Bodies, Sexualities, Identities - Literature review Example

Bodies, Sexualities, Identities Name: Lecturer: Course: Date: Introduction Limits of intelligibility or the degree of clarity in regards to gender nonconformity and race have depended on how humans perceive sexuality and racism. Racism, or belief that one race is superior over the others and hence the dominant one, and sexism, which is the belief that one sex is inherently superior over the other and hence the dominant one, indeed exists. This paper discusses gender disclosure and consent in the society. Emphasis is placed on the limits of intelligibility. Lorde (1984) attempted to clarify the limits of intelligibility in regards to race and sexuality, by providing an account of racism and sexuality in the American society. She sought to shed light on the delimitations between what should be considered as superior or inferior. Such tendency only seeks to illustrate the machination of the mind and how it has been programmed to think that sexualities or races that are dominant should be superior. Towards this end, Lorde (1984) remarked that sexism is a belief in the dominance and superiority of one sex over the other, and race a belief in the superiority of one over the other. In Caluya’s (2006) view, racism does not function through exclusion. Rather, it functions through codification of faces into particular categories. This implies that racism functions through systems of visual and discursive representation that classifies them into specific groups through sexuality and race. Misinterpretation, misnaming or distortion of such discursive elements makes gender nonconformity and race unintelligible. In this regards, gender nonconformity may be applied to refer to lesbianism or gayness. Gender nonconformity in itself refers to archetypal behaviour patterns among individuals who show such phenomenon include reluctance to engage in activities that are conventionally defined for the gender and the tendency to cross-dress. Gender nonconformity is linked to ultimate bisexual/gay and transgender sexualities. Gender nonconformity also describes a phenomenon where certain people fail to conform to normal or socially acceptable gender-related psychosocial or sociological patterns. It also refers to situations where individual fail to identify with the opposite gender. On the other hand racism denotes a form of prejudice by individuals of a race, that their race is inherently superior to other races. Both are subject to human perceptions and limits of intelligibility as Lorde (1984) attempted to explain. Additionally, both are faced by different levels of disclosure and consent on the part of the affected parties depending on the limits by which individuals in the mainstream group understands them and is willing to accept them (Lorde 1984). There is lack of clarity or precision in the way that humans perceive gender nonconformity and race. Lorde (1984) argued that humans are conditioned to perceive the world as bad or good, inferior or superior and subordinate or dominant. Her view is that humans are inclined to view the world and phenomenon within the world in terms of hierarchy or binary. Basing on her view, the society defines such perceptions in terms of what they believe is either superior or dominant. Neither of this is however often true as only those trends viewed to be inferior or subordinate are neglected (Lorde 1984). Such explain the limits of intelligibility. The same however applies even within the “unmarked” races or sexualities. In a survey of gay men in Australia from Southeast Asia background, Caluya (2006) found that Asian gay men face absolute racial discrimination as well as racism because of being the less dominant race. A specific incident is archetypical remarks by white gay men that “they don’t do Asians.” Caluya (2006) argued that such remarks mark Asian gays outside the circle of gays from a dominant race, and outside the mainstream sexual preferences among the gays themselves. Caluya (2006) explains that when taking into account the minority identities, where subjugation is prevalent, the Asian gays are outside the circle of dominant gays. Normative exclusions also exist in respect to gender nonconformity and racism. Normative exclusions have attempted to silence the less dominant races and sexual orientations, rendering their significance unintelligible or less distinct. Instead, they tend to appeal to the unintelligible perceptions driven by human nature to conform to the mainstream sexualities or races (Lorde 1984). Indeed, this perception has gone deep with people often seen to be struggling to relate with the mainstream sexualities and races, making the less dominant once unintelligible and almost unacceptable. This is illustrated by Bao (2013) when he explained that there was a favourable attitude towards the West that amounted to obsession by the Chinese students in the 1980s. Such obsession with the Western cultures and learning prompted legitimisation of the Western cultures and norms as the model of modernity, and other cultures as belated modernity. According to Lorde (1984), in order for one to be on top, someone has to be underneath. In this case, while those who are the oppressors preoccupy themselves with maintaining their positions of dominance, they suppress the less dominant to maintain their positions at the lower state. Their dominance is achieved through oppression of others. The degrees of confusion and separation created by dominant perceptions have also indicated the limits of intelligibility in gender nonconformity and race. Lorde’s (1984) key argument is based on the way that humans think. For instance, she explained that the human thought process is constructed on how the world is understood through the perceptions of mainstream society. Those the society regards to be on top are regarded as the “unmarked”. They acknowledge the differences between them and those who are beneath them so that the distinctions become so obvious that it becomes generally understood, hence the differences do not have to be stated. Eventually, such perceptions become so universal and hence, any pattern that should be modified is stated or rebuked. This is consistent with a view made by Bao (2013) that the notion of same-sex partners has indeed been unacceptable or unconvincing to people within the mainstream heterosexuality. In essence, the differences that humans have presumed are greatly programmed into the human mind so that it has created a degree of confusion and separation, which makes “unmarked” races or sexuality unintelligible. The two major mythical norms discussed by Lorde (1984) comprise the “unmarked” groups. These include heterosexual and the whites. Caluya (2006) explains that racism exists through the determination of the levels of deviation in relation to the white man’s face, which seeks to incorporate nonconforming attributed into an unconventional waves sometimes erasing them or tolerating them. A mythical norm is described as an individual who is at the centre of the society, and who is regarded to be regular (Lorde 1984). In this case, any other individual who is outside such delimitations is classified as being different. For instance, while a white woman will define what constitutes a woman with regard to her experiences as a woman, she will disregard the experiences that black women went through. Similarly, a heterosexual individual will define his experiences in terms of being heterosexual, while disregarding the experiences that a lesbian or homosexual went through. In both circumstances, it is silently agreed among the white women or the heterosexual woman about who is right in the society. Lorde (1984) argued that the human thought pattern has been poisoned by the underlying concepts of the society as well as conditioned to think in a manner that the world wants them to think. This makes less dominant races and sexual orientations to be unintelligible. She further asserts that it will be futile to decolonize such mindset that has been instilled for ages. In this case, it is almost unfeasible to distinguish the differences when one knows they exist. Based on this assumption, it can be argued that race and sexism only exists if individuals within the society allow their consciousness and perceptions to materialize into reality. The gist of her argument is that something can be believed into reality or existence. There is a refusal to acknowledge that the existing differences in race and nonconformity to gender contribute to limited intelligibility of differences in race and sexual orientation. Despite the fact that there certainly exist differences among individuals of race and sex, it is not the differences that separate the individuals. Rather, it is their refusal to acknowledge that such differences exist and to scrutinize the distortions that result from human tendency to misname them and their impacts on human expectations and behaviour (Lorde 1984). Limits of intelligibility on gender nonconformity and race are also triggered by lack of history on the part of the oppressed or their inability to recollect the past. Generations of the “unmarked” suffer from historical amnesia, as they have no concrete recollection of their history (Lorde 1984). Since the past is overlooked or uncertain, similar mistakes continue to be made. In this case, those who continue to be oppressed continue to be oppressed, while those who are the oppressors continue to oppress. Part of the reason from this is because they will tend to accept the past and carry on with life. Concerning reluctance to identify with the past, or to relate to the past to solve the present and future problems that the “unmarked” face, Lorde (1984) argues that the focus of having a revolutionary change is often not the oppressive situations that individuals should seek to escape, rather, the piece of the oppressor implanted deep within each of the oppressed. In ability to erase or decolonize underlying knowledge can create a mental cloud to perceptions. This also limits intelligibility on gender nonconformity and race. In this case, underlying norms and mindsets cannot be changed or decolonize completely if they have been deeply implanted in the mind of the oppressed since birth. Lorde (1984) argues that to change such a situation, the young have to be raised with a different mindset. Once something is learnt, it will stay engraved in the mind for life since knowledge cannot be easily erased. For instance, if an individual is told that he is black, it will be difficult to classify himself as something else even if he regards himself as white, since the knowledge that he is black is deeply engraved that it clouds his perceptions on the way he should view the world. Lord (1984) sets out by discussing the origin of simplistic differences in the society to show the limits of intelligibility in nonconformity to race and sexual orientation. Although throughout history there has always been a group of people who are regarded as inferior or superiors, the reality in life is that nothing is white or black. In her argument, rejecting the differences in itself affects the greater cause. When human pretend that there is no difference by overlooking the differences among sex groups or race, then the tools that explain the differences remain underdeveloped. For instance, Lorde (1984) explains that when women tend to overlook the differences that exist among them, such as whether it is race or sexual orientation, they become robbed of their creative insight and energy. For instance, white women are likely to feel that their experiences should reflect that of the others while this is often not the fact. Since they underwent different struggles compared with women from other races, it would be inappropriate to perceive that their experiences reflect those of other women. While black women experience racial oppression at work through working in low-paying jobs, white women are more preoccupied with issues of being the victims of seduction by men to share power with the oppressor. In reality, Lorde’s (1984) argument is based on the premise that differences and similarities exist within the struggles of women. However, analysis and interpretation of such issues can help the oppressed to become much stronger, emancipated and to encourage equality. Lorde’s (1984) argument is consistent with that of Bao (2013) who argued that each of the defining distinctions or characteristics of sexual orientation or race continually work to affect human experiences, privileges and interactions. Bao (2013) further argued that humans are marked by a sequence of differences in terms of gender, sex, race, religion or cultural group, all of which are placed at some point in the hierarchy of human difference. All have their individual places in the hierarchy of human differences. While the superior ones afford individuals privileges, the inferior ones set them apart from enjoying certain privileges. According to Bao (2013), the same could be said of the gays and lesbians, who are also hierarchical. The Chinese gays consider themselves to be different from western gays, who are mostly considered to be promiscuous. They see themselves as having superior qualities. In this case, while they make consider themselves to be anti-mainstream, they still feel that differences exist among them. Lorde (1984) pointed out that while white women overlook their fitted privilege of being white and define women in the context of their experiences, women of other races become the “othera”, and are therefore considered as outsiders whose traditions and experiences are considered to be misplaced or strange. A similar view was made by Weston (1995), who argued that the minority model of gay identity has also been ushered in by gay movements. Within the minority model, gayness or lesbianism becomes an entity that is supposed to be understandable without taking into account context or culture. This was particularly during the Great Gay Migration that occurred in the 1970s, which saw many gays and lesbianism migrate into the United States into explore their sexuality. However, they were still considered as minorities and outsiders by gays and lesbians in the United States. As a result, it is inappropriate to presume that any two women of different races have had similar experiences. While white lesbians in the United States are preoccupied with lobbying for their inclusion in the institution of marriage, women in Africa are more concerned about eliminating the cultures of female genital mutilation (FGM). Each woman belongs to some form of cultural group, race or sex group, and her experiences must be examined differently to those of others (Lorde 1984). Lorde (1984) gives an example of the American society, where members of the subjugated social group are expected to struggle to close the gap between the actualities of their lives as well as their oppressor’s consciousness. In order to survive in such a society, the oppressed have to humble themselves as well as become familiar with the ways of the oppressor. In some circumstances, they must accept them to protect their existence. Limits of intelligibility are further promoted by levels of separation and confusion. Established rejection of the differences is a complete requirement in a profit economy, where the outsiders are viewed as the surplus people. Being members of such an economy, the humans are programmed to react to the differences existing between them with hate and fear and to handle such differences by ignoring them is they think they are inferior or by embracing them if they think they are superior. However, there are no patterns that relate across the human differences as equals. Because of this, the differences have been misused and misnamed promoting separation and confusion, which limit intelligibility of gender nonconformity and race. Misnaming the differences between the oppressed or “unmarked” groups is also being used to separate them from one another. Lorde (1984) explains that as a Black lesbian feminist who is comfortable with a range of identities she has been given, she finds that she is continually being encouraged to remove one aspect of herself which she has to present as the “meaningful whole” while denying the remaining parts about herself. However, this makes her feel more oppressed and inconspicuous as she cannot be able to function as a whole with only a part of her. Based on her illustration, it is clear that the cycle of oppression subsists as by exposing only a small part of the oppressed, she cannot be understand clearly, as only sections of herself are understood by the society. Basing on her argument, lack of clearly understanding the oppressed makes it easy to divide and rule them. This may further lead them to form destructive alliance, isolate themselves of live in despair. To clarify on this, Lorde (1984) illustrates that the fear of being accused of being a lesbian may lead to many Black women who are lesbians to testify against themselves. Similar remarks were made by Caluya (2006), who noted that lesbians and gays from the minority Asian communities in the United States and Australia have started to critique themselves in relation to race and homosexuality in regard to the questions of power, sometimes also testifying against themselves. Conclusion Sexism is a belief in the dominance and superiority of one sex over the other, and race a belief in the superiority of one over the other. Disclosure and consent of the superior or dominant races or sexualities become simpler under such conditions. On the other hand, racism does not function through exclusion. Rather, it functions through codification of faces into particular categories. This implies that racism functions through systems of visual and discursive representation that classifies them into specific groups through sexuality and race. Misinterpretation, misnaming or distortion of such discursive elements makes the unmarked races unintelligible. References Lorde, A, 1984, “Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference”, “Scratching the Surface: Some Notes on Barriers to Women and Loving” excerpts from Sister, Outsider, reprinted in The Audre Lorde Compendium: Essays, Speeches and Journals (1996), Pandora Press, 162-171, 99-105. Caluya, G, 2006, “The (Gay) Scene of Racism: Face, Shame and Gay Asian Males”, Australian Critical Race and Whitness Studies Association e-journal, 2:2, 1-14. Bao, H, 2013, “A Queer ‘Comrade’ in Sydney”, Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 15:1, 127-140. Weston, K, 1995, “Get Thee to a Big City: Sexual Imaginary and the Great Gay Migration”, GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 2, 253-277. Read More

Her view is that humans are inclined to view the world and phenomenon within the world in terms of hierarchy or binary. Basing on her view, the society defines such perceptions in terms of what they believe is either superior or dominant. Neither of this is however often true as only those trends viewed to be inferior or subordinate are neglected (Lorde 1984). Such explain the limits of intelligibility. The same however applies even within the “unmarked” races or sexualities. In a survey of gay men in Australia from Southeast Asia background, Caluya (2006) found that Asian gay men face absolute racial discrimination as well as racism because of being the less dominant race.

A specific incident is archetypical remarks by white gay men that “they don’t do Asians.” Caluya (2006) argued that such remarks mark Asian gays outside the circle of gays from a dominant race, and outside the mainstream sexual preferences among the gays themselves. Caluya (2006) explains that when taking into account the minority identities, where subjugation is prevalent, the Asian gays are outside the circle of dominant gays. Normative exclusions also exist in respect to gender nonconformity and racism.

Normative exclusions have attempted to silence the less dominant races and sexual orientations, rendering their significance unintelligible or less distinct. Instead, they tend to appeal to the unintelligible perceptions driven by human nature to conform to the mainstream sexualities or races (Lorde 1984). Indeed, this perception has gone deep with people often seen to be struggling to relate with the mainstream sexualities and races, making the less dominant once unintelligible and almost unacceptable.

This is illustrated by Bao (2013) when he explained that there was a favourable attitude towards the West that amounted to obsession by the Chinese students in the 1980s. Such obsession with the Western cultures and learning prompted legitimisation of the Western cultures and norms as the model of modernity, and other cultures as belated modernity. According to Lorde (1984), in order for one to be on top, someone has to be underneath. In this case, while those who are the oppressors preoccupy themselves with maintaining their positions of dominance, they suppress the less dominant to maintain their positions at the lower state.

Their dominance is achieved through oppression of others. The degrees of confusion and separation created by dominant perceptions have also indicated the limits of intelligibility in gender nonconformity and race. Lorde’s (1984) key argument is based on the way that humans think. For instance, she explained that the human thought process is constructed on how the world is understood through the perceptions of mainstream society. Those the society regards to be on top are regarded as the “unmarked”.

They acknowledge the differences between them and those who are beneath them so that the distinctions become so obvious that it becomes generally understood, hence the differences do not have to be stated. Eventually, such perceptions become so universal and hence, any pattern that should be modified is stated or rebuked. This is consistent with a view made by Bao (2013) that the notion of same-sex partners has indeed been unacceptable or unconvincing to people within the mainstream heterosexuality.

In essence, the differences that humans have presumed are greatly programmed into the human mind so that it has created a degree of confusion and separation, which makes “unmarked” races or sexuality unintelligible. The two major mythical norms discussed by Lorde (1984) comprise the “unmarked” groups. These include heterosexual and the whites. Caluya (2006) explains that racism exists through the determination of the levels of deviation in relation to the white man’s face, which seeks to incorporate nonconforming attributed into an unconventional waves sometimes erasing them or tolerating them.

A mythical norm is described as an individual who is at the centre of the society, and who is regarded to be regular (Lorde 1984).

Read More