The Gravity of the Uninitiated

Gravity - Sara Bareilles


-- -- -- --
We watched 'Pariah' as a group last night and I found the conversation that followed rather instructive and I wish to record here or to chart this initial resistance I'm having to engagement on this very theoretical level with my one sexuality and thoughts of my community. I'm not sure how I'll evolve from here, but I think this is a great place to start.

The scenario:

At one point in the discussion, it was raised that the director was deft in presenting a film about African- American Lesbians (and the 'Boi' culture), and that it was robust and complete without having to reference any non-Black characters or to fall into the many of the stereotypes. My previous post about me finding the label 'People of Colour' very referential and reactive to a Non-coloured state was brought into the discussion and it was mentioned that I struggled to identify with that label.

And so I mentioned that for me, labels needed to mean something on its own, to define and to create a connection between those identified. And for me, a label loses its usefulness in dialogue if it is diluted or its meaning was not shared (the connectivity bit). I raised the example of being 'Queer'. My understanding of the label 'Queer' is that it is a gender-neutral term that defined primarily gays and lesbians, which could be inclusive of transgendered people who may have heterosexual orientations (should they choose) because of its gender-neutral quality. I think it would be hard to be gay or lesbian without being Queer... or at least, if one can be a gay or lesbian without being queer, it escapes my current level of comprehension. 

To be honest, I didn't think that non-transgendered people who were in heterosexual relationships would fall under the term 'Queer'. And if you shared my thinking, you would have found yourself in very much the same position I was in. I was corrected last night: you can be queer and in a heterosexual relationship and non-transgendered. But that for me did not capture what I perceived as my community and who I wanted to connect with when I used the word 'Queer'.

The Uninitiated?

I was certainly confused. So I expressed that I was uncomfortable with how broadly Queerness was being defined: to me, such an act would dilute meaning or to bring about a level of confusion wherein meaning would be suspect. And if the terms of reference aren't certain, dialogue becomes exponentially difficult. That's not to say that people don't have the right to label themselves or to have their own identities defined / created they want it to be created, but if uncertain, the construction of umbrella identities and the call to connect (for that really is the point of a label) becomes... problematic.

The conversation shifted and I was surprised that what was picked up on was not so much the idea of identity needing sufficient certainty to anchor it, whether it is in a label that exists in the mind or in transit/communication. The leap was to my discomfort and how being uncomfortable with an uncomfortable thought was something to be embraced. This progressed to a sharing about discovering attraction with someone who didn't fit within the scope / focus of one's sexuality - which I found in its proximity to issue I was raising to be a bit condescending. I understand that people who are highly skilled and educated in talking about queerness would also, at times, be uncomfortable and embrace discomfort when talking about queerness, or examining their own theory / self-imposed labels. But to me, that's just picking up the symptom of the problem and trying to resolve it with a salve. Yes, I do understand the need to stretch one's understanding of what labels one puts on oneself... that being gay might not prevent you from falling in love with a trans-man. But that's not my point. The root of the problem here (and source of the symptom) is that a label that is watered down becomes a becalmed idea.

On one level, I fully acknowledge and revel in the incredible passion and warmth of a discussion like this - there's this hope to be inclusive, to move as one, which I find attractive. But there's also this sense of breathlessness - something encountered in art galleries where the blurb on the side of an art piece acquires this almost hysterical academic voice to validate itself and its own interpretation. And I don't think that's very helpful in the situation. 

One thing that struck me was a comment made earlier in the night: a member of the group shared about joining a 'Queer Space' / discussion group for the first time, and their initial feeling was one of intimidation - that one was ignorant and didn't know enough about the vocabulary of queerness to participate. And that for me is scary, because then we as community lose accessibility, and everything is an interrogation. And while there is room for it, ultimately, if someone who doesn't share your vocabulary is forced to only talk to you on your own terms, or is made to play this defensive role in an interrogation... how will this be fertile ground for understanding? I'm gay and I feel this way - how will a straight person navigate this minefield of charged 'words'.

The conversation reached a point of clarity for me when the term 'common humanity' was finally used (about connecting with people at our level of 'common humanity' and moving to a place where you could engage meaningfully with someone).... which for me sounded a lot like: let's let go of the labels and the theory because it's becoming a barrier to our conversation. And I heartily agreed.

Where I'm at: 

I dunno. It surprised me about how easy it was to go awry - given this was the second meeting. Perhaps there is a gravity to being uninitiated that keeps me rooted to my own frame of reference. Or that the discussion is far too grave for one without training to engage lightly in. I wonder if this sensitivity (or, I would suggest, oversensitivity), or penchant for interrogation, has been rewarded by a plethora of gay-interest sites (I'm talking solely as a gay man here) that focus on the very 'common humanity' level of flashing up sexy male pictures in the mould of Eating Out no. 24,780. It's a lot easier to roll around at that particular level where you're not under a microscope for all your opinions because who is going to really analyse your opinion of 'He's hot!' or 'He's not!'. oh wait. no. you might still be expressing some form of internalised racism.

Foiled again.

What's clear, even though I've engaged with my community in various capacities for over a decade and a half without great calamity: within this group, a lack of education in this field (whether willed or by default) requires me to walk around with a sign 'Warning: Unitiated'.