C ONTENTS

INTRODUCTION Astrid M. Fellner

iii

PART I: QUEERING THEORY 1. Communicating the Binary Sabine Harrer

2

2. Categorization in Relation to Sexual Identity Susanne Freimüller

8

3. Queer or Just Upside Down? An Alternative Model for Identity Constitution Leopold Lippert

13

PART II: QUEERNESS IN LITERATURE AND FILM 4. “What it Feels Like for a Chicana Sin Fronteras”: Feminism According to Gloria E. Anzaldúa 21 Anja Zagorac 5. The Sexuality of Roy Cohn Gabriel Danis

29

6. Leslie Feinberg – Stone Butch Blues: Thoughts, Themes, Theories Tamara Radak

35

7. “Right to be ‘Wrong’”: An Analysis of the Concept of “the wrong body” as Represented in Leslie Feinberg’s Stone Butch Blues and Duncan Tucker’s Transamerica 40 Stephanie Hopf 8. The Representation of Transsexuals in Movies and a Documentary Nikolina Durcak

48

9. Paris Is Burning: An Analysis of the Issue of Race Julia Gundacker

56

10. Titanic with Cowboys and a Gene Called X: Queer Mainstream Cinema in the 21st Century 64 Leonard Dworschak 11. The Non-Male Gaze in Fatal Attraction and Boys Don’t Cry Michael Johannes Feigl

69

PART III: QUEERNESS ON TV 12. Representations of Female Masculinity on The L-Word: Analyzing the Characters of Baby Butch Shane and Drag King Ivan Barbara Binder

76

13. “Die neue Lesben-Lust”: Critical review of an article about the TV-series The L-Word in the magazine WOMAN 90 Christa Edlmayer 14. Justified Representation? The L-Word, Sex and the City & Co. Michaela Germann

95

15. Slaying the Stereotypes: Buffy Queering the Mainstream Caitlin Bladin

100

16. Family and Mass Media C. C.

107

PART IV: PERFORMING QUEERNESS 17. Long Live the King! Deconstruction of Gender Binaries and Power Strategies in Drag Kinging Judith Kohlenberger

113

18. Interview with Elliat Graney-Saucke, Drag Performance Artist and Film Maker 119 Judith Kohlenberger 19. The Teaches of Peaches Esther Brandl

130

20. Queering the Canon: An Introduction to Slash Fanfiction Daniela Fasching

136

21. The Brokeback Mountain Fandom: A Portrayal of an Online Fan Community Maria Valencia Cuberos

142

22. About the Relationship Between Me and My Most Beloved Non-Living Object 147 Petra Ladinigg

INTRODUCTION Astrid M. Fellner

Since the 1990s, which saw an increasing institutionalization of Queer Studies at U.S. American universities, queer theory has marked an important shift in the study of sexuality and gender identities. It is a body of theoretical ideas that are based on the belief that identities are not fixed and do not determine who we are. As a school of thought and method of analysis, queer theory provides a range of theoretical approaches that challenge ideas about notions of gender, sexuality, and desire which treat them as supposedly natural categories, such as “heterosexual,” “homosexual,” and “bisexual,” suggesting, by constrast, a more fluid notion of sexual identity, which refrains from essentialism and binary thinking. The term “queer” not only encompasses gay and lesbian identities, as is often assumed, but rather all “mismatches between sex, gender and desire.”1 Queer theory, then, describes, as Jagose states, “those gestures or analytical models which dramatise incoherencies in the allegedly stable relations between chromosomal sex, gender and sexual desire.”2 Any form of gender ambiguity, indeed any form of ambiguity (as the original meaning of “queer” as “strange,” “odd” suggests) can therefore be analyzed and examined within the framework of queer theory. In our class, which was the first class on queer theory offered in the Department of English and American Studies at the University of Vienna, we combined U.S. American cultural representations of queerness (in fiction, film, and photography) with a substantial number of critical and theoretical essays on queer theory. Looking at a series of queer practices, we examined the ways in which these texts frustrate and delegitimize heteronormative knowledges and institutions. Placing queer theory in its historical context, this course provided a survey of arguments and critical terms used in the field of queer studies. In our class discussions, students combined a series of U.S. American representations of queerness with a number of critical and theoretical essays on queer theory. Starting with Jennie Livingston’s documentary Paris is Burning, students, for instance, read bell hooks’ chapter “Is Paris Burning?” and Judith Butler’s “Gender is Burning” in Bodies That Matter. We read Leslie Feinberg’s Stonebutch Blues, Gloria Anzaldúa’s Borderlands/La Frontera, and Tony Kushner’s Angels in America, analyzing in what ways these literary texts deal with queerness, homosexuality, and transgender identities. As the spring of 2006 witnessed an explosion of queer representations in Hollywood movies and on Austrian TV, we looked at the movies Brokeback Mountain and Transamerica, and the series Queer as Folk; Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and The L Word. Trying to gauge the extent to which these movies picked up on a trend that queerness is en vogue on TV, students discussed whether these latest representations of same-sex desire and transsexuality actually manage to “queer the mainstream” or rather contribute to a “mainstreaming of queer practices.” This collection of essays demonstrates the many ways in which queerness manifests itself in popular culture, literature, and the media; it shows how queerness can work in theory and in practice. Much more importantly, however, it displays our 1 2

Jagose, Annemarie. Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York: NYU Press, 1996. (Jagose, 3). iii

students’ creativity, as well as their ability and willingness to concern themselves critically with a very complex and intricate topic. This collection starts out with the contributions by Sabine Harrer, Susanne Freimüller, and Leopold Lippert, which concentrate on theoretical issues, analyzing the workings of the binary nature of sexual identity. While Sabine Harrer focuses on the concept of heteronormativity and Susanne Freimüller looks at processes of categorization, Leopold Lippert takes issue with Judith Butler and Michel Foucault, arguing that constructionist models of identity are inversions of essentialist models and do not really offer a queer perspective on identity. The papers in Part II analyze representations of queerness in film and literature. Discussing Gloria Anzaldúa’s notion of feminism, Anja Zagorac explores “What it Feels Like for a Chicana Sin Fronteras.” Focusing on the notion of sexuality, Gabriel Danis analyzes Roy Cohn, one of the main protagonists of Angels in America, while Tamara Radak concerns herself with the narrator of Stone Butch Blues, Jess Goldberg. The contributions by Stephanie Hopf and Nikolina Durcak move to more bodily matters, looking at the representation of transsexuals in film. Julia Gundacker analyzes the concept of race in Paris is Burning, and Leonard Dworschak teases out queer traces in mainstream Hollywood cinema. Michael Feigl, finally, looks at the tradition of independent queer film-making called “New Queer Cinema.” Some of our students were especially interested in the aspect of “the queering of the mainstream,” which is reflected in Part III, “Queerness on TV.” As in May 2006 the series The L-Word began to be aired on a private German TV channel, which is also available on cable TV in Austria, students were especially interested in this TV series (see the contributions by Christa Edlmayer and Barbara Binder). While Christa Edlmayer’s paper analyzes some reactions to this series in Austrian print media, Barbara Binder’s paper looks at representations of butch characters in this series. Other papers teased out queer elements in other TV series like Buffy (Caitlin Bladin) or Sex and the City (Michaela Germann) or looked at queerness in relation to family and the mass media (C.C.) The papers in Part IV examine how queerness can be put into practice. Judith Kohlenberger analyzes the film Venus Boyz and the queer practice of drag kinging, bringing her analysis in connection with a performance that we had in class. The Seattle-based artist Elliat Graney-Saucke, a bioqueen who performs as Sr. La Muse on stage, came to our class on May 31, 2006 and performed two of her latest pieces. Kohlenberger also conducted an interview with this artist, which is also included in this collection. Esther Brandl looked at the songs and performances of Peaches, a Canadian artist whose music is preoccupied with gender identity. Daniela Fasching and Maria Valencia researched audience-reactions to queerness in popular culture, offering detailed descriptions of online fan communities of films like Brokeback Mountain and slash fanfiction. Last, but not least, Petra Ladinigg submitted a story as her academic paper, queering the practices of academia by addressing the key issues discussed in class in a creative way.

Acknowledgment and Caveat: The following papers were written by the students who were in the “In a Different Light: An Introduction to Queer Theory class,” which was held in the summer term 2006. Although this class was heterogeneous, the majority of students were first-year students in the Department of English and American Studies at the University of Vienna. They all did a truly remarkable job in this class, and I want to iv

thank them at this point for their excellent presentations in class and the interesting and theoretically highly-informed papers submitted. I also want to express my gratitude to Marike Korn and Susanne Hamscha, the two volunteer-tutors in this class, for offering help to my students both with understanding the theoretical texts as well as with writing their papers. As students could choose their own topics, their papers are varied, covering a series of different U.S. American queer representations. Although I have graded these papers and have made some corrections, I do not want to resume responsibility for the opinions and ideas given in these papers. Any grammatical errors or typos are also the responsibility of the individual authors. Feel free to read and explore these essays, but please, when you want to quote from these essays, cite this source correctly! Consider the information you get here as “official” as what you can read in a printed book. Therefore, please remember that you have to give credit where credit is due.

v

PART I QUEERING THEORY

How meaning making processes shape our perception of heteronormative categories and stereotypes

Sabine Harrer I. Introduction The other day I spent the evening engaging in a nostalgic discussion with some former school friends of mine. We were exchanging amusing and embarrassing episodes about experiences with classmates and teachers, until suddenly one of them whispered, his eyes widening mysteriously: “By the way, I´ve heard he is gay!” I was somewhat surprised by the intense response this statement earned immediately. A collective rise in their chairs, the group broke out in almost shocked “Really?” responses fitting the tone of the initial “blowoff” commentary. The following discussion about the looks and behavior of the respective allegedly gay person as well as subsequent speculations about his sex life urged me to write about the evolvement of stereotypes concerning sexual orientation in our conception and our language. The conversation might not be the only instance that illustrates collective ideas of same sex desire as opposed to heterosexuality. Most interestingly, even if we think we have finally arrived at a liberal postmodern viewpoint where sky is the limit in regard to our tolerance towards variegating gender constellations, talking about a concrete person who is presumed to be gay often means to be talking about a sensation. We can conclude that heterosexuality is in real life still perceived as the norm from which homosexuality represents an aberration. Even though queer theory discussions suggest to refrain from such a system of binaries, stereotypical ideas of “the straight” or “the gay” way of life oscillate in our minds and influence the way we perceive and communicate sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. In order to understand how heteronormativity evolved and how it presently influences our lives, we need to know about communication as the human means of constructing meaning and hence reality. Subsequently, pictures of “the straight” or “the queer” way of living arise that are based on generalizations and stereotypes. I will explore how these stereotypes are produced in cultural discourse via meaning 2

making processes in regard to the inner gratifications of the individual to create fixed categories dealt with in psychology. Thus, I hope to reflect about the subject from the wide, contextual perspective of cultural studies as well as briefly dealing with the “morphological”, analytical dimension of psychology, suggesting an integrative approach to the communicative phenomenon. Finally, I shall be concerned with a final reflection about the implications resulting from the theoretical approaches to heteronormativity and how the problem can be treated by queer studies. II. The binary structure of heteronormativity A premise for engaging in critical reflection and discussion about an issue is the assumption that the subject is relevant to our perception of the world in general and our own personality in particular. Awareness of its possible implications on our systems of knowledge, thought and perception precedes the urge to engage in serious debates about it. The urge to look at matters of sexuality in connection with power relations and paradigms in general culture has been lately developed by queer theorists1. It is, however, shockingly recent that structures of sexuality have been accepted as an integrative part of social power structures in societies and therefore explored in the course of social theories, which might be owing to the fact that heterosexuality has over a long time been regarded as the “natural, pure and unproblematic state which requires no explanation” (Jagose, 17). Thus, heterosexuality has over centuries been predominantly communicated as a “somehow more self-evident, natural or stable construction” (Jagose, 16), whereas homosexuality has over time become widely associated with the unnatural, the deadly and the sick.2 The reason as to why the evolvement of such binaries has been taken place in society represents, of course, a core field of queer theory interest. One significant attempt to find out about the origin of heteronormativity as a system of binary categories according to which we pigeonhole sexuality has been undertaken by Michel Foucault. In his first volume of History of Sexuality he gives a historical outline of the notion of sexuality and the rise of heterosexual norms. As the decisive argument that compulsorily leads to the justification of a heteronormative, even homophobic perspective, he mentions the traditional paradigm that perceives reproduction as the only purpose of sexuality. He is particularly interested in the process of how our constraints concerning this topic are built via communication and asks: All this garrulous attention which has us in a stew over sexuality, is it not motivated by one basic concern: to ensure population, to reproduce labor capacity, to perpetuate the form of social relations: in short to constitute a sexuality that is economically useful and politically conservative? (Foucault, 36-37) Furthermore, he points out the moral and legislative influence of controlling institutions such as the Christian pastoral and civil law that “apart from the customary regularities and constraints of opinion- governed sexual practices […]” (Foucault, 37). 1

Cf. Lauren and Warner, 349. Cf. De Lauretis, x. In her introduction she mentions some essays that deal with the representation of homosexuality. Sue- Ellen Case for example deals with the negative associations of homosexuality as opposed to those connected to heterosexuality. 3 2

Foucault’s understanding of these power structures that are involved in creating our system of norms and our notion of morality is grounded in the constructionist tradition that assumes paradigms in society to be cultural products of discussed and negotiated meanings on the basis of discourses3. In short, communication is the underlying leading currency according to which our own perception of the world is constructed and changed. III. The collective perception of sexual orientation At this point I find it crucial to turn to a brief explanation of the concept of communication that underlies a queer theorist position, and illustrate the theoretical concept of representation that suggest the active negotiation of meanings in our cultural community. Stuart Hall delivers one of the most elaborated concepts concerned with meaning making via language4. In his work Representation. Cultural Representation and Signifying Practices, he investigates “how […] the concept of representation connect[s] meaning and language to culture…” (Hall, 15). He argues that establishing meanings in society involves two processes which he calls “systems of representation”. The first one correlates mental concepts of the individual to people, objects and events which implies that […]meaning depends on the system of concepts and images formed in our thoughts which can stand for or ´represent´ the world, enabling us to refer both inside and outside our heads. (Hall, 17) This means that we do not perceive the world how it is “per se”5 but more importantly, how our internal ideas and feelings of the world are linked to it. Thus, we are enabled to “form concepts of rather obscure and abstract things, which we can’t in any simple way see, feel or touch” (Hall, 17). The second system of representation enables us to connect our mental concepts, our conceptual map to other people. This happens via the system of shared codes, consisting of a culture specific sign system, which we refer to as language.6 Thus, Hall demonstrates that meaning making processes are contingent on a) the internal conception of the individual and b) the translation of culturally negotiated meanings into language. As mentioned above, we are equally capable of creating and sharing ideas of actually existing, concrete things and complex or abstract ideas and conceptions. This implies, however, that we apply dichotomies in order to “identify” a concept, which means that we reduce chaos or ambiguity and arrange our perceptions in categories we can deal with. Hall’s understanding of representation processes can thus serve as an integrative element of the explanatory basis for the evolvement of stereotypes in our minds and the “heteronormative problem” previously discussed. The conception of “straightness” or “gayness” would then be one example of an

3

The power relations involved in discourses have been researched by several well-known theorists such as Barthes, Saussure or Derrida. For a concise outline into their work see Hall, 41-54. 4 Cf. Hall, 16. 5 In fact, the world “per se” does not exist in the constructionist conception, as “the world” is perpetually created anew by the constant repetition of systems of representation that change meanings and subsequently perceived realities in culture. 6 Cf. Hall, 18. 4

abstract category built within our classifying systems that “need” dichotomization in order to produce meanings. As a result, pictures of the “typical” gay evolve on the three interrelated levels of meaning making. Discourse creates a shared meaning of “gay identity” that produces and changes a concrete idea in the conceptual map of the individual who translates his or her perception to the community via the means of codes. The latter process comprises the coinage of “appropriate” terms that ought to express the meaning of a concept as closely as possible. As far as discourses about sexual desire are concerned, terms like “gay” and “queer” demonstrate the tradition to bestow new meanings upon previously already existing terms. IV. Explanation of stereotypes in social theory and psychology The question as to why we need stereotypes at all has been challenged by a number of disciplines such as sociology, social philosophy and psychology7. As we have already briefly discussed, from a cultural studies viewpoint, the associations linked to the collective concepts of homosexuality as opposed heterosexuality and its production in discourse, we may now switch to a micro position, focusing on the psychological dimension of the evolvement of stereotypes within the individual. After all, the pictures that are created in our conceptual map that stands in constant interaction with our environment is perpetually influenced and motivated by psychological factors such as inner fears or the hankering for social acceptance. It might be useful to briefly outline the sociological and psychological explanation of stereotypes in our minds, as there are surprising parallels to Hall’s approach, revealing the “nature” of categorization and our conceptual maps of sexual desire. The term “stereotype” has been adopted from the terminology of letterpress printing by the social theorist Lippmann, who used it to refer to the natural system of organization and categorization that bridges the discrepancy between “the world outside and the pictures in our head”.8 Vitouch distinguishes the notion of stereotypes as a system of orientation that enables individuals to cope with an ambiguous environment from their function to integrate individuals within a group.9 Whilst the former is closely related to selectivity of perception, the latter deals with the production of agreement within a group that leads to identification, strengthens the feeling of belonging to the community and consequently reduces conflicts and tension within the group.10 Dieses Bezugsgruppenkonzept erklärt Phänomene der Abgrenzung zu Fremdgruppen, der Änderung von Stereotypen beim wechsel der Bezugsgruppe und macht verständlich, daß [sic] Personen Stereotype deswegen entwickeln, weil es ihnen die Anpassung an die Gruppe erleichtert. […] Stereotype stabilisieren aber auch den Bezug zum eigenen Selbst. So garantieren sie die Selbstverankerung beim Auftreten erwartungsdiskrepanter Ereignisse und führen damit zu Dissonanzreduktion. (Vitouch, 93)

7

Cf. Vitouch, 92. Cf. Vitouch 92-93. 9 Vitouch, 93. 10 Cf. ibid. 8

5

Psychological approaches to subject emphasize the relationship between stereotype and prejudice. Again, the general purpose of the generalization and dichotomization processes involved is the enhancement of the own community and the debasement of other groups. This in turn serves as a means of reducing environmental complexity and reinforcing power structures within the group. I think it is crucial to keep this psychological dimension of stereotyping in mind when we discuss about the meaning making processes creating our collective perception of sexuality. After all, it is important to know some basics about the interrelation of individual and cultural processes and the linking device of discourse in order to improve the general acceptance of same sex desire. V. Final reflection: The perspectives of queer theory As we encountered processes of meaning making in general and the formation of stereotypes in particular, the decisive aspect involved seems to be the interpretation and reduction of ambiguity that we are exposed to in every respect. Queer theorists try to face this challenge of ambiguity when they are engaged in developing approaches towards a prospective break with heteronormative categories. The dimension of discourse as the field of active meaning making in society suggests a certain relativity of “the world out there” that gives us the power to exert some influence on the existing meanings. As a consequence, queer theorists start out from the idea that they can relativize dominating discourses by introducing alternatives. When we talk about meaning making, after all, we must keep in mind that the “inner compulsion” of the individual does not equate a fixed position of it whatsoever. When we turn to Stuart Hall’s concept of meaning making, the elements processing the “reality” are fluid and thus in constant change. Due to the fact that permanent interaction takes place between our systems of representation, our own conceptual maps are influenced and changed in contingency on discursive processes on the level of communication. This means in consequence that there exists the potentiality of actively influencing existing power structures via the reinforcement of discourses, shedding a fresh light on formerly stereotyped concepts. Foucault somehow convincingly proves that a conscious regulation of discourse has historically had tremendous implications on cultural processes and the collective perception of heterosexuality. Through the various discourses, legal sanctions against minor perversions were multiplied; sexual irregularity was annexed to mental illness; from childhood to old age, a norm of sexual development was defined and all the possible deviations were carefully described […] (Foucault, 36) Foucault is not the only theorist to be committed to the power of discourse. Judith Butler, for instance, has amply contributed to the discussion about the deconstruction of heteronormative conceptions. Her approach favors the radical refrain from any gender categories whatsoever. Obviously aware of the power of discourse, to her the only possible way to legitimate lesbian and gay subject positions is the radical “deconstruction of normative models of gender” (Jagose, 83). Whether such attempts to reinforce discourses about same sex desire will reach their aim of enhancing the acceptance of it will hopefully show in the future. It will, however, definitely be necessary to push on discussions of this issue to lift the raise of awareness regarding people’s own conceptual maps. I believe that, somehow, 6

processes of categorization cannot be relativized unless we actively think critically about our personal prejudices. Since everyone is permanently contributing to cultural discourses, the sky could be the limit in regard to our tolerance towards variegating gender constellations. VI. Bibliography Berlant, Lauren and Michael Warner. “What Does Queer Theory Teach Us About X?” PMLA 110.3 (1995): 243-49 De Lauretis, Teresa. “Queer Theory: Lesbian and Gay Sexualiries: An Introduction.” differences 3.2 (1991): iii-xviii Foucault, Michel. History of Sexuality Vol. 1. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage Books, 1190. Hall, Stuart. Representation. Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, London: Sage Publications, 1997. Jagose, Annemarie. Queer Theory: An Introduction, New York: New York UP, 1996. Vitouch, Peter. Fernsehen und Angstbewältigung, 2nd ed. Wiesbaden, Westdeutscher Verlag GmbH, 2000.

7

CATEGORIZATION IN RELATION TO SEXUAL IDENTITY

Susanne Freimüller

In everyday life we tend to think and live in binaries, especially when it comes to describe our sexual identity. There is either the possibility of being “normal” and “heterosexual”, or of being “queer”. In conservative minds, sexual identities seem to be clearly reduced to this binary and this is where the matter of categorization comes in. In this work, I want to draw a comparison between the idea of categorization and the idea of a fluid identity, an identity that is able to change and constantly in progress. Moreover, I want to focus on some of the problems that the process of categorization can create, especially with regard to the “Masculine Continuum” and the tensions between butches and Female-to-Males. Stuart Hall suggests a conception of identity which he calls the ”post-modern subject”. This perception of identity suggests that identity is not fixed, essential or permanent – instead it is fluid and able to change from time to time. “Identity becomes a ‘moveable feast’: formed and transformed continuously in relation to the ways we are represented or addressed in the cultural systems which surround us.” (Hall, Stuart. 1996.) We adopt different identities or different positions during life, which are not “unified around a coherent self”. (Hall. 1996.) Therefore, Hall suggests that there is no stable inner core which is unchangeable and fixed, there is more or less a fluidity of identities which we temporarily identify with. But if there is the assumption that an identity consists of different subject positions, different categories that make up a subject, it also offers the question if we can be forced into certain subject positions. Althusser explains this through his “concept of interpellation”, which says that we are in fact “called” into subject positions and therefore not free to choose (Cf. Giles. 1999). Sexuality is a great part of everyone’s identity and so it also offers the question if it is fixed, stable and therefore possible to be categorized or if it is fluid and changeable. Concerning sexual categories people tend to think in binaries, especially in the binary of either being “normal” and “heterosexual” or of being “queer”. David Halperin argues in his book Saint Foucault: Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without essence. ‘Queer’ then, demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the normative. (Sullivan. 2003:43.) 8

This again underlines the common opposition of being normal versus being queer. Also Michael Warner refers to queer as not just being a resistance to the norm, but states that “more importantly, it consists of protesting against the idea of normal behaviour”. (Sullivan. 2003:50.) One problem is that if we refer to “queer” in the sense of being the opposite of “normality”, it again gets a category which is in addition also a very powerful one. The term “queer” also unifies, it ignores differences between lesbianism and gayness, between “women” or between transsexualism and cross-dressing, for example. Gloria Anzaldúa mentions the differences of class, race and age, which are also ignored when using the term “queer”. Queer is used as a false unifying umbrella which all ‘queers’ of all races, ethnicities and classes are shoved under. At times we need this umbrella to solidify our ranks against outsiders. But even when we seek shelter under it we must not forget that it homogenizes, erases our differences. (Sullivan. 2003:44.) So the broad category of being “queer” includes lots and lots of different sexual identities people adopt. As a consequence these identities suggest the idea that there are different territories and borders that can be crossed. People who are in-between maybe want to cross from one category or territory to another, which makes other people feel uncomfortable and therefore cause sexual political conflicts. As Gayle Rubin mentions: In addition to the definitional and legal wars, there are less obvious forms of sexual political conflict which I call the territorial or border wars. The processes by which erotic minorities form communities and the forces that seek to inhibit them lead to struggles over the nature and boundaries of sexual zones. (Halberstam 1998:141.) This is also the sense of border I am going to use here, border as a metaphor for the boundaries of sexual categories or territories. Another similar view of the idea of “border” and “border war” by Judith Halberstam is: “[…], the idea of border war sets up some notion of territories to be defended, ground to be held or lost, permeability to be defended against” (Halberstam 1998:163.) There is a strong tension especially between lesbian and transgender masculinities, because the so-called “Masculine-Continuum” suggests categories that look somehow like this (Cf. Halberstam 1998: 151.) : Androgyny ---- Soft Butch --- Butch ---- Stone Butch--- Transgender Butch --- FTM Not Masculine Very Masculine There are just small differences but a lot of overlappings concerning these categories and so it becomes quite easy to cross borders. I believe that the confusing overlaps between some forms of transsexuality and some gender-deviant forms of lesbianism have created not only 9

definitional confusion for so-called medical experts but also a strange struggle between FTMs and lesbian butches who accuse each other of gender normativity. (Halberstam 1998:143.), Overlappings are maybe one of the reasons that cause border wars, another may be the different perceptions of people: Some lesbians seem to see FTMs as traitors to a “woman’s” movement who cross over and become the enemy. Some FTMs see lesbian feminism as a discourse that has demonized FTMs and their masculinity. Some butches consider FTMs to be butches who believe in anatomy, and some FTMs consider butches to be FTMs who are too afraid to make the “transition” from female to male. (Halberstam 1998:144.) An obvious question is rather what it is that separates them, which is not easy to answer because there are no hard and fast rules for sexual categorization. It again gets difficult concerning the distinctions between transsexual and lesbian identities. One point of criticism is that many Female-to-Males do come out as lesbians before they come out as transsexuals, another one is that “many transgender men successfully identify as butch in a queer female community before they decide to transition”. (Halberstam 1998: 150.) So the distinctions between transsexual and lesbian identities might become a bit blurred, which makes it possible that a lot of people feel offended and perceive “territory-crossers” as the enemy. More recently, some lesbians have voiced their opposition to FTM transsexuals and characterised them as traitors and as women who literally become the enemy. More insidiously, lesbians have tended to erase FTMs by claiming transsexual males as lesbians who lack access to a liberating lesbian discourse. (Halberstam 1998: 149.) An example which shows how small the differences in-between the lesbian community are, is stated in the collection Dagger: On Butch Women, which focuses on an urban butch scene and therefore includes a chapter of interviews with Femaleto-Males. In this particular chapter, the limits of lesbian identification are put into question. Billy, for example, speaks about the great problems pretransition transgender men have when they identify as lesbians. Billy remembers: “I’ve had this problem for ten years now with women being attracted to my boyishness and my masculinity, but once they get involved with me they tell me I’m too male” (Halberstam 1998: 154). Lots of Billy’s lovers get confused by his strong masculine part and think that he crosses the line because, for instance, he wants a real moustache and a real beard. “Billy’s experience testifies to the ways in which masculinity within some lesbian contexts presents a problem when it becomes too “real”, or when some imaginary line has been crossed between play and seriousness” (Halberstam 1998:154). This underlines the idea of lesbian masculinity as a “matter of degree”, where lines can easily get crossed and in consequence maybe upset other people. Categorization involves two different processes: the process of being categorized by others, from the perspective of the outside-world and of being categorized by oneself. Often these perceptions contradict each other, like Mario Martino shows in 10

his autobiography Emergence. He presents the problem of “pretransition identification”, which means that he distinguishes himself from lesbians and from butches in particular. Before his transition Mario falls in love with Becky and he tells her: “You and I are not lesbians. We relate to each other as man to woman, woman to man” (Halberstam 1998: 154). But one day Becky comes home from work and asks Mario if he knows the term “butch” and in effect she wants to know the difference between Mario and a butch. Mario gives her a simple answer: “A butch is the masculine member of a lesbian team. That would make you the feminine member. But, Becky, honest-to-God, I don’t feel that we’re lesbians. I still maintain I should have been a male” (Halberstam 1998: 154). In truth, Mario feels absolutely offended and confused because he had never seen or referred to himself as a woman. “The word butch magnified itself before my eyes, Butch implied female – and I had never thought of myself as such” (Halberstam 1998: 154/155). So Mario’s experience shows that one’s perception often contradicts with the outside view of one’s identity. But how is it then possible to categorize? Can there be strict rules that say which category one belongs to, even if the inside perception of the person contradicts with the outside view? A great problem is that many transsexuals do not have the possibility to cross borders, they live somewhere in-between two territories and can never be “at home”. “Some bodies are never at home, some bodies cannot simply cross from A to B, some bodies recognize and live with the inherent instability of identity” (Halberstam 1998: 164). Prosser mentions in No Place like Home his model of “home”, which symbolises “the place in which one finally settles into the comfort of one’s true and authentic gender” (Halberstam 1998: 163). Moreover, he underlines the problem of transsexuals who have to live in-between: […] such a move leaves the transsexual man with no place to go and leaves him languishing in the ‘uninhabitable space – the borderlands in between, where passing as either gender might prove quite a challenge’. (Halberstam 1998: 163.) Halberstam also comments on this problem: It is true that many transsexuals do transition to go somewhere, to be somewhere, and to leave geographies of ambiguity behind. However, many post-op MTFs are in-between because they cannot pass as women; many FTMs who pass fully clothed have bodies that are totally ambiguous; some transsexuals cannot afford all the surgeries necessary to full sex reassignment. (Halberstam 1998: 163/164) People who are in-between try to pass in society, they try to look as normal and acceptable as possible. Therefore they try to avoid for example, typical clothes or looks for not being mistaken. In some bulletins, transsexual men send each other tips on how to pass as a man, and many of these tips focus almost obsessively on the care that must be taken by the transsexual man not to look like a butch lesbian. Some tips tell guys to dress preppy as opposed to the standard jeans and leather jacket look of the butch; in other instances, transsexual men are warned against 11

certain haircuts (punk styles or crew cuts) that are supposedly popular among butches. These tips, obviously, steer the transsexual men away from transgression or alternative masculine styles and toward a conservative masculinity. (Halberstam 1998: 156.) Crossing borders does not just have the result of disturbing some people, it has social and political consequences, especially when it comes to Female-to-Males. Halberstam mentions the same question concerning the effects of crossing borders: “If some female-born people now articulate clear desires to become men, what is the effect of their transitions on both male masculinity and on the category of butch?” (Halberstam 1998: 142). Nowadays, the technological availabilities of surgeries to reassign gender have made the option of gender transition available and especially for Male-to-Female transsexuals these surgical transitions have been embraced by an increasing number. But the discussions get much more complicated with surgeries of Female-to-Male transsexuals, who “access male privilege” (Cf. Halberstam 1998: 143). So, in conclusion, there is a great difference in-between the category of transsexuals, which means that the transition of Male-to-Females is more accepted than the transition of Female-to-Males and therefore “gender reassignment for FTMs does have social and political consequences” (Halberstam 1998: 143), as said before. I have now pointed out some of the problems categorization creates, especially in relation to the categories unified under the term “Masculine Continuum”. I want again to stress that it gets easy to cross borders or to be in-between two categories and therefore not being accepted by the outside world. There are, of course, two different perceptions: at first the perception that it is necessary to categorize and secondly the perception that there is a fluidity of identities that cannot and need not be categorized. To conclude, my work I want to quote Gayle Rubin who says: the border between these two modes of identification (this refers to the tensions between butches and Female-to-Males which she calls “frontier fears”) is permeable at least in part because ‘no system of classification can successfully catalogue or explain the infinite vagaries of human diversity. (Halberstam 1998: 172/173.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY Giles, Judy, and Tim Middleton. Studying Culture. A Practical Introduction. 1999. Halberstam, Judith. „Transgender Butch“. Female Masculinities. Durham: Duke UP, 1998. Hall, Stuart. “The Question of Cultural Identity”. Modernity and its Futures. Ed. Hall, Stuart, David Held and Tony McGrew.1996. Sullivan, Nikki. A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory. New York: New York University Press, 2003. 12

Queer or just upside down? An alternative model for identity constitution Leopold Lippert

1. Introduction In contemporary cultural and gender studies, most scholars adhere to the opinion that identity is constructed rather than essential. In consequence, essentialists are regarded as determinist and therefore reactionary whereas constructionists tend to be seen as the progressive, historically “correct” division.1 This paper, however, will argue that both essential and constructionist positions follow the same logical concept and are nothing more than an inversion of the respective other. Furthermore, we can cite examples from reality, which contradict either way of reasoning. Thus, it is useful to reject the theoretical notions described above and to make an attempt at creating a new model which tries to circumvent the flaws of the existing – stable – duals of identity constitution. Theoretical help for such an effort comes from two different sources of scientific theory: On the one hand, queer theory can provide a valuable input; on the other hand, maxims by the Enlightenment scientist Isaac Newton offer an important theoretical frame to relate to an alternative model. 2. The theoretical problem: Essentialism turned upside down In order to examine the problematic issues of gender constitution, I will start with three statements from present-day gender theory which have two things in common: They are both a rejection of essentialism and are mostly regarded as undisputed in current cultural studies. In his book, The History of Sexuality, the French philosopher Michel Foucault outlines the concept that all sexuality has a history and is thus a discursive construction of human desires. According to him, sexuality as an element of identity is not a stable, essential feature but rather a discursive notion that is constructed differently in particular temporal and societal circumstances. Foucault argues that since the classical age there has been a constant optimization and an increasing valorization of the discourse on sex; and that this carefully analytical discourse was meant to yield multiple effects of displacement, intensification, reorientation, and modifications of desire itself. (Foucault, 23) When referring to a “carefully analytical discourse”, which liberates sexuality from its essential stability, however, Foucault presupposes that there is an established, stable thing called discourse. Arguing “that sexuality is a discursive production 1

Cf. Jagose, 7-15. 13

rather than a natural condition” (Jagose, 80), Foucault implies that there are unwavering societal surroundings (at a given time) which produce these discourses. So, by rejecting the stability and essentialism of identity, of the I, Foucault’s constructionist perspective presupposes an essential non-I, coherent circumstances which are able to construct identity. As can be exemplified here, a constructionist perspective is only an inversion of the essentialist notion. For an essentialist, the nonI is relative (i.e. constructed) to a stable I; for a constructionist, it is just the other way round: the I is relative to a stable non-I. The second statement to prove this point comes from Judith Butler. In her book Gender Trouble, Butler also rejects essentialism by stating that “gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender create the idea of gender.” (Butler, Trouble, 140). What is remarkable is the way in which – according to Butler – these “various acts of gender” manifest themselves: they surface as “compulsory performance[s]” (Butler, Insubordination, 318), as non-intentional acts. Thus, there cannot be an original, a norm and consequently no derivatives, no derivations of the norm. The “antivoluntarist emphasis of Butler’s argument” (Jagose, 88), however, implies the following as well: as the I is not responsible for the constitution of gender, of identity, the non-I must be. So, following the lines of argumentation from above, the I is yet again relative to a stable notion of non-I, and Butler’s constructionist perspective is once more just an inversion of essentialism. Nikki Sullivan, in an introductory chapter to queer theory, builds on Butler’s argument and presents the third statement to be analyzed here. As gender is an imitation without origin, Sullivan – following Butler’s logic – points out that “the subject is the cause of action” (Sullivan, 82) and that “the core self as the origin of action is in fact an illusion” (Sullivan, 88). Another time, we witness that the I, the “core self”, the “subject”, is deprived of its free will, of its ability to cause something. Rather, it is seen as an effect, relative to an essential, stable cause which must therefore be equaled with the non-I. Summarizing the point that essentialist and constructionist notions follow the same line of reasoning, a graphical representation of both models can help. Figure 1.1. shows an essentialist model: The I is stable, fixed and the cultural surroundings (the non-I) can be constructed and therefore variably related to the essential I. In Figure 1.2., the picture is just reversed: Here, the non-I is fixed, whereas the I (identity, sexuality) is discursively constructed and thus variable.

“non-I“

“I”

“non-I“

Fig. 1.1. The essentialist model. “non-I“

14

“I“

“non-I”

“I“

“I“

Fig. 1.2. The constructionist model. There is, however, a fundamental flaw in a constructionist model as provided by the three authors quoted above: it is impossible. In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton produced a text called Mathematical principles of natural philosophy. With slight alterations by physicist Albert Einstein2, this text is still valid. Newton, a scientist from the age of Enlightenment, points out in the abovementioned text the axiom that “[t]o every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts” (Newton, 45). According to this law, in the interaction between two bodies (in a broader sense), there cannot be one that is stable and another that is relative. Rather, there is mutual equality in the relation between two entities. If we now insert our concepts of I and non-I into Newton’s law, we must acknowledge that both an essentialist and a constructionist perspective are unworkable since they both presuppose one fixed part and another one that is relative to it. Nonetheless, as proved by nature and as written down by Newton, both units must be relative to each other and bear a mutual and equal driving force. Deriving from the practical impossibility of especially the constructionist standpoint, several problems arise for the queer theorist: a) A constructionist model is no queer approach. Rather, it is essentialism just turned upside down. b) Reality contradicts a constructionist perspective. As the debate around the nature or nurture of homosexuality and the existence of transsexuality shows, a constructionist angle produces several flaws. (Transsexuality will, additionally, be used for a case study in a subsequent part of this paper, cf. chapter four.) c) A number of questions remain unanswered and thus provide space for contestations of queer as being “an identity without an essence” (Halperin, quoted in Jagose, 96). If the core self cannot be seen as originating force, as Sullivan points out, what can? If performativity is non-voluntary, according to which laws does it operate? As long as 2

Cf. Bergmann, and practically every textbook on physics. 15

these difficulties cannot be solved, a queerness building on a constructionist approach can be contested as arbitrary. The next chapter is intended to provide an alternative model which is able to invalidate the contradictions mentioned above. In order to do that, we must reject the assumption that either I or non-I can be seen as a stable category. Rather, they have to be in mutual, flexible interaction with each other. 3. Towards a queer model: the cause-and-effect-continuum As we have experienced in the second chapter, all approaches which regard either identity itself or the non-I (i.e. society, discourse) as stable, must be rejected by the laws of motion or by the number of questions remaining unanswered. Here, queer theory comes in. According to Annamarie Jagose, “queer describes those gestures or analytical models which dramatise incoherencies” (Jagose, 3) and is thus perfectly apt to “dramatise” the logic of the essentialist/constructionist angle. What would be a queer approach then? “Resisting that model of stability” (Jagose, 3), the queer scholar would be happy to see both I and non-I as instable categories. For a queer model, these entities have to be fluid, hybrid and incoherent. Nevertheless, following Newton’s aforementioned laws of motion, I and non-I must be mutually relative to each other. Although this sounds like a satisfactory answer and proves wrong all contestations pointed out above, a model like this would be an “identity without an essence” (Halperin, quoted in Jagose, 96). To leave out the crucial question about the essential system in which I and non-I, though flexible, operate; to keep from asking questions about the laws they surrender to their working and constitution; and to avoid the issue where these entities are even located would be to leave manifest room for critics. In order to find these delimitating factors we again call Isaac Newton for help. Apart from his laws of motion, he has also pointed to “[r]ules of reasoning in philosophy” (Newton, 46). These rules state that everything in nature is subject to two elements interconnected with each other: cause (i.e. the simplest explanation for appearance) and effect (i.e. the outcome produced by that appearance)3. Placing the two hybrid factors I and non-I within a continuum delimited by cause and effect, we have established a relational system in which I and non-I can be constituted and a system of law (a causal system) under which they can operate. Figure 2 aims at visualizing this concept:

3

Cf. Newton, 46f. 16

I effect (E)

N I I cause (C)

N

N

Fig. 2. The cause-and-effect-continuum.4 Hence, in this alternative – queer – model, both I and non-I are flexible, mutually related and also relational to a stable, essential continuum delimited by the natural determiners cause and effect. In the next chapter, I will try to apply this theoretical model to reality and I will prove that it can explain at least the phenomenon of transsexuality, an observable fact which should be impossible from a constructionist standpoint. 4. Application of the new model: Transsexuality From a constructionist angle, the phenomenon of transsexuality seems impractical. Constructionists see identity as a discursive and constructed product which can be altered without any reference to the non-I, i.e. in that case, to the physical body. Strangely for all discursive producers, transsexuals feel their identity very much related to the body. They claim “to have been born into the wrong body” (Halberstam, 141) and thus need to construct their identity, their I, via the alteration of their body, their non-I. As constructionists like Judith Butler5 or Nikki Sullivan6 have argued that gender or identity is “an effect rather than the cause of action”, (Sullivan, 82) the I along these lines cannot be able to cause a change through producing an effect (i.e. the surgical reassignment of physical sex attributes). In the cause-and-effect-continuum, it is of course still possible that the I assumes the effect-position, as urged by constructionists. However, it can place itself on any other position in the continuum as well. For a transsexual, on the one hand, the I is then located very near to C, since it actively causes an alteration of the non-I, the body. (This is indicated in Figure 3.1.) Going through the process on the other hand, these positions begin to switch: As a transsexual claims his/her identity to be an effect of the body (the latter of which is therefore positioned close to C, as indicated in Figure 3.2.), the positions of I and N are changed.

4

NB: “I” refers to identity, “N” to “non-I” or non-identity. Cf. Butler, Trouble, 140. 6 Cf. Sullivan, 82. 5

17

effect (E) N I

cause (C)

Fig. 3.1. Transsexuality a)

I

cause (C)

effect (E)

N

Fig. 3.2. Transsexuality b) Reality – yes, transsexuals exist! – obviously proves that transsexual ways of life are hybrid and unsuitable for a constructionist approach. Still, the cause-andeffect-continuum is able to deal with a fluid constitution of identity; the hybridism does neither violate its delimitations nor does it break the causal laws provided by the continuum: I and non-I are related to each other by means of cause and effect and 18

both are relational to the continuum they operate within. Thus, the phenomenon of transsexuality can be explained with such a model. 5. Conclusion Rather than turning upside down, queering provides a wonderful opportunity for re-thinking constructionist models, which do not seem to be able to cope with an increasing number of real phenomena. This paper provides an alternative theoretical pattern for the constitution of identity and sexuality. Moreover, it presents an application of this new pattern to one of the disputed phenomena from reality, transsexuality. Thus, this paper is an attempt to seize this queer opportunity for reconception. Bibliography Bergmann, Peter Gabriel. Introduction to the theory of relativity. New York: Prentice Hall, 1947. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge, 1991. Butler, Judith. “Imitation and Gender Insubordination”. The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Ed. Henry Abelove et al. New York: Routledge, 1993. 307-320. Foucault, Michel. History of Sexuality Vol.1. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage Books, 1990. Halberstam, Judith. Female Masculinities. Durham: Duke University Press, 1998. Halperin, David. Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Jagose, Annamarie. Queer Theory: An introduction. New York: New York University Press, 1996. Newton, Isaac. “Mathematical principles of natural philosophy”. The portable Enlightenment Reader. Ed. Isaac Kramnick. New York et al.: Penguin Books, 1995. 43-47. Sullivan, Nikki. A critical introduction to queer theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003.

19

PART II QUEERNESS IN LITERATURE AND FILM

“What it feels like for a Chicana sin fronteras”: Feminism according to Gloria E. Anzaldúa Anja Zagorac

Who’s afraid of the fronteristas? 1 - Nacer mujer es el mayor castigo.2 - Ya me di cuenta después de tantos años que ser mujer no es cosa tan dichosa. 3 - I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is. I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.4

On the very last page of the 2nd edition of Borderlands/La Frontera, the reader finds a picture of the author, Gloria Evangelina Anzaldúa, and a short descriptive text which notes that she was “a Chicana tejana-lesbian-feminist poet and fiction writer” – yes, she was all of that. Indeed, Gloria Anzaldúa deemed it perfectly acceptable to incorporate multiple identities within one single self, and she rightly insisted on the fact that she was ‘carrying all five races on [her] back’ (Borderlands, 216), for she categorically refused to identify explicitly as neither ‘hispana india negra española / ni gabacha mulata’ (216). And this is the concept on which Anzaldúa’s theory of the “mestiza consciousness” is founded. By offering an entirely new, intriguing ‘paradigm of shifting and multiple identities’ (Fellner, Other Sexes, 100) in her Borderlands-essays, she constructed the “new mestiza” as the ‘point of confluence of conflicting subject positions’ (YarbroBejarano, 22). However, as much as the theory of mestizaje, or hybridity, was concerned with the de-construction of binaries and the exploration of the possibilities of going beyond traditional, conventional notions of identity, Anzaldúa was keen to emphasize the importance of her project especially for the feminist agenda.5 She pointed out that the ‘struggle of the mestiza [was] above all a feminist one’ (106), and that the specific consciousness of the borderlands was ‘una consciencia de mujer’ (99), a woman’s consciousness.

1

Sonia Saldívar-Hull coined that word; it is a blending of “frontera” and “feminista”. Cf. SaldívarHull, 176. 2 “The worst punishment is to be born a woman.”[my translation] Cf. Federico García Lorca’s drama La Casa de Bernarda Alba, 44. 3 “After so many years, I had realized that being a woman was not such a blessing”[my translation] Cf. “Cagado abismo, quiero saber” in Borderlands/La Frontera, p.192. All further citations from this text will refer to the 2nd edition. 4 Cf. Rebecca West quoted in Maragret Walter’s “Very Short Introduction to Feminism”,1. 5 Cf. Saldívar-Hull, 64. 21

Moreover, Anzaldúa seemed to have shared the conviction that only through a balanced reciprocal relationship and full equality between the sexes, her society could be ‘saved’ and the inner conflicts be solved, as it is from this profound lack of solidarity that the immense complexities in people’s lives have arisen.6 She invite her audience to adopt a ‘consciousness of duality’ (59) and genuinely embrace the ‘fusion of opposites’ (69), because she decisively rejected the rigid and destructive hierarchies as imposed on us by old patriarchal structures, i.e. the preposterous indoctrination which implied that men were supposed to be “dominant”, while women were the ‘stranger[s], the other[s]’ (39), and fundamentally different from men. Woman constituted the personified sin, a threat by definition, therefore she was to be even ‘protected from herself’ (39). Needless to say, Anzaldúa vehemently repudiated the male/female binarythinking, by aiming at transcending ‘dualisms which inevitably [gave] priority to one element’ (Fellner, Other Sexes, 102). She claimed to be ‘two in one body, both male and female’ (41), thus being able to derive benefit from the synthesis of ‘opposite qualities within’ (41), and she also vigorously rebutted the idea of a ‘confusion of gender’ (41). Anzaldúa apparently mused about the possibility of developing another notion of “other sexes”, by ‘capturing a third perspective’ (Fellner, Other Sexes, 103). As it seemed, she had a great trust in the unlimited evolutionary potential of human nature.7 Gloria Anzaldúa refused to yield to the various forms of male oppression, because she had an unshakable belief in herself and en las mujeres fuertísimas,8 the strong women. She harshly criticized the (male) “cultural tyranny” that was inflicted upon Chicanas in her community, and despised the manner in which those women degraded themselves by compliantly consenting to being men’s inferiors, and hence being doomed to a life of involuntary servitude, subjugation and hardship.9 Although she gained her reputation as a staunch and passionate supporter of women’s rights, Anzaldúa always managed to remain a sympathetic, but accurate and shrewd observer of the border culture, since she was acutely cognizant of the implications of the severe constraints which were imposed on Chicanas. Therefore, she consciously drew our attention to the women who silently and passively accepted their role as assigned to them by the patriarchal structures in their society.10 As Sonia Saldívar-Hull further explains in her book Feminism on the Border, it is this “New Mestiza” who is driven by the desire for liberation and it is her unquenchable thirst for knowledge of the world which proves to be her main incentive to pursue a career in education, and hence be able to decline playing the submissive Chicana anymore.11 It seemed to me, however, that Gloria Anzaldúa described her own “rebellion” with some melancholy, when she remarked that, ‘[me] costó muy caro mi rebeldía’ (37)12. Nevertheless, she developed skills in living with almost insurmountable obstacles and in staying calm in the face of abuse, since she had realized that ‘for this Chicana la guerra de independencia [was] a constant’ (37). In order for a woman to survive in a world, ‘which is not a safe place to live in’ (42) - since the ‘males of all 6

Anzaldúa went back in history to examine the reasons why the Aztec nation fell, and what this meant for the contemporary Chicano community. Cf. Borderlands, 56. 7 Cf. Borderlands, 41. 8 Cf. Borderlands, 222. 9 Cf. Borderlands, 38-39. 10 Cf. Saldívar-Hull, 71-72. 11 Cf. Saldívar-Hull, 73. 12 „I paid a high price for my rebellion“ [my translation]. 22

races hunt her as prey’ (42) - she must learn to resist, and she can only gain satisfaction from adopting the “mestiza consciousness”. As Yvonne Yarbro-Bejarano explains, Anzaldúa’s theory ‘posits a new, shifting subjectivity capable of reconfiguring and recentring itself, depending on the forms of oppression to be confronted’ (Yarbro-Bejarano, 11). Gloria Anzaldúa was especially mindful of the various ‘powers’ with which most women, and Chicanas in particular, were confronted every day of their lives, and Sonia Saldívar-Hull summed it up in her analysis of Borderlands/La Frontera, when she stated that Chicanas were compelled to struggle against prevailing attitudes which were inherently ‘homophobic, sexist, racist, imperialist, and nationalist’ (Saldívar-Hull, 73). Undoubtedly, Gloria Anzaldúas work has been groundbreaking and paved the way for what was considered a ‘new phase in American feminism’ (Fellner, Other Sexes, 100). By casting light on the way multiple systems of oppression intersected, she committed herself to exposing the white feminists’ critical discourse as what Sonia Saldívar-Hull perceived as ‘an ideology that at times came dangerously close to the phallogocentric ideologies of the White male power structure against which all feminists struggle[d]’ (Saldívar-Hull, 36). Further, Saldívar-Hull set out to provide a trenchant critique of white feminist authors for neglecting to mention the Chicanas specific positions as women who suffer the consequences of multiple oppressions. She clearly stated that [a]s women whose daily existence confronts institutionalized racism, class exploitation, sexism, and homophobia, the U.S. third world woman does not enjoy the luxury to privilege one oppression over the another. (Saldívar-Hull, 48) In particular, she reproached her white feminist “sisters” with ignoring the existence of Chicana feminism, and accused them of having adopted a kind of “hegemonic feminism” that presupposed a universal “Woman’s experience”, which consequently led to an unacceptable, albeit unintentional, appropriation and colonization of the very term feminism. 13 For this reason, both Gloria Anzaldúa’s coedited anthology This Bridge Called My Back: Writings By Radical Women Of Color, and her acclaimed Borderlands/La Frontera have been widely lauded, because these texts offered a long-awaited ‘new framework for understanding how women were configure by their gender, race, ethnicity, class, and sexuality’ (Fellner, Articulating Selves, 8). She has explicitly pointed towards the terrible conditions under which Chicanas had to live, and how they were exposed to the already mentioned racial, sexual and class exploitation in their own culture, as well as in the U.S./Anglo-American culture (Cf. Fellner; Saldívar-Hull). In her essay, which focused on Borderlands/La Frontera, Yvonne YarbroBejarano described how Gloria Anzaldúa set out to establish her theory of the new ‘consciousness’ through the writing-process, which Yarbro-Bejarano named ‘discursive self-formation’ (Yarbro-Bejarano, 13), in order to give a voice to, and openly speak for those who have been silenced by the ‘united powers of patriarchy, capitalism, imperialism, and White supremacy’ (Saldívar-Hull, 54). Anzaldúa’s work has been crucial for understanding exactly how these forces were intertwined, and reached down to affect the lives of every Chicana living in the borderlands. Moreover, she made clear that it was of utmost importance that all feminist endeavors always consider the complex race-, class-, and ethnicity-issues.

13

Cf. Saldívar-Hull, 39. 23

Even though Anzaldúa might have been criticized for what were regarded as “essentializing tendencies”14, her personal experiences of growing up as a workingclass girl and being a lesbian Chicana enabled her to offer a ‘concrete analysis’ of the various ‘internal struggles’ she was to face in her life (Saldívar-Hull, 61) – which brings us to another major aspect that was addressed in Borderlands/La Frontera. An important move by which Gloria Anzaldúa succeeded in breaking down and challenging deep-rooted prejudices in the heterosexual Chicano culture, was her method of theorizing gender identity, to be more precise, lesbian identity.15 The main point she made, was to show how lesbians of color were ‘marginalized in multiple ways, being outsiders in even more than two worlds’ (Fellner, Articulating Selves, 67). Accordingly, ostracized and rejected by ‘mother/culture/race’ (42), Anzaldúa also had to endure the ‘ultimate exile from her homeland’, because ‘nothing in [her] culture approved of [her]’ (38). But this “exile” did by no means lead her into a state of bleak despair – quite on the contrary. As Yarbro-Bejarano notes, ‘Anzaldúa makes “being queer”…signify a “path to something else”‘ (Yarbro-Bejarano, 19). There was no sign of resignation, but she was full of fierce determination, when she said [t]o this day I’m not sure where I found the strength to leave the source, the mother, disengage from my family, mi tierra, mi gente, and all that picture stood for. I had to leave home so I could find myself, find my own intrinsic nature buried under the personality that had been imposed on me. (38) The fact that she was forced to repress her sexual desires, being ‘indoctrinated as straight’ (41), offered another proof of the restrictive practices inherent of Chicano communities, where women in general were taught that their sexuality ‘must conform to certain modes of behavior’ (Trujillo, 117). Anzaldúa knew that aberrant behavior was punished by the community, but she would certainly not accept the part of the obedient Chicana. Instead she decided to make other choices, to walk the path of resistance, even though that meant exclusion from her ‘native culture’ (41) eventually. Making the ‘choice to be queer’ (41), she engaged in “the ultimate rebellion” against those who enjoyed the greatest power in the community – ‘la abuela, papá, el patrón’ (40) – through her sexual behavior, which ‘[made] for loquería’ (41), as she dryly remarked. In her essay “Chicana Lesbians: Fear and Loathing in the Chicano Community”, Carla Trujillo argued that Chicana lesbians constituted an enormous threat to the Chicano community, precisely because ‘the very act of lesbian existence, disrupts the established norm of patriarchal oppression’. (Trujillo, 117). Not only Chicanos regarded them as a serious menace to their undisputed male dominance, but many Chicanas were also made aware of their own dependence on men, and the means by which they – as women – were kept under strict control by patriarchal power structures. Trujillo presented a variety of reasons why Chicana lesbians posed a danger to established hierarchies, namely because they openly rejected the norms of sexuality, identification, motherhood, and religion as foisted upon them. They consciously confronted these taboos, by acknowledging that as Chicana women they were sexual beings, even without having to ‘connect to a man’ (Trujillo, 118). Hence, a lesbian Chicana who feels free to identify as a woman who ‘reclaims her sexual self’, clearly goes ‘beyond the criteria of passivity and repression’ (Trujillo, 118), and does not really fit into the “ideal” picture of Chicano family life. Gloria Anzaldúa also stressed the sad fact that there used to be but three possibilities for Chicanas to 14 15

Cf. Yarbro-Bejarano, 12-13. Cf. Fellner, Saldívar-Hull, Trujillo, Yarbro-Bejarano. 24

organize their lives, i.e. go ‘to the Church as a nun, to the streets as a prostitute, or to the home as a mother’ (39). What is quite admirable about their works is how both Anzaldúa and Trujillo are never one-sided, but always bear in mind how heterosexual women and men are also subjected to the same norms placed upon them by their culture and society. Anzaldúa concluded her second chapter in Borderlands, “Movimientos de rebeldía y las culturas que traicionan” with following paragraph: I abhor some of my culture’s ways, how it cripples its women, como burras, our strengths used against us, lowly burras bearing humility with dignity. The ability to serve, claim the males is our highest virtue. I abhor how my culture makes macho caricatures of its men. No, I do not buy all the myths of the tribe into which I was born (43, 44). And finally, she vowed that, if self-realization was denied to her in her own community and in the Anglo-culture as well, she would create her own space, and formulate her own body of rules. Her “manifesto” read as such: I want the freedom to carve and chisel my own face, […] to fashion my own gods out of my entrails. […] I will have to stand and claim my space, making a new culture – una cultura mestiza – with my own lumber, my own bricks and mortar and my own feminist architecture (44). Anzaldúa felt that there was a desperate need for a change – ‘algo tenía que cambiar’ (57) – and this changes could only be materialized if women’s roles in society were considerably strengthened, so she called out to the her readers to try it ‘the mestiza way, the Chicana way, the woman way’ (110), while she was still dreaming of ‘celebrar el día de la Chicana’ (110). mujer cacto Como un flor la mujer del desierto no dura mucho tiempo pero cuando vive llena el desierto con flores de nopal o de árbol paloverde. (202)

Some kind of “Afterword”. Girls can wear jeans And cut their hair short Wear shirts and boots 'Cause it's OK to be a boy But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading 'Cause you think that being a girl is degrading But secretly you'd love to know what it's like Wouldn't you What it feels like for a girl --- Madonna16

As a young female university-student, I consider myself to be in a more or less privileged position, compared to my grandmothers’ rather miserable and hard lives, for instance, who had no choices regarding education whatsoever. Without a doubt, 16

Cf. Madonna’s song „What it feels like for a girl“ from her album Music (2000). 25

there was but one ‘career’ for them to pursue vigorously, namely that of devoted mothers and housewives. Owing to a “glorious revolution” around the 60s and the 70s, women have been given the opportunity to shape their own destinies, free of the constraints which they had come to associate with being female – or was that simply the Utopian vision that never quite turned into a reality? Some aspects of the movement have been harshly criticized in the 80s and the 90s, by scholars such as Gloria Anzaldúa for instance, who accused the white feminists of being racist and homophobic.17 But what was even more to the point was that the very nature of the feminist subject was called into question, by Judith Butler among others, who wrote that ‘women, even in the plural, has become a troublesome term, a site of contest, a cause for anxiety’ (Butler, 3). Obviously, there is yet a lot more to be achieved, in order for the feminists of our world to lean back and go on a holiday. In the present climate, however, another worrying trend has emerged, which might be an attempt at undermining women’s positions in our societies, namely the dubious obsession with so-called ‘family-values’ (i.e. the insidious term that denotes some of the superficial and hypocritical ideas as promoted by the political/economic male elite), and consequently, the re-consideration of women’s roles in modern states. From the U.S. to Europe, some of the world’s most influential (male) thinkers and scholars are preoccupied with demographic figures and family structures, evidently advocating the “return of the patriarchy”, to put it in Philip Longman’s words. Apparently, he sees no other way for reproduction and stability of these cultures to be secured. 18 Some European countries, such as Germany for example, are outwardly pretending to work towards more emancipated societies, whereas what they are ultimately aiming to achieve is all but clear: forcing women to slave over a hot stove all day. It is done by impelling them to opt for either a promising career or motherhood, instead of providing them with the necessary and effective means to successfully combine their jobs with family commitments.19 Moreover, there also seems to be a tacit agreement on the denial of women’s possibilities to organize their lives in a whole different manner – that is, a life in which men do not necessarily have to play a major part (except for being the anonymous sperm-donors, as humorously depicted in the TV-series The L-Word). But this seems an unfathomable argument to be put forward in Austria or Germany, where the governments are headed by conservative Christian parties. And just as Camille Paglia20 thinks that there is something off-putting about U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, who apparently has no romantic relationships at all, so do I find it somewhat off-putting, on the other hand, that the German federal minister for Women’s Affairs of all departments has no less than seven children. I have the distinct impression that, during the next decade(s), it will become more essential than ever for women to form strong coalitions – both in their own countries and internationally – in order not to yield entirely to male pressure again. With globalization and mass migration changing our world forever, women need to stand their ground, and prove once more that they are just as capable as men in (most) situations. 17

Cf. Chapter 5 in Annamarie Jagose’s book Queer Theory. An Introduction, and also Barbara Smith’s essay “Homophobia, why bring it up?” 100. 18 Cf. DER SPIEGEL interview (04/2006) with Philip Longman, Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation. 19

Cf. TIME Magazine’s cover story “The German Question” (01/2006). Camille Paglia is Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, and this quote has been taken from a “Salon” interview with her in 2003. 20

26

In this paper I wanted to go back in history to examine the ways in which an exceptional female author and scholar, such as Gloria Anzaldúa has worked to expose the double-standards of (male, white, middle-class, heterosexual) society with regard to women, as well as to point towards the flaws of the feminist movement itself. With this ‘afterword’ I have tried to address shortly some of the current – and which I consider – pressing issues that concern women in Western culture nowadays. Notwithstanding Lawrence Summer’s claim that female students lacked the intellectual ability ‘to do math’ as well as the males21, it still does feel good to be a girl in this world - and if everything else fails to convince one of this being true, it is highly recommended to watch a Madonna-video. Or an episode of The L-Word for that matter, because Ally McBeal will not do anymore, unfortunately.

References Anzaldúa, Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1999. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge, 1990. Fellner, Astrid M. “Other Sexes: Bridging Textual Borders.” Die Kategorie Geschlecht im Streit der Disziplinen. Ed. Marlen Bidwell-Steiner and Karin S. Wozonig. Gendered Subject. Bd. 1 Innsbruck: Studienverlag, 2005. 90107. Fellner, Astrid M. Articulating Selves: Contemporary Chicana Self-Representation. Wien: Braumüller, 2002. García Lorca, Federico. La casa de Bernarda Alba. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun., 2004. Jagose, Annamarie. Queer Theory. An Introduction. New York: New York UP, 1996. Kantrowitz, Barbara. “Sex and Science”. Newsweek International 31 Jan. 2005: 5. Osang, Alexander. “Debatte: Der amerikanische Author Philip Longman über die Rückkehr des Patriarchats”. DER SPIEGEL 29 Apr. 2006: 18. Pervis, Andrew. “Women in Germany. Why Merkel Is Not Enough”. TIME Europe 30 Jan. 2006: 5. Saldívar-Hull, Sonia. Feminism on the Border: Chicana Gender Politics and Literature. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.

21

Lawrence Summers has been the president of Harvard University from 2001-2006, and sparked off a fierce debate, after he suggested in a public speech that girls were intellectually less able than boys to succeed in sciences, cf. Newsweek “Sex and science” (01/2005). 27

Smith, Barbara. “Homophobia: Why Bring It Up?” The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Ed. Henry Abelove et.al. New York: Routledge, 1993. 99-102. Talbot, David. “The Salon Interview: Camille Paglia”. Salon 7 February 2003. Trujillo, Carla. “Chicana Lesbians: Fear and Loathing in the Chicano Community”. Chicana Critical Issues. Ed. Norma Alarcón. Berkeley: Third Woman Press, 1993. Walters, Margaret. Feminism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Yarbro-Bejarano, Yvonne. “Gloria Anzaldúa’s Borderlands/La Frontera: Cultural Studies, ‘Difference’, and the Non-Unitary Subject.” Cultural Critique (Fall 1994): 5-28.

28

The Sexuality of Roy Cohn Gabriel Danis

1. Introduction “Roy Cohn is a heterosexual man, Henry, who fucks around with guys.”1 When reading Tony Kushner’s Angels in America, Roy Cohn is a character which immediately stands out as one of the most interesting one. To me his most intriguing feature is his denial of his homosexuality. When I read the lines cited above for the first time, I took the statement as a joke. Another example of the deep irony this obviously cold and heartless character had. But later on, while discussing Roy Cohn and the play in class, I realized that there is more behind these lines. What if Roy is right and he is not a homosexual at all? Where does homosexuality start and where does it end and is homosexuality a useful and positive term for the Queer community? These are the questions I want to deal with in the context of different theories in this paper. I want to use Roy Cohn as an example to demonstrate how difficult and problematic the terms gay and homosexuality are and that “coming out” may not always be the best and bravest solution.

2. Roy Cohn 2.1 The Character Roy Cohn is a well known and successful New York lawyer and unofficial power broker who through sexual intercourse with men got infected with AIDS. At the beginning of the play, he is truly a powerful man who is used to getting what he wants. His highest goal is to keep his social and political status. Roy is a true patriot and still fears the communists who seek to destroy his beloved homeland. In addition to his political power, he enjoys his status and wealth which he gained through hard work over the past thirty years. The fact that he has AIDS would destroy his image and would give away his sexual habits. He tells everybody that he suffers from liver cancer because homosexuality is not only a sexual orientation for Roy but much more: Like all labels they (referring to homosexual and gay) tell you one thing and one thing only: where does an individual so identified fit in the food chain, in the pecking order? Not ideology, or sexual taste, but something much simpler: clout.2

As soon as Roy finds out that the New York State Bar Association tries to disbar him, he sets everything in motion to prevent that process and his ruthlessness begins to show. He tries to force Joe, a friend of his, to move to Washington and take a position at the Justice Department with which he could help Roy and ignores the fact that Joe’s wife would not be able to cope with the relocation.

1 2

See Kushner, Angels in America, part 1 page 45. See Kushner, Angels in America, part 1 page 45. 29

In the second part of the play, Roy is forced by his deadly disease to stay in bed. In his scenes at the hospital one can observe his stubbornness and cruelness by the way he is treating Belize, an Afro-American queer nurse, who is the only person left wanting to help him. Roy insults her several times and shows clear racist and homophobic tendencies. Finally Roy loses his battle against the New York State Bar Association and forfeits his position as a lawyer. The commentary of an executive at court illustrates the full dimension of the loss of his clout: “Finally. I’ve hated that little faggot for thirty-six years.”3 What Roy always wanted to avoid happens. Through the loss of his position as a lawyer he immediately loses his immunity against being called gay and falls into the degrading and powerless class of the homosexual.

2.2 Social Categories Looking at Roy Cohn’s character in the play one must not forget that he is based on a real person. Certainly large parts of his behaviour character and dialogue were invented by Tony Kushner but his main features and most importantly his contradictory personality remained the same. I want to put emphasis on this fact because the real Roy Cohn proves that there is relevance to the following thoughts.4 Roy Cohn is not simply an antagonist; he is the Darth Vader of Tony Kushner’s universe. He is mean and cruel through and through but just like every good villain Roy’s actions are motivated by reasonable factors and not by sheer evilness. Roy understands that he is living in a world of categories and he has to accommodate to that. Social control is exercised through producing categories whereby individuals who transgress are relegated to ‘outsiders’ status according to the social system in operation.5

Roy can decide between his gay identity which would lead to the loss of his clout or his powerful identity as a lawyer. He cannot be both and that is the crucial point. Roy decides his socially accepted role and starts to behave and perform according to it. Just like in the life of the real Roy Cohn, this decision leads to contradictory behaviour. He has sex with men yet he continuously behaves in a homophobic way. During his conversations with Belize, Roy regularly demonstrates his hatred against Belize, which originates not only in her queerness but also in her race. Again an unexpected behaviour by a Jewish man whose parents probably experienced the cruelties of the holocaust. Finally Roy expresses also his anti-Semitic feelings towards Ethel Rosenberg, a Jewish woman working for the newspaper who was charged with having communist tendencies and therefore executed mostly because of Roy Cohn’s efforts. Because what I am is defined entirely by who I am.6 In the world of the eighties, Roy had to be a heterosexual, not because of his sexual habits but because of his social status. His power his friends and his enemies are the building blocks of Roy Cohn 3

See Kushner, Angels in America, part 2 page 112. http://www.maryellenmark.com/text/magazines/life/905W-000-035.html [3.07.2006] 5 Woodward, Identity and Difference, page33. 6 See Kushner, Angels in America, part 1 page 46. 4

30

and define what he is. But how did he reach his social status and the power related to it? What made him work so hard for thirty-six years and reach his decisions? At first sight, his inapprehensible behaviour is motivated by only one factor his deep and strong patriotism. He loves his country and goes as far as it takes to protect it. The real Roy Cohn’s idea of a good time was “to sing patriotic ditties at a piano bar in Provincetown, on Cape Cod”7. His religion and sexual orientation were not at all reasons for his actions. Roy is clearly characterized by the things he does and not the other way round. With his seemingly contradictory behaviour he proves Butler’s views about gender identity. The reason there is no gender identity behind the expression gender is that identity is performatively constituted by the very expressions that are said to be its results.8

Roy does not fit into the gay category in the same way as he does not fit into the Jewish one. He penetrates every category which he is supposed to belong to and further on resists every stereotype and therefore is the perfect example of the failure of the system of categorization which our society is built on and also the failure of identity politics. Roy understands that his coming out would be disempowering to him and would not help the gay movement at all. Actually, he is everything but a typical member of the so-called gay community and therefore it is only understandable that he does not want to be connected to it in any way. His attitude towards the words gay and homosexual is nowadays shared by a growing number of people who do not want to be associated with certain features and stereotypes which belong to the gay community. Evidence for this movement is a statement by David Halperin who also has critical thoughts towards the term homosexual: “Homosexual like woman is not a name that refers to a natural kind of thing.”9 The followers of Butler begin to realize that terms like gay and homosexual are counterproductive for their agenda when they are used in an essentialist way and therefore agree that these terms have to be used in amore sophisticated way.. They argue that by subduing oneself to these sexual identities, one maintains and strengthens the underpinnings of heterosexist privilege and the power of heteronormativity.10

3. Sexuality In the second chapter I mentioned that Roy Cohn’s actions and personality contradicted the stereotypes of his sexuality because he resisted to be put into a certain category. Now I want to go a step further and reveal why the concept of sexuality is a social product of the relatively recent past and by elaborating on the sexual habits of the ancient Greeks prove that there was a society which was unaware of the linkage between sexual habits and sexuality. Further on, I want to demonstrate how sexuality was constructed and illustrate its purposes which are still valid in the present.

7

http://www.maryellenmark.com/text/magazines/life/905W-000-035.html [3.07.2006] See Jagose, Introduction to Queer Theory, page 84. 99 See Jagose, Introduction to Queer Theory, page 91. 10 See Jagose, Introduction to Queer Theory, page 92. 8

31

3.1 Ancient Greece In his text called “Is There a History of Homosexuality?” David Halperin states that in modern Western society, sexuality is viewed as the following: […] sexuality generates sexual identity: it endows each of us with an individual sexual nature with a personal essence defined (at least in part) in specifically sexual terms; it implies that human beings are individuated at the level of their sexuality, that they differ from one another in their sexuality and, indeed, belong to different types or kinds of being by virtue of their sexuality.11

This concept of sexuality seems entirely logical and natural to nearly everybody in our Western Civilization. It does not only seem natural but it also appears as if it had never been another way. David Halperin contests these thoughts by taking the ancient Greek society as an example. Several historical documents, transcripts, and images show that Athenian society had a completely different idea of sex than ours has. Sex was not an expression of inward dispossessions but rather served as a way of positioning the participants socially to each other. The role of the penetrator was the one of the superordinate class and the penetrated had to belong to a subordinate one. Free men who were citizens belonged to the highest class followed by free women, free male non-citizens, foreigners and slaves. People could only have sex with statutory minors. For example a free male citizen was not allowed to have sexual intercourse with a person of his own social “rank”. Sexuality was not at all regarded as an indicator of the personality it was simply an expression of social power. The virtues of a man were much more likely scrutinized in public debates or at war situations. What is fundamental to their experience of sex is not anything we would regard as essentially sexual; it is instead something essentially outward, public, and social. Sexuality, for cultures not shaped by recent European and American bourgeois developments, is not a cause but an effect. The social precedes the sexual one.12

In this sense the ancient Greek society is just like Roy Cohn sees his own. Roy argues that he has to be a heterosexual because of his social status. The only difference is that the status of the Athenians does not define the sex of their partner but rather restricts them to choose somebody of a subordinate “rank”.

3.2 The Genesis of Sexuality The example of the ancient Greek society proves the fact that the link between sexuality, sexual habits and even personality is not a genuine one and that it was only constructed recently by society and seems only “natural” to our bourgeois culture. This leads to the question why this link has been established and by what kind of power. In The History of Sexuality Michel Foucault states that in the 17th century there was an essential move a as Foucault puts it “steady proliferation of discourse”.13 People have been encouraged by the church to talk about or rather confess their sexual 11

See Halperin, “Is There a History of Homosexuality?”, page 417. See Halperin, “Is There a History of Homosexuality?”, page 420 13 See Foucault, History of Sexuality Vol. 1, page 18 12

32

habits and acts in order to transform their sexual desire into discourse. But sex has not been dealt with in an open way. The language had been severely changed in order to circumscribe the sexual act by reformulating everything impure or obscene. Our understanding of sexuality and implicitness of talking about it and referring to it as a category was rooted in that time. Before the 17th century people did not discuss sex as much as afterwards and therefore there was no possibility for them to construct any concepts about it. In the age of the industrial revolution manpower turned into a valuable commodity. The industrialist started to look at the population as an amount of workers with indispensable working power. The reproductional effect of the sexual act became more important than ever and therefore heterosexual couples were essential. Of course , it had long been asserted that a country had to be populated if it hoped to be rich and powerful; but this was the first time that society had affirmed, in a constant way that its future and its fortune were tied not only to the number and uprightness of the citizens, to their marriage rules and family organization, but to the manner in which each individual made use of his sex.14

Another field that got involved into the discourse about sex was medicine according to Foucault. As we all know, the goal of medicine is to cure but something can only be cured if it is sick. The listing and labelling of several sexual aberrances was again a major contribution to define homosexuality the way we know it today. Through medical discourse people were repeatedly made aware of the dangerous character of sex and especially homosexuality. Looking at history, we can easily recognize how sexuality and especially homosexuality was constructed by factors like capitalism and industrialism. Again Roy’s situation of having sex with men and at the same time fighting communism stands as a perfect example for the constructed character of homosexuality. He cannot be a homosexual and a capitalist at the same time therefore he is not gay because there is no such thing as gay.

4. Conclusion While I was reading the play Angels in America, I saw Roy Cohn simply as a villain with a cruel personality and heartless acts. But now that I have deeply delved into this character and the problematic issues surrounding him, my opinion considering Roy has changed. From the point of view of identity politics, Roy Cohn might be a negative character because he denies his “sexuality”. But the field of Queer Theory has changed through the theories and statements of people like Judith Butler and Michel Foucault and therefore for me the villain starts to gradually become a hero. Roy contests every stereotype and image linked to heterosexuals and therefore represents a real subversive power. Considering these arguments, one has to acknowledge that the real Roy Cohn and the character in the play are both excellent examples that homosexuality is a constructed concept and that terms such as gay and lesbian are definitely no helpful words for the Queer community.

14

See Foucault, History of Sexuality Vol. 1, page 30. 33

Bibliography: Foucault, Michel. History of Sexuality Vol. 1. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York. Vintage Books, 1990. Halperin , David. “Is There a History of Homosexuality”. The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Ed. Henry Abelove, et.al. New York. Routlege, 1993. 416-432. Jagose, Annamarie. Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 1996. Kushner, Tony. Angels in AmericaPart One: Millenium Approaches. New York. Theater Communications Group. 2005. Kushner, Tony. Angels in America Part Two: Perestroika. New York. Theater Communications Group. 2001. Woodward, Kathryn. Identity and Difference. London: Sage P, 1997.

Internet sources: http://www.maryellenmark.com/text/magazines/life/905W-000-035.html [3.07.2006]

34

LESLIE FEINBERG – STONE BUTCH BLUES Thoughts, Themes, Theories Tamara Radak (1.) HISTORICAL BACKGROUND1 In the 1950s, life in America was hard for people who were different. In the time between 1947 and 1950, also known by the term “McCarthy era”, Senator Joseph McCarthy tracked and hunted down everybody who did not live according to the norms set by society. At first, “only” left-minded communists seemed to present a threat to McCarthy’s authority, but soon the range of accusations widened and homosexuality was certainly a reason for being arrested and treated inhumanly. Therefore, it must have taken a lot of courage to stand up for one’s beliefs and rights, as doing so was very dangerous and at times even lethal. This historical fact is strongly connected to the pressure of society at that time. You could not simply lead your life according to your needs; you had to obey the rules of society, be as inconspicuous as possible and endure everything with a smile. Surviving meant living according to the norms, which is also one of the reasons why many homosexual / bisexual / transsexual / transgender persons decided to take hormones in order to “pass” as a man / woman. Another important date and actually a whole new spirit was the Stonewall riot which took place on June 27, 1969 in New York City. In spite of the official allowance of gay bars, the police raided the Stonewall inn, a rather popular gay bar in Greenwich Village. However, the assembled crowd managed to fight them back and this was an important day for queer people all over the world. The reasons why the Stonewall Inn was raided in the first place that day remains unclear. The official cause was that they had operated without a liquor license and also had ties with organized crime. However, it is also known that at Stonewall Inn there was a particularly high quota of coloured frequenters Moreover, many of the gay men working on Wall Street went to that bar.

(2.) LESLIE FEINBERG: AUTHOR, ACTIVIST, POET, TRANSGENDER WARRIOR Having to lie about who we are in order to avoid violence and condemnation means living like an outlaw. Every person should be able to be, live open and proud of their identity. But the reality is that many can't. The dangers are too great. Like Jess Goldberg, the protagonist of Feinberg’s first fictional work, Stone Butch Blues (1993), Leslie Feinberg was born in 1949 in Buffalo, NY. Feinberg is an activist and author, as well as a poet and has been the loving partner of Minnie Bruce

1

This chapter relies on Leigh, W.: The Gay Book of Lists. Boston 1987. p. 46-47. 35

Pratt since 1993. Leslie Feinberg has published works of fiction as well as nonfiction including Stone Butch Blues (1993), Trans Liberation: Beyond Pink or Blue, Transgender Warriors and drag king dreams (2006). Leslie Feinberg has been and still is an inspiration for crowds of transgender people who identify with his work and his public speeches. His website www.transgenderwarrior.org is also very popular.

(3.) PASSING: DECONSTRUCTING DECONSTRUCTED IDENTITY. BODY VS. MIND. “I hadn’t just believed that passing would hide me. I hoped that it would allow me to express the part of myself that didn’t seem to be woman.“2 In her childhood, Jess cannot cope at all with her being different and does not feel comfortable about her sexuality which she perceives as (and is led to believe it is) wrong. However, in the course of the book, Jess gets more confident and starts to like her body, especially during her intimate relationship with the great love of her life, Theresa. Still, being confident about one’s body is one thing, living according to human living standards another. Being butch, not being a hundred percent identifiable as either part of the male / female binary was dangerous at the time of McCarthy. When Jess finally decides to take hormones in order to pass as male, she believes they can solve her problems, but even though she gets a job and is able to lead a “normal” life, she is psychologically torn and feels miserable, especially after her femme girlfriend Theresa leaves her because she does not want to be with a man, but with a butch. Although at the first glance life has become easier for Jess, her situation has, in fact, gotten worse. She feels as if she were not only betraying herself, but also other people who are like her. She does not deliberately deconstruct the heteronormative notion of identity (as she does by being transgender) and her violent hormone therapy does not make her feel subversive, but simply marks a complete loss of her identity: “I felt like a nonperson. Even outlaws probably have more ID than me.”3 By passing, Jess silently has to obey the norms of society which she - realistically seen – does. Not until her relationship with Ruth does she accept her body the way it is. Finally Ruth shows her that sexual identity does not have to be defined once and for all, but is fluid and can be something in between: “It’s not going to be day or night, Jess. It’s always going to be that moment of infinite possibility that connects them.”4 In the scenes in which Jess is raped, she tries to think of nice things such as landscapes and flowers, a common coping strategy. Jess seems to “float away” and has out-of-body experiences. It appears as if she were able to split her mind from her body so that in a metaphorical sense only her body can be penetrated, but not her soul. Although the whole book is written in a very personal and subjective way, and the rape scenes are described very vividly, the author still creates a distance by not discussing the psychological impact in greater detail, but simply letting the reader feel the self-deception as a means of coping with the violation. This emotional

2

Feinberg, Leslie: Stone Butch Blues, p. 223. Feinberg p. 175. 4 Feinberg p. 270. 3

36

“reflex” (as Leslie Feinberg states in an interview5) is closely connected to the term “stone butch,” which Feinberg defines as a “person who has been so wounded sexually that it is difficult to allow oneself to be touched.”6 Jess is “stone” only on the outside; inside she is very vulnerable, which again leads her to being even more stone. Theresa is the only one who could ever fully melt the stone. (4.) JESS’ QUEST FOR IDENTITY Where am I going? I don’t quite know. What does it matter where people go? Down to the wood there the blue-bells growAnywhere, anywhere. I don’t know.7 In the course of the novel, Jess experiences different stages ranging from selfhatred and self-denial in the beginning through temporary satisfaction, until at last she comes to terms with her sexual identity in the end and accepts herself the way she is. She is confident with her life at last. In the beginning, Jess perceives herself as being strange and not fitting in. She is constantly asked if she is a boy or a girl, which destroys her self-confidence and makes her feel like a complete outsider. Jess considers herself as being “one more bad card life had dealt my parents”8. All Jess desires in the beginning is to be normal and the same as everybody else. This condition does not change until much later in the course of the novel when she finds a kind of foster family in the butch-femme community of the 1950s. For the first time she belongs to a group and realizes that she is not alone in the world. However, this group also has boundaries and in fact introduces yet another binary by the notions “butch” and “femme”. There is no place for bi- or transsexual people in the community, and in a way the heteronormative notions of male and female are reinforced once again, although in a reversed / subversive way. That is also one of the reasons why Jess stays away from the community when she starts taking hormones. Everybody accepted a butch, but what about a butch who passed as a man? Another thing that is striking in this context is Jess’ disgusted reaction to two butches being a couple, which clearly shows how deeply prejudices are rooted even within a community that was itself excluded and treated as “abnormal” by the heteronormative society. During her hormone treatment, Jess does not feel any better psychologically, as indicated before. However, she wants to survive and expects a solution from her complicated struggle for identity. Yet the hormones only incite an even graver identity crisis, as the following text passage indicates: Who was I now – woman or man? That question could never be answered as long as those were the only choices; it could never be answered if it had to be asked.9 Clearly, neither the notion of “butch” nor that of “man” is able to appropriately describe Jess’ real status. After all, she is by no means a prototypical woman, but no 5

“I don’t think of it as a strategy so much as a reflex.” Julie Peters: Making Connections. In: Screaming Hyena no. 7 southern hemisphere (1996). 6 Peters, Julie: Making Connections. 7 Feinberg p. 169. 8 Feinberg p. 13. 9 Feinberg p. 222. 37

man either. She only learns to cope with it after meeting her neighbour Ruth, who makes her aware of the fluidity of (sexual) identity by drawing a picture that combines dusk and dawn.

(5.) DID LESLIE FEINBERG GET THE STONE BUTCH BLUES? Although officially Feinberg denies any connection between herself and Jess Goldberg in the novel Stone Butch Blues (“Stone Butch Blues is a complete work of fiction. It's not auto-biographical.”10), there are notable similarities between the protagonist and the author which do not seem to be coincidence. First of all, there is the name of the protagonist, Jess Goldberg, which bears a clear assonance to the author’s own name. Of course the assonance would be even more obvious if the syllable –y was added at the ending, which is probably the strategic reason why Jess despises being called “Jesse”. After all, the question as to the authenticity or fictionality of the text is not as relevant as the question why Leslie Feinberg has chosen such a common literary genre as the novel for her story. Reduced to its most basic thought, the novel is a coming-of-age story giving a voice to oppression. As the author states, the genre was chosen because of “its ability to reach down into emotional truths.”11 By denying any non-fictional features of the novel, Feinberg makes it even more open for interpretation. With the author’s personal background on one’s mind, it is much more difficult to read the story without always wondering if the event really happened as described. By choosing a subjective point of view (by introducing letters and conversations, but also by the very intimate style Feinberg uses), the author is able to describe as a subject without being described as an object. (6.) VIOLENCE AGAINST NON-NORMATIVE FEMALE MASCULINITIES: FEINBERG’S STONE BUTCH BLUES VS. KIMBERLEY PEIRCE’S BOYS DON’T CRY - DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES The main difference between the book Stone Butch Blues and the movie Boys don’t Cry is the fact that Jess Goldberg does not deliberately choose to pass as a man as Teena Brandon does. While Teena really manages to make believe she is male, Jess’ appearance seems to be more ambiguous. However, the inhuman cruelty and violence people display in reaction to both Jess and Teena are very much the same. In both the book and the movie, the element of punishment comes in with regard to transsexuality. When Teena is exposed by Lotter and Nissen, she is constantly being called a liar and not actually punished for what she is, but rather for the fact that she “pretended” to be somebody else. The rape scenes in Stone Butch Blues are similar insofar as they underline the notion of control over the subjected person. Jess’ figurative floating away when she is sexually and physically abused corresponds to the rape scene in the movie when the camera moves from Teena 10 11

Peters, Julie: Making Connections. Peters, Julie. Making Connections.. 38

being raped to the bright flashlights of the car, symbolizing Teena’s own drifting away. In the scene where Teena is stripped naked by Lotter and Nissen, there is a moment of complete silence and her gaze goes far out, beyond any boundaries. This can also be interpreted as an out-of-body experience and bears an interesting parallel to Stone Butch Blues. The sad fact is that people have always been and will probably always be discriminated against because of their individuality. Instead of pointing out the differences between people as being something to avoid, we should rather see them as a challenge and an opportunity to learn about different lifestyles. Bibliography: Feinberg, Leslie. Stone Butch Blues. A Novel. Los Angeles: Alyson Publications. 2003Hörmann, Jürgen. Sexual Identity in Transgender Literature and Film. Diplomathesis University of Vienna, 2006. Peters, Julie. “Making Connections”. In: Screaming Hyena 7 southern hemisphere, 1996 Pierce, Kimberley (director). Boys Don’t Cry. 20th century Fox, 1999.

39

“ Right to be ‘wrong’” An analysis of the concept of ‘the wrong body’ as represented in Leslie Feinberg’s Stone Butch Blues and Duncan Tucker’s Transamerica. Stephanie Hopf

In order to analyse the concept of ‘the wrong body’ we need to understand that there is no exact ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Every human being defines him- or herself individually. And we have to understand that today’s society defines itself very much through a concept called The Body Project. ‘The Body Project begins with a biological event, menarche, or first menstruation, and moves through a series of chapters that explore the changing experience of female menstruation’ (Jacobs, 50). ‘The fact that American girls now make the body their central project is not an accident or a curiosity: it is a symptom of historical changes that are only now beginning to be understood’ (Jacobs, 54). The discourse of the perfect body is very common in today’s society. The body is made into an all-consuming project. It is regarded as something to be managed and maintained. We are so strongly forced into this behaviour by culture that we are not aware anymore what our body’s nature is actually like. And this is where the problems start. The increase in anorexia nervosa and bulimia suggests that in some cases human beings are so dissatisfied with their body that it becomes an obsession. In the project on our body we try to express our individual identity through the shape and appearance of our bodies; and if we do not feel well in our body, there are so many different methods of transforming it. There is make-up, there are clothes, diets and even surgeries. But identity is far more than body and looks. It is far more than ‘[…] remov[ing] pubic hair in order to wear the newest, most minimal bikinis’ (Jacobs, 53). It is what we feel inside, the many different selves and the conviction that we are someone. The most important thing in life is that we like ourselves, and that we do this because it is our firm conviction. It is not important what society says; the only important thing is what we say. Every human being is beautiful in his or her own way and no stereotype can dictate what is beautiful and what not. We have to find out for ourselves what beautiful means.1 The whole life of transgendered people is a project on their body. They ‘[…] disidentif[y] with their assigned birth sex and [live] full time in congruence with their gender identity. This may include a regime of hormone therapy but usually transgenderists do not seek or want sex reassignment surgery’(Queer Glossary). These people consider themselves as the opposite gender and therefore feel to have been born in the wrong body. In the following, I will adress the concept of ‘wrong body/right body’ both, in terms of my own opinion as well as theoretically. In addition to that, I will show the 1

Cf. Brumberg, Joan Jacobs (1997): “Introduction: The Body as Evidence” in Brumberg, Joan Jacobs, The Body Project. An Intimate History of American Girls. 40

notion of the body among transgendered people in two examples: Stone Butch Blues by Leslie Feinberg, and Transamerica by Duncan Tucker. There are several definitions trying to explain the concept of ‘wrong body/right body’. But what does it really mean to feel wrong in one’s body? To me, feeling right in one’s body means to feel confident about oneself, as a human being. People who feel confident in their body just do not think about what could be if they did not feel that way. They just are what they are, they live their lives and cannot imagine that it could be different as well. People who do not feel confident think about exactly these things. They do not feel safe enough to go outside: they have the feeling to always have to hide themselves, they do not experience freedom. What is just normal for the others is a real big problem for these people. They do not want to be themselves, they want to be someone else, they hate themselves when they look in the mirror and they might even feel kind of disgusted. They maybe think that the person they see in the mirror is a foreigner. They hate their body and everything that has to do with it. Of course, you cannot feel good in your body all the time. There are days when you just feel really bad and do not like anything about yourself. But it is gets problematic when you suddenly do not feel right in your gendered body anymore, when you suddenly prefer the opposite sex. There is a quite different, but very interesting approach by Iris Marion Young regarding female bodily experience.2 According to her, ‘[o]pression typically involves the marking or control of the bodies of the oppressed’ (Young, 11). These are people of color, old people, disabled people, gay men, lesbians as well as transsexuals and transgendered people. Through the act of opression, these human beings are reduced to their bodies and understood as being deviant or unhealthy. Thinking about this approach, we are all ourselves somehow reduced to our bodies. There is the seemingly simple difference between a man and a woman what we usually might just take for granted but which is really relevant considering the reduction to our bodies. In ‘Throwing Like a Girl’, Erwin Straus tries to explain ‘the remarkable difference in the manner of throwing of the two sexes’ (Straus, quoted in Young, 141). He suggests that the difference lies in the biological sense of the weaker muscle power of the girl. To him, ‘[g]irls throw in a way different from boys because girls are feminine’ (Straus, quoted in Young, 142). Young does not fully agree with this attempt; to her, the real difference lies in the experience women have with their body. But what is meant by ‘experience’ here? To Young, experience means ‘[…] an authentic representation of self’ (Young, 12). We have to have consciousness in our body, we have to differentiate between the lived body, which is the body of experience, and the objectified body of science. Objectified means that the body is meaningless and deterministic, whereas the lived body is feeling and moving and therefore not meaningless at all. What Young wants to tell us is that we have to achieve some distance of the ideological thinking of having a body. The mistake we make is that we are paying attention just to what we wish our body to do rather than to what we want and are able to do through our body. We have to work together with our body rather than see it as our burden. The most important thing we have to understand is to be our body rather than to have one. Normally, the lived body is related to its world, but the female person lives a contradiction. As Simone de Beauvoir puts it: ‘as human she is a free subject who participates in transcendence, but her situation as a woman denies her that subjectivity and 2

Young, Iris M. Throwing Like A Girl And Other Essays In Feminist Philosophy And Social Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1990, 1-159. All direct and indirect quotes are taken from this edition. 41

transcendence’ (de Beauvoir, quoted in Young, 144). The female bodily experience is far different from the male one. According to Merleau-Ponty, for the body to exist as a transcendent presence to the world and the immediate enactment of intensions, it cannot exist as an object. […] As subject, the body is referred not onto itself, but onto the world’s possibilities (Young, 150). What Merleau-Ponty called the lived body, is the ‘practical body’ for Susan Bordo. She defines the body as […] - the tactile, motile, weighted, painful, and pleasurable experience of an embodied subject; how this subject reaches out with and through this body; and how this subject feels about its embodiment (Young, 14). What she wants to say with this definition is, that, for instance, if we have a headache, it is not correct to say, that the head hurts but that we experience this pain through ourselves as embodied subjects. It is the way we deal with and through our body and how we feel about this embodiment. Feminine bodily existence is an inhibited intentionality, which simultaneously reaches toward a projected end with an “I can” and withholds its full bodily commitment to that end in a self-imposed “I cannot” (Young, 148). This is that women tend to underestimate themselves. As Young puts it: By repressing or withholding its own motile energy, feminine bodily existence frequently projects an “I can” and an “I cannot” with respect to the very same end. When the woman enters a task with inhibited intentionality, she projects the possibilities of that task – thus projects an “I can” – but projects them merely as the possibilities of “someone”, and not truly her possibilities – and thus projects an “I cannot” (Young, 149). The woman lacks self-consciousness of her body and therefore distances herself from it. She cannot live herself as a mere bodily object. She does not like her body to the degree that she does not live herself. ‘Thus, to the degree that she does not live herself as a mere body, she cannot be in unity with herself, but must take a distance from and exist in discontinuity with her body’ (Young, 154). And, as you do not like your body, you cannot like yourself and therefore may feel kind of wrong in your body. Neither is it possible for transgendered people to live their self in the ‘wrong body’. […] the body is seen as a kind of natural biologically sexed object that preexists but is affected by the workings of culture or, as some writers term it, a tabula rasa: a blank surface ready to be inscribed. It is this separation of body and culture that defines the sex-gender division. (Merleau-Ponty quoted in Young). Thus it does not necessarily mean that your gender has to be the same as your given sex. This blank surface of the body is ‘self-identical’, it depends on personality as well as on culture which gender every single human being wants to prescribe to his

42

or her body. Everyone has to take full responsibility for his or her body and everyone feels different.3 In the following, I will show this self-identical surface of the body and how it can be shaped individually in two examples. The first example is Stone Butch Blues by Leslie Feinberg.4 According to Gayle Rubin, a ‘[b]utch is the lesbian vernacular term for women who are more comfortable with masculine gender codes, styles, or identites than with feminine ones’ (Rubin, quoted in Halberstam, Female Masculinities, 133). Stone butch Jess, a very male looking woman, started to recognize in her early childhood that she was born in the wrong body and should actually be a man. But starting a queer and kind of lesbian relationship with a femme and dressing as a man, she cannot get the feeling of ‘having made it’ either. Throughout the relationship she can never be sure that she finally found the life she has so long whished for. That is when she decides to start hormone therapy. In order to survive in the world of that time she works on her body and transforms it until it gets a male shape. She looks like a man from the outward appearance, she even feels like a real man for some time. But she was never quite sure if this was the right thing and she hesitated for a long time to make this decision. To me, a woman who sees herself as a man but still has female genitals, cannot be able to fully identify herself as a man. There will always be this feeling of incompleteness. I have to admit that I am not quite sure if Jess Goldberg really feels wrong in her body. As she said, she does not feel trapped in a woman’s body, she just feels trapped. To me, she neither can identify as a woman, nor as a man. She just is not sure what to feel at all. She does not know where she belongs to, she feels somewhere in between, just wrong. She does not feel at home in her body, it is kind of a foreigner to her with which she is unable to identify. This attitude becomes obvious as she stops hormon therapy. There must be this feeling deep inside where you suddenly fear to have gone too far.5 ‘[G]ender has become a battleground at this time’, and, according to Leslie Feinberg, ‘[…] gender is a history of change and has always been determined by anomalities’ (Halberstam, Female Masculinities, 132). The gender struggle, furthermore, has a way of collapsing gender and sexuality because for gender outlaws, their gender bending is often read as the outward sign of an aberrant sexuality (Halberstam, Female Masculinities, 132). Jess is struggling with her gender and, like most stone butches, she does not give anyone the permission to touch her. She loves to touch others and for her this is the greatest thing in the world, but she does not let others touch her. One reason for this behaviour may be that she does not want to be called into the subject position of a woman. If someone touches her at her most intimate place, she would automatically be remembered of being a woman. Another reason may be that she is just unsure about her identity and gender and does not want anyone to recognize. Jess’ first sexual encounter with a woman is making love to Angie, a prostitute. Angie turns to Jess and says: ‘I just wish I could make you feel that good. You’re stone already aren’t you?’(Halberstam, Female Masculinities, 136). To Halberstam, ‘stone is a response to continual sexual abuse or challenges’ in this context. Feinberg’s novel 3

Cf. Young 1-159. Feinberg, Leslie. Stone Butch Blues. Los Angeles: Alyson Books, 2003. All direct and indirect quotes are taken from this edition. 5 Cf. Feinberg, Leslie. Stone Butch Blues. Los Angeles, California: Alyson Books, 2003. 4

43

represents stoneness ‘as a limit, a response to abuse, a wall that has been built up and could come down with the right femme, but also as a viable sexual subjectivity’ (Halberstam). It has become a life’s work for Jess to either bring down this sexual abuse or to live with her sexual subjectivity. She was always on the search for the right femme. To me, people who suffer from gender struggle, cannot change completely and behave as nothing has happened. They have to live with their sexuality as it is.6 Although Judith Butler calls gender a social construct, she emphasizes that we are not able to manipulate our gender at will. She puts it this way: A construction […] is not a kind of manipulable artifice because the subject of gender neither precedes nor follows the process of this gendering, but emerges only within and as the matrix of gender relations themselves (Butler, quoted in Halberstam, Female Masculinities, 132). The example of Bree in Transamerica is a little different in terms of gender struggle.7 According to Gayle Rubin’s view, there is a significant difference between the stone butch Jess and the transsexual character Bree. For Rubin, the division lies in the ‘[…] transsexual quest for home, a place of belonging to one sex or the other, and the transgender quest for a world without gender’ (Rubin, quoted in Halberstam, “Transgender Butch”, 219). According to this statement, the transgender person is just playing with gender and not trying to transform it. Whereas the transsexual really feels wrong in his or her body and desperately wishes to be the opposite sex.8 Bree, actually a man, who considers herself as female and passes perfectly as a woman, is diagnosed with gender dysphoria which is described as a mental illness in the movie. The discourse of ‘the wrong body’ calls transsexual embodiment ‘[…] an error of nature whereby gender identity and biological sex are not only discontinuous but catastrophically at odds’ (Halberstam, “Transgender Butch”, 208). Today, the technological availabilities of sex reassignment surgeries (SRS) make it possible for those who understand themselves tragically at odds with their body to transform their gender. Unlike Jess, the only thing Bree seems to live for is to be a woman and she is convinced that she really wants to do this last step, the surgery. To her, this mental disorder is just something which will disappear after her surgery. ‘Did you know that plastic surgery can kill a mental disorder?’ (Bree, Transamerica). I have to admit that I am not of the opinion that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. This gender struggle is something felt inside, something that has to do more with the soul and feelings rather than with the mind. The person suffering from gender struggle is just feeling in a way which is not ‘normal’ for the worlds understanding. It is a feeling not that common in society. It is always easy for doctors to call something they do not understand or they cannot identify with a mental disorder. But these persons’ brains function perfectly alright, it is only their self which is at odds and which cannot identify with itself. Bree does not feel at home in her body, she has been looking for this feeling for her whole life. She even does not get a chance to experience this feelig because she is always called into the 6

Cf. Halberstam, Judith. Female Masculinities. “Lesbian Masculinity” Durham: Duke UP, 1998. Tucker, Duncan. Transamerica. USA, 2005. 8 Cf. Halberstam. 7

44

subject position of a man, of her former life as Stanley. What I find remarkable about Bree as character is her strength and her will to go on. I think nobody is able to imagine what it is like when you are trying so hard and you are always called into this subject position again and again. Bree herself claims in the movie that she does not […]‘wanna get dragged back into Stanley’s life’ (Bree, Transamerica). Like Jess, Bree also takes hormones in order to transform her outward appearance. But hormones do not just change the body from the outside but also from the inside. They influence the psychological status as well as behaviour and feelings. Transsexuals may probably not all have the feeling of their body as being totally wrong, rather as different from what it should be like. Bree for instance sees her body as work in progress, and only her body: ‘My body might be a work in progress but there is nothing wrong with my soul’ (Bree, Transamerica). She sees her body as something she has to work on in order to complete it. For Bree, life has not started yet. The day after the surgery, Bree fears to have done the wrong thing. She has so long waited for it and now it does not turn out to be that special. Bree has seen her whole life as a body project, as a project on her own body to transform it, to shape it, to live its subjectivity. Her body is her life’s work. And now, after the surgery, as everything is complete, she does not have this project anymore, she does not have anything to work on anymore. For a moment her life seems useless.9 To me, the project on her body will always continue. She will always have to work on her feelings and emotions, on her psychology. Identity is not only the body itself. As I mentioned in the beginning, identity is the feeling that we are someone, that our self is something nobody else can transform at will or understand. It is what we are and what we make out of it. Identity may be clearer to some people than it may be to others. To talk about our identity, we try to answer the question ‘Who am I?’. But identity is not the only thing to form our personal sense of who we are. There is also the concept of subjectivity which involves or most personal feelings and thoughts. And this is where power comes in, power as a system which is difficult to resist. We are put into an identity category which we might not even like, with wich we are unable to identify because we see ourselves completely different from this category. But identity is not inate, not voluntary; power is all around us and does not just come from one side. This interacting between power and identity is like a starting point for gender trouble. We have many different selves which are all shifting and floating about. Therefore we sometimes have the feeling of being torn between all those different selves. As Anzaldúa puts it: To live in the Borderlands means you are neither hispania india negra espanñola ni gabacha, eres mestiza, mulata, half-breed caught in the crossfire between camps while carrying all five races on your back not knowing which side to turn to, run from; It means that one experiences the feeling of being trapped in an in-between and it often produces a feeling of being torn between different subject positions.10

9

Cf. Tucker, Duncan. Transamerica. USA, 2005. Anzaldúa, Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera. 1987, 216.

10

45

A lot of feminists criticize the ideological thinking of sex being a category. On the one hand, we need categories in order to describe the world and to survive in it. But on the other hand, human beings are forced into certain subject positions and cannot freely live their identity. Identity is something which has to be lived in order to be and this is not possible when it is determined by certain categories. As Elliot GraneySauke said after her performance: ‘Being female or male is a stereotype – gender is a stereotype’(Graney-Sauke). This stereoptype determines our identity, our life. It stands for something which is not even really there. How can it be possible to put all those human beings living on Earth into a category? To me, categories really have a function but not in terms of sex and gender. As identity is always changing and is contingent upon so many factors, there cannot be an exact answer to the question ‘Who am I?’. The question should more go like ‘Who am I right now?’. Therefore, it is impossible to create categories because we would need a different one for every moment in our life. And there is not just male and female, there are so many things in between. As Woolf puts it: Different though the sexes are, they intermix. In every human being a vascillation from one sex to the other takes place, and often it is only the clothes that keep the male or female likeness, while underneath the sex is the very opposite of what it is above (Woolf, 49) Gender is fluid, in every human being there is a little bit of male and a little bit of female. We always assume that women and men are completely different beings. But a woman has just more femaleness and a man more maleness, the one does not exclude the other. Gender is naturally given. It is just ourselves who try to transform our body and our gender. We constantly work on our body in order to make it look more beautiful or to just change it. Stereotypes and categories are responsible for this behaviour. We feel to have to be like a certain stereotype in order to fit into a category. We try to express our identity through the shape and appearance of our body. This is when we forget about our own inner self, when we do not know anymore what our body’s nature is really like. We ourselves have to find out what we want to be like and no stereotype should prevent us from our decision. We should see transsexuality and transgenderism more as a journey from one country to the other, from one gender to the other. These people live in the borderlands of life. In order to find their place which they can call home, ‘[…] the place in which one finally settles into the comfort of one’s true and authentic gender’(Prosser quoted in Halberstam, “Transgender Butch”), they have to cross these borders. They will always be on the search.

Bibliography: Anzaldúa, Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1999 Brumberg, Joan Jacobs (1997): “Introduction: The Body as Evidence” in Brumberg, Joan Jacobs, The Body Project. An Intimate History of American Girls. 17. Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter. On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” New York: Routledge, 1993. 46

Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1991. Butler, Judith. “Imitation and Gender Insubordination.” The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Ed. Henry Abdelove et.al. New York: Routledge, 1993. 307-320. Case, Sue-Ellen. “Towards a Butch-Femme Aesthetic.” The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Ed. Henry Abelove et.al. New York: Routledge, 1993. 294-306. “CBS News Transcript: Interwiev with Actress Felicity Huffman.” The Early Show. January 1, 2006. Feinberg, Leslie. Stone Butch Blues. Alyson Publications, Los Angeles, California: Alyson Books, 2003. Fellner, Astrid M. Class Reader “In A Different Light”. Introduction To Queer Theory. University of Vienna, 2006. Fellner, Astrid M. “Other Sexes”: Bridging Textual Borders. Die Kategorie Geschlecht im Streit der Disziplinen. Ed. Marlen Bidwell-Steiner and Karin S. Wozonig. Gendered Subject. Bd. 1. Innsbruck: Studienverlag, 2005. 90-107. Fellner, Astrid M. Queer Glossary. “In A Different Light”. Introduction To Queer Theory. SS 2006. Graney-Sauke, Elliot. Performance in class. Vienna, June 28, 2006. Halberstam, Judith. Female Masculinities. Durham: Duke UP, 1998. Nestle, Joan. “Butch-Femme Relationships: Sexual Courage in the 1950’s.” A Restricted Country. 100-109. Tucker, Duncan. Transamerica. USA, 2005. Woolf, Virginia. A Room on One’s Own. 1928. London: Penguin, 1945. Young, Iris Marion. “Throwing Like A Girl And Other Essays In Feminist Philosophy And Social Theory”. United States of America, 1990. 1-159. Zacharek, Stephanie. “Transamerica.” Movie-Review. December 2, 2005.

47

The Representation of Transsexuals in Movies and a Documentary Nikolina Durcak I.

Introduction a) Aim

Queer is in. That is the impression one might get when looking through magazines, watching TV or gong to cinemas. More and more sitcoms about homosexuality, like The L Word, Queer as Folk and Will and Grace are being produced and successfully aired; also movies like Brokeback Mountain are being celebrated by Hollywood and Europe. However, not only homosexuality is a popular topic for movies but also transsexuality. Evidence for that is the rising number of movies produced and presented with such a topic. In films like La Mala Educación by Pedro Almodóvar or Transamerica by Duncan Tucker the major character is a transsexual. Those movies try to portray transsexuals who are still mysterious and unknown to many people because there is a taboo around the subject of transsexuality in western society. Thus step by step society gets used to this theme and gets to know more about transsexuality. However, most people still know only very little about the subject matter. In the following, I want to analyze some misunderstandings and prejudices by non-transsexuals towards transsexuals by means of the representation of four transsexuals in the movies Transamerica by Duncan Tucker and Agnes und seine Brüder by Oskar Roehler and in the documentary Transfamily by Sabine Bernardi. I will give a short definition of transsexuality and descriptions of the movies and the documentary. This will be followed by an analysis in which I examine four important aspects in the life of transsexuals that are often misunderstood or problematic: gender and identity, childhood and parents, medicine, and sexuality.

b) Definition According to Ulrich Clement and Wolfgang Senf, two doctors for psychosomatic medicine, transsexuals can be defined as people who live in the consciousness of belonging to the opposite gender. They suffer from the discrepancy between their biological sex and subjective gender membership. Transsexuals are aware of their biological sex but experience it as being wrong. This discrepancy is undergone as unchangeable and doubtless. As a result of these feelings, transsexuals try to match their sex to their gender by changing their outer appearance, by adopting behavior that is typical for the opposite gender and by hormone therapy and plastic surgery.1 1

Cf. Clement, 1. 48

Wolf Eicher a specialist in gynecology defines transsexuality similarly. He states that chromosomally, anatomically, and hormonally transsexuals are consistent with their phenotypic sexual characteristics. However psychologically, they feel that their gender identity belongs to the opposite gender and therefore transsexuals go to great lengths to conform to their gender by hormonal and operative treatment. Their dearest wish is to be accepted in the role of their psychological gender by their surrounding.2 c) Film descriptions The movies Agnes und seine Brüder by Oskar Roehler 2004 and Transamerica by Duncan Tucker from 2005 deal about two male-to-female transsexuals: Agnes and Bree. Bree is a pre-operative transsexual. Transamerica follows her on the last 7 days before her sex reassignment surgery. The movie shows how she struggles with herself, with her family and her surrounding and how she finally becomes happy and satisfied with her identity after her operation. However, before she has her surgery she finds out that over 17 years ago she has fathered a son called Toby. The movie demonstrates how they get to know each other throughout a road trip from New York to Los Angeles during which Toby finally finds out the truth about Bree, his father.3 Agnes on the other hand already had her surgery. The movie Agnes und seine Brüder is a movie about her and her two brothers who are very different from each other. Hans-Jörg works as a librarian who is obsessed with sex, Werner is an ambitious married businessman who has 2 children and whose wife does not love him anymore and Agnes is a male-to-female transsexual who works as a dancer and suffers from an unfulfilled love. She is a post-operative transsexual who used to be Martin and had relationships with men and women. At the beginning of the movie she is in a relationship with Rudi who works full time and is unsatisfied about Agnes’ lifestyle. During the movie the viewer finds out that she is still suffering from the break up of a relationship with the fashion designer Henry who she used to be with before her surgery. In the end of the movie she dies; probably as a result of the surgery.4 The documentary Transfamily by Sabine Bernardi from the year 2005, on the other hand, deals with two male-to-female transsexuals from Germany, Louis and Carsten. It portrays and interviews them not only about transsexuality and their personal transition but also about their childhood, parents, sexuality and homosexuality.5 II.

Analysis a) Gender & Identity

Transsexuals feel trapped in the wrong body. They are unsatisfied with their biological sex and the way they are seen and treated by society. They want to be a fully respected member of the opposite sex. However, often they are suppressed by their social surrounding, their parents, their teachers, and neighbors who are unsure of how they should treat transsexuals and give them the feeling of being unusual and 2

Cf. Eicher, 17. Cf. Transamerica. 4 Cf. Agnes und seine Brüder 5 Cf. Transfamily 3

49

odd; in their eyes transsexuals do not fit into the gender categories: “boy” or “girl”. According to Bornstein, this behavior is called “Gender Attribution”. Gender Attribution is the way we categorize people we meet. We all automatically put a label onto people we see – we wonder: Is this a girl or a boy? ‘We attribute a gender to someone based on an intricate system of cues, varying from culture to culture’ (Bornstein, 28).6 The female-to-male transsexual Carsten from Transfamily did not understand why it is so important for society to have a specific gender: girl or boy when he was a child. He could never get used to it.7 Gender is real easy to sum up in one word: categorization. Anything that categorizes people is gender, whether it’s appearance or mannerisms, biology or psychology, hormones, roles, genitals, whatever: if we’re trying to categorize or separate people out, it’s gender. (Bornstein, 26) We are all put into gender categories which we do not necessarily choose; they are given to us even if we do not like them. We are put into a subject position. Thus transsexuals feel as if they were put into the wrong category and into the wrong body. Bornstein analyzes four different aspects of gender in her book My Gender Workbook: Gender Assignment, Gender Role, Gender Identity and Gender Attribution, as already mentioned. ‘Gender Assignment answers the question, “What do the authorities say I am?”’ This means that authorities like doctors determine what gender we have by diagnosing our biological sex even before we are born. Such a handling of the question of gender demonstrates that gender is only a label that is put onto us by other people. This results in “Gender Role” which ‘… answers the question, “What does the culture think I should do with my life?” (Bornstein, 28). Most people are strong influenced by Gender Assignment and Gender Role, thus they do not even challenge their Gender Identity. ‘Gender Identity answers the question, “Am I a man or a woman or something entirely else?”’. However, identity is very private and therefore cannot be determined by our social surrounding. ‘It’s what we feel our gender to be at any given moment’.8 In his youth Carsten personally neither defined himself as “woman” nor as “man”. He did not feel the need for it.9 Gender is a kind of imitation for which there is no original: in fact it is a kind of imitation that produces the very notion of the original as an effect and consequence of the imitation itself. (Butler, 313) The idea of an original is an illusion. There is no “original” woman or man. We keep imitating the image of the original that we have in our minds and that is given to us by society and discourse. However, many non-transsexuals think of themselves as the “original”, the “normal”. Thus transsexuals who dress like the opposite in order to imitate that gender do not copy, because there has to be an original in order to copy from it. In consequence, gender is something that is put upon us, accepted by most of us and learnt so well that is seems “natural”. According to Butler, this process is an on-going process that forms gender and identity. It has to be repeated over and over 6

Cf. Bornstein, 28. Cf. Transfamily 8 Cf. Bornstein, 28. 9 Cf. Transfamily 7

50

again in order to maintain. That is to say, most people think gender is predetermined but if gender is something learnt and adopted by all people, it is also possible for biological girls to adopt male gender, and vice versa.10 b) Childhood & Parents Many transsexuals usually had a difficult childhood. They feel that they are not like other children, because they feel uncomfortable with their given gender. However, often they do not exactly know why they feel uncomfortable in specific clothes or doing gender-specified things, like playing with dolls. Children do not understand that there is a system that puts labels on us, and categorizes us – but many transsexual children already suffer early in their childhood from the web of discourses that puts them into a category they do not wish to be in. Numerous already feel that they belong to the opposite gender in their childhood. A typical example is that some transsexual children like to dress in their mother’s or sister’s clothes. Of course, the fact that boys play with dolls and girls play with balls is surely no indication for a transsexual identity; it does not automatically lead to transsexuality. However, if children feel a permanent wish to be in the body of the opposite sex or feel like the opposite gender this might be a sign for transsexuality. Sadly such kids get teased and are called “Sissies” for feminine seemingly boys and “Tomboy” for boyish girls11. They suffer from such treatment and often rather play alone. The male-to-female transsexual Louis from Transfamily already knew that something was “wrong” with him when he was around 4- 6. He could not explain his feelings: he always felt uncomfortable and hated to wear dresses and skirts. He states that he did not tell anyone about his feelings but still everyone knew that something differentiated him from other girls, nevertheless everyone kept silent; no one tried to help or support him in finding his true identity. Carsten, on the other hand, never defined himself as “girl” or “boy” like other children do. He did not feel the need for it, but he realized his difference; he used to be a loner similar to many other transsexual children.12 For many parents it is very difficult to deal with their transsexual child. The first conspicuity parents often notice is the unusual behavior. They are irritated when their child shows sign of the behavior of the opposite sex but they normally do not act until the child starts to regularly dress in the way the opposite sex does13. Resulting reactions are very varying. Some parents understand their child and try to support it; other parents try to ignore changes and do not show any respect. Agnes and Carsten’s parents seem to have understood the situation their children were in. Carsten’s parents did not force him to play with toys that are typically associated with girls, neither with toys for boys. They never enjoined him to act or behave like society expects girls to behave. 14 Agnes seems to have a little more complicated relationship with her father. They treat each other friendly and respectfully. In the few scenes where Agnes’ father is mentioned or shown the topic of transsexuality never comes up. It is not shown whether her father calls her Agnes or Martin or whether he still sees him as a 10

Cf. Brook, 14. Cf. Runte, 214. 12 Cf. Transfamily. 13 Cf. Eppstein, 22. 14 Cf. Transfamily. 11

51

boy, because he calls her “Mein Kind”. Regarding Agnes’ transsexuality they give the impression to have a relaxed relationship.15 Louis and Bree on the other hand have to struggle with their parents a lot. Louis’ parents kept silent about his behavior. They ignored the changes and differences that they must have noticed about Louis. He lived for 42 years in the body of a woman and when he finally decided to take hormones and have a breast surgery he tried to be considerate of his parents and grandparents. They probably did not support him. Also Bree seems to have a bad relationship with her parents. In the interview with a psychologist at the beginning of the movie she actually denies that her parents are still alive. She probably does so because her parents do not show respect for her. Her mother says she accepts her but does not respect her. Her father is less emotional about Bree’s transition than her mother. But both still see their child as “Stanley”, rather than “Bree”. 16 The two movies and Transfamily show that parents’ reaction to the transsexuality of their child can vary. Although they may love their child many parents still cannot deal with it. They may be influenced too strongly by society and might not understand why their child does not feel comfortable in its body and how it feels about its gender. c) Medicine In respect to medicine transsexuality is a serious mental disorder. It is associated with the feeling of being in the “wrong body” – this ‘describes transsexuality as an error of nature in which gender identity and the biological sex are at odds’ (Halberstam, 143). According to the WHO and the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, specific criteria have to be fulfilled to be classified as transsexual. Some of those are the desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, the presence of the transsexual identity for at least two years and no other mental disorders.17 People who are officially classified as transsexuals may undergo sex reassignment surgery. That is to say, that when someone has doubts about his gender identity, this person is, according to medicine, mentally ill. Doctors do not agree to theories that gender is only a label that is put onto us against our personal will and that therefore is does not have to match our biological sex. There are two forms of transsexual transition: female to male and male to female. The female-to-male transition is the transition from a biological woman to a man. The reassignment surgery is not widely spread because the process of such a sex change and the completing of it are uncertain, very complicated and expensive. Many transsexuals who want to become a man simply cannot afford a full reassignment surgery and so they stay in between, they live and die in inhospitable territories in between. Some actually pass as a man when they are fully dressed but have bodies that are totally ambiguous underneath.18 In Transfamily Carsten and Louis explain that many FTM transsexuals start their transition by taking hormones before they ask for a name change. They keep taking hormones regularly in the course of a therapy. Many then decide to have a breast surgery in which their breasts are being reduced. Louis states that breasts are 15

Cf. Agnes und seine Brüder. Cf. Transamerica. 17 Cf. WHO, 163. 18 Cf. Halberstam, 163-164 16

52

the worst thing female-to-male transsexuals suffer from – once they are reduced many transsexual feel relieved. Different from MTF transsexuals, FTM transsexuals are not obliged to have a sex reassignment surgery because the results of such an operation are not satisfying, yet. As transsexuals have to take hormones they experience a second puberty. In Carsten’s case his voice lowered and facial hair started to grow – just like a regular boy’s puberty. Most people in his surrounding were confused about his transition. Thereupon there was a lot of gossip about him. However, mostly there is gossip about transsexuals even before they start a hormone therapy. Louis explains that he could not stand the gossip about whether he is a man or a woman anymore and had arrived at a decision to either start taking hormones or commit suicide. He decided to start the transition to become a man.19 Comparing sex reassignment surgery for female-to-male with the one for male-to-female clearly male-to-female transsexuals have an advantage. This is the situation the pre-operative transsexual Bree from Transamerica is in. In one of the first film scenes Bree is asked about her medical procedure so far. Among other medical treatments she received she also mentions hormone therapy and facial surgery. She has to do this psychological examination like all other preoperative transsexuals who want a sex change to get permission for a surgery. 20 Bree desperately wants to blend in. She tries really hard and cannot stand it when people ask themselves if she is a man or a woman. She is hurt by such comments. Agnes, on the other hand, already had her sex reassignment surgery – she is a post-operative transsexual. In one important scene of Agnes und seine Brüder she goes to a doctor’s office to ask about her examination results. When the nurse tells her that the doctor wants to speak to her as her results are not good, Agnes is shocked and leaves. The movie does not explain what problems she has but it becomes clear that they are serious. In one of the final scenes when her brother Hans-Jörg meets her she does not feel good – blood is dropping down her legs. In the end of the movie she lays in a bed, ready to die. She dies with a vision of a laughing girl running over a field of grass in her mind. 21 Agnes und seine Brüder makes clear that a sex reassignment surgery is a serious operation and does not always turn out well. In Agnes case she even dies. d) Sexuality Gender and sex are two distinct phenomena working in any given culture as well as in and on our minds. Gender and sex obviously influence who we are and how we relate to others. The weird thing is that the concepts referred to by both words tend to get jammed into “sex” as in “What sex do you think that person across the street is?” Or “I think we all need to take responsibility for safer sex in this day and age.” (Bornstein, 26) Most people misunderstand the term “transsexual” and associate it with sexual desire. This might be due to related terms like “homosexuality” which express a certain sexual desire; transsexuality, however, refers to the desire of changing one’s 19

Cf. Transfamily Cf. Transamerica. 21 Cf. Agnes und seine Brüder. 20

53

biological sex and gender. Such confusions lead to uncomfortable situations and comments that Carsten for example had to experience. He has been in a relationship with a man for over 4 years. The documentary shows how they move together. The fact that he is attracted by men left many people in his surrounding confused and they asked questions like why he changed his sex if he wants to be with men anyway. Carsten always felt like a man, his gender has always been male and in order to feel good in his body he takes hormones and had a plastic surgery. He is a transsexual that feels like a homosexual man. Such comments show that most people do not understand the intention of people who wish for a sex change. Transsexuality has little or nothing to do with sexuality. Transsexuals do not feel comfortable in their body and gender. Louis on the other hand is in a relationship with a woman. Transfamily shows how they are getting married. For Christina, Louis’ partner, Louis has always been a man – a man with a female first name. While sexuality does not seem to play a big role in Bree’s life, it does very much in Agnes’ life. She is in a relationship with a man, Rudi. They have been a couple for over 2 years. Agnes und seine Brüder shows how they split up. Rudi is portrayed as a typical husband that goes to work in the morning and wants his dinner and beer in the evening. Accordingly, Rudi expects Agnes to play the role of a typical housewife that makes dinner – Agnes cannot fulfill this expectations. She wants to work and earn money and is sorry that she cannot be that perfect housewife for him. Rudi is jealous about her working as a dancer in night clubs. He cannot deal with his jealousy and throws her out of his apartment. Thus, Agnes und seine Brüder portrays a typical role play of heterosexual non-transsexuals performed by a couple with a transsexual. Agnes is put into a subject position by Rudi’s expectations. In the course of the film Agnes’ sexual background becomes clearer. Long before she had her surgery she used to be with a woman who has a child from her. After this relationship she dated Henry, a homosexual fashion designer from New York. She was in a relationship with him as Martin, a man. 22 … it is not possible to derive or read off a sexuality from any given gender presentation. (Butler, 315) Louis, Carsten, Bree and Agnes are all transsexuals and still they all feel completely different about their sexuality. This and Butler’s statement demonstrate that sexuality is not a matter of gender; neither for transsexuals nor for people who feel comfortable with their biological sex and gender. III.

Conclusion

Transsexuality is a complicated topic. Few people understand what intention transsexuals have; most people are confused and irritated by them. Society still has to learn a lot about transsexuals, their aims, wishes and fears. However, by the confusion and lack of understanding of most people lives of transsexuals are being complicated even more than they already are. Maybe movies like Agnes und seine Brüder and Transamerica and documentaries like Transfamily will see to it that more

22

Cf. Agnes und seine Brüder 54

people understand the view of transsexuals on topics like gender and identity, childhood and parenthood, medicine and sexuality.

IV.

Bibliography

Agnes und seine Brüder. Roehler, Oskar. Roehler, Oskar. Germany: X Filme Creative Pool, 2004. Transamerica. Tucker, Duncan. Tucker, Duncan. USA: The Weinstein’s Company, 2005. Transfamily. Bernardi, Sabine. Bernardi, Sabine. Germany: Internationale Filmschule Köln, 2005. Bornstein, Kate. My gender workbook: how to become a real man, a real woman, the real you, or something else entirely. New York: Routledge, 1998. Brook, Barbara. Feminist Perspectives on the Body. London: Longman, 1999. Butler, Judith: “Imitation and Gender Insubordination.” The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Ed. Henry Abelove et.at. New York: Routledge, 1993. 3007-320. Clement, Ulrich. Transsexualität: Behandlung und Begutachtung; mit 11 Tabellen. Stuttgart: Schattauer, 1996. Eicher, Wolf. Transsexualismus. Stuttgart-Jena-New York: Urban & Fischer Bei Elsevier, 1992. Epstein, Julia. Kleidung im Leben transsexueller Menschen: die Bedeutung von Kleidung für den Wechsel der Geschlechterrolle. Münster/New York: Waxmann, 1995. Halberstam, Judith. “Transgender Butch” in: Female Masculinities. Durham: Duke UP, 1998. Runte, Annette. Biographische Operationen: Diskurse der Transsexualität. München: Fink, 1996. World Health Organization. The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders Diagnostic Criteria for research. Geneva, 1993. WHO 3 July 2005 < http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf >

55

Paris is Burning: An Analysis of the Issue of Race Julia Gundacker Preface Before I start writing about my actual topic, I want to put emphasis on why I have chosen this topic, which background literature I have used and how I will structure this paper. Right at the beginning, I want to state the reasons for my choice of topic. It was very difficult to find a topic, where one cannot only find background literature and information, but which, additionally, is “queer enough” to fit in this kind of project. Thus, I took the material collected for my presentation and searched for additional information. My paper is fundamentally based on bell hooks’ article “Is Paris Burning?” and on Judith Butler’s article “Gender is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion” on Jenny Livingston’s documentary Paris is Burning. In addition to these articles, I have used sources and articles from the internet to complete, illustrate, compare and evaluate certain claims in hooks’ and Butler’s article. Hence, this is the way how this paper will be structured.

1. Introduction In this paper, I will deal with racial differences in general and in queer groups. The main focus will be put on Paris is Burning, a documentary from the 80s by a “white” filmmaker called Jenny Livingston which is about black and Latino drag queens in New York City. 1.1. Racial differences This paper concentrates on the issue of race. Racial differences have always been a problem around people and it seems that no generation and no society can ever get rid of them. No group has succeeded in eliminating the importance of racial difference, or at least accept differences as differences, but do not make them to problems. It have always been an issue to be black in the United States. To put in into other words, there have always been discussions on what it means to be black. To be black means to a great number of different people from a different cultural heritage to be different. In other words, in stereotypical words, many people, think that black people do not fit into the white, patriarchal society. People might expect that after the human rights movements in the sixties, people have stopped discriminating against blacks, and that there exists no difference between the races anymore. Of course, this is not true. There will always be racial difference, but it could be that this difference is more obvious to the blacks themselves than to white people. 56

1.2. Gender differences Black people have been treated differently until now. Thus, imagine one is black and gay. This means that one even does not fit into the heterosexual norm and is therefore oppressed in multiple ways. Gay people in the US and many other countries receive certain treatments which is unbelievable and barbaric. For instance, in Laramie, Wyoming, a young, male homosexual was killed in a brutal way, and the whole town refused to take responsibility. Highly respected people, like priests and people of leaderships, were not sorry for the committed crime. Some priests even held the view that it deserved him right, because he was gay and acted against the will of God.1 This example shows that being gay requires the belonging to a certain group. In general, one can say that human beings tend to have the desire to belong to categories. If one belongs to a certain subculture or even a minority, does this demand for a belonging to somebody or something? Does being gay and black mean that one has an even stronger desire to be a member of a certain group, and to share experiences and feelings? Black homosexuals belong to a certain subculture. But, to which group do black gays belong to, where do they fit in, and which problems do they have to face?

2. Paris is Burning2 Paris is Burning is a documentary movie by a “white” filmmaker called Jenny Livingston. I always consciously use quotation marks around the word “white” when I refer to Jenny Livingston as a filmmaker, because I want to put emphasis on her skin color. As it will be discussed later on in this paper, her skin color seems to be important for many critics, either with positive or negative connotations. Paris is Burning was filmed in New York City between 1987 and 1989. As I have mentioned above, it is a documentary movie about black or Latino drag queens in New York, who can only find to themselves when they are somebody else. They live for the drag balls and their community in which they are in. The balls are self-organized dancing and custom competitions, where they can do whatever is enjoyable. The film received a lot of criticism, but also gained lots of honor and a great number of watchers. 2.1. About Jenny Livingston 3 Jenny Livingston was born in Los Angeles, California, on February 24 in 1962, and she was raised up there as well. Livingston graduated from Yale and before becoming a filmmaker, she was working as a photographer in New York. As a photographer in New York City, she went to her first drag ball in 1985. Although she enjoyed her profession as photographer, she wanted to put the images that ‘challenged conventional ideas of gender, race and class’ on screen, and make a documentary about these drag balls (Mondo Video).

1

See Kaufmann, The Laramie Project. See Yum Yum, Paris is Burning. 3 See Mondo Video, Jenny Livingston: Paris is Burning. 2

57

But without financial support she was not able to fulfill the idea of producing a movie about drag balls, and thus she was looking for some sponsors. It took her two years to raise the funds to produce Paris is Burning, and it required two more years to ‘find money to edit the seventy hours of footage’ (Mondo Video). Livingston worked extremely hard to make this idea of a film reality. She was not only attracted by the strength and spirit of the people she met at the balls, but also with the visual qualities of these drag balls. On the one hand, the film is in part an indictment of a consumer culture that promotes dissatisfaction, but, on the other hand, Livingston thinks of the actors, who are people who walked in the balls, as people, who have a sense of perspective about their on and off stage roles. Livingston started to work on this project in 1987. Since then, the balls have changed their locations, meaning moving out of the underground of Harlem to downtown. From that time on, the mainstream middle class people started to come to the balls to watch the blacks and Latinos performing. Livingston feared, when filming the epilogue in 1989, that a ‘cross-over thing’ that happened could ruin the balls. But she did not had the impression that it ruined them. In the last years, Livingston has introduced Paris is Burning to many film festivals, spread out in the whole world. In every country, she received a great audience watching and responding to it. Livingston refers to herself as “lucky”, because Paris is Burning was her first film and she has never went to film schools. 2.2. About the film4 It is a movie about race, class and sexual orientation. The leading actors and actresses of the film are either black or Latin American drag queens or transsexuals. Since it is a documentary movie, every actor or actress represents his or her own attitudes. It is not a film, where one can step out or step in into his or her role, but it is a film which shows how the life of these people really were. The participants are Dorian Corey, Willi Ninja, Pepper Labeija, Kim Pendavis, Freddie Pendavis, Octavia Saint Laurent, Angie Xtravaganza, Venus Xtravaganza. Dorian Corey, who is the speaker of the film, states: ‘If you're a gay, black or Latino male in a straight, white man's world -- that is all ye need to know’ (Paris is Burning). Indeed, the film shows how difficult life was/is for a subculture like they were. All the people performing in a ball were gay men of color who wanted to be somebody else to fulfill their dreams. It is interesting that the drag queens always represented white stereotypical people. The more real the drag queens looked like the better grades they received in the competitions. There are several different houses, which competed against each other. The houses were the compensation for their own families, because many of them were rejected by them, only because of their gayness. Hence, there existed a “mother” and a “father” in each of the houses. The older drag queens or transsexual were called the legends and the up-and coming were called children.

4

See Davis, Paris is Burning. 58

3. Criticism of Paris is Burning and Jenny Livingston Paris is Burning deals with an often/highly disputed topic. People from different cultural backgrounds, classes and especially races and skin colors either criticize the film or praise it. One can also read a lot of positive critiques about it, and one hears people complaining about the message of the movie. In this paper, I will concentrate on critiques from two feminist theorists namely bell hooks and Judith Butler. I will focus on hooks’ article “Is Paris Burning” and on Butler’s article “Gender is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion”. In general, one can say that hooks criticizes Paris is Burning. She criticizes the way people of color are represented, and especially, that a “white” and not a black had made “such” a film. Butler, on the other hand, criticizes hooks, and her criticism of Livingston. 3.1. About bell hooks5 hooks was born as Gloria Watkins in Hopkinsville, Kentucky in 1952. She received her B.A. from Stanford University in 1973, three years later her M.A. from University of Wisconsin and her Ph.D. in 1983 from the University of California, Santa Cruz. Since 1994 she has been a distinguished professor of English at City College in New York. In my opinion, what everybody notices at first sight is that Gloria Watkins’ pseudonym bell hooks is written with small letters. The reasons therefore are, one the one hand she wants to honor her grandmother, a native American whose name she took, and on the other hand, her mother, who provided her ‘the opportunity to establish a separate voice from the person Gloria Watson’ (University of Miami). Hooks prefers the lower-case spelling because she wants to make point out that the substance in her books is important and not the person who is writing it. Hooks is well-known as a feminist and activist thinker. Nonetheless, her books and articles cover a broad range on gender, race, culture and teaching. Hooks is in the belief that these topics mentioned above cannot be dealt with separately. All these topics are interconnected and related, and therefore one has to focus on all of them. Bell hooks loves to teach, because she thinks that it is performative and activating. She speaks of herself as a “black woman, intellectual, revolutionary activist” (Nay). 3.2. About Judith Butler6 There is so much to say about Butler. Hence, I will try to sum up the most important facts for the understanding of her writings and criticism. She is American, white, Jewish, intellectual and a lesbian since she was fourteen. Judith Butler was born in Cleveland, Ohio in 1956. She received her Ph.D. in Philosophy from Yale University in 1984. Butler, now, is Professor of Comparative Literature and Rhetoric at the University of California, Berkley. She is well-known as a ‘theorist of power, gender, sexuality and identity’ (Gauntlett).

5

Biographical information on bell hooks is taken from Nay, “Bell’s Bio” and from University of Miami, “bell hooks.” 6 Biographical information on Judith Butler is taken from Gauntlett, “Judith Butler” and from Soylent Communications, “Judith Butler.“ 59

3.3. Criticism of hooks and on hooks bell hooks always emphasizes that she is black. For her being black is completely different from being white. As one probably soon recognize while watching Paris is Burning is that all people that occur in the film are black, either Latinos or African American. For hooks it is unbelievable how a “young, white filmmaker”, how she often refers to Livingston in her article, could have made a film about black gay drag ball culture. She criticizes that ‘in many ways, the film was a graphic documentary portrait of the way in which colonized black people […] worship at the throne of whiteness,’ (hooks, 149). Hooks claims that ‘within the world of black gay drag ball culture […] the idea of womanness and femininity is totally personified by whiteness’ (hooks, 147). For example, whenever we see visual representations of womanhood in the film (like, images and pictures torn from magazines and posted on the walls, they are with rare exceptions of white model woman, like Marilyn Monroe. In a lot of interviews the drag queens mentioned the desire to be big stars. They always wanted to be in the position of the ruling class woman, the white woman, this means they always had the desire to act in partnership with the ruling class white male, although that this white male patriarch was as figure never visible in the film. I was confused that on the one hand, the drag queens were, to some extent, against the whites and the white ruler ship, but on the other hand, they always had the desire to be white, like for example in the competitions one target was to look like a real man. And, what they considered as “real” was to be white and straight. So, why did they want to be white? Only because they wanted to be accepted? Hooks mentions in her article that she had watched the film with a “black woman friend” (hooks 154). To my mind, she really wanted to stress that she had watched the film with an other black woman, and not with only another friend. This shows again how important it is for her to put emphasis on the difference between black and white. Furthermore, she claims that she and her black woman friend, were shocked about the reaction of “white folks” around them, while watching the film. (For example, she said that they were entertained by scenes which she and this “black woman friend” found very sad. She did not say some white folks. No, she only said “white folks”. Hence, I do not understand, whether she meant that no whites will ever be possible to understand the tragic in some scenes, or only some folks around her. Again I was confused about, whether one can generalize that a white can never have insight into a black’s life. Thus, is it then the other way round? Or can blacks have insight into a white’s life? In my opinion, Judith Butler, to some extent, criticizes hooks’ viewpoints on specific aspects. As I mentioned before, hooks reduces the filmmaker Jenny Livingston to a “young, white, lesbian”. Butler on the other hand calls her no only a “white filmmaker”, but a ‘white Jewish lesbian from Yale’ (Butler, 133). Thus, does this mean that Judith Butler contradicts hooks point of view, namely that Livingston’s approaches her subject matter as outsider looking in? This means, that the film can be perceived from two different viewpoints. One can either agree with hooks that a white person can never make a "good"/ sufficient film about blacks, or one can agree 60

with Butler that Livingston is looking at the drag community from an outsider's perspective and that hooks criticism is therefore invalid.

4. Personal opinion on hooks’ and Butler’s criticism “Is Paris Burning?” was the first article I have ever read by hooks, and I have not known anything of her before. While reading the article, I asked myself whether the writer, namely bell hooks, saw the same movie as I did. After I had watched the film the first time I had so many questions, and I thought about so many things that occurred or were said by somebody in the movie. Although, I thought about the intention of the filmmaker, I had not thought about his or her skin color. I do not agree with hooks that a white can never make a good/ sufficient film about blacks. To my mind, what is more important than race, when making a film of that kind, is to have the right attitude, knowledge, feelings and intention. By saying this, I do not mean that race is not important; I only want to stress that it is not as important for me as it is to hooks. But, I do not know what it means to be black in general, and what it means or meant to be black in the United States. I would be interested what hooks reaction would be, if there was a film about white drag queens and a black filmmaker. Does she think that blacks can never have insight into a white’s life as well? I like what Judith Butler tried to convey in her article, namely that she reduces Livingston not only to her skin color. Livingston is more than white. She is a ‘white Jewish lesbian from Yale’. Jenny Livingston is not black, and that is “the” reason for hooks to criticize her for making this film. To my mind, one does not always and necessarily have to belong to a special sub-culture or minority, but nonetheless can talk about it and get insight into their lives. Judith Butler mentioned that Livingston looked at the drag community from an outsider’s perspective. Since she looked at them from an outsider’s perspective, her reproduction is more objective and therefore more reliable. After reading hooks first article, I immediately read more of her writings. I ,to some extent, began to understand certain viewpoints concerning race. When, for instance, a “white woman” decades ago wrote or said in a speech, “We women….”, than black women felt excluded. Thus, one the one hand, I understand that hooks wants to differentiate white women from black woman. She wants to show black woman, that although they belong or belonged to a certain sub-culture and not to the white patriarchal norm, they can reach everything white women can achieve. But, on the other hand, I do not think that it is a step forward to distinguish black women from white women, because if she differentiates them, then she emphasizes a difference, where no difference should be. A woman is a woman, everybody is the same, or everybody is different, but definitely, everybody is queer.

5. Conclusion While I was writing this paper, I received more and more insight into the topic. I have never thought about “this extent” of difference between black and white before. 61

I was not aware of the fact that, according to hooks, one has different perceptions of feelings. I started to think critical about the issue in general and about the criticism the film received. Sometimes I agreed with critics, but sometimes I completely disagreed and was not able to see their point. The confusion, which was expected to be solved, became worse, but for me it is a better to finish the paper confused than the other way round. In my opinion, to stop working on a specific issue means to stop with critical thinking. Looking back at my topic, the most interesting question I concentrated on was:  What connects two people more, either, their race, or, their gayness?  Whom does, for example, a black gay drag queen “understand” more, or with whom does s/he identify? A white drag queen, or a black straight man? The question of which identification to privilege is impossible in the first place. Identity categories are interconnected and of equal importance. At certain times being gay is more important than being black, but identity is made up of different subject positions which cannot and should not be seen in a hierarchical order. This is a position that Butler advances. She never says that gender or sexual orientation should be viewed without race. hooks, however, has a more essentialist approach and would like to have race the privileged category. I want to conclude my paper with a quote from Butler: …the argument that the category of “sex” is the instrument or effect of “sexism” or its interpellating moment, that “race” is the instrument and the effect of “racism” or its interpellating moment, that “gender” only exists in the service of heterosexism, does not entail that we ought never to make use of such terms could only and always reconsolidate the oppressive regimes of power by which they are spawned.

62

Bibliography Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of 'Sex'. New York. Routledge. 1993. Davis, Steve. “Paris is Burning” Austin Chronicle Corporation. 2006. 12 June 2006 http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Calendar/Film?Film=oid%3A13958 6 Gauntlett David. Media, Gender, Identity Resources. “Judith Butler”. 12 June 2006 http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-butl.htm hooks, bell. “Is Paris Burning?” Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston, MA. South End Press. 1992. Kaufmann, Moises. The Laramie Project. New York. Vintage Books. 2001. Livingston, Jennie. Paris is Burning. Los Angeles. Off White Productions. Distributed by Orion Home Video. 1992. Mondo Video. 2006. “Jenny Livingston Paris is Burning”. 12 June 2006 http://mondofausto.com/interview-jenylivingston.htm Nay, Grita. Bell’s Bio. 12 June 2006 http://www.allaboutbell.com/ Soylent Communications. 2006. “Judith Butler”.12 June 2006 http://www.nndb.com/people/639/000095354/ University of Miami, School of Education. 2006. “bell hooks”. 12 June 2006 http://www.education.miami.edu/ep/contemporaryed/Bell_Hooks/bell_hooks.ht ml Yum Yum Video. 2004. „Paris is Burning“ 12. June 2006 http://www.film.at/paris_is_burning/detail.html?cc_detailpage=full

63

TITANIC WITH COWBOYS AND A GENE CALLED X

QUEER MAINSTREAM CINEMA IN 21st CENTURY HOLLYWOOD Leonard Dworschak Slouched in my seat in the back of a cinema, I listen to the awkward laughs of the surrounding co-audience, laughs that puncture the constant background country music tunes quite frequently, aroused by anything – be it motion or word – potentially (homo)sexual passing between actors Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal … or so it seems. Trying to remain focused on the film, I start wondering what all these people came here for, and I am sure they came to watch a film that haunted the media like no one else in recent past, their motivation being politically induced and beguiled by the myth of a queer (yet mainstream) Hollywood. I will offer a look at this mystified place by examining Brokeback Mountain (released in 2005) and the films of the X-Men trilogy (released between 2000 and 2006), focusing on in how far they might be considered political, in how far they might have a queer agenda. I will show that this agenda exists, if only in a trimmed version to fit mainstream Hollywood’s needs. 1) COWBOYS Ten minutes into Brokeback and it has become obvious it is the kind of movie girlfriends drag you into (not willing to watch the latest Stallone or Schwarzenegger), i.e. a romance. The respective (defining) elements are easily identified and recognized: forbidden love, secret passion, pretensions, intrigues, struggles and, of course, obstacles, difficulties and hindrances – in this case not a class fight or a fatal disease, nor Shakespearian old grudge breaking to new mutiny, no, this time it’s conservative US-heartland in the 1960s and 70s and the impossibility of an open (out-of-the-closet) relationship between two men in this place at that time. It’s Brokeback Mountain; it’s the film about the gay cowboys. Queerness is probably the best thing that could happen to Hollywood, not only making for a plethora of stereotypes to exploit, but also adding a new dimension to, a way of enhancing the classic suffering rebel-outcast-hero audiences grew so fond of and were so overfed with. At a time when the repetitive schemes of mainstream cinema have become more tortuous than entertaining, difference sells as well as sex, and nothing, it seems, is capable of merging these two as well as queerness does … queerness, the easy remedy for lack of ideas, (beyond token gay guys and clichéprone sitcom faggots) has in fact become common paraphernalia of narrative. Hence two men kissing each other, having sex with each other and loving each other on screen might still be considered queer, but in the 21st century and not – by far! – being a first-seen, it does not make Brokeback political … a Texan Republican in the White House and his war against Iraq are more likely to do that. Brokeback Mountain is not political, whereas the film about the gay cowboys is. 64

According to Manohla Dargis the film offers ‘a devastating look at masculinity and its discontents’ (Dargis, masculinity) [emphasis in the original] and tackles the popular cowboy myth US-America and its Hollywood still thrive on. Annie Proulx, writer of the short story Brokeback Mountain from which the movie was adapted, referred to it as ‘one of a number of stories examining rural Western social situations’ in an interview in Planet Jackson Hole, a Wyoming newspaper, in July 2005. She also pointed out that the film ‘resembles the written story very closely’, that ‘the material was strong and risky’ and said she knew the story would be considered controversial.1 Furthermore, Proulx vigorously refused to label the main characters as cowboys or gay: […] it is NOT a story about “two cowboys.” It is a story about two inarticulate, confused Wyoming ranch kids in 1963 who have left home and who find themselves in a personal sexual situation they did not expect, understand, nor can manage. […] both are beguiled by the cowboy myth, as are most people who live in the state. (Testa) [emphasis in the original]

This cowboy myth, ‘a myth shaped as much by Hollywood as history’, as Dargis put it, does not only beguile Wyoming ranch kids, it also left a deep and lasting impression on the rest of the world. Think of it as teeth marks. Think of the US seen as a country of cowboys and GI’s, John Wayne’s and General Custer’s; a country famous for and represented by its most popular exports. Think of it as a corporate image. US-Americans are known as fearless adventurers and fierce fighters whose mentality is not one of backing off. At times when they are most unloved and criticized, as history has shown, they are even more eager to hold the line … and keep it straight. In this regard, with a US-American government in urgent need to be backed up, desperately trying to believe in their self-image, in righteous deeds and noble intentions, Brokeback Mountain simply cannot help being political for it undermines and puts at threat (trademark) US-American core values by queering the cowboy myth. Still, the film is a romance. That it is also a study of rural US social environments in the 1960s and 70s and a comment on the notion of masculinity in general, just proves it was greatly written. That it was produced at a time when queerness has become prime-timeable and remarkably present in the box-office-charts and, moreover, at a time when the US-American image is in a crisis, just proves it was cleverly marketed. It is important to bear in mind that, despite its low production costs of only 14 million US-dollars,2 Brokeback is mainstream cinema, meaning that it aims at making money rather than making a point. The film does not have an explicit gay and lesbian rights agenda, it is neither plea nor cry for tolerance. Nonetheless, as Proulx recalled in the PJH-interview, ‘Hollywood was afraid of the script as were many actors and agents.’ Her short story was first published in 1997, almost exactly a year before gay college student Matthew Shepard was beaten to death in Laramie, Wyoming.3 Certainly the film would have been different had it been realized and released in the wake of this tragic event, it would probably have been independently produced, lacking top cast as well as top promotion; it would definitely have been a queer film, a statement and therefore likely to have failed, the way Judith Halberstam suggested:

1

Cf. Testa Cf. Lumenick 3 Cf. Testa 2

65

Many gay and lesbian films represent their characters and their struggles as “universal” as a way of suggesting that their film speaks to the audience beyond specific gay and lesbian audiences. But few do more than submit to the regulation of narrative that transforms the specific into the universal: they tell stories of love, redemption, family, and struggle that look exactly like every other Hollywood feature angling for a big audience. (Halberstam, 94)

Brokeback is universal in a manner defying categorization. It is not a gay and lesbian film and is not intended to be, instead it is a declared non-statement, not a film about gay cowboys but a love story and as apt a love story as any film of the genre. Think of it as Titanic with a mountain instead of a ship and country music instead of Céline Dion. In a way, Brokeback is a first, little step beyond labels. One day it might even stop being the film about the gay cowboys and develop to “that Ang Lee movie with what’s-his-name”. By then the film won’t be about queering mainstream Hollywood anymore, it will just be about being part of it. How desirable a goal that is, of course, is a whole different story. 2) MUTANTS Ten minutes into The Last Stand and it has become obvious it is the kind of film boyfriends drag you into (refusing to watch the latest Emma Thompson or Meryl Streep), i.e. an action film. The respective (defining) elements are easily identified and recognized: noise, explosions, pyrotechnics, robots, weapons, neatly dressed girls and, of course, coolly delivered macho lines. The guy next to me keeps asking his friend who plays the ape in the blue fur and, inevitably, there is a lot of sipping and crunching going on around me. This is X-Men: The Last Stand, third part of a trilogy of blockbusters, a graphic-novel-adaptation. Graphic novels are probably the second best thing that could happen to Hollywood. First of all, graphic novels are, as the term suggests, graphic, they are like the missing link between novels and screenplays. Moreover, taking into account the copious graphic-novel-adaptations of the past ten years (ranging from Men In Black to Sin City), it can be said that Hollywood has found a threshold of innovative plots just waiting to make it to the big screen, plots full of traditional action film ingredients such as violence, sex and fun. Still, there is plenty more to find. Just think of the philosophical, almost allegory-of-the-caveian ramifications of The Matrix … or the political background of the X-Men-trilogy. It is not surprising that the fan community of the X-Men-graphic-novels in the US mainly consists of young Afro-Americans, Hispanics and Jews, considering that the X-Men-characters virtually stand for minorities in a society.4 The world of the XMen is populated with mutants possessing individual super-powers which they are feared and discriminated for by a majority of “humans”, powers which, in some cases, even affect their physical appearance and therefore visibly mark them as different. This mutation occurs as a natural effect of evolution and is triggered by the so-called X-gene; the effects of the mutation usually show first during puberty. The X-Men are a group of mutants who do not seek conflict with humans and, although feared, even protect them against the malevolent mutant villain Magneto and his followers, Magneto being a survivor of the holocaust, by the way, a victim of human oppression. 4

Cf. Baumann 66

Watching any of the X-Men movies, it is rather easy to read them as queer. The character Rogue for instance absorbs life force through her skin so that touching her inflicts pain and might even result in death. Consequently, Rogue and her love interest, a mutant called Iceman, cannot be physically intimate because she is afraid to hurt him. Read: stone butch. The character Cyclops uncontrollably shoots blasts of concussive force from his eyes every time he opens them and is for this reason obliged to permanently wear special protection glasses. Are these glasses removed, as happens twice in X-Men, the first part of the trilogy, Cyclops has to shut his eyes not to let out a blast. Read: closeted queer. Of course the movies and its characters can be interpreted and read in various different ways and do not necessarily have to be seen in a queer context, but, again, looking at plot and dialogues, the queer perspective is quite tempting. For example, in X2 the X-Men’s headquarters, a school and known retreat for mutants, is attacked and some of the students, including Rogue and Iceman, seek shelter in Iceman’s parents’ place. In a sort of out-coming-scene, Iceman’s parents, who had always believed they had sent off their son to an elite school for gifted youngsters, are suddenly confronted with his mutation and seem shocked, urging Iceman’s mother to ask him: ‘Have you ever tried... not being a mutant?’ Later in the same movie, a conversation occurs between Nightcrawler, whose claws, tail and darkish-blue skin mark him as a mutant, and Mystique, who is also visibly mutated but possesses the power of shape-shifting, of imitating “humans” perfectly: Nightcrawler: Excuse me? They say you can imitate anybody, even their voice. Mystique: [flawlessly imitating Nightcrawler’s voice] Even their voice. Nightcrawler: Then why not stay in disguise all the time? You know, look like everyone else. Mystique: Because we shouldn’t have to.

This short dialogue clearly and unmistakably conveys the key message of the X-Men movies: embrace difference! So when, in X-Men: The Last Stand, an antidote to mutation is found (which is eventually, on order of the US-government, turned into a weapon to force-cure mutants) which splits the mutant community in two opposing parties, the X-Men choose to remain the way they are (all except Rogue who cannot stand living isolated any longer). Furthermore, a winged mutant resembling an angel (refusing to be “cured”) represents the beauty of mutation and therefore of difference, and a mutant slowly regains his powers after being force-cured, casting doubt on the possibility of an antidote – which obviously is meant to convey that one cannot be cured from what lies in their nature. Still, the X-Men movies are action movies. Mainstream Hollywood action movies, universal instead of specific, not explicitly approaching queer or, for instance, racial issues, keeping their political agenda broad, angling for as big an audience as possible. But at least there is an audience. At least someone listens. The X-Men movies are ‘bestes Popcorn-Kino mit einer wichtigen Botschaft’5 as Halle Berry, who played the mutant Storm in all of the three X-Men parts, is quoted in the Austrian newspaper Kurier. In this sense, Brokeback Mountain could be regarded as handkerchief-cinema with political implications. The films are neither more nor less … and that’s about how queer mainstream Hollywood cinema may get in this first decade of the 21st century.

5

‘best popcorn-cinema with an important message’ my translation; Baumann. 67

Outside X-Men: The Last Stand some kids are discussing which mutant they would choose to be. The chat outside Brokeback I do not get because I have to hurry to catch my train. What I came to think is that the awkward laughs back in the cinema aroused by things potentially (homo)sexual passing between Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, what I think is that these laughs were not awkward in a sense indicating sexual insecurity or intimidation, but awkward with disappointment, disappointment that there was not more to it. Greatly written as well as brought to the screen Brokeback is still a movie to enjoy, it is just that, in time, people will watch it over a pizza and a beer the way they will watch the X-Men films. Or Titanic. What I think is that this night, a few might have even come for Heath and Jake the way fourteen-year-olds sneaked into Fight Club to catch a look at Brad Pitt’s abs (firmly developed since his shirtless appearance in Thelma & Louise) and probably leave satisfied, having not been exposed to full frontal nudity but the lollipop, television kind, harmless and nice.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Primary Sources: Motion picture: Brokeback Mountain. 2005. Directed by Ang Lee. Motion picture: X-Men. 2000. Directed Bryan Singer. Motion picture: X2. 2003. Directed by Bryan Singer. Motion picture: X-Men: The Last Stand. 2006. Directed by Brett Ratner. Secondary Sources: Halberstam, Judith. In a Queer Time and Place: Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives. New York: New York UP, 2005. Dargis, Manohla. “Masculinity and its Discontents in Marlboro Country.” The New York Times. December 18, 2005. Lumenick, Lou. “Oscar out of the Closet.” The New York Post. February 1, 2006. Gunther Baumann. “Popcorn-Kino und Politik.” Kurier 26 May 2006. Matthew Testa. “At close range with Annie Proulx“. Planet Jackson Hole 4 July 2006 < http://www.planetjh.com/testa_2005_12_07_proulx.html> 68

The Non-Male Gaze in Fatal Attraction and Boys Don't Cry Michael Johannes Feigl Introduction As it is essential to the development of movies like Boys Don't Cry, I will shortly introduce the reader to New Queer Cinema and mention NQC's most important representatives. The second chapter of this paper concentrates on the female gaze with special regards to its representation in the movie Fatal Attraction. In the last chapter, I want to compare the development of plot and gaze (and their interrelation) in Fatal Attraction and in Boys Don't Cry.

New Queer Cinema and Beyond In her essay “Sight and Sound”, B. Ruby Rich, a well-known film-critic and cultural theorist, coined the term 'New Queer Cinema' (NQC) in 1992, describing it as a 'watershed for independent queer filmmaking'1, neither movement nor genre, but a trend, a 'momentum'. The NQC-movies were created by a group of sophisticated and politically minded'2 filmmakers who didn't obey to the rules of ordinary cinema. These often were first time or independent directors and producers, limited to a low budget, who neither concerned themselves with positive images of queers nor with educating the public about homosexuality. NQC seeks a new vocabulary for the postAids experience. It features complex characters whose flaws are neither condemned nor vindicated. However, these characters live in a world far beyond the 'screaming sissies', 'tragic homos', and 'killer dykes' we know from former personifications of queer characters. For an overview of the 'Old Queer Cinema' and its archetypes of queer characters I refer to the book Queer cinema – the film reader by Harry M. Benshoff. The most important films of NQC are Paris is Burning (Jennie Livingston, 1990), Poison (Todd Haynes, 1991), Swoon (Tom Kalin, 1992), My Own Private Idaho (Gus Van Saint, 1991), Edward II (Derek Jarman, 1991) and The Living End (Gregg Araki, 1992). In various ways these movies were special: for the first time marginalized queers were given the chance to act as protagonists in films that were 'unapologetic about their characters' faults or, rather, crimes: they eschew[ed] positive imagery'3. Films like Edward II, Swoon and My Own Private Idaho (which is loosely based on Shakespeare's Henry IV, part 1) dealt with the historic past and brought forward its overlooked homosexual content. They heavily relied on imagery, ignoring and manipulating mainstream conventions. Lastly they defied both Aids and death as its consequence: in The Living End, by finding out that they are HIV positive, the two protagonists experience a kind of freedom and liberty that otherwise would be restricted to them. As most of its key directors and producers didn’t create follow-up films, the 90s NQC burnt brightly but quickly faded. Nevertheless, thanks to the impact that 1

Cf. http://outrate.net/featuresidaho.html Cf. http://www.greencine.com/static/primers/queer.jsp 3 Cf. Aaron, 3. 2

69

NQC did have on the movie industry, other directors were given the chance to create Hollywood-movies that featured sophisticated queer protagonists. The Talented Mr. Ripley (Anthony Minghella,1999) ?? although it is based on a book from 1955), L.A. Confidential (Curtis Hanson, 1997), The Adventures Of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (Stephan Elliott, 1994) and of course Boys Don't Cry (Kimberley Peirce, 1999) are examples of films that feature queer protagonists.

What is a Gaze? In this chapter I will concentrate on the theory of “the gaze”. In her book Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, Laura Mulvey states that the male figure cannot bear the burden of sexual objectification, and that possessing and controlling the gaze is something intrinsically male. In (and through) Hollywood cinema male patriarchy is strengthened and maintained, as the audience looks through the eyes of the male protagonist, and thus gazes at and objectifies women. We can differentiate between three looks that work on different levels and form the cinematic gaze: • • •

the first look, the one of the (predominantly male) director or camera man, thus the look of the camera the look of the characters of the movie, how they perceive their surroundings the look of the audience/the spectator

These three are interrelated, and obviously what the audience sees can be (consciously) manipulated by the previous two looks. Furthermore, a male gaze is applied to all of these looks, men function as active spectators of women, and objectify these. Scopophilia (the pleasure of being looked at or looking at another person) is offered: The scopophilic cinematic pleasure is taking the woman as an object and subjecting her to a controlling and curious gaze, the male gaze. Scopophilia arises from the pleasure in using another person as an object of sexual stimulation through sight. […] This presents a dichotomy where the first is a function of the sexual instincts while the second of ego libido.4

In Bringing Out Roland Barthes (1991), D.A. Miller differentiates between the macho straight male body and the so-called gym-body of gay male culture. The first deploys its heft as a tool (for its […] actual intimidation of other, weaker men or of women) [,,,] The second displays its muscle primarily in terms of an image openly appealing to […] someone else's desire5

However, this approach may seem to be out-dated as the male body has been objectified (and thus 'sexualized') more and more within the last years (and actually up from the 80s), and, as many recent films and magazines show, a change in the representation of men and their masculinity (this equally affects icons from older (like Mel Gibson) and younger generations (like Brad Pitt and David Beckham) alike) can be observed. Furthermore, not only men but also lesbians (and non lesbian women) can (and do) objectify other women. 4 5

Cf. Aaron, 12. Cf. Benshoff, 210. 70

But does it suffice to simply invert a male gaze to create a female counterpart? In her paper 'A Female Gaze?' Eva-Maria Jacobsson has concerned herself with this topic by analysing the movie Fatal Attraction in which – similar to the queer gaze of Boys Don't Cry – a non-male gaze is presented and later successfully substituted by a male-gaze, so that a change in the patriarchal system can be prevented.

The Female Gaze in Fatal Attraction Before I try to analyse in how far Boys Don't Cry establishes a queer gaze, I want to focus on Adrian Lyne's movie Fatal Attraction. The way in which a nonmale gaze is created and later abandoned connects these two movies; both of them challenge the patriarchal system in more or less similar ways, and in both of them the non-male gaze has to give way to the male-gaze so that the natural order can be restored. This is accomplished in similar ways: just as Brandon is emasculated when he is raped by John and Tom (turning him from a heterosexual man into a lesbian), Alex, the female lead of Fatal Attraction, has to let go of the female gaze when she seduces and falls in love with a married man who makes her pregnant and later rejects her. She is degraded from subject to object. Fatal Attraction (1987) is a disturbing thriller/drama, directed by Adrian Lyne. It focuses on the affair (and its dire consequences) between Alex Forrest (Glenn Close) and the married attorney Dan Gallagher (Michael Douglas). Contrary to Dan's (archetypical house-) wife Beth (Anne Archer), Alex, who works as an editor at a publishing company, is presented as a sophisticated, attractive, independent and successful woman. When they start their affair, it is Alex who takes the lead. She picks up the role of the powerful seducer, while 'the camera is reflecting Dan as a schoolboy'6. Obviously, Alex is in control of the situation, she is the active female that gazes at the objectified and passive Dan. Thus, one might argue that a female gaze is present at this point of time, but I will come to this later. However, Alex' position of power is soon taken away from her. When Dan tries to get rid of her, her character becomes jealous, hysteric and even 'crazy', she threatens to kill herself and later terrorizes Dan and his family. Alex is portrayed as a demon and maniac, she is dependent on Dan's refused love and lacks the amount of power she would need to regain control of the movie's action (and gaze). When Dan leaves her, the female gaze turns into a male gaze, and the threat to patriarchy that Alex has illustrated vanishes and a patriarchal order is re-established. The reason why I called 'Fatal Attraction' disturbing is because of the message it seems to convey. According to the movie's plot, women seem have two choices: either they decide to marry and have children (Beth) or they lead an independent yet miserable life (Alex). Beth personifies a Madonna, an archetypical object of the male gaze, 'a non-threatening individual to the '"malehood" and masculinity of Dan'7, while Alex' image slowly merges with the one of a whore who, in the end, is punished for her feministic actions (Beth shoots her in self-defence). The more independent and successful a woman like Alex might get, the less are the chances of getting married and/or to have a family. Ultimately, the movie creates the belief that women have to choose whether to be independent and unhappy, or dependent on men and happy. 6 7

Cf. Jacobsson, 14. Cf. Jacobsson, 22. 71

Jacobsson points out that the end of the film has been changed so that it would correspond to the expectation of the audience. In the original ending, Alex commits suicide. However, the audience felt that suicide wouldn't be a punishment hard enough for what Alex has done to Dan's family, and so Beth – embodying everything that Alex is not – is allowed to kill her. Jacobsson argues that this ending can be seen as a reflection of the male fears and desires in our social structure. To survive, the male identity and masculinity can be seen as being dependent on the female inferiority, and this is why the woman has yet again to be repressed as a narrative and female gaze […] Beth is […] allowed the phallic power, but only to dispose the threat of Alex 8

Concluding, I want to look at the way Adrian Lyne creates and depicts the female gaze in Fatal Attraction. From the very beginning, we experience Alex as a strong and successful woman. She sees Dan as an object of sexual pleasure that she wants to conquer, she dominates the situation and the pace of the movie. She achieves this by acting like a man, the movie's female gaze is based on a woman being and behaving masculine. As already stated, in the beginning of the movie, Dan is reflected as a schoolboy. When he leaves Alex, on the one side, she loses her power as she falls in love with him ('the active female characters career is brief and rather quickly put to an end'9), on the other side he takes the lead and controls the movie's gaze.

The Transgender Gaze in Boys Don't Cry The way in which Boys Don't Cry creates and transports a non-male gaze is quite different from the one described above. Both Boys Don't Cry and Fatal Attraction are from Hollywood, although Boys Don't Cry was released 12 years later. Whereas in Fatal Attraction a male gaze substitutes the female gaze, in Boys Don't Cry a transgender queer gaze is converted into a lesbian gaze. In her book In a Queer Time and Place: Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives, Judith Halberstam analyses in what way and in how far a queer gaze is established in Boys Don't Cry. As she puts it, the movie constructs a queer gaze by 'forcing spectators to adopt […] Brandon's gaze, a transgender look'10. So it's not only his behaviour, the way he acts and reacts, but also because Lana is willing to see him as he sees himself (clothed, male, vulnerable lacking, strong, and passionate), and she is willing to avert her gaze when his manhood is in question11

Brandon, although he is the male protagonist of the movie, lacks the power and completeness that Lana disposes of. However, Brandon enjoys a kind of freedom or rather mobility that is inaccessible to Lana. To conclude, exclusion and privilege cannot be assigned neatly to the couple on the basis of gender or class hierarchies; power, rather, is shared between the two subjects, and she agrees to misrecognise him as male while he sees through her social alienation and unhappiness12

8

Cf. Jacobsson, 23. Cf. Jacobsson, 18. 10 Cf. Halberstam, 86. 11 Cf. Halberstam, 87. 12 Cf. Halberstam, 89. 9

72

Of course, besides how the characters see each other in the movie, the way the camera presents the characters and surroundings creates a queer (and/or female) environment: the scene in which the two Brandons - the one 'who was rescued by Lana's refusal to look [and] who survives his own rape and murder'13 and the naked and exposed one - are present thankfully does not locate transgenderism in between, but thanks to its imagery, aside the female and male gazes. Furthermore, the slow down scenes, those which express Lana's way of thinking, do not accept reality and preserve Brandon's manliness, they resemble a heterosexual female gaze. What is strange is that the camera picks up a new gaze, a lesbian gaze, towards the end of the film. When Brandon returns after being raped, Lana visits him. As Halberstam argues, unlike before, Lana seems to see Brandon as a woman now, and Brandon himself behaves as if he was one. When they make love, Lana says that she doesn't know how to do this (probably referring to having sex with a woman). Apparently, for Brandon and Lana the rape – unlike Brandon's exposure in the bathroom – turned him into a woman, Lana is no longer able to separate Brandon's gender from his sex, and hence the audience probably tends to do so too. Similar to when the female gaze is substituted by a male gaze so that the patriarchal system in Fatal Attraction can be maintained, here a lesbian gaze substitutes the transgender gaze and thus destroys the threat that Brandon would embody to binary (homo/hetero) way of thinking. Furthermore, I want to point out that, just as Fatal Attraction's ending had to be rewritten to appeal to larger audiences, Kimberley Peirce consciously forbore to address in how far Philip DeVine, a disabled African American, might have had influenced the murderers.

Conclusion Hopefully I have successfully demonstrated that there are different ways in which a (non-male) gaze can be created in Hollywood movies. Strangely, most of these deny a continuous use of these gazes, but, knowing about them, the audience is able to analyse why it is denied. Through engaging myself with this topic I learned much about the power of the various gazes, and how the viewer subconsciously accepts the predominantly male gaze. Hopefully I can encourage the reader to analyse other (Hollywood) movies, as there are more than enough instances to do so. Prime examples would be The Talented Mr. Ripley (which is perfectly suited to be analysed concerning the topics of the closet (in relation to the main characters strong resemblance with classical killer-queers and his (assumed) fear to reflect on his sexuality) and of the homo- vs. heterosexual gaze (at the point when the homosexual gaze would challenge the given system most, Ripley transforms into a maniac similar to Alex in Fatal Attraction) or Fight Club (in which the narrator (Edward Norton) obviously wants more than just to be friends with Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), ' Norton's character and Fincher's [the director of Fight Club]camera want to watch Brad, touch Brad, live with Brad, be Brad'14. However, this option is prohibited when the plot resolves, and thus, although it attacks society, it criticises (chauvinistic) patriarchy in no way). I want to remind the reader once again that (in my opinion) the reason for this denial of gazes other than the male might be found in the fear of change. And although gay and lesbian movies are getting more and more famous, a transgender gaze is still hardly to be found in mainstream cinema. By trying to label transsexuals 13 14

Cf. Halberstam, 88. Cf. http://www.nicksflickpicks.com/gayfilms.html#fghtclub 73

as either gay or lesbian (and without an in-between), these gay and lesbian gazes suppress the transgender gaze in a similar way as the male gaze suppresses the female gaze. As Michele Aaron states, 'The queers who are accepted […] mask the queers who aren't. The intolerance still exists, still grows, but elsewhere'.15 I want to conclude this paper with a quote by Michael Warner More disturbing is the possibility that media visibility has brought a certain image of gays into the imagined mainstream of American culture only to banish the more challenging versions of queer life all the more effectively16 Bibliography & References Aaron, Michele. New Queer Cinema: A Critical Reader. Ed. Michele Aaron. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004. Benshoff, Harry M. Queer Cinema – The Film Reader. Ed. Harry Benshoff. New York: Routledge, 2004. Halberstam, Judith. In a Queer Time and Place: Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives. New York: New York UP, 2005. Jacobsson, Eva-Maria. "A Female Gaze?" CID-51 1999  http://cid.nada.kth.se/pdf/cid_51.pdf

15 16

Cf. Aaron, 198. Cf. Aaron, 198.. 74

PART III QUEERNESS ON TV

REPRESENTATIONS OF FEMALE MASCULINITIES ON “THE L WORD” Analyzing the characters of baby-butch Shane and drag king Ivan Barbara Binder FOREWORD In my paper I will show how female masculinities are presented in the television show The L Word. I will analyze the characters of baby-butch Shane and drag king Ivan. The L Word was said not to be representative, because it only features upperclass femme-lesbians and erases female masculinities. I will prove that female masculinities are a topic in The L Word, which cannot be ignored. Although Shane, for example, looks feminine in the first season with her long hair and make up, her gender role is described as masculine in various ways, as I will show in my paper. Ivan performs her masculinity on stage, when she is acting and singing as a drag king. But her masculinity is not just limited to the stage. She sometimes also goes out to public as a drag king, especially when she is trying to make a good impression on the heterosexual Kit. Before analyzing the character of Shane, I will detail the butch-femme-theories of Judith Halberstam and Judith Butler and apply these terms on the character of Shane. After the characterization of Shane, I will describe the theories of Judith Butler about the subversive potential of drag before analyzing Ivan. In my opinion, it is impossible to represent “real” lesbians on TV and I believe that it is very difficult to compare a television show to reality. Therefore, it is not possible to decide if the The L Word presents lesbians in a more positive or negative way. The most obvious advantage of the The L Word for me is that it increases the visibility of lesbians in general. The show is all about lesbian lives and lesbians are no longer eliminated from TV or just acting as side-characters to which the audience can laugh at. The L Word represents stereotypes, probably just like any other TV show does, but it also brings up different and important issues like parenting, coming out and homophobia to a broad and mostly heterosexual audience, who otherwise maybe never would have given a thought to such problems.

76

JUDITH HALBERSTAM’S AND JUDITH BUTLER’S THEORIES OF BUTCH AND FEMME Judith Halberstam describes the role of masculine appearance of lesbians and the term “butch” in the following way: Masculinity often defines the stereotypical version of lesbianism (“the mythic mannish lesbian” to use Esther Newton’s term); the bull dyke, indeed, has made lesbianism visible and legible as some kind of confluence of gender disturbance and sexual orientation. Because masculinity has seemed to play an important and even a crucial role in some lesbian self-definition, we have a word for lesbian masculinity: butch. As Gayle Rubin states: “Butch is the lesbian vernacular term for women who are more comfortable with masculine gender codes, styles, or identities than with feminine ones.” (Halberstam, 119-120) Halberstam desribes her use of the term “lesbian masculinity.” With this term she refers to woman “who perform their masculinity within what are recognizably lesbian relations” (Halberstam, 120). Halberstam also states how important the discussion of female masculinity within queer sexual discourse is: Female masculinity within queer sexual discourse allows for the disruption of even flows between gender and anatomy, sexuality and identity, sexual practice and performativity. (Halberstam, 139) Joan Nestle explains the historical important role of butch-femme-couples in the 1950s: Butch-femme women made Lesbians visible in a terrifyingly clear way in a historical period when there was no Movement protection for them. Their appearance spoke of erotic independence, and they often provoked rage and censure both from their own community and straight society. (Nestle, 108) Halberstam cites Merill Mushroom, who distinguishes between different kinds of butches, like “drag butch”, “stone butch” and “femmie-locking butches”.1 Halberstam also interprets a quote from Leslie Feinberg’s book Stone Butch Blues which shows different variations of butches. Butch, in this description, is a category that alters across time and bodies, and we might add, it definitely shifts across social class and ethnicity. Predictably, the degrees of butchness are measured in terms of hardness and softness or in terms of permeability; the hard butch or stone butch, 1

Cf. Halberstam, 120. 77

furthermore, has a masculine “nature” […] the soft butch is a dyke with butch tendencies who has not completely masculinized her sexuality. (Halberstam, 123) Butler neglects that butch-femme couples imitate heterosexual originals. The butch-femme role play challenges heterosexuality. Butler argues that the way a butch-femme-couple is seen – as an imitation of a heterosexual couple – is wrong: Reconsider then the homophobic charge that queens and butches and femmes are imitations of the heterosexual real. Here “imitation” carries the meaning of “derivative” or “secondary”, a copy of an origin which is itself the ground of all copies, but which is itself a copy of nothing. […] The origin requires its derivations in order to affirm itself as an origin, […] Hence, if it were not for the notion of the homosexual as copy, there would be no construct of heterosexuality as origin. (Butler, “Imitation and Gender Insubordination”, 313) Butler also argues that there is not just one category of “butch” or “femme” and that the transitions are fluid. Sexuality is never fully “expressed” in a performance or practice; there will be passive an butchy femmes, femmy and aggressive butches, and both of those, and more, will turn out to describe more or less anatomically stable “males” and “females”. (Butler, “Imitation and Gender Insubordination”, 315) Joan Nestle also says in her article “Butch-Femme Relationships: Sexual Courage in the 1950s” that there is a large diversity of butches and femmes: Butch and femme covered a wide variety of sexual response. We joked about being a butchy femme or a femmy butch or feeling kiki (going both ways). (Nestle, 103) Very interesting is Halberstam’s critique of Sheila Jeffreys’ essay on the return of butch-femme in the 1990s. For Halberstam, Jeffrey considers role playing as part of a “sexologist prescription” for lesbian couples and argues that sexologists are to blame for creating mannish and feminine stereotypes.2 Jeffreys’ logic in this article is astoundingly rigid in that she sets up an either-or-model of lesbian sexual response: either lesbians eroticize difference and therefore engage in role playing, sadomasochism, or other forms of dominance and submission, or lesbians might eroticize sameness and engage in “the real pleasures of a sexual relationship”…

2

Cf. Halberstam, 129. 78

full of the double-takes and wounds of all their female and lesbian experience. (Halberstam, 130)

ANALYZING “BABY-BUTCH” SHANE The L Word was criticized for only showing femme lesbians and leaving out butches, as the following quotes demonstrate: the series is otherwise entirely consistent with the television industry’s emphasis on conventional femininity and its portrayal of women as nonthreatening (read non-butch) objects to be visually enjoyed by some imagined mainstream (read non-queer) cable audience. (Heller, 56) In the first round, The L Word wins an enormous number of points by having so many lesbian characters. In the middle rounds that follow, points are consistently lost for the show, since that group of lesbians is overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly feminine in appearance, dress and behavior. (Chambers, 82) Yet, The L Word doesn’t seriously offer a wide range of lesbian representations, as the majority of main characters, except perhaps Shane, are traditionally beautiful feminine women, indistinguishable from the straight women we see portrayed as “pretty” on television every day. (Moore and Schilt, 168) The L Word could be criticized for eroticizing sameness, because most of the couples are femme-femme couples. As I want to show, The L Word also represents female masculinities. The majority of women are very feminine, but there are also representations of female masculinities, which need to be discussed. Shane is one of the main characters of The L Word. She can be seen as the center of the lesbian universe, because she is the center of Alice’s chart which shows who has been together with whom. Shane is different from her friends Bette, Tina, Dana and Alice, who are very feminine. She represents the only main butch-character. Analyzed alone, not in context to her friends, Shane could not so easily be seen as a butch. In the first season she has long hair and wears make up. Shane has an androgynous, very thin body and she has got a profession, which is mostly associated with women – she is a hairdresser. Shane also looks feminine, but in contrast to her friends, she can be characterized as masculine. It is not the fact that she always wears pants and flat shoes; it is her gender performance which evokes the concepts of masculinity. It is the way she moves, her dark voice and her mimic art and gestures. Shane gets every woman she wants to and her promiscuous behavior can be associated more easily with masculinity than with femininity. Shane does not show deeper feelings towards women and nearly 79

every day she is with a different woman. She does not want to have a relationship, because this would only cause problems. Therefore, she always keeps it simple. Because her gender role is masculine and her looks are more feminine, it is difficult to describe her in the butch-terms. Relating this scripted androgyny to butch representations; Shane does not register explicitly butch signifiers but rather is implied as contextually butch when positioned alongside the other characters’ femme gender displays. (Moore and Schilt, 161) According to Merill Mushroom and Judith Halberstam, Shane could be called “femmie-locking butch”3 or “soft butch”4 Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick names Shane a “baby butch”.5 Another description of Shane is the following: “Shane Mc Cutcheon (Katherine Moenning), a sexy, cocksure female-Casanova hairstylist wanted all over L.A.” (Bolonik, 3). Shane can be described to be in between butch and femme roles, and therefore she represents them both. While Shane might not make the ideal stand-in for the ‘butch’ contingency of lesbian culture, the character does speak to current ideas about gender fluidity. Considering where Shane falls along a high femme to stone butch spectrum, it seems reasonable to label her as `soft butch`. The term ‘inbetweener’ seems suited to Shane’s particular femme-butch slippage. (Moore and Schilt, 161) It is interesting that because of her femme-butch slippage Shane is often seen by gay men as male, especially when she is in a gay bar. (Season 1, Episode 6 “Losing it”). In her past she has made advantage of this and earned money as a male prostitute. She tells Clea, the daughter of Cherie, who has a crush on her, that she has had 950 to 1200 male clients, who all thought she was gay (Season 1, Episode 12 “Locked up”). In the second season, Shane’s gender presentation gets more masculine. She has much shorter hair and wears more masculine clothes. Candace Moore and Kristen Schilt argue that Shane becomes more masculine through her relation with Mark, the new roommate who is secretly filming Shane and Jenny.6 I would like to add that Shane’s masculinity is also reinforced by her relationship with Carmen, a very feminine Latina-woman. I find the following dialogue in the first episode of Season two (“Life, Loss, Leaving”) between Shane and a woman, for who she does the hair, very interesting. Immediately after that dialogue, she meets Carmen for the first time, 3

Cf. Halberstam, 120. Cf. Halberstam, 123. 5 Cf. Sedgwick Kosofsky, 229. 6 Cf. Moore and Schilt, 163. 4

80

who brings coffee. The dialogue shows that Shane is against any categorization and that she doesn’t believe in love. Client: I like what you are wearing. Who do you dress for? Shane: Myself. Girly sometimes but mostly male. Client: So you are gay? Shane: Totally, yes. Client: I was on a dinner last night. Someone said, dykes are the new fags. What do you think about that? Shane: I think people like to categorize things too much. […] Client: What about you? What do you want … What about love? Shane: No. Love’s a bitch. I rather have a good time alone. In my view, Shane and Carmen can be read as a butch-femme-couple. It is interesting that in this developing relationship Shane learns to show feelings. She finally says to Carmen that she loves her in the last episode of season two. (“Lacuna”). Moore and Schilt explain, […] as Shane looks and acts masculine in season two, she also becomes more “in touch with her feelings” and able to cope with intimacy through her realisation that she has formed a deep romantic connection with a woman. (Moore and Schilt, 164) Moore and Schilt see in Shane a “complex representation of gender identity”7 but they criticize the following. [The show’s] overarching message seems to be that masculinity must be tempered by the feminine in order to be transformed into something progressive, rather than illustrating that alternative masculinities can be radical in their own right. (Moore and Schilt 164)

Contrary to this argument, I do not think that masculinity was tempered by the feminine, just because Shane is able to show feelings because she has fallen in love. The authors also forget that Shane had already fallen in love before Carmen – with Cherie, a client of hers. Shane shows emotions and in my opinion this is not only because Cherie wants to convince her husband to buy Shane a shop of her own. She loses Cherie because Cherie thinks Shane has an affair with her daughter, which is not true. Shane even tells Cherie’s daughter Clea, that she has no chance because she is in love with someone else (Season 1, episode 12 “Locked up”). In the last episode of season one, Cherie breaks up 7

Cf. Moore and Schilt, 164. 81

with Shane, who has an emotional breakdown. She cries and begs Cherie not to do this. Shane meets Carmen in season two and between both seasons has “passed some time”. The following quote from Shane of the last episode of season one (“Limb from Limb”) shows that Shane loved Cherie. In this scene Cherie breaks up with her. Shane: “My entire life people said I will become a psychopath if I don’t learn how to feel. Now I feel like my heart has been torn out.”

JUDITH BUTLER’S THEORY POTENTIAL OF DRAG

OF

THE

SUBVERSIVE

According to Judith Butler, the action of gender requires a performance that is repeated, so tha8t we can see ourselves as the effect. As in other ritual social dramas, the action of gender requires a performance that is repeated. This repetition is at once a reenactment and reexperiencing of a set of meanings already socially established; and it is the mundane and ritualized form of their legitimation. (Butler, Gender Trouble, 140) Identity categories can change because there will always be a difference between the repetitions. Within that repetition is a great potential for subversion, which means to expose that act as a construction or performance. The possibilities of gender transformation are to be found precisely in the arbitrary relation between such acts, in the possibility of a failure to repeat, a de-formity, or a parodic repetition that exposes the phantasmatic effect of abiding identity as a politically tenuous construction. (Butler, Gender Trouble, 141) Butler gives a concrete example for subversion: Drag. Drag is a parodic repetition; it is a repetition with a difference. For Butler, drawing on the work of Esther Newton, drag subverts the expressive model of gender and the notion of a true gender identity because “in imitating gender, drag implicitly reveals the imitative structure of gender itself – as well as its contingency”. Drag, she says suggests a dissonance between sex and performance, sex and gender, and gender and performance, because the so-called sex of the performer is not the same as the gender being performed. Gender, then, is nothing but parody. (Sullivan 86, emphasis in the original)

8

82

The link between male (sex) and masculinity (gender) and the link between female and femininity needs to be repeated constantly through the regulatory system of discourse. The connection is not questioned, it is said to be natural. Drag is a parodic repetition of this link, because male sex is combined with a feminine gender. It reveals that gender is a kind of imitation for which there is no original. […] there is no original or primary gender that drag imitates, but gender is a kind of imitation for which there is no original; in fact, it is a kind of imitation that produces the very notion of the original as an effect and consequence of the imitation itself. […] In this sense, the “reality” of heterosexual identities is performatively constituted through an imitation, that sets itself up as the origin and the ground of all imitations. (Butler, “Imitation and Gender Insubordination”, 313) The production of queerness can cause problems, if it evokes the idea that there is an original and that everything else is a copy. A guy who dresses like a woman is easily seen as a man, who just only wants to imitate a woman. But according to Butler, it is an illusion that if there is copy there has to be an original. Hence, if it were not for the notion of the homosexual as copy, there would be no construct of heterosexuality as origin. […] then it seems only fair to concede that the copy comes before the origin, and that homosexuality is thus the origin, and heterosexuality the copy. (Butler, “Imitation and Gender Insubordination”, 313) Before analyzing Ivan, the drag king from The L-Word, it is important to mention that for Butler drag does not automatically means subversion. Butler is also only talking about male-to-female-drag and Ivan performs as a drag king, which means female-to-male-drag. Although many readers understood Gender Trouble to be arguing for the proliferation of drag performances as a way of subverting dominant gender norms, I want to underscore that there is no necessary relation between drag and subversion, and that drag may well be used in the service of both the denaturalization and reidealization of hyberbolic heterosexual gender norms. […] In this sense, then, drag is subversive to the extent that it reflects on the imitative structure by which hegemonic gender is itself produced and disputes heterosexuality’s claim on naturalness and originality. (Butler, Bodies That Matter, 125)

ANALYZING “DRAG KING” IVAN In episode 12 of season one (“Locked up”) the character of Ivan Aycock is introduced. Ivan is not a main character, because she is not included into the 83

circle of close friends of Bette, Tina, Shane, Alice and Dana. In the story she is connected to Kit, Bette’s heterosexual sister, who takes over the club “planet” in Season two. Ivan performs and sings as a drag king, a female-to-male-drag, in that club at a special night called “A Night of Kings,” which he has organized. He is introduced as “Ivan A. Cock” by Kit. Her long blond hear is styled to a black Elvis-like hair-do. She wears a thin moustache and a beard and is dressed in a black suit blazer. He is singing “Savoir Faire” from Mink de Ville and with this song she is flirting with Kit, who is watching the show. Ivan is singing directly to Kit: “Somehow I got to make her mine. She got style, she got taste, she got a beautiful face. She got savoir faire. She don’t need no hook, she got more than good looks, she got savoir faire.” Kit is very flattered by Ivan’s performance. Ivan even asks her to dance with her during her performance. The performance is received very well by the audience, among which we find some drag kings. But Ivan’s presentation of female masculinity is not just limited to the stage. She occasionally also goes to the public and extends the performance to her everyday life. Ivan makes use of her masculine-sides to impress Kit, who she has a crush on. Kit is attracted to Ivan, but only as long as she perceives him as male. Throughout the evening, he caters to Kit, who is drawn to his form of chivalrous masculinity. He abandons the hyper-stylized expression of masculinity for their next meeting, but he retains the name `Ivan` and appears in masculine dress. While Kit is shocked at first to see him out of his performance gear, […] she continues to refer to him by masculine pronouns, demonstrating her reading of him as a man. (Moore and Schilt, 164) Kit meets Ivan the next day at the Planet and she did not recognize him first with her long blond hair. Ivan wears jeans, a white blouse and a leather jacket. Together with Ivan, Kit tries to get Bette out of prison. She has been arrested with her friends because of the demonstration about a show in her museum. Kit introduces Ivan to Bette by saying: “Meet Ivan. He gave me a ride over here.” Because of the use of the male pronoun Bette reacts negative and asks: “He? Nice to meet you.” Kit is embarrassed by that and apologizes “Oh, gee, Ivan. I’m sorry.” Ivan reacts very confident and just states: “No worries. I’m happy either way.” (Season 1, episode 12 “Locked up”). This statement shows that Ivan is always confident and it does not matter whether she is perceived as female or male. In the first episode of season two (“Life, Loss, Leaving”) Kit meets Ivan at her work, a car workshop. Ivan wears a beard and it seams that he passes as a man at work. Ivan gives Kit two keys – one for her apartment and one for her car that Ivan has restored for Kit. Kit says: “No one as ever done anything like that for me. I don’t know how to thank you.” Then Kit wants to kiss Ivan but she says: “No, not yet.” Kit asks “Why?” and Ivan replies: “Because your aren’t sure and I want you to be sure.” In this episode Bette also criticizes her sister about Ivan as the following dialogue shows: 84

Bette: What are you doing with her? She’s madly in love with you. Kit:

No, he’s not. We are friends. […]

Bette: She is in love with you and she wants to be your husband, […] She is fully courting you old school and you’re letting her. Kit sees Ivan as male, as the use of the male pronoun shows. Bette corrects her and she tells her sister that Ivan is “courting her old school” and that “she wants to be your husband.”9 Bette sees Ivan in a negative way and she wants to warn Kit. It is very interesting that Candace Moore and Kristen Schilt state in their article that Bette herself is acting as the dominant husband of Tina, who is controlling everything. The authors argue, that it is no problem if woman adopt a masculine behavior, but the visibility of female masculinity is a major problem.10 The following dialogue in the first episode of season two (“Live, Loss, Leaving”) shows Kit’s opinion, that she could imagine a relationship with Ivan. The dialogue also shows the narrow concept of Bette. Bette: You invite Ivan to be your business partner. Ivan takes it as a broader invitation. Kit: What makes you think I don’t want to make that invitation? Bette: Because, Kit you are straight. Kit: Who said? Bette: You’re not? Kit: I am. But I don’t need you to tell me and neither does Ivan. Ivan is the one who doesn’t care whether he is a man or a woman. He’s been telling me he is more a man. Bette: That’s an illusion. It doesn’t work that way. Kit: Maybe in the world according to Bette. […] In my opinion Kit reinforces the masculinity of Ivan, as long as Ivan is doing her best to perform her masculinity. Not only through her looks but also through the way she treats Kit – Ivan shows the behavior of a gentleman and treats Kit like a woman in her opinion should be treated. After her performance at the Planet (season 1, episode 12 “Locked up”) she says to another drag king: “Make room for the lady”, and sits down with Kit at a table. When Kit says that she is trying to stay dry, Ivan replies: “That’s a fine thing for a beautiful lady.” They get personal because they find out that they are both on an anti-alcoholic-program. Although Kit is attracted to the masculinity of Ivan, she cannot forget that Ivan is a woman, as the dialogue in the last episode of the first season shows. For her Ivan would be “the perfect man”, “if only he were ‘really’ a man”. 11 9

Cf. Moore and Schilt, 165. Cf. Moore and Schilt, 165. 11 Cf. Moore and Schilt, 166. 10

85

Ivan constantly wants to prove that she can be that perfect man for Kit. The most important and also beautiful scene is when Ivan sings a song in playback just for Kit in the garage. It’s Leonard Cohens’ “I’m your man.” Ivan sings: “If you want a lover, I’ll do anything you ask me to. If you want another kind of love, I’ll wear a mask for you. […] If you want a partner take my hand. […] Here I stand, I’m your man” (season 1, episode 12 “Locked up”). It is not possible to see a butch-femme role play in Ivan and Kit. Kit is identified as a heterosexual woman. The identity of Ivan is not fixed at all which is shown in her reaction to the pronoun-debate. Ivan lives the concept of sexual fluidity, which Shane talks about in the first episode after the pilot film. In the first season the character of Ivan can be read as subversion according to Butler, at least as he performs on stage. Her imitation produces like the male-tofemale-drag which Butler describes, the “the very notion of the original as an effect and consequence of the imitation itself” (Butler, “Imitation and Gender Insubordination,” 313). When Ivan also performs her masculinity off the stage, I also think, that there is a potential for subversion. She does not let herself be put in the binary-categories of “male” and “female.” Although she looks like a man, she does not see herself only as a man. It is a category in between “male” and “female” or rather a category which includes both. Candace Moore and Kristen Schilt argue about the shift in the second season: This provocative development, however, falls flat in season two. Ivan appears to have moved from fluid and genderqueer to definitively male, as he appears at his body shop job with real-looking facial hair, […] This move to using pasted-on facial hair goes un-remarked. However, put in the context of Ivan at work, it seems to suggest that he passes as male at work and the facial hair is a prop that helps in this passing. (Moore and Schilt, 166) Ivan reacts totally shocked when Kit comes into her apartment and sees her naked with only wearing a boxer short. Her long blond hair is falling down her shoulders and she immediately covers her breast with a bandage. Kit also sees her strap-on-dildo in the bathroom. Ivan does not want to talk with Kit about it and leaves the town. I do not agree with Candace Moore and Kristen Schilt that “a male-identified Ivan [is] full of shame about his female body” (Moore and Schilt, 167). I consider that Ivan is ashamed because Kit has entered her privacy area, her bathroom, without permission. If Ivan would be ashamed of her female body, she would probably always go out to the public as a man and not be “happy either way” (Moore and Schilt, 165). Of course it could also be that between the first and second season Ivan has changed her attitude towards gender and wants to become a man. But this is not negotiated directly within the series. Ivan also gets over her shame and helps Kit by becoming her business partner. To prove 86

that there is no chance for an intimate relationship with Kit she takes Kit to a bar, where Kit meets her girlfriend, a very feminine and beautiful waitress. Moore and Schilt say that Ivan is positioned as a man by her girlfriend: The girlfriend, an extremely femme waitress, positions Ivan as fully male through her statement that she “hates lesbians.” (Moore and Schilt, 167) That girlfriend tells Kit that they have been together for five years and Kit reacts very disappointed and shocked. I think although Ivan seems to feel sorry this is her way to pay back Kit, what she has done to her. The information that they have been together for five years leads me to question the above statement. The girlfriend of Ivan must have known her as a woman and as a drag king, who is not only performing on stage and in my view it is not possible to tell that she perceives Ivan as male. I don’t agree with the following negative critique of Moore and Schilt. This limited view of female masculinity neglects the ways in which alternative masculinities can reshape and transform hegemonic gender norms, or the radical potentials that lie in genderqueer identities that challenge the binary understanding of gender. (Moore and Schilt, 169) In my opinion, Ivan is a very interesting representation of female masculinity, who can challenge the binary understanding of gender and who shows potential for subversion. Moore and Schilt are right that Ivan’s potential for subversion is much larger in the first season.12 But I am not sure if Ivan can really be seen as a pre-op FTM in the second season, because this is not negotiated enough. There are just some hints like the words of her girlfriend, which could also be interpreted in other ways. CONCLUSION In my paper, I wanted to show how female masculinities are represented in The L Word. I have analyzed Shane and Ivan, who are both presented as very self confident in the first season. I like to mention at the end that if one takes a closer look there are many more female masculinities. In nearly every episode there appear female masculinities in the background, for example in the bars, on the parties and at the Dinah Shore weekend (season 1, episode 11 “Looking Back”) and at the Pride parade (Season 2, episode 11 “Loud and Proud”). I wondered why nobody of the authors of articles in the book Reading The L Word seemed to have recognized these representations. It seems to me like an additional script, the script of the background, which would be also worth analyzing. I also want to add that we have to be careful by using any categorizing terms like “butch” and “femme” or “masculine” and “feminine behavior”. Queer theory tries to theorize beyond binaries and either-or-structures. Identity categories should be deconstructed to reveal the subversive potential of gender 12

Cf. Moore and Schilt, 170. 87

presentations. I made use of the terms “butch” and “femme” to apply a theoretical discourse and not to make any sort of essentialist comment. I also like to mention that to be a more feminine lesbian might also be a way of passing in a homophobic society. On The L Word there are more feminine lesbians because this seems to be more attractive to the audience. But I think it increases the visibility of lesbians, whether there are more feminine or masculine looking lesbians. I believe that any representation is still better than none. At the end I want to add a quote of Kosofsky Sedwick, which also reflects my own opinion. No doubt everyone will have a wish list. I would like to order up some characters with body hair, ungleaming teeth, subcutaneous fat, or shorterthan-chin-length haircuts. […] I would like it if not every character came equipped with a handy sexual label like bisexual Alice or the selfproclaimed male lesbian Lisa. […] The simpler fact, though, is that I’m left eager to see more of these new friends with their bonds, families, fates, and ambitions. (Sedgwick, 3)

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bolonik, Kera. “Not Your Mother’s Lesbians” New York Magazine. http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9708/ Butler, Judith. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” New York: Routledge, 1993. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1991. Butler, Judith. “Imitation and Gender Insubordination.” The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Ed. Henry Abelove et.al. New York: Routledge, 1993. 307-320. Case, Sue-Ellen. “Towards a Butch-Femme Aesthetic.” The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Ed. Henry Abelove et.al. New York: Routledge, 1993. 294-306. Chambers A., Samuel: “Heteronormativity and The L Word. From a politics of representation to a politics of norms”. Reading the L Word: Outing contemporary television. Ed. Kim Akass and Janet McCabe. London: I.B. Tauris, 2006. 81-98. Feinberg, Leslie. Stone Butch Blues. Los Angelos: Alyson books, 2003 Halberstam, Judith. Female Masculinities. Durham: Duke UP, 1998. 88

Heller, Dana. “How does a lesbian look? Stendhal’s syndrome and the L word”. Reading the L Word: Outing Contemporary Television. Ed. Kim Akass and Janet McCabe. London: I.B. Tauris, 2006. 55-68. Jagose, Annemarie. Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York: Melbourne University Press, 1996. Moore, Candace and Kristen Schilt. “Is she man enough? Female masculinities on the L word”. Reading the L Word: Outing Contemporary Television. Ed. Kim Akass and Janet McCabe. London: I.B. Tauris, 2006. 159-171. Nestle, Joan. “Butch-Femme Relationships: Sexual Courage In the 1950’s”. A Restricted Country. 100-109. Sedgwick Kosofsky, Eve. “The L Word: Novelty in Normalcy.” Chronicle of Higher Education 50.19. B10-B11. Sullivan, Nikki. “Performance, Performativity, Parody and Politics.” A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory. 81-98.

89

“Die neue Lesben-Lust” Critical review of an article about the TV-series The L-Word in the magazine WOMAN Christa Edlmayer 1. Introduction In my term paper for the class on Queer Theory I would like to work out a critical queer perspective on an article about the series The L-Word in the Austrian women’s magazine WOMAN. (“Die neue Lesben-Lust”, No. 11, 26/05/2006, 28 - 33) This will include practicing elements of discourse analysis on the text, like a brief characterisation of the magazine’s mission and readership. Mainly I would like to point out in what way the article serves to “normalize” lesbian existance within a heteronormative frame and makes it accessible for a heterosexual readership with partly liberating, yet mostly homophobic effects. Judith Butler’s article “Imitation and Gender Subordination” will serve as a theoretical reference. Since the WOMAN text is written in German, I would like to quote some passages in original language. Unfortunately the article cannot be viewed in WOMAN’s internet archive, those who would like to read it can contact me via email ([email protected]) or look it up in the library. As a Sociology student I chose this class for my interest in contemporary theory in Cultural studies and Gender studies. I kindly ask those who read my paper not to judge it too harshly in terms of grammatical mistakes and expressional odds. 2. WOMAN - Austria’s most popular women’s magazine According to media-analysis 2005, WOMAN is the most popular women’s magazine in Austria. (www.media-analysis.at) “Woman’s magazine” seems to me a category to be criticised. In a subversive manner, I would rather call WOMAN a “mainstream women’s magazine”, a “some women’s magazine” or a “magazine for heterosexual middle class business women”. In 2005, WOMAN’s readership counted 571.000 people within Austria, which equals 8,3 percent of the Austrian population (14 years over). WOMAN thus clearly outnumbers the magazines Wienerin (4,2 %; 291.000 readers) and Brigitte (3,2 %; 220.000 readers) in range. Taking a look at the different age groups within the readership, WOMAN is most often read by 20 – 29 year-olds, followed by 30 – 39 year-olds, 14 – 19 year-olds and 40 – 49 year-olds. According to a statement on the WOMAN-website, the magazine defines its mission as follows: “Erklärung über die grundlegende Richtung: WOMAN ist Österreichs Frauenmagazin. Woman berichtet unabhängig von Parteien und politischen Gruppen über aktuelle Frauenthemen. Es ist dabei ausschließlich den Interessen seiner Leserinnen verpflichtet und will Frauenanliegen mehr Stellenwert verschaffen.” WOMAN wants to bring up women’s issues that are up to date and support the interests of its readership in an independent manner. (www.news.at/woman/) 90

3. Context and placement of the article “Die neue Lesben-Lust” Although the article “Die neue Lesben-Lust” is placed on page 28 within the magazine of 200 pages, there is no hint for it on the cover. Instead the cover presents “Wie Männer ticken” as the main story which reveals WOMAN as a magazine for heterosexual women. Considering this invisibility of the “lesbian story” on the magazine cover, it is interesting to ask: Would WOMAN have suffered a loss in readership if it had featured “Die neue Lesben-Lust” on the front cover? Placed under the column “Aktuell”, it is the first long story in the magazine. So the start of The L-Word on Pro 7 is an up to date issue, yet it is not worth to be a cover story. Metaphorically speaking, the article lies under the closet of the magazine cover. 4. Speakers represented in the article The authors of the story are Petra Klikovits and Tatjana Duffek. Klikovits is the chef reporter of the “Society” column and Duffek is a reporter for the “Aktuell” column (WOMAN, p. 8). Three women are featured with their “real lesbian story”: Katrina G. (30, works at ORF) talks about the discovery of her lesbian desire as well as her getting along within her family and colleagues on the workplace. Danny B. (44, singer), originally from Berlin, tells about the differences in social acceptance of homosexuals between Germany and Austria (Vienna). She talks about her stable relationship and about her wish for a baby. Finally Roswitha H. (43, owner of a café) reveals her longtime being-in-the-closet story, her former conflict when she was working for the Catholic church, and her recent marriage in Toronto. Also, Andrea Bogad-Radatz, who is responsible for the programming of films and series on the ORF, is quoted with her statement why the ORF will not show The L-Word. Ulrike Lunacek, a queer representative of the Green’s Party, tells her views on the series. 5. Categories in analysis I would like to continue with an analysis of the article along three categories that came to my mind whilst reading: Those categories are “Realness, Normalcy and Politics”, “Visual Representation” and “Comments on the series The L-Word ”. 5.1. Realness, Normalcy and Politics On page 6, the content is summarized as follows: “Die neue Lesben-Lust. „L-Word“: Am 30. Mai startet auf Pro 7 die erste Lesben-Fernsehserie. In WOMAN berichten echte homosexuelle Frauen, wie sie leben, lieben und leiden.” The articles promises the “authentic” lesbian report, it is flirting with the (presumably heterosexual) readership’s curiousness about the insights in “real” lesbian life. The label of the “real lesbian” is stunning in this context. Would “real homosexuals” be the opposite of “false” ones? The sensation stresses on the “realness” of the lesbians represented in the article. Yet how could WOMAN proove this realness? Evenly sensationalistic in style, the banner placed upon the story says “Aktuell- Jetzt kommen die Lesben”. 91

This implies visions of the “invasion” of the lesbians that have for a long time been “somewhere else” and are now appearing in WOMAN. The appearance of lesbians in this mainstream “women’s magazine” is, as I will argue later on, only possible via the introduction of the mainstream series The L-Word. This “having been somewhere else” can imply the emergence from a presumed “media closet”: lesbian images emerging from the visual media underground or from the closet of privacy to a representation in mainstream media. In possible reference to the lyrics of The L-Word theme (Girls into dresses / who drag with mustaches / chicks driving fast / ingenues with long lashes / women who long, love, lust / women who give / this is the way that we live / Talking, laughing, loving, breathing, fighting, fucking, crying, drinking, writing, winning, losing, cheating, kissing, thinking, dreaming / this is the way that we live and love) the article carries the headline “Die neue Lesben-Lust: Wie Lesben lieben, leben und leiden”. Lesbian lust is introduced as something “new”. This again refers to the image of the sensational “lesbian invasion” that is being made possible through the series The L-Word. A very significant passage related to “normalcy” is where Danny B. is illustrated as a lesbian, but a completely “normal” person. She argues that she lives a totally normal life amongst heterosexuals with her partner: “Im gemeinsamen Haushalt wird gekocht, geputzt, zusammen ferngesehen. Und gestritten!” (WOMAN, 30). It seems necessary to mention this in order to give insight in a “lesbian household”, as a safe and normal, quasi-heterosexual space. Starting the statement with “Danny vergräbt sich nicht in einschlägigen Lesbenlokalen”, the text creates two spheres: One is the sexually deviant lesbian sphere, the lesbian “scene”, a place where to hide and where only lesbians reside. The other is the heterosexual public sphere that accepts lesbians and doesn’t mind them coming out. Arguing that lesbians are “just normal women”, WOMAN contributes to the normalization of lesbian existance and implicitly seems to praise itself for this act of tolerance. Normalization in this context clearly means for lesbians not to act as a minority (no “hiding” in lesbian bars), but to show and demonstrate their normalcy in public. This “lesbian normalcy” is clearly communicated as the copy of a heterosexual lifestyle and needs to be criticised from an anti-heteronormative, queer perspective. In the article “Die neue Lesben-Lust” Ulrike Lunacek, a lesbian representative of the Green’s Party, argues “Die Serie zeigt: Wir sind Teil der Gesellschaft.”(WOMAN, 33) which refers to possible political effects of The L-Word through the visualisation of lesbian identities. This is where Judith Butler is to be brought in. In her article “Imitation and Gender Insubordination” she writes: “Can the visibility of identity suffice as a political strategy, or can it only be the starting point for a strategic intervention which calls for a transformation of policy? Is it not a sign of despair over public politics when identity becomes its own policy, bringing with it those who would “police” from various sides? And this is not a call to return to silence or invisibility, but, rather, to make use of a category that can be called into question, made to account for what it excludes.” (The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, 311) If the series The L-Word contributes to the visibility of lesbians in our society and thus serves as a starting point for politics, we need to question the way this is done: Which women are made visible as “real lesbians” and which other possible ways of being a lesbian are excluded? The visualisation of lesbian identities is also exemplified in the article, which leads to the next point.

92

5.2 Visual Representation Apart from the picture of the “L-Word”- cast, the article features pictures of all three women who are interviewed. It seems significant that a very “femme”-looking, longhaired blonde Katrina G. is the first of them to be introduced as a lesbian. Her picture is accompanied by the statement: “Frauen sollten weiblich sein. Ich mag keine Kampflesben!” (WOMAN, 29). The homophobic and “same-sexist” message is clear: Lesbianism is fine, but only if it’s not associated with a “butch”-look. “Women ought to look feminine” is a very powerful, heterosexist and non-queer thing to say. Even if this is Katrina G’s personal taste in women, it is no must for WOMAN to emphasise on that statement. It is repeated a second time in an even more extreme way, this time Danny B. is quoted: “Mich selbst sprechen auch hübsche Frauen mehr an als verhärmte Kampflesben! Frauen sollten weiblich sein. Viele, die so als Kerle auftreten, haben Probleme mit ihrem Selbstwertgefühl. Wenn man nicht zu sich selbst steht, wie sollten es dann die anderen tun? ” (WOMAN, 32). The category “verhärmte Kampflesben” could be read as “stone butches” and is in this context meant as the “lesbian worst case scenario”. The statement is insulting and completely insensitive towards non-femme identified lesbians. WOMAN is telling them they have a problem with their self-esteem and can’t stand up for themselves. The figures of “Katrina G.” and “Danny B.” were presumably installed in order to address and stabilize a widespread prejudice against butch identified lesbians, labelling them as “non feminine” and thus non-autonomous creatures with a lack of self-confidence. The article in this way serves the invisibility of butch lesbian identities in establishing the “femme lesbian” as the lesbian norm and the tolerable figure of identification within a text addressed to a heterosexual readership. Roswitha H., the more “butch” looking woman, is pictured towards the end of the article. It would be interesting to find out, if her look would be judged “too butch” by the two other two speakers represented. 5.3 Comments on the series The L-Word The comments on the series only occupy a relatively small part within the text: The cast is introduced as “Die schönsten Schwestern Kaliforniens”. The headline carries the subtext “Wie bei “Sex and the City” dreht sich alles um Liebe, Lust und Leidenschaft- nur unter Frauen”. (WOMAN, 30) The series is treated as the lesbian copy of Sex and the City, those women live and love, “only” are they lesbians . WOMAN supports The L-Word and calls it a cult-series and a “lesbo-soap”. The magazine gives the show credits for its sensitivity towards social problems, for its openness and its sense of humor. Also the cast is mentioned positively, above all Jennifer Beals, who might be known to the WOMAN readership from her part in Flashdance. Sadly enough, the authors don’t miss out on again stressing a “butch-free” lesbian sphere- this time within The L-Word: “Klischees über Kampflesben, sogenannte “butches”, sucht man vergeblich: Die Ladys aus L.A. sind hippe Partygirls und nehmen sich kein Blatt vor den Mund” (WOMAN, 30). The “mannish lesbian” is the invisible character in the article- or rather is she visible, but the reader is recommended not to look at her, because she embodies an “old cliché”. She is 93

considered a threat to the all too feminine sphere within WOMAN and thus should be excluded. Yet WOMAN can be given some credits for taking up the “L-Word” debate in connection with the ORF. The article includes the justification of the ORF’s chef in programme planning for not showing the series: “Am Küniglberg sei “L-Word” nicht gefragt, weil es “genügend andere Hitserien gibt” und außerdem “das Publikumssegment eingeschränkt wäre” (WOMAN, 29). The authors of the article clearly position themselves in favor of the series by dismantling this argument: “Doch scheint man beim ORF zu vergessen, dass durch diese Serie die Bewusstseinsbildung für “Randgruppen” gefördert und Vorurteile in jedem Fall beseitigt werden könnten” (WOMAN, 29). 6. Conclusion The message of the article stresses that lesbians can have a life “as normal” as shown on The L-Word. They live like the women in Sex and The City, it’s “only” that they are queer. The word “queer” is actually not used a single time in the article, hence “queerness” is not a category for WOMAN. The magazine operates with the terms “lesbian” and “homosexual”, possibly for the reason of the alliterations in “LesbenLust” or “Wie Lesben lieben, leben und leiden”. More likely though, queerness is a project too radical for the magazine. WOMAN treats lesbianism as what Butler calls “a copy, a derivative example, a shadow of the real”: “Compulsory heterosexuality sets itself up as the original, the true, the authentic; the norm that determines the real implies that “being” lesbian is always a kind of miming, a vain effort to participate in the phantasmatic plenitude of naturalized heterosexuality which will always and only fail” (The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, 1992, 312). 7. Bibliography Butler, Judith: “Imitation and Gender Subordination.” The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Ed. Henry Abelove et.al., New York, Routledge, 1993. 307-320. WOMAN: “Die neue Lesben-Lust”, No. 11, 26/05/2006, 28 – 33. www.media-analysis.at www.news.at/woman

94

Justified Representation? The L-Word, Sex and the City & Co.

Michaela Germann Introduction: If we take a look at present-day broadcasting, we can clearly see the strong presence of New Queer Cinema. Besides movies like Boys Don’t Cry, Transamerica and Brokeback Mountain, more and more representation of queers is to be found in the realm of television series. Among the best known are the Sit-Coms Ellen and Will and Grace. Not to forget, the two new pets of the TV show family, when it comes to queerness: Queer As Folk and The L-Word. Also in TV Shows, which are not explicitly declared queer, we can increasingly find queer characters. To mention only a few, there are Leo, Nancy and Roseanne’s mother on Roseanne, Jorja Fox as the lesbian doctor Maggie and her successful colleague Kerry on ER. Concerning youth series, there is Jack McPhee on The Creek, Matt Fielding on Melrose Place and Carl Feeney and Kyle on Everwood. There is a queer character in almost every TV show nowadays, even though admittedly, there are more gay than lesbian characters. Still, a lot of feminist and lesbian women seem to be unsatisfied with the depiction of lesbians on TV. They often argue it to be not realistic, not realistic enough, and even to be completely wrong. In this piece of writing, I will try to clarify that the portrayal of queer and especially lesbians on TV might not be more or less realistic than the representation of heterosexuals is. I will try to show how important it is, to recognize that TV is TV and not reality, no matter if a minority or the majority is represented.

Same Sex Kissing and Homosexual Short-Term Relationships on TV and in Movies Even more popular than queer characters, are same -sex-kissing and shortterm relationships. Note that these, as opposed to long-term relationships, more often revolve around women than men. On Sex and the City for example, Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) and Dawn (Alanis Morissette) make out and Samantha Jones (Kim Catrall) has a lesbian girlfriend called Maria for some time during the series. Marissa Cooper (Misha Barton) on The O.C. has a relationship with Alex (Olivia Wilde), the girl working at the bar. This relationship lasts for a couple of episodes in 95

Season 2, which is approximately as long as Marissa’s and Ryan’s heterosexual relationship tends to last once a season. This implies that a lesbian relationship in The O.C. is as important as a heterosexual relationship. Another example is Julia McNamarra and her life coach Ava Moore, who kiss on Nip/Tuck. On Ally McBeal, there is more than just one same sex kiss between women. Kisses take place between Ally (Calista Flockhart) and Georgia (Courtney Thorne-Smith), Ally and Ling (Lucy Liu) and Ally and Elaine (Jane Krakowski)1. The same sex kisses on Ally McBeal are considered to be more than just kisses between two heterosexual women. Ally McBeal is said to be heteroflexible.2 Heteroflexible women are defined as follows: Unlike heterosexual women, heteroflexible women are open to homosexual experiences, as long as these experiences stay firmly in the "experimentation" camp. And unlike the bisexual woman or bisexual straight woman, the heteroflexible woman makes no claim to bisexuality and has no interest in developing a romantic relationship with women outside of sex. Quite the opposite, in fact-her identity is securely rooted in heterosexuality. (http://www.afterellen.com/TV/allymcbeal.html)

Even the always proper Rory Gilmore on Gilmore Girls kisses her friend Paris on Season 4. This kiss seems to derive from curiosity and hoping to get a free drink, rather than from heteroflexibility, as described above, but it is still shown. The examples above are only a few of same-sex-involvements. Some of them are more, and others less authentic to the real world. If it comes down to lesbian couples on TV, we can find among others the characters Melanie and Lindsay on Queer As Folk, Willow and Tara on Buffy and most importantly the lesbian women on The L-Word.

The L Word- Representation of Characters Watching The L-Word, most people probably did not notice a big difference to other TV shows revolving around a group of women. The only difference is that these women are lesbian or bi-sexual instead of heterosexual. Their jobs are almost the same as the jobs of the women on Sex and the City and most of the other TV people. All of this could have been inferred by Showtime’s advertising slogan “same sex, different city”. There is a lot of disagreement about the new series, especially concerning the main characters. Some people, as for example Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick3 and Kera Bolonik4 do not agree on whether the new lesbian image is a good or a bad thing. While Sedgwick argues that The L-Word is aimed at a mainstream heterosexual audience and is completely unrealistic, Kera Bolonik is thrilled by the new type of representation. Sedgwick says that the scene where Jenny and Marina make out in the pool ‘would not be out of place in soft-core girl-on-girl pornography’ (Sedgwick, [no p.]), and that the women depicted are not real. She says ‘[she] would like to order up some characters with body hair, ungleaming teeth, subcutaneous fat, 1 2

Cf. http://www.afterellen.com/TV/timeline-kisses.html .1.7.2006. Cf. http://www.afterellen.com/TV/allymcbeal.html 4.7. 2006.

3

Cf. Sedgwick, Eve Kokovsky. “’The L Word’ :Novelty in Normalcy”. Chronicle of Higher Education. 50 (2006): B10-B11. http://web33.epnet.com.silk.library.unmass.edu:2048/DeliveryPrintSave.asp?tb=1&_ug…02.03.2006 4 Cf. Bolonik, Kera. “ Not Your Mother’s Lesbians” http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&titla=How+Showtime%27s+…28.02.2006 96

or shorter that chin-length haircuts’ (Sedgwick, [no p.]). In her article “Not Your Mother’s Lesbians”, Kera Bolonik extols the way in which Showtime has reversed the common image of lesbians. She argues that, so far, lesbians have been represented as ‘decked out in fanny packs, tool belts, Birkenstocks, ear cuffs, and bolo ties, as [they] ravel in [their] man-hating, tofu-eating, mullet-headed, folkmusic-loving, sexless homebody glory’ (Bolonik, [no p.]), and is glad about the change in depiction of lesbians. Bolonik also argues that ‘New York lesbians’ are ready for a change. “The L Word“ seems to mark the end of lesbians, who live in ‘flannel wonderland […] throw away their disposable razor and “let their garden grow”’ (Bolonik, [no p.] ). The fact that the women on The L Word have fabulous jobs, contributes to the feeling of not being real. Tina and Bette for example, live in a nice house with a swimming pool and never seem to have any problems concerning money. How many lesbian women in real life are successful writers, directors of a museum, professional tennis players and owner of a fancy café like The L-Word women, and therefore never have money trouble? How many lesbian women in real life are always styled from head to toe, wear the fanciest clothes and are the impersonated femininity? All of this might be a little bit exaggerated in the TV show, but how about comparing The L Word to another women’s show?

Sex and the City Heterosexual Normalcy? If it comes to the professions of the four main characters in Sex and the City, one could say that they are among the most popular TV professions. Represented are Carrie as the journalist, Miranda, a lawyer, Charlotte an art manager and Samantha, who works in the field of PR. They all like to go shopping, and especially the (since Sex and the City) famous shoes by Manolo Blahnik, are an addictive drug for Carrie. She is a journalist who writes a page for a newspaper every once in a while, lives in a small New York apartment and is basically always broke. Anyway, she can afford to buy a pair of the most expensive shoes you can buy within a radius of 100 miles, approximately once a week. Besides, she can, of course, always go out to eat and go to the nicest places for a vacation. All of the four women are slim and good looking. There is never a single body hair, where it should not be, and they never have bad-hair-days or sore feet from walking on high heels. With their jobs, appearance and their love life, they seem to be close to being perfect. Naturally, they slurp Cosmopolitans while they talk about the new dresses they have bought, or about the guy they have recently had sex with. Is that really all heterosexual women do? Actually, this is extremely unlikely. Surprisingly, there is nobody complaining about it. If you search the internet, type in “Sex and the City + Criticism” into Google and hit the “search” button, you are not very likely to find a passionately written article to protest about the representation of heterosexual women. If you do the same thing for The L Word, you might be more successful. Various people have complained in the past that lesbians are represented in a false manner, or that they are not represented enough, or maybe even that they are not represented at all. Now, there is a TV series almost exclusively about lesbians: The L Word. Now, some people whine about being portrayed with the wrong length of hair or the wrong hair color, too few or too much hair on legs and in 97

arm pits, with too much or too little make up, fingernails that are too long or too short, etc. It almost seems all of that just happens for the sake of complaining. It seems as if heterosexual women did not complain as much about the way they are represented. The reason is not exactly clear. They would just as much have a lot to complain about, since the representation of heterosexuals, is not very authentic, either. If you are a journalist and always broke, how realistic is it to buy Manolo Blahniks all the time? How many women in real life are only concerned with men and how good they are in bed? How many hetero women talk only about what they have lately bought at the stylish shop on whatever Avenue, while they slurp their Cosmopolitan, because real women in real life would never drink anything else? Is all of that more realistic than the representation of the lesbians on the L-Word? The point is that probably neither of the two TV shows has extraordinarily much to do with real life and the real world. That is exactly what it is all about. This is the reason why people watch it. Nobody needs to sit in front of the TV to see something they can find out on the street. People are not interested in the truth. If you want to see the truth, or something close to the truth, you need to watch a documentary, but not a TV series. Most importantly, none of this has the slightest thing to do with the representation of lesbians being inferior to society and the film industry than heterosexual women. It is simply a matter of reality and fiction.

Reality and Fiction If we take a look at the average heterosexual woman, we will face a variety of looks as well as a variety of characters. Heterosexual women come in all sorts and sizes. Taking a look at lesbians, we face all sorts and sizes as well. They range from femme, to androgynous, to butch and stone butch. Similarly, heterosexual women can be categorized. These types might be unevenly distributed, but so are lesbians. In real life, it is not the way that all lesbians are butches, but also not all heterosexual women are 100% feminine. What we see on TV is always the extreme. There is a butch like Tina Brendan/Brendan Teena on Boys Don’t Cry and femmes on The LWord. There are extremely feminine women on Sex and the City and there is also the more masculine woman as for example Jackie on Roseanne. I would even dare to say that the degree of appearance towards the masculine or feminine is linked to the amount of wealth of the character. The women on The L-Word and Sex and the City are clearly not working class, therefore they need to look nicely groomed, which in television world obviously means more female. The lower the class, the more likely it is that women are portrayed in a masculine manner, or contrary, ridiculously feminine, i.e. wearing a lot of flashy make up, and extraordinary, vulgar clothes. Compare, for example, Roseanne on Roseanne and Peggy Bundy on Married…with Children. They are both working class, but while Roseanne is represented as a kind of masculine, big, working class woman, Peggy Bundy is completely hidden behind her big hairdo and several layers of make up. It almost seems like she needs to hide her stupidity behind all of that. The women on The L-Word are maybe not like the prototype of the lesbian woman either, but that is nothing unique to TV series. Only few of the women on television comply with the supposed real equivalent. Mostly, they do not even represent them in an approximate manner.

98

Conclusion If we decide to watch television or to go to the movies, we should expect fiction instead of reality. We need to be aware of the fact that people and lives shown to us on the screen are not real. Since queer characters, and especially lesbians, have long been kept back, it is only natural that now, at the time New Queer Cinema is in advance, we observe it critically. Still, we should keep in mind that not only queer people are represented in a way that might not be realistic, but that this also applies to heterosexuals. Even animals, if we think of the “Beethoven” movies, are put into situations and act, as they never would or could in real life. Perhaps, people, who are dissatisfied with the way queer people are represented on TV, should consider to additionally reflect about the way heterosexuals are represented. Maybe then, one can see that heterosexuals might not really be like they are shown on TV, either. One might then come to the conclusion that being represented, is not always an advantage, but can lead to a lot of illusions and therefore also to some disillusions. If one is still not satisfied, there is one really good thing about TV series. Since they are not real, we can simply switch them off, no matter if we are straight, queer or whatever else. References Bolonik, Kera. “ Not Your Mother’s Lesbians” http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&titla=How+Showtime%27s +…28.02.2006 http://www.afterellen.com/TV/timeline-kisses.html .01.07.2006. http://www.afterellen.com/TV/allymcbeal.html 04.07.2006 Sedgwick, Eve Kokovsky. “’The L Word’ :Novelty in Normalcy”. Chronicle of Higher Education. 50 (2006): B10-B11. http://web33.epnet.com.silk.library.unmass.edu:2048/DeliveryPrintSave.asp?tb=1&_ ug…02.03.2006

99

Slaying the Stereotypes: Buffy queering the mainstream Caitlin Bladin

1. Introduction The concept of ‘queering the mainstream’ seemed, until recently, highly unlikely. However, throughout this course we have examined how queer culture has made its way, very quickly, to the focal point of many discussions, and indeed many prime time television spots. Popular culture has received the influx of queer productions with fairly open arms. Interestingly, however, is that a surprisingly large percentage of the criticism surrounding these productions stems from the queer community itself. The argument being that the representations of queer in this mainstream could be doing more harm than good, that is, not providing a realistic portrayal and therefore not being representative of the group it is attempting to capture. Or, in other words these representations could be seen as ‘re-stigmatising’ an already stigmatised group, categorising something that inherently transcends categorisation. This paper will explore these themes through an analysis of the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This is a particularly interesting example because of the demographic associated, and the longevity of the show.

2. Buffy the show Debuting in 1997 and running until 2003, Buffy the Vampire Slayer broke with many conventions in television. Indeed, when director creator, Joss Whedon, first floated his idea, it was converted to a movie and cleaned up for the purposes of marketing. However, in 1997 audiences were spared the niceties and what emerged was a gritty, witty and emotionally rich show. Over the seven years the show ran, the characters developed and grew, with them a massive fan base, with appreciation clubs springing up all over the world. The popularity of Buffy could be seen to lie in its accessibility. Through Whedon’s masterful use of metaphors the audience can decide on what level they wish to engage with the show. The fantastic basis of the show ensures a cleverly woven smoke screen, disguising the very real themes, and characters. That is the ‘demons’ that plague teenagers also plague Buffy and her friends. However in this show the problems associated with growing up they are actually physically demons. Indeed, as the series progressed, the demon battles became more complex and intertwined as did the relationships between the characters. Three years on, it is not the demons or many apocalypses that people remember, rather the relationships and characters. And in the context of queer theory, these aspects offer endless material for appraisal (queer reading). It is interesting to note that the relationships in this show, sexual or otherwise, are in few cases heteronormative, and this is important in the context of a show with such longevity because the characters 100

and their relationships they have arching story lines. That is, we are able to see that characters grow, make decisions, mistakes, and then do it all over again.

3. Queer However, before addressing the show specifically, it is important that we understand the background theory of this field. The field of queer studies is relatively young, however, like all fields of academia there is disagreement between leading theorists down to the fundamental, the definition of queer itself. Jagose describes queer as, “those gestures or analytical models which dramatise incoherencies in the allegedly stable relations between chromosomal sex, gender and sexual desire” (Jagose 3). Thus, implicit in this definition are concepts of identity, subversion, categorisation and of course relationships. It is these aspects which this paper will analyse in relation, with specific reference to how it is expressed in the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

3.1. Subversion A core tenet of Queer Theory is Butler’s notion of subversion. Butler in addition to Jagose is another vital theorist who has had much influence on the realm of Queer Studies. “Butler argues for subverting both gender and sexual identity by destabilizing the categories that make them up” (Abstract, p. 207), advocating that the categories and norms that are imposed upon people in society are both unrealistic and unfair. Indeed, she fails to believe that anyone can fit the mould that society has cast. Thus she calls upon people to openly subvert the norms operating in society. However, Butler finds herself in a catch 22 with this request, for if everyone started to be subversive, then the act of subverting norms would become the norm, and thus would no longer be subversive. As yet, Butler believes that society on the whole is conformist and it is the queer movement that is subversive. However, it is the queering of the mainstream that can be seen as an example of subversion. Specifically, in not fulfilling the ‘heteronormative’ expectation of serials of its time and the demographic Buffy has attracted, it becomes truly subversive. That is, this show has become more subversive than a show with a female vampire killing heroine necessarily had to be.

3.2. How then does subversion work in Buffy? Subversion and Buffy appear to go hand in hand and the very premise of the show is subversive, simply with its science fiction roots. However, of more interest in this context is the fact that the characters of the show are faced with problems and fail to find convenient solutions within the hour. As well as the fantastic nature of the show, the structure of the show was subversive with its rich narrative arcs. That is, as mentioned, problems facing a character in one episode were not easily resolved and thus the dilemmas were integrated into the narrative arcs, allowing continual character development over the seven years of the show. These intricately woven narrative arcs are something that play a large role in the overall character cohesion and unlike many other shows the characters became textured and thus far harder to categorise (Cover). 101

Therefore, the characters are also subversive, and none more so than Buffy herself. She is a strong, independent woman without becoming any less feminine or sexual (Syreeni, n.p.). The other characters too, are far from stereotypical. It is the females who are strong and are relied upon to save the world from the apocalypse, all the while the male characters becoming no weaker or ‘female’. Rather than embodying either end of the spectrum, these characters appear to express Butler’s notion of gender ambivalence. The only exception of this is perhaps Xander, who finds it difficult to accept that it is the women who save him, and not the other way around. In fact, this ambivalence seems to create little cognitive dissonance in the characters. Rather, they embrace their subverted gender roles without a second thought, disposing of long existent binaries as early as the first episode and rarely looking back. Rather than attempting what Butler calls unrealistic and conforming to society’s expectations, Buffy, Willow, Xander, Giles, Angel and Spike exist on a continuum of gender and identity, a point which will be returned to later. So far subversion has been discussed in relation to the characters and the structure of the show. However, an integral part of the Queer Theory remains unexplored: the relationships. Unsurprisingly, these are also highly subversive. Few exist along a heteronormative binary, and those that do exist between members of the older generation, in what has been suggested as an attempt to acknowledge the change in attitude toward ‘conventional’ relationships in today’s generation (Syreeni, n.p.). That is these relationships exist between Giles and his partners. However, the central relationships need nothing more than a glance to be classified as subversive. Relationships between slayer and vampire, human and demon, human and werewolf, witch and witch, and slayer and slayer do not exist along any binary, even in the “BuffyVerse”.

3.3. Performance and Performativity Butler’s concept of subversion in Queer Theory is closely related to her theory of gender as performance and performativity. Performativity is the understanding of subjecthood as the non-voluntary citation of the culturally-given signifier in a reiterative process that is never stable or guaranteed, and that always risks its own undoing by the necessity -- and instability -- of reiteration. (Cover 1) Or more simply put, it is the expression of oneself according to societal norms. Thus, performance and performativity can be seen to play a role in both the nature versus nature debate, and the essentialist and constructionist debate. Butler argues that gender can be performative, that is it is not a fixed internal structure to be expressed (Sullivan). However, this theory need not be confined to gender, but can rather be generalised to a theory of identity. That is that identity is shaped by our repeated reactions to the societal norms and our relationships with people in that society.

3.4 Perfomance and Performativity as a Queer Construct in Buffy It is this aspect that Rob Cover explores in his article. He states that the characters in Buffy personify the Butler notion of identity as performative. He says in Buffy “subjecthood is shown to be torn between an enlightenment era notion of wholeness and a postmodern fragmentation, selective diversity and internalized variances.” 102

(Cover). Indeed he explores performativity in most aspects of Whedon’s characterisation in Buffy. Following Cover’s example, Buffy herself is a woman with a pre-chosen destiny. However, she never feels whole or complete even knowing this destiny that is her identity is not a fixed determinate emanating from within. Nor does she feel that she is defined by this role. Rather, it seems this identity neither encapsulates her, nor provides enough for her, “Buffy: Because . . . okay, I’m cookie dough. I’m not done baking. I’m not finished becoming whoever the hell it is I'm going to turn out to be. I make it through this, and the next thing, and the next thing, and maybe one day I turn around and realise I’m ready. I’m cookies. . . . It’ll be a long time coming. Years, if ever (“Chosen,” 7x22).” The development of this concept of identity is achieved mostly through the transformativity of the characters throughout the show, once again enabled by the narrative arcs. That is, this “transformative encounter [do is] shake[s] up the notion of the subject as fixed, forever categorized under a set of pre-given identity paradigms.” (Cover, 1). Like in ‘real life’ the characters in Buffy are not immune to the surrounding in their environment, rather, they are influenced by them, react to them, internalise them and their reactions, and then their identity is shaped by them. Rather than creating incoherent characters, this transformative aspect means that they are more true to life than many characters in other shows. Much like us the characters can change and develop, not being static, not having predetermined personality, goals or sexuality.

Therefore, the performative nature of identity formation in Buffy can be seen as a queer construct, because it exists in a constructionalist sphere, rather than an essentialist one. That is, this form of identity formation is essential to the concept of gender as performative. Indeed, gender, and sexuality can be seen to be subsumed by the overarching identity. Therefore rather than existing in a two dimensional world, these characters are once again given a continuum to exist in. However, these characters are also blessed by an environment (the ‘BuffyVerse’) where deviation is the ‘norm’, as opposed to the patriarchal heteronormative society in which we live and operate.

3.5. The emergence of overt queer themes Up to this point, we have discussed covert queer themes which permeate Buffy, however, in relation to the performative formation of identity, gender and sexuality the emergence of a lesbian relationship must be mentioned. In season four, Buffy’s best friend, the shy Willow, emerges as a lesbian. Her transformation, as Cover would describe it, seemed to be an important step forward for the representation of queer in the mainstream. A teenage show with a massive fan base re-wrote one of the main characters as a lesbian. For Willow the revelation came at a time of exploration, with both witchcraft and sexuality. Rather than this plot development minimising Willow’s role in the show as happened in other prime time TV shows (cf. Bolonik). Rather, her girlfriend Tara became a regular and their love story a central thread to the narrative, and it was praised among queer circles for allowing a lesbian narrative more than a one-week stint (cf. Bentham). Interestingly, this relationship in the setting of the show was one of the least subversive. There were no ramifications for loving another of the same gender, 103

unlike those of loving a vampire (for example Angel losing his soul). This relationship didn’t demand a lot of fuss (the shock when Spike and Buffy were discovered), but rather emerged naturally and out of love. It was woven beautifully into the existing story lines, and can even be aligned with a growth of Willow’s power of witch-craft, a point which will be returned to later. In the context of the show a trusting if not highly sexually charged relationship developed between two members of the same sex, without the shock tactics employed by other mainstream shows. Rather Buffy integrated this relationship into the complex fabric of the show, bringing queer directly into the focus of younger generations.

4. Criticisms of the Queer in Buffy However, as with all other representations of Queer in the mass media Buffy has drawn its fair share of criticism. In addition to the fundamentalist Christian groups, criticism has stemmed from within Queer groups. An obvious objection being that queer need not be combined with the supernatural to be understood. Yet, the most common complain remains that the queer relationships portrayed on television rarely reflect the individuals in society. Indeed Bartlem has argued that although initially appearing to be supporting the queer movement the relationship between Willow and Tara was actually perpetuating the lesbian stereotype. She argues that the emergence of this relationship at the time that Willow’s Wicca strengthens is combining lesbianism with witchcraft, or the unnatural and devious. However, another interpretation of this could be that it was the embracing of her sexuality that led Willow to be an empowered witch. Wicca aside, Bartlem also accuses Whedon of making this relationship under sexed and staid in an oversexed show. This criticism seems more founded with no sex scenes occurring explicitly on screen between Tara and Willow, rather being replaced by metaphor, removing lesbianism again to a sphere of the mystical and unreal. Although this contrasts greatly to the often hot and steamy portrayal of sex between male and female characters, it is not purposely under representing the passion and desire of lesbian relationships, rather an issue of censorship, which is outside the scope of this paper. Although comparatively little sexual footage is aired, let us not forget that it is the passion with which Willow loved Tara that causes her to cross to the dark side upon learning of Tara’s death. The criticisms of Buffy’s queer themes are naturally not limited to the Tara and Willow narrative, but interestingly, theorists have also argued that rather than subverting gender expectations Buffy reaffirms them (Michael Levine, M. & Schneider, S., 2003; as cited in, Lowett, J., ). However interestingly, Lowett continues to argue: that Buffy never mediate a definitive representation of gender. This complexity and contradiction is partly articulated through the inclusion of romance. How can a kick-ass-but-girlie action hero find happiness in heterosexual romance? If we knew the answer to that we wouldn’t find Buffy so funny and engaging. They don’t give answers; they illustrate the problem. Because romance is a particular and pervasive form of gendered interaction, the characters’ responses, the show’s responses, or our own responses indicate the “complex position of feminism as both oppositional culture and part of the mainstream”. (Thomas, 203; Lowett, J, 19) 104

5. Buffy’s role in Queering the Mainstream Therefore, like its predecessors and followers in queering the mainstream, Buffy is not a perfect representation of queer. But then, nothing is. For an accurate representation would mean that queer would have to fit a mould that could be replicated on Television or in film. When it is precisely this that Queer Theory is trying to avoid, indeed this is the counter intuitive nature of Queer Theory that Jagose outlines. Rather than being successful then, the point of queering the mainstream should be the discourse started around it. Rather than spending so much time on what queer representations fall short of, we should herald these shows that are bringing queer into consciousness and agenda.

6. Epilogue When signing up for a course at the University of Vienna, I was excited to see the course “In A Different Light”. Not being aware of the existence of such a field of academia, the course sparked my interest. Perhaps naively I felt that perhaps this course would help explain something of the unexplained, and allow insight into a different life. However, what has become clear is that Queer Theory is complicated, difficult to fathom and above all, stimulating. It is a very important area of research, shedding light on a complex aspect of society. Although still fraught with intrinsic problems, specifically the argument that queer ascends pigeon holing while at the same time striving to be recognised as a legitimate identity, in order to achieve which categorisation is necessary, is confusing and seemingly counter intuitive. However, the key issue is, Queer is as much about the individual as it is about the community. People should be able to decide what they are categorised as, according to what rules and no category should be mutually exclusive, and the identity queer if chosen by an individual should be empowering. For sometimes just as in Buffy we do live life at the hellmouth and the world is neither black nor white but an immeasurable number of shades of grey (or rainbow, as the case may be). That is where human experience lies, in the middle, in the ambivalence, a long a continuum, and Queer Theory teaches us that we all need to reassess the emphasis we place on the binaries in our lives. References Bartlem, E. (2003). Coming out of the mouth of hell. Journal of Entertainment Media, 2, 200, Retrieved from: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:kHD5bcIzb78J:www.refractory.unime lb.edu.au/journalissues/vol2/eBartlem.pdf+lesbian+theme+in+buffy&hl=en& ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a on: 13/06/06. Bolonik, K. (2006). Not your mother’s lesbians, in New York Magazine. Cover, R. (2006). From Butler to Buffy: Notes Towards a Strategy for Identity Analysis in Contemporary Television Narrative. Retrieved from: http://reconstruction.eserver.org/042/cover.htm on: 14/06/06. 105

Jagose, A. (1996). Queer Theory an Introduction. New York: New York University Press. Jowett, L. (2004). The Problem of Romance and the Representation of Gender in Buffy and Angel. Retreived from: www.slayage.tv/SCBtVS_Archive/Talks/Jowett.pdf on: 24/06/06. Sullivan, N. (2003). Performance, perfomativity, parody and politics. In: A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory. 81-98. Syreeni, S. A. (2006). Buffy Bound to please. Retrieved from: http://www.helsinki.fi/~ssyreeni/texts/buffysm/buffysm on: 13/06/06.

106

Family and Mass Media by C. C.

The family is a concept that has been exploited and debated for years, allowing its definition to be scientifically sectioned into gendered, generational, and situational subsets. Not only have scientists tried to label what defines and constitutes a family, but so have the social workers employed by foster care programs, anthropologists studying tribes in isolated locations, and religious or political leaders outlining their cause. One must acknowledge that each of these people, studying and trying to understand the cultural norm or abnormality to the collective deemed “family”, approaches his/her definition with certain bias according to historically cemented dioramas. The notion of family throughout history has taken on many forms and along with it are those who are determined to categorize it and its constitution. The insistence on outlining the commandments of family comes from the need for regulation as to what lies within or outside the limits of its definition. The debate as to what these limits are constantly imbues current media. Looking into the family dynamic portrayed in primetime television, we have seen a change from the stringent nuclear hetero-normative roles of Ozzie and Harriet to the multifaceted community found in Friends. Using the example of Ozzie and Harriet does not completely discredit the fact that there are probably underlying, undefined, examples of alternate family roles presented in the show or that Friends is the new recipe for society’s current ideal of family. What these two shows do express is the shift in focus from the mom and pop mandate of family to a more intrinsic and webbed view of its members. Realizing that the definition of family has changed within the last fifty years so has television’s portrayal of it. Included in the new concept of family is not only the roles of its members and their power struggles, but exactly what we are now allowing to be deemed a family. Along with codifying the members of a family come the questions of whether a family is a nuclear base for community, why are we so insistent to define a family, and why are new forms of the family repealed so heavily at first in mass media. To be more specific with the last question: Is television programming a catalyst or is it simply a mirror reflecting current issues and problems arising in the normative view of family? Why are so many people eager to berate television shows that represent “alternate” patterns of stable family ties? Also what drives an audience to seek new forms of familial representation is a subject worth exploring if only to look briefly into the push behind the executives to come out with shows which delineate families in a much broader stage. 1. The Definition of Family: Looking through a kaleidoscope of interpretation of the family there are a many classifications that attempt to define our concept of how we perceive this community. Many have argued that the roles in family are construed by either blood or marriage. Relations in this case depend upon the distinction between the sexes and the subsequent roles allocated to different members according to their classification 107

within the family. Labels for family members are given according to their function. For example: Father is the person who sires the child, daughter is the female child of the father who sired her and the mother who bore her and so forth. With this interpretation we have created a structured view of the family in which roles are dictated by rigidly linear paths. Both gender and generation define the roles played by the family members and this concept of family is what generates the typical hetero-normative concept of family. Understanding the basic principle that has governed some previous traditional analysis, we must further explore the fact that more often than not, gender and generational segways are not what defines a person’s role in the family. Often the role enacted by the member of the family is what defines the coined term for their participation. Very simply, if the person named “father” is the one who sires the child, what are the other roles and responsibilities that he is required to perform as a consequence. Also, if he does not manage to fulfill the subsequent jobs as a father, is he still able to claim that title? If for some reason the mother takes on the responsibility and “father” qualities are we then meant to view her role as less or more motherly? Challenges to what is viewed as the hetero-normative mandate of family appear constantly and throughout time, cultures, and communities. For this reason many anthropologists have put forward the notion of complex families and the idea of kinship rather than family as a method of analyzing familial relationships. “Complex Family is a generic term for any family structure involving more than two adults” (Wikipedia). Stemming from the beginning of communities to the present, there have been social situations in which the typical roles of family are not enacted where the support of many members of a locale contribute to the rearing of children. Where as we do know that the concept of the “father” as person who sires the child and “mother” who bears the child does hold up as a universal, the care taking and providing roles can often bend and change according to the environment. Also, the term father and mother can extend to the idea that the term father does not have to be specifically the person who sires the child. The father can also be seen as a caretaker, a provider, a male figure who accepts responsibility for a child in the younger generation. Family in the case of the “complex family” reaches out to other members in the community to find the parental/family roles that had previously been found in the nuclear family. Opinion that family was also constructed according to the ritual of marriage has also come under scrutiny. In her essay “Is Kinship Always Heterosexual,” Judith Butler states: In recent sociology, conceptions of kinship have become disjointed from the marriage assumption, so that for example Carol Stack’s now classic study of urban African-American kinship, All Our Kin, shows how kinship functions well through a network of women, some related to biological ties and some not (Butler 103). Here we face the idea that the family roles of “mother and father” are now capable of being determined outside of marriage. What might have previously been conceived as the determined role for the father could possibly be taken over by an aunt, a grandmother, a sister. Whichever the case, we see in every community family structures that do not work exclusively on the assumption that a mother, father, and the children are the primary make up. Rather we are given the reality that family is far more fluid than a structure based solely on the lines of gender and generation. Knowing that more fluid forms of family occur throughout various societies, we need to delve even deeper into the roles that individuals play in the family according to sexual orientation. Previously assumed with the concept of “mother” as bearer and “father” as the one who sires the child, we find that often this idea is challenged in 108

the area of adoption. Heterosexual couples looking to have children and who cannot create them according to the previous ideal are allowed to adopt children and assume the parental mother and father figures. Here we see that the mother clearly did not bear the child and that the father did not sire it. However, in present society it is permissible for them to assume the role of parents. Now take into account the possible lesbian version of this account. One of the women bears the child and has that connection of “mother”. In the case of two gay men, one of the men could sire a child with a woman and therefore be considered “father” as the one who sired the child. In both of the homosexual cases the parents have a stronger biological tie to the child than the heterosexual couple who have adopted. However, according to legal terms the adopting heterosexual parents have a stronger right to their child than the partners in the homosexual relationships. In current western society there is debate regarding the structure of families and who inherently is afforded certain titles and roles according to gender, sexuality, and generation. The issue becomes even more of a focus when regarding adoption and marriage rights for homosexuals even though we see that there are ‘alternate’ families who come together according to cultural norms or necessity and do not fit into the hetero-normative construct embodied by shows such as The Osbornes. Fathers now take on the role as primary care taker while mothers go to work, children are left in day care when both parents work, and other family members are taking on the roles of the father or mother in the absence of either provider. Family is fluid if we recognize the fact that more often its construct relies heavily on interplay of gender roles. The idea of mother as bearer and father as the one who sires the child may still hold true. However, the role these people play past the birth of the child is continually changing and no where is that more apparent than mass media. 2. Mass Media and its Portrayal of the Family: The popular media of the United States have had such an extraordinary influence upon the nation’s image of itself, and upon the face it has presented to the rest of the world, that it has become virtually meaningless to attempt to distinguish between the creation of the media and ‘reality’ in contemporary America (cf. Vasey 213). As we see here in the excerpt from Ruth Vasey, media has a profound influence on society. It is possible to assume that a substantial amount of the American media viewers regard their lives according to situations they find enacted on television. What is interesting to delve into is whether or not mass media attempts to portray society or is society creating itself according to images and situations found in the media. Specifically, I want to focus on the portrayal of family in media and whether or not what is represented reflects current society and if not, what would the anxieties be in portraying everyday family life. Also a key factor that comes into account with media, specifically television, is what is readily accessible to viewers and which shows require either a paid service, or a select access to their viewing. First, let us examine the show Two and a Half Men as a model for family as extended community. In the series there are two men. One man who is the father of the son because he sired him and the other is the brother of the father who fills the void of the absent mother. Both men participate in the rearing of the child and are heterosexual. Therefore the child is not at “risk” of being influenced by a nonheterosexual environment. Throughout the series there are situations and issues that are dealt with in which both men aid as parents to the child. The grandmother and estranged wife also make cameo appearances, but the focus of the show is on the two men and the child. No where in the make up of this show is there an allusion to the 109

brothers, acting as parents, that there is anything unusual or deviant about this family/community. It is all layered as a case in which circumstance has caused this “family.” Through various scenes and situations the audience is assured that these men are normal heterosexual men. Knowing that these men are heterosexual and that the environment is “safe” for the child, it is interesting to see on which stations the series is shown. It plays on CBS, a primetime network, where everyone has access to the program and at a time slot when all of the family is awake. Looking at the CBS website and reading the synopsis of the show it states: “Two and a half men is a comedy about men, women, sex, dating, divorce, mothers, single parenthood, sibling relations, surrogate families, money and most importantly, love” (CBS). Here we see how the program is promoted as a family spectacle for all audiences. It mentions complex family structures while assuring the audience that the foundation of “love” is what makes this program acceptable even if it does not focus on a nuclear hetero-normative family structure. This is the new generation of TV shows where the Ozzie and Harriet are replaced by two heterosexual men. Delving even further into the new generation of TV shows, we do find programs that represent homosexual families. However, the content, viewing time, and audience are censored unlike Two and a Half Men. Two of Showtime’s (a pay for cable channel) new series are The L Word and Queer as Folk. Both of these center their focus around the lives of homosexual, bisexual, and straight couples. Because both of these shows are shown on a paid cable channel rather than regular primetime, the indication is that it is a select group who are given access to the show. Not saying that they are exclusively targeted to an audience that has paid cable, the fact remains that they are not readily available on a networks such as CBS, NBC, or Fox. These shows therefore are only accessed by a controlled and exclusive audience. Understanding that these shows are not freely accessible shows how the subject matter is not considered “suitable” for all audiences. Yes, both of these series have explicit sex scenes and talk about issues probably not suited for a younger audience. However, these are the two programs currently present in television that broach the topic of homosexual couples having children. How then are we able to bring this image of family into regular television programming? The answer to that question I leave to the reader. We have seen on primetime television allusions to and sometimes short views of homosexual couples raising children. These are only in controlled environments where the predominance of heterosexuality overbears any other topic. In Friends Ross’ ex-wife steps into the role of a lesbian who primarily raises their child with her partner. We are given glimpses into their relationship and the couple’s issues continue to be dominated by Ross’ dislike for his ex-wife’s partner. In the end the comedy and awkward issues that arise between Ross and the partner overbear any serious issues that the homosexual couple may face in raising a child. In essence the homosexual couple, raising a child, is placed in the periphery of the plot and often serves as a comic relief to an audience following Ross’ failed relationships. In part this shows how mass media, acceptable to all audiences, has yet to have an accessible representation of a homosexual family raising children. Conclusion: We see in current society various familial structures that cannot be defined according to rigid and linear interpretations. Rather than following the pattern of mother, father, and children, we are encountering numerous familial structures that 110

rely on a more fluid codification of gender, biological, and generational roles. We see in current media as a reflection of current society that even though there are a greater amount of complex familial structures, it is still not the norm to find families outside of hetero-normative regulation. The meaning is that kinship within communities is still legally controlled by heterosexual interpretation of kinship. Marriage laws, television programming, and social norms are changing and how quickly the change and in which direction is left up to the audience. Will Hollywood, television executives, or politicians be the ones who lead the change in the future? It is known that within the circles of mass media that what is hot sells, and who is buying is targeted. If a homosexual audience becomes the prime target for television executives will the programming we see change drastically to suit the new found demographic and will this eventually lead to social policy favoring the homosexual couple as primary care takers of their children and will this lead to legislature that legally sanctions these family structures? Judith Butler states: “To be legitimized by the state is to enter into the terms of legitimating offered there, and to find that one’s public and recognizable sense of personhood is fundamentally dependant on the lexicon of that legitimation” (105). In sum, we cannot predict what will drive us to create complex families that rely on kinship involving homosexual norms. We also cannot predict the outcome of media on a nation. What we must argue for is the understanding that current society has allowed for kinship and complex families to overrule the normative nuclear heterosexual household. In seeing this familial community accept cross gendered roles we have to assume that this will move into an even broader definition. Works Cited: Butler, Judith. “Is Kinship Always Already Heterosexual?” Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge, 2004. 102-130. Vasey, Ruth. The Media. Modern American Culture : An Introduction. Mick Gidley. London: Longman , 1997. 213. "Complex family." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 27 Mar 2006, 22:52 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 4 Jul 2006 . “Two and a Half Men: About the Show.” http://www.cbs.com/primetime/two_and_a_half_men/about.shtml. 1 July 2006. Weisblat, Tinky “Dakota”. “The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet: U.S. Domestic Comedy.” http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/A/htmlA/adventuresof/adventuresof.htm. 30 June 2006.

111

PART IV PERFORMING QUEERNESS

Long Live The King! Deconstruction of Gender Binaries and Power Strategies in Drag Kinging Judith Kohlenberger

A drag king, by definition of “Queer Glossary,” is a biological female who dresses in “masculine“ or male-designated clothing; a female-to-male cross-dresser. Drag Kings often identity as lesbians and many cross dress for pay and for entertainment purposes in GLBT or straight nightclubs. A drag king’s cross-dressing is usually on part-time basis. (Queer Glossary, 2) Or, to put it another way and quote Del LaGrace Volcano from Venus Boyz: ‘A drag king is a woman who is performing masculinity... for the stage, for a night or for life.’ More generally, a drag king is ‘a person who has accepted their female masculinity’ (Mo Fischer in Venus Boyz), in whatever way that may be. However, the concept of drag kings is in contrast to butches, on the one hand, and transgender/transsexual people, on the other, although borders (if they actually exist) are of course frequently blurred. The former term, “butch“, describes a biological female, predominantly lesbian, ‘who is more comfortable with masculine gender codes, styles or identities than with feminine ones’. (Rubin, quoted in Halberstam, 120). The main contrast to drag kings is that a butch dresses in male-designated clothes 24 hours a day, but seldom performs her masculinity on stage. Transsexual or FTM, on the other hand, refers to the individuals who strongly dis-indentify with their birth sex [in this case: female] and wish to utilize hormones and sex reassignment surgery as a way to align their physical body with their internal identity. (Queer Glossary, 6) Indeed, most drag kings strongly reject the idea of becoming a “real“ man: ‘I don’t want to be a man, it is just fun playing one on stage’, as Bridge puts it in Venus Boyz. For her, drag kinging is a way to “live the man within“. On the other hand, drag kings are clearly defined as opposed to drag queens, who are often associated with glamour, humorous singing and dancing performances. Whereas nowadays, drag queens become more and more “integrated“ in straight entertainment since ‘society is more aware of us’, as a drag queen claims in Venus Boyz, drag kings are less visible for a mainstream audience. Accordingly, they also represent a significantly 113

narrower field of study. However, drag kings might in some aspects offer an even higher subversive potential than drag queens. In the following, I will point out that drag kings do not only reveal the constructed nature of gender but also of power linked to it. I will try to explain that drag kings successfully contest dominant power relations and assist to make obvious, even for mainstream, entertainment-seeking audiences, the lack of alignment between sex, gender and power. Finally, I will also describe how in that way, borders between various binaries like men/women, masculinity/femininity etc. are blurred and consequently, power can no longer be assigned to one particular category. Before we can consider drag kings in particular, we first have to look at drag as a general concept and the subversive potential linked to it. According to Judith Butler, there is no necessary relation between drag or subversion, and […] drag may well be used in the service of both the denaturalization and reidealisation of hyperbolic heterosexual gender norms. (Butler, Bodies, 125) However, Butler also agrees that ‘[…] drag is the site of a certain ambivalence’ (Butler, Bodies, 125) and in that respect helps to question the “natural“ relation between sex and gender1. Due to its theatrical imitation of femininity or masculinity, drag reveals that all gender is indeed performed and artificial, be it on or off stage. This strongly relates to Butler’s notion of the performative nature of gender: gender is performative, it is something we do at a particular time, rather than something universal and natural, being there from birth to death.2 According to this assumption, all gender relies on constant repetition and imitation in order to maintain itself.3 Bridge, a drag king in Venus Boyz, is also very much aware of the imitative nature of gender based on accessories and repeated acts: standing in front of the mirror and shaving her bold head, she mutters: ‘In most, not all, but most men‘s opinion, female sexuality is linked to hair. If you shave your hair, it means that you deny your sexuality.’ She makes it quite obvious that by her constant (naturally necessary) repetition of shaving her growing hair again and again to maintain a bold head, or, to consider it the other way round, by her repeated rejection of letting her hair grow, gender (her rejected female sexuality as well as her so achieved masculinity) relies on repeated actions. Or rather, to express it in Butler’s words: ‘Gender is an identity tenuously constituted in time, instituted in an exterior space through a stylized repetition of acts.’ (Butler, Gender Trouble, 140, original emphasis). Thus, all gender depends on acts of repetition and stylization. In this case, Bridge’s masculinity (which she achieves consequently by rejecting her femininity) relies on repeatedly shaving her head. Accordingly, it is now quite easy to apply this also to “natural” men: their masculinity, too, is like Bridge’s dependent on certain repetitions, since ’[…] the effect of gender is produced through stylization.’ (Butler, Gender Trouble, 140). Furthermore, the notion of performativity can also be applied to heterosexuality as being performative, as ‘imitation is the heart of the heterosexual project’ (Butler, Bodies, 125, original emphasis). Thus, drag, which works by imitation of heterosexual norms, is still not a secondary imitation of the heterosexual original, since the existence of this “original“ also only relies on imitation. Indeed, according to Butler, there is neither an original or prior gender nor sexuality.4 In that 1

Cf. Butler, Bodies, 125. Cf. Butler, Gender Trouble, 139-141. 3 Cf. Butler, Gender Trouble, 140. 4 Cf. Butler, Imitation, 313. 2

114

respect, drag is subversive since it clearly reveals the imitative nature of the heterosexual, dominating gender and in that way challenges its claim to be the original and natural.5 In other words, drag reveals that all gender is an imitation with neither an original nor a “natural“ and thus privileged right of existence and domination. Thus, drag rather subverts than reinforces established gender binaries. 6 Especially by its theatrical performance of any kind, drag materializes this notion by letting the spectators see and really experience themselves that gender is indeed performed, on but also off stage. By showing how easy it is to appear “masculine“ or “feminine“, totally unlinked from their anatomy or birth sex, drag queens and kings show that there is indeed a lack of natural, presupposed and original alignment between sex, gender and also desire. The artificiality of gender is moreover stressed by the artificial nature of play-back performances and other, similar devices. Gender is then clearly presented to the audience as a stylised routine rather than a natural given. 7 While drag queens nowadays constitute a relatively broad field of study, partly also due to a stronger representation and acceptance in mainstream society, the concept of drag kings is known to a lesser extent. This is indeed unfortunate, since especially drag kings offer a high subversive potential, which I will try to explain in the following. The film Venus Boyz, directed by Gabriel Baur, may serve as a starting point here. The documentary starts out at a drag king night in a club in New York and moves on to explore how, why and when biological females perform as men- ‘some for a night, others for their whole lives’. (Venus Boyz, plot description). The first scene shows a woman in front of a mirror, applying a beard and getting ready for her performance. This can be taken quite metaphorically for the fact that initially, drag kinging admittedly relies on some “masquerade“, quite like drag queens do, namely dressing in “the opposite gender’s clothing“. In fact, this means wearing tuxedos and business suits, applying wrong facial hair and beard, having body hair and even using socks to imitate a penis (known as “packing“). Moreover, drag kings also depend on other devices to imitate masculinity, naturally a deep voice, but also typical speech patterns, body gestures, poses, behaviours etc. associated with men or rather masculinity. And obviously, just using such devices, drag kings have already succeeded in revealing that indeed masculinity, the great original as such, just relies on such (obviously) easily accessible accessories as a tie and hat. Masculinity can only maintain its claim on naturalness and originality, on “just being there“, by using these masquerades and acts, since ‘bodily gestures, movements, and styles of various kinds constitute the illusion of an abiding gender’ (Butler, Gender Trouble, 120). Thus, drag kinging clearly reveals the performative nature of gender and shows the lack of natural alignment between male and masculinity or rather the flaw in the assumption that female and masculine is mutually exclusive. This notion of masculinity as being performative is especially made obvious when drag kings portray famous and seemingly particularly “masculine“ men, parodying, for example, boy bands, as The Backdoor Boys do in Venus Boyz. The group is cheered on by the audience when they expose their “real sex“ or indicate homosexuality between the boys. In that way, these very authentic young males, often treated as prototypes of masculinity, are revealed as only relying on accessories like special poses or clothes. As a consequence, masculinity is deconstructed and portrayed as not innate to a certain sex. 5

Cf. Butler, Bodies, 125. Cf. Butler, Imitation, 314. 7 Cf. Butler, Gender Trouble, 140. 6

115

What is more, drag kings do not only reveal the constructed nature of gender, but also of power that is linked to it. To put it another way, drag kings show that there is simply no natural or innate, presupposed relation between masculinity and power. This clearly contests the (still) dominant discourse which links masculinity to strength, success, career, superordination and eventually power. On the other hand, femininity/female is linked to weakness, subordination and generally a lack of power. This is also what Bridge in Venus Boyz realizes quite at the beginning when she dresses up for her drag king performance: ‘Every time I put on the suit jacket, I immediately feel more powerful.’ However, by making obvious to the audience that the mere fact of wearing a suit is enough to make you (feel) powerful, drag kings successfully demonstrate that this seemingly “natural“ link is as “natural“ (namely not!) as the link between anatomy and gender: like masculinity, also power which is linked to it relies on “ridiculous“ accessories as a business suit and beard. Diane Torr, who does workshops on drag kinging and teaches her pupils how to walk, talk and appear “manly”, is also much aware of how little accessories can give one access to power. Diane, who sometimes also cross-dresses off stage, says she enjoys the experience of being a man in every-day life: ‘People step aside when I walk down the street, you always get a seat in the subway’. And, most importantly, ‘you have a lot more credibility as a man: you walk into a room and everyone will pay attention’. She, in fact, feels that when cross-dressed, as she does not have to justify each of her steps, she is more powerful and as a consequence freer. Nevertheless, this great power and freedom that men seem to enjoy as a natural right is not unattainable: quite the contrary, it is something one can easily learn in a sixhour workshop. What Diane teaches her pupils is actually very simple: future drag kings have to learn how to walk as a man (“walk with a sense of ownership“), how to observe their environment in a laid-back, not involved way (“your gaze has to be more reserved, the world has to come to you, not vice versa“) and finally how to stuff a condom to use it for packing. The essence of masculinity is stripped down to three quite easily accessible things: impressive, domineering steps, an “I-don’t-care“ attitude and a penis. That is all a woman needs to enjoy the same power as a man. Admittedly, it is definitely not as easy as that and Diane invests a lot more effort in training her pupils, but nevertheless this little scenery makes it quite clear that drag kinging manages to deconstruct power with an incredible ease. What contributes to that is that such devices like a fake penis are often very overtly revealed during a performance and thus deprived of their “holiness“ and power, stripped down to mere objects. By ridiculing such accessories and making fun of them, the illusionary nature of masculinity and its seemingly natural combination with power is exposed. Masculinity, too, is only performative, or to take it a step further, only performed, by women quite as aptly (or even better) as by men. As a consequence, masculinity as a still very dominant concept loses much of its power and strength: ‘A part of it [i.e. drag kinging] is also about deconstructing masculinity and making it something that isn’t scary anymore, something you can have control over’, as Elliat Graney-Saucke, a biological female who performs as Sr. La Muse both male and female characters on stage, puts it. Moreover, she adds: When you can portray a man and you can act that way, then you know that the men that are being sexist towards you are just performing also. What power do they really have over you if you can even mimic them? (Personal interview)

116

In that way, the idea of gender as well as power is distorted. Similarly, in drag king performances, weakness, which in dominant perception is naturally linked to females/femininity as the “weak“ gender, is very often applied to men: masculinity is often presented as faulty and flawed, the man is fragile and easily vulnerable. Mo Fischer, for instance, constructs her male alter ego as a (stereo)typical young alternative film maker, quite aphetic and obviously spending his days and nights in front of a screen. “I am making an independent film“, is all this character has to say when presenting himself to the audience. By portraying such insecure, “weak” characters, the notion of natural “strength“ of men and the flawlessness of masculinity is successfully contested and deconstructed. Overall, all these various drag king performances as described above can be considered as serving one primary purpose: they show how little power is innate to a particular gender and gender to a particular sex. Furthermore, various accessories which presuppose masculinity are explored and as a consequence deprived of their power. Diane, for example, regards her stuffed penis quite pragmatically: ‘The phallus, it’s a free object to be used, also without a man attached to it’. In other words, it is an object everyone has to have access to, and which does not automatically imply being a man. ‘We can have a penis anytime we want to’, Diane claims. Automatically, it is also implied by her words that “we“ can in the same way have power anytime we want to, since power is consequently also perceived as a freely available object, again existing independently of “a man attached to it“. However, we must not forget that drag kinging is not about showing that “a woman can do everything a man can do“, that she just has to adopt masculine behaviour and appearance to achieve that. Quite the contrary, drag kings try to blur the borders between men, women and what not, and by doing so, it gets more and more difficult and finally impossible to assign power to one particular category, since in the end, such categories no longer exist. This is very aptly portrayed when Mo Fischer performs as Mo B. Dick on stage. First of all, she clearly represents a man with facial hair and suit. Then she takes off her business suit to reveal a short silk negligee underneath and allows the audience to catch a glimpse of her breasts. However, when she spreads her legs, a fake penis is revealed. In the background, we can hear a song: “Is it a boy or a girl?“ By this performance, it is made more than obvious to the audience that these two categories (boy-girl) no longer hold in reality. Quite like Mo Fischer/Mo B. Dick, most drag kings do not simply “dress as a man“, but often reveal their real sex, show their ambiguous bodies and in that way confuse the audience, who consequently have to admit that binaries and definitions have become obsolete. It is this notion of fluidity and gender hybriditiy that drag kings convey that finally also makes power a free concept, not innate to any gender in particular. In conclusion, we can see that drag in general and drag kings in particular work successfully to deconstruct and subvert gender binaries. Drag kinging, finally, is not only about dressing in the opposite gender’s clothes to “look like a man“ and show how women via that little detour can have access to power. In contrast, as I pointed out, it is much more concerned with blurring the borders between man and women, femininity and masculinity. As a result of making categories obsolete, it is eventually also impossible to assign power to one of these no longer existing categories. Power thus becomes a free concept not innate to any gender, since gender too is no fixed or stable category. The blurring of borders also makes obvious that masculinity is not the sole and exclusive possession of men. Masculinity, which is performative as well and dependent on freely available “accessories“8, can be accessed and performed by 8

Cf. Butler. Gender Trouble, 140. 117

men as well as by women. In that respect, drag kings assist to deconstruct masculinity: they mark an end to the notion of masculinity as a precious commodity, but rather (like power) expose it as something quite easily attainable. Equally, in drag king performances, weakness, which in dominant discourse is naturally linked to females/femininity, is very often applied to men: that again serves as a way to contest the “natural” link between man and power and masculinity and moreover reveals the latter‘s performative nature. “So much for sacred masculinity”, is Diane’s final comment after another successful drag king performance. Indeed, so much for that.

Primary sources: Interview with Elliat Graney-Saucke, Vienna 2006. Venus Boyz. Dir. Baur, Gabriel. Zürich: ONIX Films, 2001. Butler, Judith. Bodies that matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex“. New York: Routledge,1993. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1991. Butler, Judith: “Imitation and Gender in Subordination“ The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Ed. Henry Abelove et.al. New York: Routledge, 1993. 307320. Halberstam, Judith. Female Masculinities. Durham: Duke UP, 1998. “Queer Glossary”. In a Different Light: Introduction to Queer Theory. Class Reader. University of Vienna, Summer Term 2006.

118

Interview with Elliat Graney-Saucke, drag performance artist and film maker Judith Kohlenberger (JK): How and why did you start to perform as a drag king? Elliat Graney-Saucke (EG): I think the biggest part was contributed by my performance crew which is very connected to doing drag performance, “The Transfused” which is a rock opera which I was in when I was sixteen in Olympia. This performance had a lot of drag characters in it or transgender characters and my character was actually a kind of a drag queen also. And then I think I was just really exposed to a huge drag scene and there was actually a documentary film there that was made about the drag scene in the northwest so it was a really big thing happening. For me personally, I think I started to perform drag on stage when I was 18 or 19. I think one of the first characters I did was at a festival called “homogogo”. Me and my friend came up with these characters “Larry and Mitch” and we are both these very macho characters who secretly had a crush on each other. They were like “yeah, dude, whatever” but then hitting each other and touching each other and then like “oh, erm, never mind” and watching football together. I really like the idea of queering images and taking stereotypes of masculinity and messing with them and showing them as queer or feminine or changing them and showing their complexity. I performed a little bit in Seattle with my performance crew and was really being kicked of by being part of the cabaret scene in Berlin. I guess the past almost a year I’ve been a part of that. JK: How would you generally define a drag king and would you describe your performance as a typical drag king performance? EG: Generally speaking, a drag king is not necessarily someone who is performing, a drag king can be somebody dressed up at a party …typically a female body person dressing up in a masculine man with drawn on facial hair and whatever. But I think that there is also a troop in Berlin… They are biological men performing as drag kings and so I think that drag is an exaggeration of gender, a performative exaggeration of gender and so I but also biological men can perform as a drag king or even a transgendered men can perform as a drag king. There are a lot of different variations that can happen. I think that my performance differs from the stereotype of what a drag king is because I have a background mainly through the influence of my aunt who is an artist and through things like movement, dance and performance art. I‘ve been exposed to various artistic media and wanted to utilizes that in my performance to heighten the experience in a more emotional exchange as opposed to lip-synching a song to portray story or character image. I think that there is a lot more you can do and make it actually an artistic piece as opposed to like Cabaret, hole-in-the-wall-bar style… which isn’t bad, it has its space, but I personally like to explore that in a more artistic way. JK: Have you ever cross-dressed off the stage, in your every day life? Have you ever tried to pass as a man? 119

EG: No, I mean I‘ve gone in public in drag and definitely confused people. But I think that not to the degree where I am trying to pass and see if people can tell. I usually have facial hair drawn on with eyeliner and something and so it’s obvious that it’s a costume but it still does affect people even if you are dressing up obviously as the other, opposite gender. Because people have a strong reaction to that. Even when I was putting on my make-up in the bathroom before my performance at the university, there was only one woman that I really encountered and she just couldn’t stop giggling and was like “I am just going to the bathroom, it’s my every-day life, and there is somebody dressing up as a man in here and that’s kind of funny…”. I actually had some friends who did dress up in drag to pass and they made a video about it. They went to the bars they would go to normally and the bartender was carding them and wouldn’t let them come in because their ID didn’t match them and so on and they were like “I come here every week, and you don’t recognize me at all” It shows how much difference slight changes like that can make. But I haven’t really explored that. I’ve thought about it though (laughs).

Picture 1: Elliat Graney-Saucke as Sr. La Muse

JK: Do you feel differently when you are wearing men’s clothes? EG: It can be my clothing, but sometimes my costumes aren’t actually that different from my every day clothing… sometimes I am actually wearing my normal clothing but I am packing and wearing a moustache and I’m binding. So I don’t explore costumes as much in that way. It’s more wearing that stuff and looking at myself in the mirror and seeing what I look like. But if I am just wearing it and wandering around I sometimes can feel differently, but normally not much. I can be dressed up in drag and totally feel like my normal self and I forget that I’m in a costume. JK: Is there a difference between performing as a woman and performing as a man? EG: I actually feel a lot more aware of a personality and the switch when I am performing feminine. If I have a wig on I can forget that I am wearing a wig… it’s actually about what you are seeing of yourself: if you are wearing make-up 120

sometimes you just forget that and wipe your face (laughs). But if you have visual clues and you can see yourself and then you start impersonating and performing that image of yourself. For me, when I’m dressed up very feminine as my character sometimes and I have long blond hair… changing hair colour is a huge difference. Like wearing big eyelashes or something and the same with not having any hair and having a moustache and not having a chest…You feel very different. The difference between binding and not binding, like packing, when you are changing major pieces of gender signatures then you can definitely tell the difference. I have a pretty large chest and when I bind it and I’m walking around, it’s not completely flat but it feels really different… and it’s interesting because you explore how it would be like… I think it’s a very good experience to have…I needed to know all this different aspects of yourself and what you could be like. JK: Is there generally a difference between drag queens (performed typically by men) and drag kings (performed typically by women)? EG: There is a difference between drag kings and drag queens, in general in the way it is performed. And that’s actually really tied to the fact that most drag queens are coming from gay male communities and drag kings are coming from lesbian communities. I think that drag queens are able to use humour a lot more. They are a lot more caddy, there is a different way of approaching issues. I think that drag kings tend to be a little bit more serious and maybe stoic. There is more of this lesbian political agenda behind it. That’s just something I’ve experienced… drag kings want to do serious gentlemen pieces and drag queens want to be extravagant, really funny… which is also the stereotypes of the gender they are portraying: men and the stereotype of masculinity isn’t that really funny and out-going, but serious guy who gets his stuff together. Drag queens like women are supposed to be very charming and entertaining and have good conversational skills and so on…I think that I actually do see that reflected a little bit in the way that people are performing gender.

Picture 2: Elliat Graney-Saucke performing “Exactemente, Genau”

JK: Would you say that this is also the reason why traditional drag queens today are much more visible and in that way also more accepted in mainstream society? 121

EG: I think that plays a role in it, but I also think that privilege is a big part in it. I feel like gay men and more men in general obviously have more privilege than women… gay men in a lot of ways have still more privilege than gay women. The fact that drag queens have become more visible in society is not a mistake or because somebody is funny, but also the fact that a man who has power and gives that up in order to become feminine and become a lower class is also something that has a freak-show value, so people are like “a man dressed as a woman, oh my god, why would you do that, why would you ever want to be less powerful than you already are?” It’s tied a lot to privilege, and to gay men having more privilege and more visibility and more power and so drag queens have more visibility and power… not power maybe, but definitely more visibility. It’s a shock-value thing really. Mainstream public is interested in seeing that and for some reason women dressing up as men is just freakish and something they don’t want to deal with. JK: Would you say that the man you create in your performance is very stereotypical/only a parody or could/does he really exist? Have you maybe modelled him after some men you‘ve encountered in your life? EG: My character that I performed in the class is based on a stereotype, it’s not based on a person, and even if it was based on a person it would be based on an aspect of that person, a very surface, one-dimensional part of that personality. I mean the issue that I’m addressing in it, talking about penetration, sex as man, wanting women’s desire, you don’t really know what you want, you need to have “real sex” and so on. This is based on experiences that I‘ve had with a lot of different men asking questions about my sexuality. Sometimes in appropriate settings where I was doing like question-answer as like a formal form and sometimes we were co-workers and then I was like: “Why are you asking that? I would never ask you that personal stuff! How do you have sex, I don’t know…” But I think that a lot of times in my drag king performances I take stereotypes or ideas or fantasies of masculinity. Like another character that I do is like this nerdy teenage boy who is in love with a “Start Trek” character. It’s like taking the stereotype of this teenage nerdy boy who is trying to make love, to spark and so on… maybe that does exist, but it is definitely a play on stereotypes. I think that my characters are all based on stereotypes. And my stereotypes are not saying that men are bad and I am going to show these bad representations of men. I think that you can separate masculinity and men, because I think that masculinity is something that is performed by men and it doesn’t necessarily have to be that way. There are some negative masculine traces that some men totally don’t possess. But it’s still part of society, something that I experience from men and I experience stereotypes like internalized sexism within myself. So I think I have just as much right to perform these characters because that is part of my reality also.

JK: How would you describe the masculinity you create? EG: The masculinities that I portray … are many times the aspects of masculinity that I either really connect with or maybe have had weird or kind of negative experiences with like extremes of sexism or homophobia from men or other kinds of 122

feminine or weaker sides of masculinity. A lot of times it’s combining those and really trying to push the idea that these things do co-exist and that masculinity is a complicated gender, that there is femininity and weakness within that gender and showing parts of that. But that doesn’t come across in all my performances. JK: Would you say that drag kinging is a threat to masculinity? EG: I think that if I was performing for a straight male audience and they were really macho-guys, who are coincidently insecure about their masculinity, I think that people would be a little bit freaked out about it. I think mainly not even about what I was performing but just about the fact that I was a woman dressed up as a man and mimicking masculinity in general would freak some guys out for sure. But I do have performed for straight men… I think that queer men definitely have issues around like their own agenda, more times they have a consciousness about gender more than straight guys. But there is a lot of sexism in the community also. So it’s hard to generalize that. JK: Is drag kinging automatically a critique of misogynist/macho behaviour? EG: I think that drag is impersonating masculinity and it can come from a conscious, maybe feminist perspective or queer perspective where someone is thinking about such things…I have a friend for example who really wants to portray positive stereotypes or images of men and so she takes these working class characters from “Dirty Dancing” and “Flash Dance” and she does these performances where she shows these male characters which she really looked up to when she was growing up, so they are strong, positive men… But then I think some people use it to show a critique, a feminist critique on masculinity, like sexism played out and then combated by feminism on stage… it’s a kind of process and it think also some people completely don’t have a critique on it and they perform very sexist masculine characters without a critique and they promote this sexism as positive. I mean that happens a lot because when people are performing drag, a lot of times they are mimicking what they see in society like “Oh, I’m going to dress up as a man, I’m going to be a drag king, this is what I understand as man, this is the stereotype of what a man is and I am going to dress up as that macho-dude.” A lot of times people do that in order not to be mistaken, for other people to think: ”Oh I understand, you are really dressed up as a man. If you are a macho with a huge moustache, I’m not going to be confused.” So people want to be very clear about it. Sometimes people use internalized sexism to portray very macho, sexist character without any consciousness around it and they are just acting as assholes basically, and they start acting very sexist towards other women. Actually that happens with women who are more masculine in their every-day-life also …sometimes people who are more masculine in their female bodies think that that’s the right way to express their masculinity and they end up being kind of sexist toward more feminine women, especially in the queer community. I think that’s really all about innate sexism and I don’t think that people really call that, they don’t say much about that. I’ve also seen that happen within the transgender community where people were trying to live this masculine, male life and sometimes people use the negative stereotypes they have about what being a man is and they end up being assholes, which is really sad. 123

JK: Is your performance a political statement or should it primarily serve the purpose of entertainment? EG: For me, it’s hard to separate art from politics and it’s really sad that a lot of times, they do get separated, as two separate things. Not to say that some people’s performances are politically correct, but it’s really interesting: what if they’re not politically correct? That’s still political! When I perform and make art even if it’s an emotional exchange, that‘s still making an political statement to me. I don’t have to write a manifesto or something like that in order to reach people with the message. I do it because I enjoy performing and I enjoy making art and I enjoy being on stage and connecting with an audience and I also have a conscious political critique in my head of what I am doing. I don’t do it because I think: ”Oh, I have this political message and drag would be a perfect opportunity to do that!”. I’m a performers and I am a politically active person. I think art is political. JK: Who do you normally perform for? Is it a mainstream audience or rather a very specific queer audience? EG: I pretty much only perform for queer audiences. I am somebody who lives in a kind of “queer bubble world”, most of my friends are queer and most of the activities … and my living situation, my performance, my social life and all that… but I have done more activism work as opposed to performance in mixed audiences that are both straight and queer. But for me, especially at the stage for my performance, I need a safe space where I can explore my characters because I think that performing is actually a really vulnerable experience. You are coming out and maybe you haven’t done this piece before and you don’t know what to expect from the audience… if you are doing it for people you know you are going to be combating a lot of sexism and homophobia from them, then it’s even that much harder to be vulnerable and then even be able to do a good job. If you are that nervous then you can’t create the performance experience that you have in your head. Whereas when you are in a safe environment with other queer people then you can really explore different things. And also your audience then has the same cultural context as you, they have a queer culture. You can make references to things that people can understand. JK: So you’ve never experienced any negative reactions? How do people normally react to your performance? EG: Negative reactions that I’ve had were in Seattle for example, where I had a performance. I was 19 and it was the first time I performed. I performed this character that is a carney, which is a person who works at fairgrounds and does the rides and fairies wheels and I was very much kind of truck-driver, working-class persona, and I think since I wasn’t performing with my friend whom I was normally performing with, the performance came off differently. People were very upset that I was mimicking working class people in a very derogatory way. In fact, nobody ever really asked me what my class-background was, nobody knew me… so that was a really hard experience. Nobody had talked to me, but I was getting all these accusations that I was that bad person. It wasn’t even about me as a performer, it was about people being so politically correct and so afraid of something being offensive. And then these people who approached me except one was really working class, but 124

they mostly were all this middle-class, white people with a lot of guilts around their own privilege and so they were so quick to call me on doing something they thought was inappropriate without even asking me what my performance was about. And I think a lot of people have this experience, I think that also it’s really important for people to be able to make mistakes and learn from them, as opposed to try something and do a performance and then have people come who are screaming and attacking you and telling you you can’t do that. Why would you ever want to perform for these people again? People are going to be so aggressive towards you when you are trying to be creative and express yourself. Which is where I think the marriage of art and politics sometimes gets very complicated (laughs). And other critiques that I’ve had were for example that people had problems with the language and didn’t really understand my performance. But besides that, I haven’t really had problems. JK: How did you experience performing in front of our class? Was it different compared to your normal performances? EG: I think that just being in this room is different because you are not on the stage, but you are on the same ground level as everybody. For the second performance, with the lady, I couldn’t really see people. And for the first one, I was kind of nervous so I was just going out there and focusing on something like the music and what I was performing and trying to do audience interaction and stuff. But I think it wasn’t that different, people weren’t just sitting there, really bored, but they were really engaged. JK: Was it somehow different since we were students who have studied queer theory for a whole semester now, but maybe not encountered any “practice”? EG: Definitely knowing that I was performing for a queer studies class made it a safe space for me. If I was going to perform for a very scary, conservative group who I was trying to change their mind about gay people or something like that, that would have been obviously very different. And also the fact that I had some friends there, and I think Astrid really helped to create a good environment for me. I’ve performed at places where I didn’t know anybody or just one person. Just knowing that there is one other person in the room that you trust makes a difference for being vulnerable in that space. JK: Do you think that men and women react differently to your performance? EG: I don’t know…I haven’t really noticed a big difference. Drag queens that I’ve performed with in the same shows kind of have a different set of values around performance. It’s more this dramatic, gaudy performance, lip-synching and dancing around. And the drag kings had a more intellectual approach to it, like “Wow, that was really artistically interesting”, whereas some of the drag queens were more like “Oh yes, that was fun” so they were more concerned with whether it was fun or not, not if it was interesting or intelligent. It was really interesting to try to do both of these things at the same time. I performed at this place called the ”Black Girls Coalition” in Berlin. It was all drag queens except for me and my friend’s performance. It was really interesting because most of the audience were gay men 125

and so you have to change your performance and your performance style a little. Because if I was doing something theatrical and artsy then maybe people would get really bored. You can even feel a difference in the audience, like what they expect from your performance. JK: How is drag kinging linked to feminism? Is there automatically a link? Is it true that there are very often negative reactions by feminists because drag kings somehow give the impression that in order to be powerful, you first have to dress up as a man or be masculine? EG: I think that I have a really different perspective on that, because I think that femininity is very powerful also. Maybe that comes from a second-way, feminist approach to drag king stuff where being very feminine is considered weak and being very masculine is considered negative, like conforming to being a man, so you should be this neutral, androgynous version of a woman. I am really playing with different gender expressions and seeing that they both have different power things within them. Drag king and feminism… I don’t think that they are automatically linked, it is kind of how I was saying before: some drag kings do portray a lot of sexism without looking at that, like ”Oh whatever, I’m going to be a man, I’m going to be a real macho and jerk and be really sexist. That’s how I’m going to perform masculinity”. So I think that people sometimes do approach it in a very non-feminist, or rather unconscious way and some people really approach it in a different way. Basically, when you can portray a man and you can act that way, then you know that the men that are being sexist towards you are just performing also. What power do they really have over you if you can even mimic them? It just really distorts the idea of gender and power if you can also perform it. Because when you take that power away from people or you can reclaim it also because you can then say” I can be a man anyway”. So I think that in a lot of ways it can be very feminist. And it’s also about showing that the gender spectrum is wider than just male and female, masculine and feminine. JK: How would you define or describe your own femininity? EG: I personally, in my every-day-life, think I express more a feminine gender expression, but I also think that that’s very much coming from a queer or lesbian background. When I am surrounded by a whole bunch of more masculine women of course I look more feminine, even if I have longer hair only a little bit or I’m wearing eyeliner. When I’m in what I like to call the “straight world”, I sometimes really appear as more macho, or not macho, but not as a really feminine woman. The standards are really different …I am passing as straight in gay community, but in the straight world being seen as a lesbian… that’s really interesting, how people see you in different cultural contexts. I don’t know ... I identify as femme, but I also do that in a way which is very different than most people that I know. I think that I mess with that a lot more and the fact that I perform as a drag king also makes my gender more complicated. And I have transgendered friends who are gay men and that often say “I transition to be a man, but you are totally more butch than I am” as opposed to being somebody in high heels and lipstick because I have a really strong personality or however you want to say that. 126

Picture 3: Elliat Graney-Saucke performing “Exactemente, Genau”

JK: What is gender in your opinion? How would you define it? EG: Gender is a part of society and I was raised in society and I don’t think that anybody can be completely free from any kind of gender expression. Everybody has some kind of way they are expressing themselves in the world. And it might be more than one gender. Gender is, obviously, different than biological sex, and different than sexuality. Just from my personal experience and people that I’ve known throughout my life there are definitely more ways to express yourself than just your masculinity or femininity. I’ve seen a lot of people who use gender-neutral pronouns like “ze” which does make sense because their gender does not fit either, they are totally being true to what they are. JK: Would you say that traditional drag is only maintaining binaries because it relies on accessories and attitudes attributed clearly to either men or women? EG: No, I think that they are definitely subversive. The fact that maybe you are conditioned and raised as female and then you perform as a drag king, that is very queer and very subversive. Because then you are playing with the idea that gender is that thing that’s fixed to your biological sex. So I think whenever somebody does that it’s very queer and subversive. In our society, everybody is raised from such a young age that there’s masculinity and femininity and those match your biological sex. I’m not really sure what it would look like for somebody to invent something that was completely separate from that, I mean gender. We are products of our society, and everything we are doing is in reference somehow to the culture/society you come from. I don’t think you can come up with something completely original that isn’t somehow connected to that. Unless you are in a coma and you go see aliens or something (laughs). JK: Do you think that drag kings are even more subversive than drag queens, also considering power deconstruction? EG: I don’t know if I would necessarily say that drag kings are more subversive than drag queens. There are lots of different ways to think about it, also concerning everyday life sexism… I don’t know, it’s a different kind of struggle. I think that they are 127

different and I think that in every-day-life, women have to deal with sexism in different ways than men do, even when you are a feminine man, just because your biological body sets you back. Whereas a gay man, even if he’s very feminine, maybe he can still access more privilege. JK: How important is the aspect of power deconstruction/subversion in your performance or generally in drag kinging? EG: I think it’s important to have a consciousness of it, but I think it’s also okay just to have fun in your performance and it doesn’t have to be serious and a critique of things all the time. I think it is important, yes, to have a consciousness when you are performing, but this also comes from what your background is, when you have a different class or race background, what masculinity and the performance of it will be completely different. And also your educational background, what you’ve been exposed to, like feminism and so on. JK: How did you like the film Venus Boyz? Could you maybe shortly comment on it? Do you think it is good that such a film was made since it maybe introduced the concept of drag kings to a more mainstream audience? EG: I think it’s good that the film was made, and there are a lot of positive things about Venus Boyz. I just think that for the mainstream audience, drag king is made more visible. As somebody from that community, though, I have a different critique and perspective on the film itself and also as a filmmaker. I personally was a little bit disappointed… some of the performers are really interesting and I think that also some of them question why they have become so famous. Because to me, their performance isn’t very interesting. In some ways, they are not going very deep… in some ways it is very dry-cut, it is like “that is what a drag king typically is”, they live in a really big city, they become friends with the right people, maybe they are independently wealthy and they can travel around and perform at all these festivals so everybody knows who they are. But that doesn’t necessarily make them a good performer, somebody that should be famous. And I have a problem with that, that’s something I really would like to critique. And also the fact that all the performers are from major cities like New York, London and Berlin. It makes if course sense because it’s a big selling point and there are also a lot of people who are in the Drag King Book, but I’ve just not been impressed with that scene somehow. I think that these people are doing some interesting things, but I’ve also seen people in the north west and other parts of the country do really, really interesting, radical, subversive, queer drag that really blew my mind. It was so amazing! To not see anything like that in the film was really sad to me. It was making the film kind of mainstream. JK: But do you think that the film introduced the concept of drag kings to a mainstream audience or was it again just for the queer community? EG: My life is very much in the queer community…so I know that a lot of queer people watched that movie, I’ve seen it at a lot of people’s houses. I was kind of frustrated and thought “How come they have such good distribution?” (laughs). It’s also interesting that the film maker is Swiss and that’s never really mentioned in the 128

film. That totally has a role to play in her perception of the culture and the fact that a lot of the film takes place in the US. But I think as far as introducing people to drag kings, it does a pretty good job. But I really, really feel that just screening people because they are famous and not looking at why people are famous in the film … it doesn’t matter if you are taking it to a mainstream audience or not; I think when you are a film maker or an artist you have to be conscious of that… I don’t want to say that she is a bad film maker and it is a bad film, I just have my one personal critiques in the film, because it’s about the community I come from, so I’ve seen so much different things come out of there. I just have different expectations about what’s possible. I am always a little bit disappointed when there are so many popular films which don’t address any of these issues…that’s a little bit sad to me…it was an opportunity maybe to do something a little bit different. But the film does address being transgendered, and people doing more subversive things. I talked to a lot of people in the queer community who were kind of disappointed by the film… I don’t want to say disappointed because that’s a really harsh thing to say against someone’s piece of art. I am sure that the woman who made it put all her heart in it and did the best she could and she was really successful and I really applaud that. Maybe the reason why I have so much critique about it is also because I’m now doing filmmaking! (laughs) JK: Mo Fischer says in one scene that “it is much easier to be powerful woman behind the mask of a man”. Do you agree with that or could you maybe comment on it? EG: Once you are able to access more power or privilege, then it does affect the rest of your person. Through being a drag king, she was able to be more empowered as a woman. That makes sense to me, I can totally see that. A part of it is also about deconstructing masculinity and making it something that isn’t scary anymore, something that you can have control over also. And I think that when you start performing masculinity, you start to realize more about and are able to express your own personal gender.

All pictures © Judith Kohlenberger

129

The Teaches of Peaches Esther Brandl 1. Introduction Peaches, a.k.a. Merrill Nisker, born in Toronto, Canada, and a Berlin-resident, has released two albums, The Teaches of Peaches in 2002 and Fatherfucker in 2003. Her new album Impeach My Bush will be released on July 7th 2006. Peaches has collaborated with her Canadian friends Gonzales, Mocky, Taylor Savvy and Feist but also with mainstream musician Pink or the feminist rock band Le Tigre. She has made an appearance on Showtime’s drama series The L-Word where she performed “I U She” at “The Planet” and she has also appeared in the Chicks on Speed video to “We Don’t Play Guitars” as a female heavy metal rock star playing the guitar and making clear that e-guitars are also phallic objects. Peaches is an idol to me because she is a strong and independent woman who is able to speak up her mind and who doesn’t mince matters to talk openly about sex and gender issues and to break taboos. Doing so, she often shocks people but these shock effects seem to me to be more effective insofar as she produces controversions and provokes reactions (whether the motherfuckers are ready for the fatherfuckers or not). I decided to analyse some of her song lyrics and her live performances because it is clear that she stands out of the mainstream music business and transports ideas and theories that seem to work against what Judith Butler calls the “heteronormativity”. So what I try to do here is to analyse in which ways she reaches points in her music and musical performances where the binary gender system is put into question, subversed or transgressed.

2. The teaches of Peaches Fuck the pain away “Suckin' on my titties like you wanted me, Callin me, all the time like blondie Check out my chrissy behind It's fine all of the time Like sex on the beaches, What else is in the teaches of peaches? huh? what? SIS IUD, stay in school coz it's the best. IUD SIS, stay in school coz it's the best. Fuck the pain away. Fuck the pain away. huh? what? right. uhh. huh? what? right. uhh. What else in the teaches of peaches, like sex on the beaches. huh? what? right. uhh. Fuck the pain away. Fuck the pain away.”1

1

Peaches: „Fuck the pain away“ from the album „The Teaches of Peaches“, 2002 © Xl/Beggars (Indigo) 130

Before Peaches started to make music, she was a teacher (without a teaching degree, though) and when she moved to Berlin where she produced and released her debut album, she called it The Teaches of Peaches. On this album, song titles such as “Fuck the pain away”, “Lovertits” are explicitely sexual and she obviously doesn’t care about decency and not only wants to provoke or shock but transport ideas that haven’t been talked about in music before (at least as far as I know) – what she calls a herm (him-her) rock philosophy: I just think that there is so much male and female in us all. When you do a rock performance people just see that it’s male. That’s totally ridiculous. Didn’t we learn something with Patti Smith or Joan Jett, down the line with all those? It’s still an issue, which is totally ridiculous. When I do my 200% live-energy show people think, "Oh, she’s trying to be male." No, I’m just trying to give 100%.2 If a woman has a lot of sex, she is a whore whereas a man with an excessive sex life is rather called a “Don Juan” or a “Casanova”. Language marks the gender differences and often puts women into the inferior, passive position. Peaches tries to juxtapose these significations and include men in music where they usually have been in the position of the spectator/listener and could identify rather with the (active) person who sings than with the (passive) person the song talks about. Rock Show „Rockshow You came to see a rock show A big gigantic cock show You came to see it all Rock show You came to hear it You came to sear it You came to do it all If you think you're gonna Get it for credit Forget it Don't bet Call the medic He's pathetic He's got to let it go Let's go Rock show Come on Rock show You came to see a rock show This ain't a fuckin' talk show You came to see it all“3

But the songs are also about Peaches being a woman in rock (or electronic) music which is dominated by men and where women are hardly ever fully respected or get the credits they deserve. The song “Rock Show” for example, deals with rock’n’roll clichés and refers to male dominance in rock music – which is kind of ridiculised when a female voice sings about the “big gigantic cock show”. But who is the 2 3

http://www.venuszine.com/stories/music_interviews/467 [2006-07-02]. Peaches: „Rock Show“ from the album „The Teaches of Peaches“, 2002 © Xl/Beggars (Indigo) 131

(voyeuristic) “You” in the song? If this You is constituted as male, the song is insofar subversive as a male spectator goes to see and admire/desire men on stage and if it’s female, it can be read as subversive as well because the “rock show” is demystified. Set it off “Motherfuckers wanna get with me lay with me love with me alright Come on let’s set it up come on let’s set it off You know it you love it you got it you want it”4

In the video to “Set it off”, Peaches performs her song in a toilet, a public space overloaded with queer and sexual significations. She wears pink hot pants (which are also on the album cover for The Teaches of Peaches), a bra and a black beard, her arm pit hair is not shaved and as the song procedes, her body hair grows constantly and makes Peaches more and more artificial and androgynous so that by the end, she rather looks like a werewolf than like a human being. This androgynity stands in the tradition of musicians like David Bowie in his Ziggy Stardust aera or Marc Bolan of T-Rex or Patti Smith on the cover of her record Horses who had an androgynous style but Peaches goes even further and makes clear sexual allusions. By wearing a beard while the rest of her body is visually clearly marked as female, she transgresses her own gender identity. It was like a werewolf video but with my own body hair. The natural image of beauty is when your hair is long, and your eyelashes are long, so I had that grow first. It was like "Oh, she’s getting prettier.” Then the hair started growing under my arm spits, from my crotch, just growing everywhere. I thought it was totally hilarious and a great comment, even on Thriller, you know? Also, those videos where they’re showing these crotches close up, but of course they’re always shaven. Of course they wouldn’t show my video in America.5 The growth of the body hair is a shock effect that may produce a certain disgust for viewers but it also shows how far you can (not) go and questions the beauty ideals of our society in a playful way. 3. Fatherfucker In his linguistic courses on speech acts (“How to do things with words”), John L. Austin points out that there are performative (perlocutionary) verbs like “to confess”, “to baptize”, “to promise”, “to injure” etc. which not only describe a situation but by saying them we actually do something. By saying “It is a girl”, the doctor not only determines the baby’s anatomic sex but also incites her to the discourse /into society where being female means under different cultural/historical circumstances a certain “female” identity. (“Consider that the use of language is itself enabled by first having been called a name, the occupation of the name is that by which one is, quite without choice, situated within discourse”6). Judith Butler shows that these speech acts need to be renewed and repeated constantly to guarantee the heteronormative gender system but also to constitute the self (“I”) as opposed to the other (you). But for Butler there is also a certain power in language: 4

Peaches: „Set it off“ from the album „The Teaches of Peaches“, 2002 © Xl/Beggars (Indigo) http://www.venuszine.com/stories/music_interviews/467 [2006-07-02] 6 Judith Butler: „Gender Is Burning. Questions of Appropriation and Subversion“ in: Bodies That Matter, p. 122 5

132

The compulsion to repeat an injury is not necessarily the compulsion to repeat the injury in the same way or to stay fully within the traumatic orbit of that injury. The force of repetition in language may be the paradoxical condition by which a certain agency – not linked to a fiction of the ego as master of circumstance -.is derived from the impossibility of choice.7 Like French people say “putain” (bitch), like italian people say “cazzo” (dick), anglophone people use “motherfucker” not only to swear at other people but also to describe unpleasant situations (“Oh, motherfucker, I forgot my keys”). Here is how Peaches commented on her album title in an interview with Venus: Why do we call our mothers motherfuckers? Why do we stub our toe and say ‚Aww motherfucker!’? What is motherfucker? ...[W]e use it in our everyday language and it's such an insanely intense word. I'm not one to shy away from these obscene terms that we actually have in our mainstream. Motherfucker is a very mainstream word. But if we're going to use motherfucker, why don't we use fatherfucker? I'm just trying to be even. [...]So, I’m just trying to include men and boys. I’m not trying to take it away; there’s just so much focus on the girls.8 By giving her second album the name Fatherfucker, Peaches also made a political decision sabotaging her own potential pop success (in an interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, Peaches says: “It is so sad that a kid in Nebraska can only go to Wal-Mart or Best Buy. Small towns just get these corporations. I don't want to be a part of all that. They already know my name, so they'll be looking for trouble. But I'm not gonna give into it!”)9. The album cover shows a portrait photograph of Peaches wearing a black full beard, creating an androgynous image of the musician (which also appeared in the video to “Set it off”).

I U She “I, you, he together, come on, baby let's go I, you, she together, come on, baby let's go I don't have to make the choice, I like girls and I like boys Whips, crops, canes, whatever, come on, baby let's go Cuffs, chains, shorts or leather, come on, baby let's go”10

”I, U, She” is a song where the I and the You, whether male or female, are put into a position of gender ambiguity and form a queer triple either put together with a male (he) or a female (she). Openly bisexual, Peaches responds "Of course!" when asked if she's ever been a part of this sort of menage a trois. "I feel bad for guys because girls live it out: They can

7

Ibid., p. 124 http://www.venuszine.com/stories/music_interviews/467 [2006-07-02] 9 http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/peaches2/articles/story/5933519/peaches_preaches_trouble [2006-07-02] 10 Peaches: „I U She“ from the album „Fatherfucker“, 2003 © Xl/Beggars (Indigo) 8

133

be as sexual as they want with each other and with guys. But guys get scared that they'll be considered gay. I'm not attacking them . . . I am trying to include them.11

Bisexuality is often seen as a lack of making a decision whereas for me, being bisexual is a more “natural” thing than being homo- or heterosexual as both create yet again a binary system. 4. Performance I was lucky to see Peaches twice, the first time was in 2003 when she was supporting Marilyn Manson at the Stadthalle in Vienna and the second time this year at the Donaufestival in Krems as the main act. Both were a one-woman show though I noticed some differences in the crowd’s reaction to her performances given the different circumstances (that she was and was not the main act and that there were therefore different audiences). The Marilyn Manson crowd was - as far as I remember and as I perceived it – not really comfortable with her, I caught ridiculising jokes and found the MM fans rather „conservative“, at least not as cheerful as (she’d deserved it and as) the audience at the Donaufestival in Krems. At the MM show, she used fake blood: It’s funny. I use fake blood in my shows; I like to spit fake blood like Gene Simmons, but now I’m going to start having my period onstage. I just thought, what are people going to think of that? They can understand spitting fake blood but blood that actually happens every month, down there, that’s going to be way more shocking and that’s totally funny because it’s just part of our bodies.12 I never got to see her having her period on stage but it’s interesting to think of how a body is perceived when it is put on a stage. Just like a spot of spit which is disgusting on the floor but totally normal when it’s swallowed in your mouth. At both shows, she used her microphone as a phallic object which reminded me a lot of dada artist Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven (“no compromise with the public taste!”) who used to walk around in public scaring old ladies with a plastic penis. But Peaches claims not to have “penis envy” but rather “hermaphrodite envy” and she transforms herself into a powerful performance artist on stage.

5. Bibliography: Austin, John L.: Zur Theorie der Sprechakte (How to do things with words), Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. GmbH&Co., 1972, 1979. Butler, Judith: Gender Is Burning. Questions on Appropriation and Subversion. In: Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex”. New York: Routledge, 1993. Rogulewski, Charley: “Peaches Gets Even Nastier” in: Rolling Stone Magazine, November 2005. 11

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/peaches2/articles/story/8768317/peaches_gets_even_nastier

[2006-07-02] 12

http://www.venuszine.com/stories/music_interviews/467 [2006-07-02] 134

Sasaki, Fred: The Teaches of Peaches in Venus issue No. 17. http://www.venuszine.com/stories/music_interviews/467 Links: www.peachesrocks.com www.fatherfucker.net www.myspace.com/peaches

135

Queering The Canon An Introduction To Slash Fanfiction Daniela Fasching A General Introduction and Explanation to Slash Fan Fiction When I begin my paper with the words “I want to write about slash” – what would you think it to be about? Punctuation? A rock star? Or are you – considering that you’ve done or are teaching a class on queer theory and/or are browsing a website about it, and might thus have an interest in all things queer – even aware of the existence of that other meaning of the word slash? Now for the sake of those who are not aware of its meaning, I will have to start at the very beginning. Slash is a type of fan fiction. Fan fiction in turn, as can be deduced from its name, is fiction written by fans. That is basically the lowest common denominator, because fan fiction is extremely varied and its entire scope can impossibly grasped by one person let alone in one paper. Basically, it is possible to write fan fiction about any other work of fiction – be it from television, literature or the silver screen – and as we will see even about reality. Put simply, fan fiction comes into being wherever there is a great fannish enthusiasm for the characters of a story, yet fans feel that the canon is somehow not enough. Stories are written to fill plot holes, to show events from a different point of view, to provide an alternative development of the story, or to show a side of the characters which the original story does not show. In the case of slash, it is a queer side. Its name being derived from the slash (/) separating – or connecting? – two characters’ names, slash is a type of fan fiction, which makes two characters of the same sex come together in a homosexual relationship. Usually this homosexual relationship or desire does not exist in the “canon” – at least not explicitly. Often the fan’s need to slash two characters stems from the existence of an already close relationship or another sort of tension between them. (For example it is not uncommon to slash two characters that are arch-enemies in the canon.) Often fans find an immense homoerotic subtext within their fandom and fan fiction is written to express what the canon is silent about. Within each fandom there are pairings that are considered more plausible than others – often this also depends the fan’s personal reading of the canon. A pairing which is believed to be very realistic and credible, or just very pleasing in another way is referred to as “OTP” – one true pairing. Typical OTPs would for example be Kirk/Spock from Star Trek and Frodo/Sam from Lord Of The Rings. The homosexual relationship inscribed upon the characters might take on all different forms imaginable – from a more or less innocent, one-sided desire which stays inside the mind of one character to downright pornography. Just like the “ratings”, the quality and format of the slash stories vary greatly. Some stories grow to epics of impressive size, while others are hardly more than brainstormings – so called “drabbles”, depicting a short scene which is not elaborated further. And while 136

some writers and readers like their stories to have a certain literary value, other stories are just written to “push buttons”. A story can be PWP – that stands for “Plot, What Plot?” or “Pornography Without Plot” and refers to a story which has no other goal than to get two characters into bed – or wherever – together. Being of an elitist or underground nature, the slash movement has of course its own jargon and special vocabulary to describe the stories – which are usually called “fics”. Acronyms and clippings are very popular – with “genfic” or “hetfic” standing for general fiction and heterosexual fiction respectively, and referring to all fan fiction which is not slash. A very extensive glossary of many other terms found in slash fiction as well as general fan fiction can be found here. One type of fan fiction that stands out from the majority of stories is RPF or RPS. This acronym stands for Real Person Fiction or Real Person Slash, and fictionalises real people just like normal fanfiction uses the characters of an original story. It probably originated from “actorfic”, which is fan fiction written about the actors in a movie or TV series rather than the characters they portray. Another very expansive portion of Real Person Slash is made up of “bandfic” where stories are written about the members of pop or rock bands. Many fans of media fan fiction consider RPF and RPS immoral and wrong. They believe that it makes a crucial difference whether the person one uses as a character is made up or exists in reality. In the customary disclaimers however, PRF authors readily point out that they have no intent to claim that these fictional portrayals reflect the real activities of the source figure in any way. The reaction of the “real persons” who have found out about the existence of slash about them likewise varies. Some have expressed disgust and alienation, while others find it quite amusing. This probably also depends on the type of fan fiction they have stumbled upon.

The History of Slash It is generally believed that the first slash fiction was written about Mr. Spock and Captain Kirk from Star Trek. Wikipedia gives the date 1974, for “the first known Star Trek slash to be published” – it was written by Diane Merchant and called “A Fragment Out Of Time.” In the beginning, such fan fiction was published in fanzines which were distributed via mail. The invention of the internet marks a definitive turning point in the timeline of slash. The World Wide Web provided the anonymity and easy accessibility necessary for an extensive distribution of the stories. Of course fan fiction could not be distributed like any other literature, because of its illegal use of copyrighted characters. Before the internet it had to rely on clandestine mailing lists and measures like omitting names from the story or using pseudonyms for the characters. But as soon as the internet became an everyday commodity, fan fiction, and with it slash, exploded. Innumerable web rings, slash archives and websites dedicated to it were created. Blogging communities like livejournal also play a great role in its distribution and discussion. With the help of such platforms, any author could publish their work, and get immediate feedback from the readers via their comments. This development, as stated in the Wikipedia entry on Real Person Fiction, also brought changes in content: 137

After the barriers to slash itself fell, the amount of explicit sexual content in the stories also began to rise. Erotic fan stories have certainly been around for as long as other types of fanfic, but they were often a closed-door affair, circulated only in private among friends, and it is unclear whether homosexual content was a common theme. With the advent of the Internet (allowing easy distribution of stories and relative anonymity for authors), these sorts of stories suddenly became much more widespread. Of course, with the internet giving everybody the opportunity to consume and publish slash effortlessly, the quality as well as the quantity changed. I assume that what is called “badfic” only appeared when it became possible also for people who were not as committed to writing as the runners and members of fanzines and mailing lists to publish their writing. Of course it is exactly this lack of need for seriousness or professionalism which constitutes a great part of the charm of fan fiction. It also means that sometimes the fans have to filter through quite a lot of crap in order to find something worthwhile. Although originally a clandestine underground movement, slash has still succeeded to attract academic attention, and lately more and more that of the general public. Henry Jenkins writes in his article “Normal Female Interest in Men Bonking” that [t]he slash fan's peculiar relationship with American mass culture has become almost emblematic of recent work in Cultural Studies, referenced on the cover of The Village Voice Literary Supplement or ridiculed in Lingua Franca, cited in law review articles and discussed at the Modern Language Association conference. Similarly, the phenomenon receives increasing coverage in newspapers and magazines. It seems, along with all things queer, the slash phenomenon is becoming more and more publicised.

The Fans I want to shift the attention now to the people who read and write slash themselves, the fans. In fan fiction, much more than any other media, the fans play a huge role. The first reason for that is of course that it is the fans themselves who write the stories. In many ways the readers are the writers – it is estimated that about half of the readers have also written slash themselves, for which a talent for writing is apparently not considered essential, although it will certainly increase the popularity of the fiction. The only real limit to the production of slash is the imagination of the reader/writer (cf. Jenkins). Another special feature of fan fiction is the close contact between reader and writer. Comments and feedback are given directly to the author and in case of instalment publishing the readers can even influence the development of the story. Because slash is not subjected to censorship – be it through official institutions or simply cultural taboos – it can be exactly what the fans want it to be. Slash communities are often close-knit and the mutual knowledge of the others’ passion for slash – a passion which is probably not approved of by many people and thus not easily admitted to the general public – creates security and freedom at the same time. 138

So who are these readers and writers? As I have already mentioned, the majority of the slash fans are young heterosexual women. However it is important to state that even though the majority of the readership might be from that part of society, there are as usual exceptions to the rule. It seems there are also quite a number of homosexual slash fans – male as well as female – and in some admittedly rare cases, slash fans might even be heterosexual men. Still I will concentrate on the majority when trying to find out what it is that makes slash so popular among young women.

Why Slash? Many slash readers and writers have tried to come up with explanations for the phenomenon of slash. It seems pretty inexplicable to most of them. Surely, the most common, and most obvious reason given is: “Because it’s hot to read about two men together.” Unfortunately, this explanation explains nothing. It still doesn’t shed light on why it is supposed to be “hot”. Here are a few theories which I have come up with, and which, as research has shown, are also shared by several readers and writers of slash. One explanation that is often given by slash fans is that of the “double bonus”. Slash is attractive to them because, unlike fan fiction about heterosexual relationships, it contains two sexually attractive men instead of just one. However this does not explain that some women who find two men attractive on their own, would still not want to read slash about them. There has to be more to slash than just the “double bonus”. Another theory is that slash arises wherever the female fan finds no female character she would like to identify with. In many typical slash-happy fandoms, like for example Lord of the Rings, there is a lack of female characters. Even though there are a couple of strong and not unattractive female characters in Lord of the Rings, they are somehow isolated from the male characters. While the relationships between the male characters are rather close-knit, the females are always portrayed as somehow sublime – in special positions, which are logically not as easy to reach. A female fan would now certainly prefer a position of identification, which grants her access to the objects of her desire, and as in this fandom the only access to other men is through men, she has to identify with a man. That could be the birth of a slash story. It is interesting, that in many slash communities there is a dislike for female characters – be they from the canon or original – that borders on misogyny. The reason for that may be that the female characters found in books, films and television, are again not suitable for identification, maybe because they are shallow stock characters, often because they are not considered “equal” with the male hero of a story. Women in stories are frequently just used to adorn the hero, while other male characters have more depth, and are thus more likable. As soon as it is impossible for a female fan to identify with a female character, this character becomes “the other woman” and the object of jealousy. Before one tries to find out why so many women find “gay sex” a turn on, one has to establish if slash is “gay” sex at all. Slash aimed at women has not much in common with the gay porn aimed at homosexual men. The characters in a slash fic often live out their homosexual desires without the paraphernalia associated with being gay in our culture. If homosexuality is read as a lifestyle and the membership in a community, then slash characters can often not be read as homosexual. The slash character is not only queer because he is homosexual; he is also queer because he is not homosexual. Slash writers create a strange new gender outside normal categories. 139

In many slash universes, homosexuality or bisexuality is considered just as normal as heterosexuality – it is simply not questioned. Maybe these category-less universes are created by the writers to make carefree male/male sex possible – maybe it is just the lack of categories which is responsible for the appeal of slash. It could also be that by making one man fall for another, women create a kind of ideal man who is able to love with commitment like a woman, yet still remains rather masculine. I cannot say if one of these theories is true. Maybe they all are, to an extent, and surely the approach to slash differs from reader to reader – I have certainly read statements by slash fans which imply this.

Female Slash vs. Male Pornography Slash is seen by many as the female equivalent of pornography aimed at men but a direct comparison reveals the differences. The most obvious difference is that of “familiarity”: slash stories are not about new, original characters, or even nameless strangers – that kind of story would probably appeal much less to most slash readers. In slash, it is essential that the reader is familiar with the characters – she knows them already from the canon, and from other fan fictions. Of course each writer has her own version of the character, but it is notable that a story is generally considered good, when it is “in character” – which means when the writer manages to portray the characters in a way that seems realistic – which means, just like the fan is used to seeing them portrayed. This familiarity produces a much more personal type of pornography, which one could call typically feminine, if one wants to rely on such gender differentiation. While pornography aimed at men – be they heterosexual or homosexual – relies mostly on the physical portrayal of impersonal sex, slash the target group of which consists mostly of women, even in the case of so called PWP stories (short for “Plot What Plot?” or “Porn without Plot) much more personal and differentiated, because it is about “real”, sometimes more and sometimes less complex characters. Of course many slash stories are hardly less saucy than what I’ve called “male pornography”. The clue is that they become more than just saucy by being about existing characters. In a way slash can be read as a type of pornography fulfilling the feminine need for familiarity and stability while at the same time still portraying sex that hasn’t become boring through the lack of novelty. Another huge difference is the way the two types of pornography are consumed. While male pornography is more out-in-the-open, and though stigmatised is largely accepted as a given by society, the majority of the same society do not even know about the existence of slash fan fiction. Slash cannot be bought in shops but is distributed via a kind of underground network which once used to be genuinely “underground” and has now through the use of the internet become slightly less clandestine. Furthermore, I think it is of some significance that there are – as far as I know – no pornographic books written for men. While men rely on videos and magazines, women like to consume their porn in written form, and although the quality varies greatly, it can be seen as a type of literature, especially considering the huge amount of thought and effort some writers put into truly epic slash novelettes.

140

Conclusion I have come now to the end of my paper, although I realise that I have really just scraped the surface of this huge subcultural phenomenon called slash. I believe that slash fan fiction is in for a closer examination by cultural studies, as in fact some specialists – most of them slash fans themselves – have already treated the subject thoroughly. What remains to be said by me, now that I have hopefully managed to give a short, comprehensible introduction into the topic, is that whoever is interested in the magical world of slash fan fiction as well as the theoretical musings behind it – just google it and you will be served. For those who don’t want to make that effort, I have compiled a little list of links.

Sources / Link List Information & articles about slash Glossary for fic!speak: http://www.subreality.com/glossary/terms.htm Jenkins, Henry. “Normal Female Interest In Men Bonking”. http://web.mit.edu/cms/People/henry3/bonking.html Slashers theorising slash: http://community.livejournal.com/slashphilosophy/ http://community.livejournal.com/virgule/ Wikipedia entries: (because they are informative and in this case written by people who know best) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash_fiction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_person_fiction Some Slash The list of all livejournal communities interested in slash: http://www.livejournal.com/interests.bml?int=slash

141

The Brokeback Mountain Fandom: A Portrayal of an Online Fan Community Maria Valencia Cuberos

1. Introduction The film Brokeback Mountain has had a great impact on the lives of many people since its release in December 2005. Even before the film was released, the interest in it was very high, mainly due to the fact that it won the Golden Lion in Venice’s Biennale and the general critical acclaim. One could say that there was a certain hype involved, most likely because of the unusual and in a way taboo-breaking subject of the film. This hype also led to the establishment of a fan-base on the internet, which includes fan-pages, forums, communities on web logs (blogs), fan-fiction archives, etc. I am going to focus this paper on the Brokeback Mountain fan-community on livejournal,1 a blog page where one can find communities and blogs on basically every subject matter. First of all I am going to describe the notion of “fandom” briefly, as it will be relevant in this paper. Henry Jenkins describes fandom in his book Textual Poachers as being “an institution of theory and criticism, a semi-structured space where competing interpretations and evaluations of common texts are proposed, debated, and negotiated and where readers speculate about the nature of the mass media and their own relationship to it.” (86).2 This quotation chiefly describes the practice of engaging with the text in a way that also suggests a high level of emotional involvement, which is a characteristic of fandom. Storey states that the term fandom is used in connection with popular culture, not, however, with official or dominant culture. The crucial point is that fans do not view their “object of admiration” with distance and are satisfied by mere admiration of it, but that there is interaction and emotional attachment involved (215).3 A special form of fandom occurs online, where the practices and fan-activities are more communicative and interactive than they perhaps are offline. The main aspects of online fandom are the writing of fan fiction, the discussion of theories concerning characters, character motivations, storylines, plot developments, etc., the creating of fan art, whether it is drawing/painting or digital picture editing, and making music videos by using clips from their favourite film or television show. Another important feature of online fandom is the high interactivity between fans, which make online fandom is a very dynamic phenomenon.

1

http://www.livejournal.com Henry Jenkins, Textual Poachers, New York: Routledge, 1992. 3 John Storey, An Introduction to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, 2nd edition, Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1997. 2

142

2. The Brokeback Mountain fandom The Brokeback Mountain fandom is a fairly large one with various different forums, communities and fan-pages, which is the reason why I decided to limit my research to the two main Brokeback Mountain communities on livejournal, namely “wranglers”4 and “brokebackslash”.5 The “slash” in “brokebackslash” refers to “a type of fan fiction (fan art) which depicts male characters … as sexually and romantically involved with one another, while (usually) maintaining that the characters concerned are still ‘heterosexual’” (101).6 The most widely accepted reason on the internet for slash fiction being called “slash” is that in summaries of the stories the names of the characters in the pairing are usually separated by a slash, for example “Jack/Ennis” or “J/E”. Apparently this format was only used for male/male pairings in the beginning, it has, however, been used for all kinds of pairings subsequently. In the case of Brokeback Mountain fan fiction the aforementioned (maintained) heterosexuality of the characters is of secondary importance only, as this is a complicated subject in the story itself. I will write more about fan fiction later in this paper, but first I want to give a more general overview over this specific fandom. 2.1 The fans I conducted a survey on the two communities I mentioned to find out more about the fans, how they became interested in this fandom and in which ways they contribute to it. As it turns out, out of the more than 200 people who participated in this poll, most of them were female (91.8%), heterosexual (63.9%) and between the age of 18 and 24 (35.4%). These numbers (especially the high amount of women) are in fact not unusual for online fandom, particularly in TV show, book and film fandom. A large number of fans got interested in the movie because they noticed the wide publicity it got, or because they knew the short story. The step from being interested in the movie to actively seek out internet fandom was a short one for people who already were in other fandoms; and over 60% of the participants in my poll are active in one to five other fandoms other than Brokeback Mountain. Of course there are many different ways to contribute to a fandom, and everyone does so in a different way. I have already explained a few of those active forms of contribution in the introduction; however, what I did not mention was that also the in a way passive forms of involvement are accepted as contributing to the fandom. By that I mean for example the reading of fan fiction (ideally of course also leaving the author a review), only reading the message boards and mailing lists (as opposed to actively engaging in the discussion). People who only read and occasionally post are commonly called “lurkers”. In my poll the two highest ranked activities through which the fans contribute to the fandom were reading fan fiction, with 91.9%, and lurking, with 65.9%. Only about 22% of the questioned actually write fan fiction. There are different factors that attracted the fans to this particular fandom, and a few of them are fairly evenly distributed. Many of the participants answered that they like slash, and that is why they like the fandom. This indicates two things: firstly, that 4

http://community.livejournal.com/wranglers/ http://community.livejournal.com/brokebackslash/ 6 Matt Hills, Fan Cultures, London: Routledge, 2002. 5

143

they knew about the concept of slash before (which would suggest that they had previously been part of other fandoms), and secondly that some of the attraction for people who like slash comes from the fact that usually the characters one “likes to slash” are not an actual on-screen couple but wishful thinking on the side of the fans. Another aspect that attracted people to the fandom is that Brokeback Mountain is basically a story of two gay men. Even though Ennis’ sexuality is a complicated topic, and is also the topic for many discussions within the fandom. I got some very interesting answers to the question of how the participants would classify his sexuality. A large number of fans said that they would probably identify Ennis as gay (although many of them added that he is in denial, closeted, or, as one person said, “reluctantly gay”), but also surprisingly many simply said that he is just “a man in love”, or said that he was straight, but in love with Jack or refused to classify it as anything. Quite a few people (independently) came up with the expression “Jacksexual”, which I find rather amusing. These different opinions about Ennis’ sexuality also come up in different works of fan fiction, as each author decides to represent him and his sexuality differently. This brings me to the next part, namely a more detailed view into fan fiction in the Brokeback Mountain fandom. 2.2 The fan fiction of Brokeback Mountain As I have mentioned before, most of the members of the Brokeback Mountain fandom either read or write fan fiction, or do both. The format of both the short story and the movie is ideal for writing fan fiction. As it is basically a collection of vignettes that spans over a period of 20 years, there are plenty of scenes that are only, or not even, hinted at, there is the possibility of re-writing parts of the story differently, or to expand the story into the future or the past of the characters – the possibilities are practically limitless. There are several established genres in fan fiction, and the in the Brokeback Mountain fandom the by far most common is fiction set in a so-called “Alternative Universe” (commonly called “AU”, as will I henceforth). This means that it is set in the “universe” of Brokeback Mountain, but that it does not actually coincide with the version told in the short story or film. Of course, any kind of fan fiction could be described as being an AU, but this term usually describes that some facts have been changed radically. In the case of Brokeback Mountain it generally means that the author has taken a point in the story where a decision or event was different, and they evolve their story from that point. Another popular genre, not only in Brokeback Mountain, is “smut” or “PWP”, which stands for “Plot? What plot?” This is at its best thinly veiled porn and at its very worst badly written, clichéd porn written by teenage schoolgirls who have never seen a naked man, or much less had sex – which might be a certain obstacle if one tries to describe a graphic sex-scene between two men. I find that I have seen proportionally more smut written for Brokeback Mountain than for other fandoms, which might be due to the nature of the story and the fact that it is mentioned that Jack and Ennis meet once or twice a year, have sex for a couple of days and go their separate ways again. This means that there is not much imagination needed on the side of the author to make a story like that believable. The fact that Brokeback Mountain has an established gay couple at its centre might make writing slash fiction, and especially smut, easier than in other fandoms where the author first has to come up with a scenario in which it is even remotely believable that the characters they write about are about to have sex. The fact that there seems to be more smut fan fiction also 144

reflects in my poll, where 82.2% of the participants said that they do indeed read smut. What is also interesting in that respect is the fact that most works of Brokeback Mountain fan fiction centres around Jack and Ennis as a couple. It seems to be important for many of the fans that, even if they might not be together at all times, they still end up together. In most other fandoms there are a very large number of pairings one might “ship”, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual pairings. (The expression “to ship” is actually a conversion of the truncated word “relationship”, so one speaks about “one’s favourite ship” or “to ship Jack/Ennis”, etc.) The lack of suitable “ships” is also one of the peculiarities of this fandom. Now I want to focus briefly on one particular work of fan fiction, because it is remarkable in its great popularity within the fandom. The story I want to talk about is Human Interest7 by MadLori. It is probably the most popular work of fan fiction within the Brokeback Mountain fandom and 83.6% of the participants in my poll have stated that they have read the story. Human Interest is a story in 24 chapters and is in total over 130,000 words long. It is set in an alternative universe where Jack and Ennis live together on a farm they own and run in a small town in Vermont. The story starts in 1983, when a reporter from New York goes to Farmingdale, the town where Jack and Ennis live, to interview the mayor. She hears about Jack and Ennis, and her interest is sparked, so she goes to visit them as she has the idea that she could write a story about them. Liz, the reporter ends up staying with Jack and Ennis for a while because she has the idea to write not only a story about them, but a whole book. The point where this story veers off from the movie is that when Jack comes to see Ennis after his divorce, Ennis does not send him away, but decides to move to Vermont with him. It is, of course, impossible to re-tell this very long and very complex story in a few sentences, but what makes it very interesting is that it does not just say that they moved somewhere together and “have a sweet life”, and you get a few hundred pages of soppiness, but that their life is in fact not perfect, and that they have many different issues to deal with, such as homophobia, betrayal, death, family problems, etc. What many fans said is that they read Brokeback Mountain fan fiction because it takes the edge off the tragedy of the short story and the movie, and what makes this work so outstanding is the way that the author manages to give us an account of what Jack’s and Ennis’ life could have been if they had made a different choice somewhere along the road. It also differs from other fan fiction in the way that it is actually very well written, which is not always the fact, and in a way often not even the point, in fan fiction. I think that in fan fiction the content is much more important than the style, which just makes the works which have a superior style that more outstanding, and in a way famous within the fandom. Another way in which this story is remarkable is that it is not only the probably best known fan fiction in the fandom, but that there is actually fan fiction written that is set in the universe of Human Interest. It also has its own community on livejournal8 where this meta-fan fiction is posted, as well as fan art for the stories. This brings me to the end of this paper, and to sum up I want to say a few things. First of all that this is not a complete and comprehensive survey of this fandom, because that would go beyond the scope of this paper. Secondly, this is not an objective portrayal, because I consider myself a part of this fandom, and it is very hard to objectively describe something one is involved with oneself. And in the third place that I hope that maybe I managed to give an insight to how a fan community 7 8

The complete story can be found here: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2759902/1/ http://community.livejournal.com/humaninterest 145

might work, and maybe even to let show through that there is no reason to be ashamed to be a fan and to belong to a fandom.

146

About the relationship between me and my most beloved non-living object by Petra Ladinigg Wanna hear something about my best emotional TV moment ever? It was great. More than great, really. Amazing, practically speaking. Wanna hear about it? Okay then. I was standing in the TV set section of one of these big electronic superstores (I won’t name names, because this isn’t supposed to be product placement, you know – just imagine your favorite megastore for all kinds of electronic and hi-fi blizz). It was the average temple for hi-tech and hi-fi and home cinema, the mediocre shrine for CD, DVD, VHS, CD-RW – hell, you name it. I was bored to death. Lila, my really, really wonderful girlfriend, was hunting CDs which could take days, if not weeks. She’s got tons of CDs at home, but she says: One can never have too many CDs – music is a process that goes on, so you can’t just stop collecting. And she is a hell of a collector. I only browse for new CDs or CDs by some bandy I already know or maybe for advertised stuff or the things on sale – when I find something, I pay, when I don’t find something, I just leave. Lila has a different approach to CDs. She has to take every single CD into her hands, turn it around, read the list of songs. Then the first decision takes place: back to the shelves or into the basket (doesn’t it give you the full picture already – she goes shopping for CDs with a basket!)? If she puts it into the basket, the CD is among those she will listen to before making decision two: buying or back to the shelves? And all that just so she won’t miss “the” CD, this mythical object, the CD she has been looking for all her life. And as the CD section in this cathedral of consumption has the size of an actual church, it takes her ages to go through every CD in every category except popular folk music and ambience for yoga in this godforsaken place. I lasted about half an hour by her side – then she arrived at the letter “F” and I took refuge to the TV section, my Johnny Cash album in hands. Not that I needed a new TV set – mine was fine, working, just perfect. There were different channels on and if you kept close enough to the TV set, there was even sound to the pictures flickering past. On several sets the news was on, on some there was a strange comic series (strange in the way that all comic series produced after Bugs Bunny seem somehow strange to me), MTV’s Dismissed and three nice little TV series – some soap in a hospital, a sit-com with fake laughter and what I’d call a family drama series. Inside, I’m sighing at the fact that they don’t show Crossing Jordan at this time of the day. I’ve been watching it from day one, but then Lila got jealous about the way I looked at Dr. Jordan and I had to quit the pathology in order to restore the interpersonal peace. She can be so damn jealous. We went to watch Six Feet Under as Lila’s got HBO – I mean, Rachel Griffith, hello? Anyway, as a TV addicted little freak, I kept watching the family drama series. I remembered dimly that I saw it a few times because it’s been on either between two series I was watching or when I came home from the early shift. I couldn’t remember the title, but the people were familiar. What was the damn name? Divorced couples, who get married again – woman with two girls, guy with a son and a daughter. There’s another woman having an affair with a married man – I remembered that much because of the actor, the guy’s been Jeffery in Jeffery and my best friend is nuts about that film. But I couldn’t remember his name either. I’m just so bad with 147

names – my best friends told me to say a prayer for the fact that Lila’s got a really short and easily memorable name. It’s the same with every series – you don’t have to watch it from the beginning to get what’s going on. But the drama thing really caught my attention when I heard ‘gaystraight group’. This was the moment I started watching the series exclusively, turning off the two glossy Asian chicks trying to get all of this surfer guy’s attention and the really bad actress throwing herself sobbingly over a pale man in a hospital bed. I try to summarize quickly what was going on. There was this teacher (I knew the actor – he’s been John Brooke in Little Women. And Lila would have every reason to be jealous about my watching this movie: Winona Ryder, Kirsten Dunst, Trini Alvarado, Samantha Mathis and Clare Danes all in one movie!) – Where was I? Oh, okay, there was this teacher who started that gay-straight alliance group and one of the daughters had a huge crush on him and the rumors debated whether that teacher was gay or not (this was my favorite game in high school – Grissolm and I did nothing but guessing our teacher’s sexual orientations – just as an aside: isn’t it funny that one of my best friends has the same surname like that CSI Las Vegas guy?). And another daughter, the guy’s one, had a friend of whom the other daughter, the one with the crush on her teacher, said she’d be a lesbian and the other daughter – let’s call them A and B, A’s the one with the friend who is called a lezzie and B’s the one with the crush on the teacher. So B said about A’s friend that she’s a lezzie and A started this friend of hers (whom we might call C – this is getting really mathematical). Now I did remember that Billie, one of my best friends, similarly addicted to the big rectangle with the flickering pictures, said that the two friends were sisters – not blood-relation Brontë kind of sisters, but sisters in a more lesbian collective solidarity kind of way. We all laughed and I said there’s no way that kid could be gay – it’s a nice family drama series. It’s afternoon TV. There are no gay characters in family drama series with an afternoon airing at least no leading ones. Njet. Nada. Billie was sure that they were gay. She said she’d eat tofu for a week if she was wrong – and Billie hates everything made of soy posing to be a substitute for meat. It’s been an old favorite on our nice dinner evenings – the never ending game of guessing who’s gay and who isn’t in TV series. Especially in those nice little family drama series. Lila loves to queer The Sopranos, although I can’t find any proof for her repeated statement that Tony’s gay (Lila: “For God’s sake, just listen to the man. Totally gay!”). Grissolm’s favorite is Seventh Heaven – he thinks it’s only a matter of time till Simon Camden will come out (he, his boyfriend and Rosa started a bet on it – his boyfriend saying that Matt will come out and Rosa saying Ruthie will be shouting into the world that she’s a sis in no time – till now they were all wrong, but who cares). Bernie still waits for a coming-out on CSI – he says he doesn’t care: either the two hot guys in Las Vegas or the one from Glory Days in New York. Billie says since Ellen and Will & Grace everyone can be gay. And then Lila curls her lips and says: There was no action at all in Ellen and Will & Grace. And then a list of arguments follows approximately like this: You can’t show gay sex in afternoon TV, you just can’t. There’s still Queer as folk. And that “L” thing. But you have to pay for it, man. You gotta pay for it. Don’t you tell me gay people can’t even kiss on TV – this is ridiculous. They do show straight people having sex. And what about the trans people. Hey, you’re constantly talking about gay – what about bisexuals? What about me? Fuck categories – we’re all queer anyway. Go with the flow. 148

Most of the time “Go with the flow” ends it all and we go over to collective TV watching, preferably one of our top five queer TV moments ( 5) Roseanne getting kissed by that blonde woman, 4) an episode of Doctor Who with Captain Jack (Grissolm’s boyfriend Sean brought them along – he’s a Brit), 3) the Sex and the City episode with Alanis Morrisette, 2) an episode of Sailor Moon with Sailor Uranus and Sailor Neptune, who have to be a couple or all is lost, 1) the Ellen-coming-outepisode). Back to the high-tech temple and it’s numberless TV-sets showing this one family drama series. A avoids C and B gets really aggressively flirtatious towards her teacher (which makes me think of Bernie and this one pupil of his, this boy, making very direct advances on him in class, but this is a totally different story). So C writes a letter to A. I smile knowingly, remembering how I got to know Lila. We’ve been pen pals, finding each other on the net on some pen pal site. We were both looking for friends, not for lovers – she in Washington, me in Milwaukee. We wrote each other letters – real letters, on paper with stamps, written with ink (well, Lila’s written with ink, I’m more the regular biro kind of girl). A is shocked by the letter, and her mum, who’s in a hospital out of whatever reason, doesn’t understand a bit and thinks A is in love with some fellow in a football jacket. And everyone thinks B is a lesbian, because she joined that group of her teacher – as we, the attentive viewers, know, she isn’t a lesbian (I always say: Not yet), because she has this huge and just way too noticeable crush on this redhead of teacher of hers. The parents keep blabbing on about how tolerant they should be and how open and that it shouldn’t matter (which it, of course, does) – they’re having a hard time trying to even think about their daughter being gay. My parents were very what-we-don’t-see-we-don’tknow about it. It mattered. It did matter a lot. I wasn’t allowed to bring a girlfriend home, wasn’t allowed to say a thing about lesbians or rainbows or vegetarians (I’m not vegetarian, but my parents do link vegetarianism to lesbianism – only God knows why – I don’t even know a lesbian who’s also a veggie), I was to be quiet and calm and invisible. Lila’s been my girlfriend for a year before I could make my parents come to our place to have dinner with us (an awkward year, really awkward because Lila’s parents got to know me after three months – her dad liked me, but her mum still thinks I’m a hollow nut). But after a year and a lot of fuss they came over. And, what shall I say? They love her. Simply love her. She won them over with roast beef, cool beer, a thorough knowledge of the NHL and (and the emphasis is on the ‘and’) the ice skating league and a collection of 70ies rock vinyls. When Lila and I have a fight, my parents are always on her side. And I get to hear what a lovely girl Lila is and how lucky I should consider myself to have her. I’m glad the whole parents issue is over for now – I hated thinking about whether to break with my parents completely in case they didn’t accept my Lila or whether to skip the whole issue as long as I’m at their place and go on to be quiet and calm and invisible. Lila being wonderful sorted it out – thank heavens. In the whole episode there is a lot of guessing and rumoring going on. Who is gay, who is not gay, who loves whom and so on. A and B have a big fight in the bathroom – I didn’t get why they had this fight, I was busy walking around the shelf because one of the sales guys came up the aisle, giving me a really mean look. I must have been standing there for half an hour or more without acting the least bit consumerish. It was during my little walk that I noticed other people standing around watching this series on the sets on display as well. I stopped at a big home cinema monster of a TV-set and saw A and B acting sick – A to avoid her friend C, B because the teacher has a girlfriend (hell, I took him for gay!). At this point I was really drawn in. It’s the best thing about TV series. Fast access to the story lines, caught immediately, instant 149

addiction. Nothing kicks in like a good TV series. What else gets your sympathy, your empathy towards a completely fictional and not even realistic character rising so fast? Lila came along at this moment, five CDs in one hand, six in the other, still considering which of the CDs to take home and which to let rot in the shelves. She wanted to say something, but I just said “Hush”. The friend of A came in, in tears, to get her letter back – it’s so obvious that she confessed her love for A in that letter. I glanced at Lila and saw that she was a) really confused as to what I was doing here and b) really pissed off because I just hushed her. I mumble and grumble some dim excuse and took her into my arm, so she could face the TV-set with me. A is moved as well, they talk about being friends, bla bla bla. For a moment I thought, hell, the bourgeois fuckers won again – Billie was wrong, it’s not so easy to use gaydar on TV-series. Then A and C hug and I knew, no, Billie’s been so right, so fucking right. I tensed and Lila shot a skeptical, slightly worried look at me (she must have thought me a hollow nut in that moment as well). And then they, A and C, stop hugging and they kiss. I must have cried “Yes!” or something because people around me stopped and looked at me with frightful looks. I blushed to tomato red and ducked slightly, Lila cringing in my arm, saying “W.T.F.?” with her eyes. B almost kissed the teacher and very happily brings something to A and before B storms into A’s room (that silly cow), A and her now girlfriend C just sit there and look into each others’ eyes. I looked at Lila, who still didn’t have the slightest clue what was going on, and kissed her. Kissed her long and lovingly and full of a feeling of triumph I’m not able to relate to here. Let me say something short and put a long story short: Long live TV! By the way, Billie’s got the episode on tape, in case someone wants to see it!

150