Wheat Joseph Wheat Arthur Hullender English 1010 5 April 2010 The normatization of homosexuality and the repressive

discourse of queer advocacy In the past few decades, homosexuality as a human rights campaign has gained much attention from the general population and media. However, these are not the issues to be criticized and explored, but rather those issues of advocacy from proponents of homosexuality and its proposed normality. These are not the general population nor the media, who have created their own fanatical discourse of the subject. For advocacy groups, it is a matter of awareness and informing. They seek to create not a monologue, but a fluid dialogue with the entire human race. The main contention of this paper is to reveal how the intended dialogue of the advocacy becomes a repressive monologue, inevitably alienating those seeking normality. To the antithesis of what the discourse of advocacy proclaims, there is a resounding hostility or apathy to what is disseminated by it. What will be discussed can be applied to any µcategories¶ who use a discourse of advocacy. Therefore, most if not all minority rights groups employ an advocacy discourse out of their own nature. These institutions are constructed on the perceived abnormality of their members. However else could they define themselves but as abnormal? Another distinction of this auto-destructive discourse is that these institutions act solely out of this abnormality. Regardless of the composition of their members and how they define themselves, their actions reflect this further and make manifest their alien identity.


Wheat Advocacy groups can therefore solely perpetuate their current condition. They do not


communicate with anyone, but resoundingly disseminate the same monologue of their difference from everyone in the expectance of becoming integrated. The discourse of advocacy is one which attempts to dissimenate its own identity from itself. And in so doing, leads to the repression of its members as both universal in their brotherhood with mankind, and also freakishly exterior and isolated in their special status. The greatest failing, however, of the discourse of advocacy is that it assumes a posture which cannot ever hope to reach the consideration of the masses as it requires normatization. The discourse is structured to fail because of how it draws on the people to assemble themselves in the machinery of advocacy. No longer are they defined as specific persons, but are reduced to fellow souls called to serve the cause (see Stirner) of advocacy. In this reduction of persons, advocacy has not only alienated itself, but those who would support it. The largest accomplishment of this is performed by the induction at mass events, such as rallies, parades, and dinners. All of these are methodological devices employed by the discourse to further µawareness¶ about the everpresent unawareness of the population. This statement in itself is fallacious for the reason that awareness can not be held as a method or tool of supporting civil equality or human justice. People are born without knowledge, such as hatred. Therefore, they cannot be approached as needing basic instruction. They have learned hatred or discrimination from their environment, and must be µre-educated¶ according to principles associated with reeducation. However, the need for such re-education, and whether the discourse of advocacy can incorporate re-educational methods, are questionable.

Wheat In resolving these problems of the discourse of advocacy, the entire project could be dismantled accordingly, replaced with a more efficient discourse, or transformed such that it would become productive toward its end. The discourse cannot be totally dismantled for various reasons which follow. If the discourse were successfully dismantled by society, there would be no speech at all regarding homosexuality in any transparent form. Therefore, any and all speech regarding homosexuality


would become veiled or pictorial via vernacular or esthetic representations. By creating a vehicle of transparency for sexuality, the discourse relieves the force of repression. The reaction to this, however, is inherently negative on the repressed because it raises a dormant and unexperienced facet of the self which has been hidden by the sterility of western society. To counter this objection, the discourse moves to bring common ground between the repressed and those who spoke his repression into being. This is constructed from the model of the universal man, which renders the repressed sterile once again. His sexuality has been donned for him, but he is in the same breath made but one of many humans whose sexuality is irrelevant. The important matter at hand is that the repressed was made to face his sexuality. It was spoken into being by another, but it is the repressed which still must face it. Thus the discourse creates an awareness not of information, but of the self. Even though it does not understand this, it furthers the revelation of people¶s identity. Then it must be considered that a better discourse could be devised and/or instituted that would help normatize homosexuality. To completely replace the discourse of advocacy, not alone for homosexuality but every purported minority, would be an immense undertaking. Should it be attempted, the most plausible alternative would be a therapeutic approach using psychoanlaysis. This is all ready employed on a personal scale, for those who can afford it. What

Wheat distinguishes this as an effective option is that it treats the object of the discourse as a person. It therefore does what the discourse of advocacy has ultimately forsaken. What cannot be accomplished by this discourse is normatization. The discourse of psychoanalysis cannot speak on terms of the general or universal. It must confine itself to its particular patient, and do what it can for them personally.


If the discourse of advocacy is to be transformed for the normatization of homosexuality, it must undergo a shift from perceiving people as universal humans, and more as individuals. However, it must also address those issues that persons share, and ultimately which lead them to create these distinctions of hetero- and homosexuality. The solution lies in the conformity to traditional gender roles and descriptions of the sexes. If the discourse of advocacy is to achieve the end of normatization, it must dissolve the framework in which repression is created. To do so, it must work practically toward subtextualizing the traditional gender roles. This is achieved by creating a new speech, a new dialogue, that enables the exploration of sexuality and gender. There are no longer he¶s and she¶s respectively, but there are David¶s and Catherine¶s. The particularity of the person is what causes these discourses to fail.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful