstanding individual, a responsible citizen entails, not how to focus solely on gender-specific scripts that will inevitably hinder their enlightenment and progression as adults.

I’m not calling for some utopian ideal where gender doesn’t exist, though I may sound a touch bitter.  No, there just needs to be recognition of the many, many categories and identities that lie between, outside, and of course, within, “man” and “woman,” boy and girl.  I have an answer for Bennett, who laments the increasing complaint of most “girls” – where have all the good men gone?  They’re apparently busy working on finding their mid-20^th century “virtues.”

-terese

The Economics of Drag

 It’s interesting that, no matter how marginal a subgroup can be in any given society, that economics is still a ruling factor.  Mother Camp outlines the social hierarchy within the world of female impersonators, from the lowly street fairies to street impersonators and the upper echelon of stage queens, with the ultimate dream of being “legit” in Hollywood as a mainstream actor. 

Throughout Newton’s selection, it was apparent that the relative success of an impersonator depends on how well they can compartmentalize their lives, separating their performance from their personal lives. The lower-tier street performers lived in “residential groups” that served to “fuse the work and home lives” (13), while the more successful stage queens lived shockingly normal lives, living “farther away from clubs…and they almost always live alone” (17).  They have clean living quarters and appear to be almost normal, straight males.  There seems to be resentment and contempt towards the lower classes who cannot clean themselves up and appear straight and “normal” – whatever normal could possibly mean in this otherwise “deviant” lifestyle.  The most successful, like Wanda, are shockingly normal in their outward appearances.  And the epitome of their craft would be to achieve status as a mainstream actor, to go “legit.”  This seems to suggest then, that success, as defined by female impersonators, is to be as seemingly normal as possible, outside of their performances. 

Part of this quest for normalcy seems rooted in economics.  If one lives their live – both professional and personal – immersed in “street” affairs, then it’s likely that one can never been seen beyond the deviance that the lifestyle represents.  The more one is “normal” (read: hetero), the more stage success.  And the more stage success, the more financially stable.  It’s ironic that, even in subversive cultures, the dollars and cents of economic standing still define the structure of the hierarchy.  It’s a bit disheartening to see that, even when these performers are pushing the social boundaries of gender and sexuality, they’re still confined within the operations of a greater economic sphere, and still required to conform in order to escape the street lifestyle.

Works Cited

Newton, Ester. Mother Camp: Female Impersonators In America.  Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1972. Print.