American Culture from Different Perspectives - Essay Example

16 October American Culture from Different Perspectives This essay reviews several cultural concepts from different perspectives. It studies how some authors define and relate these concepts to law, citizenship, capitalism, freedom, geographic spaces, and welfare state. Anzaldua and the “Mestiza Consciousness” The Civil Rights Movement is the foundation for the “mestiza consciousness,” because it was the time when black civil rights fighters developed and promoted “black consciousness.” The Chicana movement began in 1960, as it extended from the Mexican American Civil Rights movement. Gloria Anzaldua defines the “mestiza consciousness” as the transition from “convergent” to “divergent thinking” (16). It means that the Chicana should stop accommodating and integrating the dominating languages and sets of thinking of the white people, which is a “converging process,” and instead, they should express themselves according to their own language/s and experiences, which concerns divergent thinking and behavior. Language is a specific indicator of the “mestiza consciousness,” because Anzaldua asserts that it is unnatural for Hispanics to be always interpreting or translating themselves in English, when they would rather take pride in speaking, and hence, legitimizing, their wide range of languages, including Chicano-Texas Spanish, Spanglish, and other forms of combined or pure Hispanic languages (9). Anzaldua is concerned that the law has not properly accepted these languages as legitimate, with the constant use of English in laws and social institutions. She mentions the difference between natural and unnatural geographic borders that impact Mexicans’ cultural development. The ocean acknowledges natural borders, while the U.S. has erected unnatural borders to keep out illegal immigrants. Unnatural borders intend to keep out the “other” race, which is an effort to maintain policing racial relations. Furthermore, as American citizens, who are supposed to be equal with the whites, Anzaldua emphasizes the importance of not allowing the state to dictate the Chicana’s linguistic and individuality development. Somerville and Discussions of Sexuality and Race Siobhan B. Somerville examines sexuality and race in light of the history of sexology in the United States and the rise of eugenicist and antimiscegenation attitudes and legislation in the essay, “Scientific Racism and the Invention of the Homosexual Body.” As the nineteenth century ended, sexologists wanted to define and examine sexuality using medical discourse, instead of legalistic terms, which was the practice during that time (18). Somerville emphasizes that from here, the discourse on scientific racism developed, where the “homosexual” body is invented based on both gender and racial lines. These studies, for instance, highlighted the biological, sexual differences between white and black women, where the latter were separated from the former through their “remarkable development of the labia minora” (26). This emphasis demonstrated how racial differences lead to “peculiar” sexual boundaries and that this peculiarity also affected attitudes toward the colored races (Somerville 26). During this time, eugenicist and antimiscegenation attitudes also abounded. Eugenics lamented about the rise of mixed races (i.e. mulattos) and immigration, because it diluted the white stock. Eugenics promoted “selective reproduction” (30) to purify the white race once more. Anti-miscegenation laws were then enforced levels of racial segregation at marriage and intimate relationship levels. Plessy v. Fergusson, for instance, is based on racial discrimination that focuses on sexuality, because it imposes racial purity through physical segregation of the races (Somerville 37). Hence, it can be seen that the state used the law to impose racial discrimination based on primitive assumptions about race’s impact on sexuality and human behavior. Alexander: Heteropatriarchy, Heteronormativity, Neoliberalism In “Transnationalism, Sexuality and the State: Modernity’s Traditions at the Height of an Empire,” M. Jacqui Alexander argues that the nation-state is involved in actively heterosexualizing the nation, and so citizenship becomes attached to heterosexuality. She also studies how colonial and neo-colonial processes influence modern nation-building. She highlights that capitalism operates together with neocolonialism, which can be observed from how G8 countries work with multinational corporations through an “uneasy alliance” (182). Finally, Alexander argues that cultural relativism and cultural absolutism combine to produce heteropatriarchy and reinforce neoimperialist investments by creating heterosexual norms and laws that encourage heterosexual production, reproduction, and consumption. Nation-building focuses on promoting heterosexuality, particularly heteropatriarchy. Alexander defines crucial terms of reference for her analysis. She defines “cultural relativism” as providing a “neutral” understanding for different social practices without relying on a moral and cultural lens (184). For instance, cultural relativism can be applied to how the Feminist Majority aims to dominate Afghani Feminism without realizing cultural differences in how Afghani women define their own feminist thinking and movement (Alexander 185). Alexander also illustrates the importance of transhistorical approaches in dissecting the nation-building goals and outcomes of colonialism and neocolonialism. Neoliberalism, in particular, concerns the process of both contradicting colonialism and merging colonial and neocolonial heteropatriarchal norms and processes. Alexander criticizes cultural relativism, as applied by the Feminist Majority, because it still uses “absolutist” claims, such as seeing the local as more “familiar” and global as “foreign,” without fully investigating the underlying assumptions in emphasizing “cultural differences” as the way of differentiating local and global cultures, as well as local and global feminism. These underlying assumptions continue to operate within the heteropatriarchy discourse, and so they promote the heteronormativity of society. Alexander agrees with Anzaldua that the state has created convergent thinking that turned divergent paradigms into simple, conflicting binaries, particularity the tradition/modernity binary that demarcates local from foreign feminism. This modernity also neglects understanding the spectrum of feminisms that exist, which does not conform to local or global feminist ideologies. Alexander defines heteropatriarchy as the state’s attempt to heterosexualize society through defining morality and traditions, according to patriarchal social and legal norms and codes (306). Heteropatriarchy is also defined through sexual reproduction and so homosexual sex is excluded. The main goal of heteropatriarchy is to create heteronormative bodies that criminalize lesbian and gay sex practices, as what occurred in Bowers v. Hardwick. Alexander shows that heteropatriarchy is also asserted through court rulings, such as in Bowers v. Hardwick, where sodomy is connected to homosexuality only. This case bans homosexual marriage, which underlines the state’s goal of advancing heteropatriarchy. Berlant and Warner: Queer Theory, Homonormativity, and Heteronormativity In their article, “Sex in Public,” Berlant and Warner focus on how the welfare state focuses on racial identity formation, while disregarding the sexual and gender relations and issues. They note that welfare and tax reforms, for instance, benefit heterosexual, married couples and their children only. Furthermore, there is active political advocacy against the use of federal funds for promoting homosexuality. Berlant and Warner define heteronormativity as ways of producing and reinforcing social life that will propagate a heterosexual narrative and culture. Heteronormativity consists of an “imagined norm” and its deviances, through having a limited definition of “normal intimacy” (Berlant and Warner 557). The norm controls sex in both the private and public spheres of life. Berlant and Warner depict queer culture as creating a different “world” or “space” (558). Queer culture contradicts the welfare state’s definition of what is public and what should be made public (Berlant and Warner 558). Queer culture questions “normal intimacy” as the state says that queer sex is “criminal intimacy” (Berlant and Warner 560). In relation to queer culture, Berlant and Warner define “queer culture theory” as dedicated to analyzing sexuality as an important concept for “analysis, agitation, and refunctioning” (564). They stress that queer theory may not attain a form of homonormativity in the same way that heteronormativity has, but it will engage critical analysis on heteronormativity. Jakobsen and State Regulation of Sexuality Jakobsen argues that sexual regulation is a central process in American public life. She notes that it is “secular freedom,” more than “religious repression,” that promotes sexual regulation (286). Like Alexander, Jakobsen believes that American freedom promotes capitalism, which controls public and private affairs for economic organizing purposes (Jakobsen 286). “Market-based freedom” entails “the regulated enactment of activity along particular lines” (Jakobsen 286). These particular lines underscore strict heterosexual norms and practices. Jakobsen traces the notion of heterosexual individual freedom to the age of Reformation, which bonded this freedom to the institution of marriage. She contends that the conflict between freedom and gay politics can be found in the dialectic of freedom, because the ideology of freedom continues to remain solidly grounded on the ideology of traditional concepts of marriage and the family. She argues that gay politics can achieve genuine freedom for their group by focusing on shared interests, instead of individual rights and interests. She stresses that the first step for genuine gender freedom is resisting both values and norms, so that queer politics can also change how freedom is conceptualized and practiced. Canaday: Welfare State and Heteronormativity Canaday criticizes the G.I. Bill, because though it democratized higher education and housing, it is also the first state welfare legislation that actively excluded gays and lesbians from enjoying economic benefits. The G.I. Bill specifically eliminates soldiers, who were discharged because of “homosexual acts and tendencies,” from enjoying its economic benefits (935). This Bill shows that the welfare state is openly promoting heteronormativity through limiting American citizenship to the heterosexual group. Canaday underscores that the democratic processes that affect social citizenship are not truly democratic, since they rendered the services of homosexual veterans as invisible. Heteronormativity is then used to define social citizenship and to effectively rule out homosexual veterans from being American citizens. More than heteronormativity, the welfare state also promoted heteropatriarchy, because the Bill benefitted male veterans more than female veterans (Canaday 956). Thus, the G.I. Bill primarily expanded social citizenship for white, middle-class, heterosexual males only. Manalansan: Queer Cities and Neoliberalism Manalansan criticizes how neoliberalism “violently” remapped the lives and bodies of colored queers in New York City. He states that private businesses, the mass media, city, state, and federal efforts worked together to use “quality of life” and crime prevention campaigns to influence the discourse on urban space. Manalansan also defines homonormativity as a “chameleon,” because though it advocates certain gay issues, it does so in ways that “depoliticize” the queer community, since it “remaps” freedom through concepts of privacy, domesticity, and consumption (142). Manalansan is saying that homonormativity sanitizes modern life by pushing queer people to accept gender inequality in order to get some form of privacy and freedom (142). Homonormativity, in this definition, includes the efforts of the welfare state to regulate sexuality. Manalansan provides examples in Jackson Heights and Christopher Street Piers, where gay spaces exist in a series of disappearance and emergence, because of state regulation of homosexual behaviors. Some of these efforts use terrorism to demonize sexually deviance and racial differences. Thus, the state systematically destroys queer cities by eliminating already-limited queer spaces. Russell and Black Sexuality Russell agrees with Manalansan that the queer community is accepting a compromise by fighting for gay rights within the framework of heteronormativity. He notes that the welfare state will only grant “full citizenship” to gays and lesbians who are willing to adopt elements of heteronormativity (102). He gives examples of how the media used to celebrate black sexuality, but soon politics degraded the openness of black sexuality among church pastors, and so the media learned to also denigrate black homosexuality. In this case, it is the welfare state that castigated homosexuality and remapped homosexuality into an unacceptable social deviance. As a result, civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr., denounced homosexuality, so that blacks could access full citizenship rights (Russell 116). King called for blacks to develop an “integrated personality” which meant assimilating heterosexual values and ideals as part of the modern black individual (116). Russell then also demonstrated how the black civil rights movement did not promote full citizenship for the queer community, and instead, the former participated in the state’s national efforts to promote heteronormativity. Fergusson and Sexuality Fergusson defines sexuality as relationships, which are produced by “knowledge and sociality” (87). He argues against sexuality that lacks racial undertones, because he believes that sexuality is “racialized, classed, and gendered” (87). Most of all, he contends that sexuality is an “operation of power” (89). It is “intersectional” since it is produced by and produces racialized, gender relationships (88). Furthermore, sexuality is interdisciplinary, which means that it cannot be constrained by a single epistemological terrain (88). Fergusson further contextualizes sexuality through a comprehensive discussion of Booker T. Washington’s ideas about racial determination that promotes gendered relations. Washington provides a heteropatriarchal discourse that eliminated the existence of queer culture. Shah and Sexual Freedom Shah mentions how Lawrence and Garner v. Texas reverses the ruling of Bowers v. Hardwick, as the former expounded liberty to include homosexual practices, including consensual sodomy. Justice Kennedy’s decision extended the boundaries of adult sexual intimacy to terrains of privacy and sexual freedom. Shah provides other examples of migrants who were systematically arrested because of race, age, and gender issues. These instances show how the state maintains a public, heterosexual discourse as the main manifestation of public morality. Unfortunately, Shah underscores that Lawrence and Garner v. Texas protects homosexual behavior within private settings only, which still allows police to make arrests for public heterosexual acts. Works Cited Alexander, M. Jacqui. “Transnationalism, Sexuality and the State: Modernity’s Traditions at the Height of an Empire.” Class PowerPoint and Essay. Anzaldua, Gloria. Borderlands La Frontera: The New Mestiza. Class Powerpoint. Berlant, Lauren and Michael Warner. “Sex in Public.” Critical Inquiry 24.2 (1998): 547-566. Print. Canaday, Margot. “Building a Straight State: Sexuality and Social Citizenship under the 1944 G.I. Bill.” The Journal of American History (2003): 935-957. Print. Fergusson, Roderick A. “Of Our Normative Strivings.” Social Text 23.3-4 (2005): 84-85. Print. Jakobsen, Janet R. “Sex+Freedom=Regulation. Why?” Social Text 23.3-4 (2005): 285-308. Print. Manalansan, Martin F. “Race, Violence, and Neoliberal Spatial Politics in the Global City.” Social Text 23 (2005): 141-155. Print. Russell, Thaddeus. “The Color of Discipline: Civil Rights and Black Sexuality.” American Quarterly 60.1 (2008): 101-128. Print. Shah, Nayan. “Policing Privacy, Migrants and the Limits of Freedom.” Social Text 23.3-4 (2005): 275-284. Print. Somerville, Siobhan B. “Scientific Racism and the Invention of the Homosexual Body.” Print. Read More