Freedom to Differ. Diane Helene Miller
Читать онлайн книгу.
and widely hailed “inclusion” of gays and lesbians in the mainstream represents. We need to determine whether, in fact, it is only the “whitest and brightest” who are accepted or, more likely, tolerated, while those who are unable to pass for all but sexually straight are excluded. The mainstreaming of a few powerful figures at the expense of, rather than for the benefit of, other gays and lesbians should be a matter of concern for all of us (Hollibaugh 1993; Smith 1993).
From a legal standpoint, we must assess the limits of existing institutional frameworks for the purposes of lesbian liberation. The fragility of civil rights gains has been demonstrated by the crumbling of affirmative action initiatives in the mid-1990s, and some observers have argued that the Civil Rights movement never accomplished for African Americans all that it was credited with achieving (Bumiller 1988). The legal system, along with other mainstream institutions, may be inherently unable to advance minority rights precisely because it is founded on the very principles of exclusion and hierarchy that those who desire such rights seek to overturn (Becker 1995; Robson 1992; Smart 1989; Wilson 1995). If inequality is built into the system itself, those who seek parity within its framework will be forced to adapt themselves and amend their objectives in relation to it. In doing so, they inadvertently reinforce its authority, hierarchies, and injustices.
Recognizing these limitations invites a shift of focus from looking at lesbian identities as a puzzle or problem to examining homophobic social institutions as the problem. It encourages us to ask how the discourse of these institutions constructs lesbians in a way that deems us both “sick” and “scandalous” (Phelan 1993, 775). By viewing institutional structures as problematic and contestable, we are reminded that gains and losses, victories and defeats, are rarely unambiguous in relation to such systems. In examining the consequences that ensue when we do and when we do not achieve our ends, we must consider not only the gains of victory and the losses of defeat. We must also consider the possibility of advancement through our apparent losses, as well as the failures that may accompany even our most celebrated victories. We need to take a broader, macroscopic view of the political landscape, examining how our strategies contribute to an overall vision of a more egalitarian society. Only then can we identify which strategies we need to rethink, refine, or reject in response to counterattacks or attempts at assimilation.
Finally, we must examine the liberal discourse through which civil rights initiatives are expressed, looking carefully at what it says and does for us. What kinds of self-definitions and self-understandings does liberal discourse construct for lesbians? What happens to lesbian voices under the aegis of liberal politics? What roles are available and what kinds of visibility and empowerment can lesbians access within a liberal framework? Equally important, to whom is this visibility and empowerment available within lesbian communities? If we choose to work within existing institutions, we must examine the kinds of identities available to us through the language of these institutions and the degree to which we can successfully challenge and broaden institutional limits. Otherwise, our efforts to confront institutions and demand inclusivity may inadvertently validate the legitimacy and authority of these structures, reestablishing the dominance of homophobic thought and language in the larger social structure.
Issues of lesbian representation, like other lesbian issues, have rarely been addressed in scholarly literature as valid questions in their own right, to the great detriment of lesbian studies. “As soon as the lesbian is lumped in—for better or for worse—with her male homosexual counterpart, the singularity of her experience (sexual and otherwise) tends to become obscured. We ‘forget’ about the lesbian by focusing instead on gay men” (Castle 1993, 12). The experiences of lesbians differentiate us in important ways from both heterosexual women and gay men. Yet these differences are unaccounted for in analyses of feminist or gay discourse (Wolfe and Penelope 1993). While issues of lesbian identity clearly overlap with questions of heterosexual female and gay male identities, then, lesbian identities exceed the bounds of both. They therefore deserve and demand independent consideration (Zimmerman 1992).
A comprehensive understanding of the discourse surrounding lesbian oppression and lesbian rights remains some distance in the future. Scholarship about lesbians is still scarce, and the need for research is pressing. It can be overwhelming to consider how little is known about these and other marginalized women and to recognize the degree to which we are impoverished by our lack of knowledge about such groups. Speech communication is but one academic discipline that suffers from its inattention to the discourse of gay and lesbian rights. This book is intended to help fill this gap in our knowledge, and to bring us nearer to that encompassing understanding in the future.
THEORETICAL CONTEXTS FOR THIS WORK
Lesbian studies is an interdisciplinary perspective located at the intersection of women’s studies and gay studies. Recently, it has also been influenced to varying degrees by “queer theory,” an approach that seeks to destabilize our taken-for-granted assumptions about sexuality and categories of sexual orientation. Each of these perspectives informs the analysis and critique undertaken by this book. A brief explanation of each field of study follows.
Gay Studies
Gay scholarship would seem an obvious place to start looking for work on lesbians. The term gay, like the more clinical designation homosexual, ostensibly refers to both men and women with an erotic or affectional orientation toward members of their own sex, while gay liberation refers to the attainment of freedom and equality for all such individuals. However, many books that claim to focus on “gay” issues in fact concern themselves solely with men or incorporate only a passing claim to inclusivity, with no real attention to lesbian specificity. With few exceptions (see Altman 1982), books written by gay men have been singularly inattentive to the experiences and problems of lesbians (Edwards 1994).10 In other minority cultures whose men and women establish primary, intimate relationships, the writing of men often abounds with images of their female counterparts, however stereotyped, objectified, or idealistic. In contrast, the writing of gay men is at times devoid of any awareness of, or reference to, lesbians and their lives. Thus, while the writing of other groups of men is prone to objectifying or fetishizing women in a manner that highlights their “Otherness,” the writing of gay men is often guilty of precisely the opposite offense: the erasure of lesbian specificity or difference, brought about by the mistaken belief that lesbians suffer from forms of oppression and, consequently, have needs and objectives that are identical to those of gay men.
On the one hand, therefore, gay scholarship is largely unhelpful in offering insight into the lives, experiences, and concerns of lesbians, including concerns surrounding identity and representation. On the other hand, such work cannot simply be dismissed. Many of the issues of discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians are similar, and the lesbian and gay rights movement has attempted at some levels to coordinate efforts among gay men and lesbians for common gains. Moreover, and perhaps most important, gay men and lesbians often remain undifferentiated in public discussions. This is true for many supporters as well as for those who would perpetrate violence against us (Phelan 1993). For these reasons, it is crucial that we acknowledge the ways in which gay male perspectives have shaped and continue to shape the lesbian and gay rights movement and in which gay male interests and images have reached the dominant culture, to a much greater extent than have lesbian concerns or representations.
Investigating lesbian representations provides an avenue for exploring the role of voice and visibility for gay men as well. Men who transgress traditional masculine gender expectations are often subject to greater censure than are women who are perceived as imitating men. For example, it is relatively acceptable and even stylish for a woman to dress in men’s clothing, including such traditional male apparel as a suit and tie. In contrast, men who dress in women’s clothing are swiftly and strongly reproached. The hatred of gay men is a fear of men who behave “as women.” Such men are seen as subjecting themselves sexually to another man, allowing themselves to be objectified, penetrated, and thus possessed by a man in the way that is expected of women. Where lesbians are hated for their strength, gay men are hated for their perceived weakness. Where lesbians are feared for their power, gay men are despised for occupying a position of powerlessness and thereby raising the possibility that any man might occupy such