Jayson Castillo
Hist of A.
Hist of A.
Artifact Presentation
Artifact #1;
Rick Santorum’s interview on FOX (2012)
In this clip, Rick Santorum defends
remarks he had made in a previous debate about DOMA and “gays” in the military.
Rick Santorum suppositions 3 things, 1) That marriage is a privilege entitled only
to hetero-sexual marriages 2) That homosexuality undermines military interest
and agendas 3) That discrimination towards homosexuals is incompatible with comparative
understandings of discrimination towards blacks.
I chose this clip because it conveniently relies and highlights many of the arguments proposed about historical discrimination in both the Serlin and Sommerville essays. Santorum, in an astonishing display of ignorance supports his claims by outlining an agenda of discrimination and advocates an agenda which treats members of our society who do not conform to ideas of “normativity” as second class, and not entitled to the same rights as those who do conform to normativity. He specifically supports such a claim by designating benefits given to hetero-normative married couples as “privileges” which should be denied to non-hetero couples. Santorum then further exasperates his argument by claiming that homosexuals by virtue of essence will be distracted by the overtly masculine qualities displayed by the superb men in our service. Santorum implies that the quality of our military force would lead homosexuals to sexual attack if not outright rape their fellow soldiers and by opposition implies that heterosexual soldiers should fear sexual attacks from homosexual men.
Lastly, Santorum refutes claims which conflate the civil rights movement of the LGBT community with the civil rights movement of the Black community. Santorum pins his argument by determining homosexual activity as being a behavioral quality as opposed to race which is a matter of “skin color (a clear reduction).” In saying that homosexuality is a behavior, he implies that it is a deviant behavior which out not to be encouraged. Santorum throughout the clip consistently supports ideologies which promote and protect “normativity” as being the ultimate/dominant Maxim which a society is morally obligated to protect from the subversive qualities of “non-normative” or “non-natural.”
Artifact #2; Bill Maher interviews Ex-Gay pastor John Westcott (2008)
In this clip Bill Maher discusses attitudes towards homosexuality as held in conventional Christian attitudes. John Wescott is a minister who claims to be “ex-gay” and is invested in “rehabilitating” individuals who have lost their way and wish to reform, straighten out their lives. I specifically picked this clip not to solicit an argument about oppressive religious attitudes towards “gays,” but rather because I found the discussion they had to be completely reliant on whether or not homosexual activity is biological or social, essential v.s. non-essential. Bill Maher is convinced that homosexuality is a matter of biological determination and the Pastor is convinced that homosexuality is a matter of “behavior (albeit deviant behavior which must be corrected)”.
One of the parts of the clip which I found most interesting was in John Wescotts claims about “suspecting gay people.” This line of discourse seems to me to resonate a larger paradigm of “fear of infiltration.” Westcott’s remarks about “suspecting gays” falls in line with longstanding public conversations about infiltration of “gays” into every facet of our stable social construct. Both Serlin and Sommerville mention this type of discourse as a matter of fears of “invasion” and the “perversion” of the pure “normative” value. Specifically, in the Serlin essay, it is demonstrated that these types of discussions extended so far that it was incorporated not only in blacklisting practices towards military candidates who were suspected to be “gay,” but was also integrated with McCarthian discourse and policies which sought to trace and extinguish the inward filtration and corruption of society by alien forces. Sommerville discusses how these claims of “penetration” motivate ideologies of segregation and separation of “otherness” as a means to justify identifying and discriminating against a certain group of people.
Ultimately, I believe that neither understanding of biologic function nor that of “sinful activity” is worthwhile. We should not rely too heavily on any essentialist claim about homosexuality, or demonizie homosexuality as deviant, but rather we should work to remove stigmatized properties of “homosexual activities” in order to recognize it not only as a matter of personal choice/orientation, but also as activity which is not “deviant” or “sinful” and which should not be the basis of discrimination towards any particular person or groups of people.
I chose this clip because it conveniently relies and highlights many of the arguments proposed about historical discrimination in both the Serlin and Sommerville essays. Santorum, in an astonishing display of ignorance supports his claims by outlining an agenda of discrimination and advocates an agenda which treats members of our society who do not conform to ideas of “normativity” as second class, and not entitled to the same rights as those who do conform to normativity. He specifically supports such a claim by designating benefits given to hetero-normative married couples as “privileges” which should be denied to non-hetero couples. Santorum then further exasperates his argument by claiming that homosexuals by virtue of essence will be distracted by the overtly masculine qualities displayed by the superb men in our service. Santorum implies that the quality of our military force would lead homosexuals to sexual attack if not outright rape their fellow soldiers and by opposition implies that heterosexual soldiers should fear sexual attacks from homosexual men.
Lastly, Santorum refutes claims which conflate the civil rights movement of the LGBT community with the civil rights movement of the Black community. Santorum pins his argument by determining homosexual activity as being a behavioral quality as opposed to race which is a matter of “skin color (a clear reduction).” In saying that homosexuality is a behavior, he implies that it is a deviant behavior which out not to be encouraged. Santorum throughout the clip consistently supports ideologies which promote and protect “normativity” as being the ultimate/dominant Maxim which a society is morally obligated to protect from the subversive qualities of “non-normative” or “non-natural.”
Artifact #2; Bill Maher interviews Ex-Gay pastor John Westcott (2008)
In this clip Bill Maher discusses attitudes towards homosexuality as held in conventional Christian attitudes. John Wescott is a minister who claims to be “ex-gay” and is invested in “rehabilitating” individuals who have lost their way and wish to reform, straighten out their lives. I specifically picked this clip not to solicit an argument about oppressive religious attitudes towards “gays,” but rather because I found the discussion they had to be completely reliant on whether or not homosexual activity is biological or social, essential v.s. non-essential. Bill Maher is convinced that homosexuality is a matter of biological determination and the Pastor is convinced that homosexuality is a matter of “behavior (albeit deviant behavior which must be corrected)”.
One of the parts of the clip which I found most interesting was in John Wescotts claims about “suspecting gay people.” This line of discourse seems to me to resonate a larger paradigm of “fear of infiltration.” Westcott’s remarks about “suspecting gays” falls in line with longstanding public conversations about infiltration of “gays” into every facet of our stable social construct. Both Serlin and Sommerville mention this type of discourse as a matter of fears of “invasion” and the “perversion” of the pure “normative” value. Specifically, in the Serlin essay, it is demonstrated that these types of discussions extended so far that it was incorporated not only in blacklisting practices towards military candidates who were suspected to be “gay,” but was also integrated with McCarthian discourse and policies which sought to trace and extinguish the inward filtration and corruption of society by alien forces. Sommerville discusses how these claims of “penetration” motivate ideologies of segregation and separation of “otherness” as a means to justify identifying and discriminating against a certain group of people.
Ultimately, I believe that neither understanding of biologic function nor that of “sinful activity” is worthwhile. We should not rely too heavily on any essentialist claim about homosexuality, or demonizie homosexuality as deviant, but rather we should work to remove stigmatized properties of “homosexual activities” in order to recognize it not only as a matter of personal choice/orientation, but also as activity which is not “deviant” or “sinful” and which should not be the basis of discrimination towards any particular person or groups of people.
Discussion Questions
1
– Both essays advocate for understanding discrimination of the homosexual
community as being equivocal to other histories of discrimination such as the
discrimination of Blacks or of Women in the U.S. Do you agree that systems
which discriminate against homosexuals function in collaboration with systems
that discriminate against Blacks? If no, how would you refute the arguments
proposed by Summerville and Serlin? If yes, what are some of the problems that
arise in conflating these systems of oppression?
2
– Do you agree with Somerville’s analysis of military culture as being part of
a hyper-masculine/homophobic institution? What are some of the potential
dangers of institutionalizing hetero-normativity and homophobia within a
culture of violence and aggression? What impact do these set of values have on
the hundreds of thousands of men and woman involved in U.S. military service?
3
– Do you agree with Rick Santorum that marriage is a privilege which non-hetero
partnerships are not entitled to? Do you agree with Santorum that homosexuality
undermines the healthy function of military stability? How do you think Sumerville
would refute Santorum?
4
– In the Bill Maher interview, the arguments presented by both men can be
reduced to, homosexuality as “choice” v.s. “biologically determined.” Do you
think that either position is valuable? Why? Why not? What could be some
possible alternatives for shaping our understanding of non-hetero normative
sexual activity?
As it pertains to question 4 I want to say that its a combination for people based on what they want to be. You can have sexual feelings all you want, but it is when you act on them and whether it follows how you feel or if it goes in the completely opposite direction that ultimately determines sexuality. For example, I could have only sexual desire for someone who is at least 10 years older then me and that is all that I'm attracted to. It is only when I establish a partnership with them that people can label me as being sexually attracted to older individuals. But if I simple dated people my own age and from time to time date someone older people would simple label me as potentially normal. Or, if I do act at all people may call me asexual and I don't date anyone. So at least in my own opinion, it is all about acting on your feelings and not about whether you have them or not.
ReplyDelete