Whatever the case, somewhere along the line the
concepts of sex and gender became completely misconstrued, and policing of sexuality
in the post-colonial world is a result of this misconstruing.
The Caribbean is a post-colonial society where
sexuality is policed through gendered behavior.
In fact the Caribbean is a special place when it comes to colonization
and sexuality, because it is a place full of people from many cultural
backgrounds—both West and East—who have different views when it comes to sexual
behavior. Because the Caribbean was a
place of violent colonization and decolonization, sex became the new way to
either control—whether it is colonization or decolonization.
Before I get to the readings for this week, I’d like
to introduce some of my own theory on the way sexuality is constructed within
the Caribbean. I build off of the works
of social oppression theorists to construct the way in which sexuality can be
understood within the Caribbean.
Here is an excerpt from a paper I wrote on sexuality
within the Caribbean. It focuses on the way homosexual men are forced into a
space of sexual hybridity within the nation of Cuba. I am in no way assuming that the way homosexuality
is treated in Cuba is the way it is treated for the entirety of the
Caribbean. The colonial story varies
from country to country. However, several
nations have created laws against homosexuality, and more times than not,
homosexuals are forced to hide their sexuality through gendered behavior.
You will notice in my paper that I bring up the concept
of sexual hybridity, and I explain the reason why homosexual men are forced
into this space of sexual enunciation.
To better understand this concept I would like to focus on two of the
readings for this week. The first is one
of my personal heroes and role model, Reinaldo Arenas. For those who don’t know who Arena’s is, I
suggest you read the rest of his memoirs, or see the movie, Before Night Falls. “Eroticism” is a chapter from these memoirs. To make a long, and important, story short
Arenas was a political hero for homosexuals in Cuba. He fought long and hard to write novels
against the Castro Regime—ironically a regime he helped put into power. Many of his manuscripts were confiscated by
police, as well as homosexual men who were “supposedly” his friends. Arenas was exiled to the United States in the
Mariel Boat Lift in 1980—Castro finally gave those who wanted to leave, who he
called the scum of the Earth, the permission to do so.
I hope you take the opportunity to learn more about Arenas because he was truly an amazing person.
“Eroticism” was the first piece I read of Arenas, and it helped form the topic for my undergraduate colloquium paper. Plus, it helped me decide where I want to situate myself in the field of post-colonial studies—homosexuality within the post-colonial world. I’d like to point out that Arenas uses autobiographical anecdotal writing to create a gay aesthetic—this process is what Audre Lorde first called biomythography. Biomythography combines narrative form with autobiographical form to convey one’s own personal life with other homosexuals—somewhat similar to the mbari process. It is used to celebrate queer life within the Caribbean by uniting, and embracing other homosexuals.
The first autobiographical anecdote that Arena describes in “Eroticism” is of a young male who he and his friend Tomasito La Goyesca met while on a bus. Arena’s narrates that “the young man had signaled Tomasito several times and touched his very erect penis. [But] when Tomasito grabbed it, the man reacted violently, beat him up, and called him, and all of us queers” (34). From this little bit of narration, it is clear that the man was obviously interested in both Arena and Tomasito, yet when approached for a sexual handout he was unable to cross the liminal threshold and identify as a homosexual man even though his erect penis said otherwise. Arena later narrates that Tomasito had accidently switched wallets with the violent man who turned out to be “an official of the Ministry of the Interior” (34).
Arena comments that “[This] man, who was persecuting
us for being gay, probably wanted nothing more than for us to grab his penis,
rub it, and suck it right then. Perhaps this kind of aberration exists in all
repressive systems” (35). Arena is not
only describing the psychological oppression that the official was facing, but
that something was preventing him from acting out what was obviously his
same-sex sexual desire. It also shows that even people in power during the
revolution were forced to act out the laws of nationalism. In this case the official was acting out his
repression through violence because of his inability to cross the liminal
threshold into same-sex desire, a product of his place within the government.
Another place where Arena describes the
representation of sexual hybridity and gender identification is when he is the
recipient of a brutal beating by a man he has had sex with. Arena recounts this violent memory and says
that:
Things
were settled with a look, asking for a cigarette...The young man accepted, and once inside my room, surprisingly asked me
to play the role of the man. Actually
that gave me pleasure to, and the man
went down on me. I fucked him and
enjoyed it like a convict. Then,
still naked, he asked me, “And if anybody catches us here, who is the man?” He meant who fucked whom. I replied
perhaps a little cruelly, “Obviously, I am the
man, since I stuck into you.” This enraged the young man…and he started to
throw me against the low ceiling…I was
getting an awful beating… [and] I was afraid to die. (41)
Arena shows that even the physical act of sex
doesn’t escape the oppressive chains of heterosexism and gender identity. Masculinity is equaled to the act of
performance and insertion, and femininity is labeled as submissive and
receiving. Because Arena challenged the young man’s masculinity he was seen as
challenging the systems of gender that embody the physical act of sex. Arena himself identifies his act as that of
a “convict” because he is taking away his sexual partner’s masculinity. This
results in sexual hybridity being forced upon both participants through gender
identification, and sexual freedom is denied from taking place.
The final part of “Eroticism” Arena describes, in
autobiographical form, the setbacks he faced while writing down his memoirs,
manuscripts, and novels. He writes that
“By the year 1969 I was already being subjected to persistent harassment by
State Security, and I feared for the manuscripts I was continually writing”
(49). He juxtaposes the appropriation of his writing by the government, to how
the sea “[was] a way to escape from the land where were repressed; perhaps in
floating on the waves we escaped our cursed insularity” (49). His writing served as a way to express the
repression he was experiencing at the hands of gay men and the government which
wreaked havoc on his sexual identity.
Because he was making his voice known, and not conforming to sexual
repression, he became visible as betraying the gender of the nation. So because his writing was compromised—an
intimate part of his identity—the sea, a place separate from land/nation, was
the only escape from the daunting confines of heterosexism.
The second reading that I would like to focus on for
this post is Thomas Glave’s “Whose Caribbean? An Allegory, in Part.” Thomas
Glave is from Jamaica and is an activist who fights for gay rights. In fact, he helped create an organization
called the Jamaica
Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals, and Gays( J-FLAG). He is also the editor of Our Caribbean: A Gathering of Lesbian and Gay Writing From the Antilles—the
first anthology of Gay Caribbean Literature.
(The readings for this week come from this book, which I am extremely fond
of!).
This short allegory/political speech is full of
questions on sexuality, gender, and democracy.
However, it’s interesting that Glave would use the term allegory,
because it is significant to a National allegory—which connects both heterosexuals
and non-heterosexuals. (Refer to my blog post on National thought). I call it a speech because it switches from
narrative to speech half way through the text.
But what is most interesting is that Glave manifest the concept of
sexual hybridity through his narrator/protagonist. The manifestation of sexual hybridity
functions as a way to unite both sexes—in essence a connection between
homosexuality and heterosexuality. In
the very beginning the narrator states:
I
am fairly certain…that the child was both female and male—a common enough occurrence in that place of the child’s origin
at that time, as, contrary to numerous prevailing
opinions, happens frequently today. The child—let us know him/her as “s/he”—possessed a slender penis of
startingly delicate gree…s/he also possessed a pair of luminous blue breasts…The child also possessed a vagina
and uterus, which, as was common
knowledge among all who knew him/her, produced at least two or three times per year (Glave 177).
Glave uses gendered pronouns and connects the two,
but let us remember that gender is a social creation so by doing so Glave is
deconstructing the binary of he and she by combining the two. A manifestation of sexual hybridity through
gendered pronouns. WOW!!! He also uses physical reproductive organs, penis and uterus, to "re-gender" a human being. Glave, as a gay political activists is “Hope[s]
that [they] could engender social and political change in a nation that ,
broadened through [their] efforts, would ultimately be worthy of all
Jamaicans:a nation welcoming to all, irrespective of sexuality and perceived gender
transgressions.
As I was reading through Glave's narrative, I
reverted back to Spivak’s assertion that the subaltern cannot speak. Maybe I reacted too harshly to this idea. Even
though I am gay I live in a society where I can express it freely without fear
of consequence. I must say I have to
reformulate my own opinion on this subject.
If sexual hybridity exists, and homosexuals are forced to conceal their
sexuality within the space of sexual enunciation then in fact they cannot speak
authentically—thanks Cait Turner for
making me question this. They are
forced to share “Darkness and silence…For all time….un-voicedness, complete
despair” (Glave 179). They can only
demonstrate their sexuality—which in essence serves as their “voicedness”—through
heterosexual norms. However, Glave by “gathering”
these narratives, poems, and speeches work to give an authentic voice that isn't suppressed or colonized by heterosexism. Instead their voices work to un-colonize
their sexual desire which is policed through gender and sexual politics.
Homosexual desire in the colonial world is often met
with forceful resistance. It is often
considered disgusting, taboo, and unnatural.
It isn't that homosexuality doesn't exist in the colonial world. Instead
it is re-colonized by the colonized. Therefore, sexuality, a significant aspect
of culture, is appropriated and distorted so that it can never be purely the
same.
Thanks, Sean, for another interesting post. Every reading made me sad for people who cannot find acceptance in their own countries for who they really are. It made me sad that people lack the freedom to be who they are. It was difficult to wrap my brain around this as a heterosexual because I have no idea what it is like for homosexuals, male or female. I know homosexuals have faced violence and abuse here; I had no idea how bad it could be other places. It is even harder to be homosexual in a post-colonial country, as our readings and your post have explained. I don't even know how to handle that right now. All I can say is that I hurt for those who have to live like this and hope enlightened people can bring change as soon as possible. I'll do what I can in my corner of the world.
ReplyDeleteThat's what matters! Speaking out makes a big difference.
DeleteYour enthusiasm for this field within poco theory is evident, and I think you will spend your entire academic career making such issues and theories all the more relevant and accessible. Perhaps the next collection will be edited by Dr. Weaver?
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome, Sean :)
ReplyDeleteI've thought alot about the problem of sexual authenticity in the decolonizing world. I, like you, am free to embrace a fluid sexuality and gender expression (as long as I stay out of hillbilly country, which may be a form of classism on my part, but fuck it, every time I see a pickup with a confederate flag streaming from its flanks my heart skips a beat)and I am also free to argue on the behalf of subaltern cultures whose experiences and viewpoints I am unable to materially experience. Iran, for example, is a country where homosexuals seem to be persecuted. But, Ahmedinjad's statements regarding homosexual men in Iran was mangled to such an extent that its meaning was obscured and reified by a Western imperative. "We don't have that problem here," were Ahmedinejad's exact words. What problems don't they have? The engagement in homosexual activity of their citizens without the lifestyle signifiers which so symbolize Western liberalism.
I think that constructions of homosexuality in the decolonizing world are the result of inevitable hybridity between European, Carribean, Latin American, Arabic, and African cultures (to name a few). You are right in your affirmation that
It is only when Europeans showed up and introduced the politics of heterosexism that are completely ingrained in post-colonial societies today, where the violence and persecution against homosexuals is extremely violent.
It is impossible to arrive at any conclusion regarding post colonial constructions of gender and sexuality without accepting the fact that, like it or not, in much of the decolonizing world, GLBTQ culture signifies a Western liberalism in a way that homosexuality; love between two of the same gender, did not, in a precolonial culture. This is hopefully what writers and authors and lovers all over the world can work to rectify.