Questioning the Common Interpretation of Literary Influences

The Epistemology of the Closet by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, covered a wide range of topics relating to the homosexual and heterosexual binaries. The section in which she spoke of literature within the context of homo- and heterosexuality suggested an interesting theory questioning the interpretation of some central literary figures, such as Shakespeare, Socrates and Proust. This section primarily intrigued me because of my English background as it is the degree I will be receiving in June. I have taken courses in lesbian and gay literature as well as an endless amount of courses discussing “heterosexual” literature, through an expansive time period. Sedgwick’s thoughts on the ideas of sexual orientation within literature as well as of the authors themselves made me consider the implications of the work I have been engaged in for the past four years and all my life.

            Sedgwick writes, “It is with these complications that the relation between lesbian and gay literature as a minority canon, and the process of making salient the homosocial, homosexual, and homophobic strains and torsions in the already existing master-canon, becomes especially revealing,” (51). This struck me, because having taken courses on both subjects, but never one course that encompasses both. It made me question the idea of separating the two into separate fields, therefore acknowledging that separation, creating a preconceived notion that the two are not linked, when in fact, they are inherently intertwined.

            It is not simply the idea that there was queer sexuality within the works of those referenced above, as at least in Shakespeare’s case, there is evidence to support the probability of queer identities within his plays and certain sonnets. It is the idea that these two forms of literature are separate, when in fact their commonalities should bring them together. It was a requirement of my degree to take certain literature classes, none of which discussed queer literature or even discussed the idea of queer identities within the texts we read. I elected to take a course in gay and lesbian literature, and in that class we focused on texts that explicitly depicted gay and lesbian relationships with no room to debate any thought of an alternative orientation. When most English courses focus on a specific time period or theme it would be simple to incorporate texts that discussed both homo- and heterosexual relationships or to explore the possibility to create discourse about ‘heterosexual’ texts with a queer understanding.

            When looking through some of Shakespeare’s work, Sonnet 20 and 126, Henry V, As You Like It, Twelfth Night, Othello; to go beyond Shakespeare and consider Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities. I have encountered essays that theorize the relationship of Sydney Carton and Charles Darnay, (A Tale of Two Cities) as more than a brief acquainted relationship, but a distant one sided love; of course, this possibility is never considered as it is assumed that the text is heterosexual, due to the lack of generalized homosexual behaviors. As Sedgwick writes, “Same-sex genital relationships may have been perfectly common during the period under discussion—but since there was no language about them, they have been completely meaningless,” (52); meaningless as well as ignored and without consideration.

In multiple situations I have suggested the idea of same-sex relations within the works of Shakespeare, Dickens, George Herbet, John Donne, and various others, but those notions are often dismissed as an “interesting reading’, or “I wouldn’t go so far”, but why not go that far? The interpretation of these texts as possibly queer seems to be taboo, when in truth the real intended interpretation is unknown, so why not consider a queer reading?

It would be easy to have discourse on the ideas that support the possibility of queer identities being incorporated into the “master-canon”, therefore stripping queer literature of its identity as a minority-canon, as it is heavily ingrained within widely taught and appreciated texts. 

Bio-Power Presentation and Reflection

           Through this project I was able to delve deeper into my person and better understand my relations to power and how those relationships affect me or how I allow them to affect me. This project also presented me with challenges that I face because of power relationships as well as the obstacles that I have created myself and now realize that I have made challenges for myself. Also, through the peer review for this project, I was able to see the similarities and differences in the power relationships between different people. It was through experiencing other people’s bio-power relationships that I was able to gain a better understanding of what queer studies are.

            The creation of this project forced me to think about how I view myself, and what labels I want to be associated with, but then it also caused me to question those labels. I sought out why I chose those labels or why I had for so long been avoiding them. In my presentation, I start off with descriptors that I associate myself with, one of which is ‘bisexual’. This was the most difficult term for me to associate with as it has been a poorly defined term in my past. It has been a term of ridicule, disbelief, confusion, and disdain; therefore I have tried to never relate that word to my sexuality, as it has always been negative. I came out as a lesbian, but then realized that it didn’t fit, but neither did straight. When I first told people that I was bisexual they instantly assumed I was going through a phase, or that I slept around, so I decided that I was sexually fluid, without a label. It was through this project and conversations with other classmates that I was able to realize that being bisexual isn’t negative. I have been conditioned to think so through the terms that I have been associated with it due to the power other institutions have over the bisexual population. It was this project that helped me come to the realization that I can be proud to be bisexual and that it doesn’t have to come with a negative connotation, unless I allow it.

            This project also helped me realized that I take the power that I have for granted. I am educated, in this instance I am the dominate one in the power relationship, but I never really realized it before. I had taken my education for granted, not really investing in my education, knowing that I had this opportunity and that it wasn’t going anywhere. This project helped me realize that this is an area where I have the power to succeed but I have been my own obstacle by not allowing myself to reach my full potential and get everything out of my education, (my parents would be thrilled to hear me say that). This is an area that I need to work on, currently it is what I would view as a weakness but I know that it should be a strength and that is what I strive for.

            Through the peer review I was able to look at the power relationships of another person, who was very different than I. I will admit that I had difficulty critiquing the project. The project was well done and there was a clear and evident understanding of bio-power, so I did not feel that much critique was necessary. I found that by reviewing their work, it made me internally critique my own, but then I realized that our bio-maps would never be similar because we have different attributes that cause us to experience bio-power differently. I found this realization to be the most important, I knew that bio-power wasn’t the same for all people but it was interesting to have evidence of it.

            The experience of creating the project alongside completing the peer review has helped me have a better handle on the definition of queer studies, but at the same time I am still left unsure. When I first enrolled in the class I believed that ‘queer’ only applied to sexual orientations other than heterosexual, when in fact it expands further. I now believe that ‘queer’ relates to the idea of anyone or any experience that is not of the majority; a person, population, experience that was or still continues to be under the power of another institution. Queer studies seem to be the study of oppression, or at least that is what I believe thus far. 


http://prezi.com/tx4mp8ujelqn/bio-power/?kw=view-tx4mp8ujelqn&rc=ref-34077181

The film, How to survive a plague, documented a few of the leaders of the organization Act Up during the 80s and 90s and their personal, political and social struggles of being diagnosed with AIDS.The film follows two main tracks of the personal stories and interactions of these activists and the political journey of the organization; as the activists are the leaders of the organization their stories are intertwined making the political personal and making the stories of the activists extremely unique. The film is seemingly trying to capture the struggles of the gay male community that was diagnosed, living, fighting and dying from AIDS. This highlights an interesting intersection then of who is representing that community and what power they hold in that organization.
The intersection is called bio-power (Foucault)  where ones genetic make up holds a social value giving one more or less mobility in a society. In this case the society was within the Act Up organization but much their mobility was permitted by the value that the activists had previously to holding these positions. All of them were men (except maybe two or three women who played more supporting roles in the fight), white, tall, and fit all of which are necessities of the ideal man in American culture. They were all well educated an many had very respectable jobs previous to their activist work in Act Up. Perhaps the only 'downfall' to their social status in the current culture (the 80s and 90s) was that most if not all were gay. Was it because of their fit to the American standard of being male that they were able to gain their positions and power in Act Up?
The characteristics shared by each of these activists are very particular and in no way representative of the entire gay/ AIDS population.Yet in the film they are presented as a sample of people that accurately narrate the struggles of that population; however the activists are extremely mobile within the confines of those struggles. How would the story told be different for a poor, disabled woman of color was one of the main activists. Would Act Up or any group of those have been able to make as great of strides as the actual activists did in the film?
These are all very cut and dry approaches yet I feel it is important to examine what is staring you in the face. There is an obvious imbalance of power as seen in who is being portrayed in the film.While there may have been factors outside of the bio-power of the activists which moved them into the leadership roles, it is more likely it was due to their social status and 'maleness' that made them the prime choice.

With Power Must Come Knowledge.

The documentary brought me back to Foucault and his ‘Rule of Immanence’, seeing power and knowledge as continuously connected. At first the documentary seemed to encompass Foucault’s ideal, Larry Kramer made a comment in the video informing the viewer that individuals had to themselves ‘become scientists’ in a sense, to gain the knowledge that was not readily available to them. It was with that knowledge that they were able to band together and attempt to make change. The documentary opens with a protest, a protest that demonstrates the power of the collective many in possession of the necessary knowledge. The prominent activists are able to use their knowledge in order to move forward with the cause.

I was also able to relate Foucault to the individual’s that had limited their knowledge. The segment that discussed the Catholic Church’s ban on the use of condoms due to the fact that they believed it would only spread the AIDS virus further and faster. The officials of the Catholic Church already harbor power and influence but it is their lack of knowledge on the AIDS virus and the benefits of contraceptives that will grant a greater impact. The lack of knowledge or lack of understanding seems to warrant an uneducated power. This still relates to Foucault but it toys with his ‘Rule of Immanence’. Upon first reading it, I had only interpreted that power and knowledge were linked, but in fact the lack thereof is just as connected to power. The Cardinals and other officials that decreed that the use of condoms would further the AIDS epidemic, is a power influence upon their followers as well as an ill informed scare tactic. They manipulated their power by combining their lack of knowledge and understanding with their own opinions, assumptions, and perceptions.

The above are my opinions, with no intent to offend. The documentary got me a little heated J

The Plague Isn't Over.

In the documentary, 'How To Survive A Plague,' we see the struggle to curb the AIDS epidemic in the 80's and 90's.  While this is a film about a lack of power and the related struggle, the individuals whose role is central to the development have more power and a louder voice than those who suffer disproportionately from HIV/AIDS and may not have access to health care, education, or a political voice; namely people of color.  That being said, when considering the question of power, it is important to also consider the notion of relativity.  Foucault’s idea that power is in constant motion and nearly impossible to pinpoint is clear here.  There are instances where politicians hold power, but then become subject to the power of activists demanding action, who are subsequently juggling power within their own movement, and so on.  What is also clear, however, is that those with power are almost always white and overwhelmingly male, which are only two of the issues brought up by the film.  Even the split within ACT UP and the formation of TAG highlights education-level and political literacy, both of which are further complicated by race, class, and gender.

The dominant group within the gay and lesbian community argues, correctly, that the need for medical research and care affects virtually every individual within all facets of the community.  However, their claim that it would or should reach everyone who could benefit from the medications and research is misguided.  By fighting for something that only ends up benefiting the top, those who do not feel the benefits are thus comparably worse off.  That is to say, that even though the white men in the film claim to be fighting for the wellbeing of everyone suffering, nearly every one all but stopped fighting for justice once the drugs were available and affordable enough for them to access, leaving millions of others without them. 

The end of the film treated the struggles enacted by these men and their survival as the only important piece of the wider AIDS awareness movement.  The acknowledgement of the millions who are still infected but unable to access treatment seemed like only an afterthought.  I in no way mean to minimize the efforts and struggles of the AIDS activists in this film, but rather point out that this is only one piece of the picture--the piece that is all too commonly the one that is made visible or acknowledged.  Their centrality within the struggle negates and invisibilizes non-white, non-male struggles and acts of resistance,   whereby “differences are implied in it but then simply taken for granted or even covered over” (De Lauretis, 1991).   I would argue that Foucault might very well point out that while some individuals and communities did and do benefit from the work shown in this film, their actions did not fundamentally challenge power.  Power changed hands and showed its face in different ways, but it was not destabilized.

As I mentioned, the work of these activists should not be discounted.  Their actions have undoubtedly impacted my life and the lives of millions, my loved ones included, and for that I am grateful.  It should, however, be only the beginning of a continued and multidimensional fight.

ᏏᏲ ᏂᎦᏛ/Hello everyone! Welcome to our blog!

I want to frame the discussion about How to Survive a Plague a bit as you watch the film and develop your responses to it. I think this is a really useful film in order to have a better understanding of some of the political contexts from which queer theory emerged. De Lauetis mentions the AIDS crisis specifically, for instance. And, it's important to know that Foucault died of AIDS-related illnesses.

When I say "use De Lauretis and Foucault as a lens" to respond to the film, if it's helpful, think of it this way: What story does Foucault tell about the world works? What story does De Lauretis tell? What do these stories tell us about the story the film tells?  What stories, then, would Foucault and De Lauretis tell about this film if they were writing about it? Some guiding questions that might be helpful as you think about the film:

About the film: What are the filmmakers doing? Who is privileged in their story? What does the film do to intervene in and/or perpetuate systems of oppression? 

About the events: Where is power? Where is resistance? How do they circulate and move? How is bio-power (Foucault) related to these issues?

These aren't the only things you can talk about, but if it's useful to use these questions to start writing, please make use of them.

ᏩᏙ/Thanks!

ᏉᎵ