Revising Equality: Notions of the Queer Body

Reflecting on my own post concerning equality (“Equality,” Dreamwriter’s Journal, 09/16/2011) I have noticed—and I am determined to further develop—a pattern not in the recognition of sexuality, but rather on the basis of inequality in terms of societal and human construction. I sought, first and foremost, to align my view with the institution of chaos—a relatively well-known theory within the school of Absurdism, which equates freedom of choice with the ablution of government and social hierarchies—in order to design my own method of disseminating biased and uncouth slurs regarding contemporary LGBTQ visibility. While on the fringe of a complete uprising, and nearing apocalyptic fantasy, this previous theory of chaos is flawed in at least four categories: (1) Human nature propels an organic and categorical system of determinism against chaos; (2) chaos allows for free thinking and no social construction of society; (3) it propels the dissolution of the human condition, wherein the self-reflection is no longer an apparent and necessary condition of being; and (4) sexuality, as a determining factor, is dispelled as a mode of discrimination with the abolition of the social structure inherent to the hegemonic system of “peace” and order. What the reader may notice here is an account of human nature followed by three effects which, in terms of a political and social system controlled by no means of government, highlight the weaknesses of both systems, and attempt to thwart the negative connotations of systematic oppression on a broader basis of social concerns rather than returning to the microcosm of sexuality.

My choice in beginning the post with “We feign to recognize the true façade of our identity” is not without its ignorance. It retains noble intentions insofar as reacting to “equality” regarding identity outside of literal cetegories as a primary recognition point before limited associations such as gender, sexuality, race, etc. Of course, this equates to a much broader view of the human condition; whereby the condition itself is perceived through a cultural lens of class, race, ethnicity, gender, political status, and sexuality. The point being that identity is the key to diversifying the split territories of these inherent traits—simplifying the human, nonetheless—in order to create an ultimately utopic, though somewhat chaotic, world. Simplifying our world view to encompass all these things is not impossible, and in fact we (at least speaking for the American social structure) have begun to recognize the serious nature of these separate parts as one unit within the human. Too long have we lived demurring the human agent through the use of categorical labels, stressing the importance of one’s normality within the cohesive whole. It is clear, today, that the American experience is best pursued through the lens of the multicultural individual who indentifies, and successfully empathizes, with the cultural climates on a global scale. This may have to do with the economic structure moving outward in an attempt to fulfill obligations split between countries, and in order to justify serious political offenses activated overseas. Essentially, the dynamism of equality has become a cultural revolution towards “global citizenship.”

Let me backpedal, for a moment, to recall the true meaning behind the previous entry. It was originally my intention to call out the purposeful inequalities perpetuated by social organizations in the United States, especially Right wing organizations with the desire to retain moral and familial stasis. I do not speak against the value of morality and family status; however, upon learning more about the structure of the American family, and its hegemonic effects on youth, it has come to my attention that the platonic family (as we’ve seen steadily decline since the industrial boom in the late 19th Century) has become outmoded by free expression—and the evolution of the human condition.

The dichotomy between pleasure and spirituality seemed to be an important point made; and although this begins to play into other issues of morality, especially considering the glorification of the body, I want to note that the key element of the first paragraph deals with the construction of the chaotic method insofar as pleasure becomes the only truth within pursuit. Over the years, I had been under the impression that three very distinct abstractions ruled the general world: life, knowledge, and power. And although these broad categories seem to encompass all general desires of the human being, many people have brought to my attention that “life” is too large to justly recognize love, passion, intimacy, pursuit of happiness, and pleasure. Of these things, it seems to me that pleasure—if even beyond the pursuit of happiness—would better replace the broad category of “life” in order to stand for the action of living in itself. Social and religious institutions may, however, call out this notion as self-centered, immoral, vain, etc., but the truth of the matter is that “pleasure” encompasses the pursuit of religion, emotion, physical attraction, etc., which are not explicitly stated by the word. Moreover, he who denounces pleasure as self-centered ignores his own human nature, thereby standing only for an abstract institution, and allowing for no diversity of the spirit—something of which I’m sure the Bible (among other texts) stresses.

The move towards bisexuality, or the liking to a fluid system in sexuality, allows for the pursuit of pleasure as all of these categories without necessitating codes of gender and social heteronormativity. The problem with the heterosexual system is in the construction of the body: How the heterosexual perceives himself/herself reflects a system of role requirements, wherein dominance is pursued by the male and passivity by the female. But, this cannot be the case in terms of bisexuality and homosexuality (at least, homosexuality can no longer be defined in terms of the gender normative, though at one time it was important for men and women to retain their gender roles in order to pass in social and professional settings.) These terms are inherently a part of a system of heterosexuality, which allows for the institution of marriage, reproduction, and family building. These three parts of life cannot exist together in relationships outside of the heterosexual sphere; and that is why the gender system, at least for LGBTQ-identified persons, must be rejected as a whole.

I want to block quote the last few sentences of the second paragraph in my previous post. In order to recognize the deeply moving aspects of the previous entry, I think it is necessary to highlight the most essential part to the would-be essay.

“The world has no deeply philosophical or ethical meaning. Nor should man look to it for comfort, for the gratitude of being intelligent or human. It is man himself that has always attempted to give this world a purpose, so that his grandeur might be better suited and capable in an otherwise vicious world. Perhaps this is more condescending than truth, but in fact it is because of the over-exuberance that we have lost sight of our worth.” 

This passage returns to the chaotic nature of the human and his place within the natural world. I chose to place the human outside of society with the intention of calling on the true nature of humanity without the influence of social and cultural institutions. However, I have learned that this method is too easy to determine the condition of the human vessel; and attributing a new meaning to the body should arise from the following questions concerning the previous passage:

1. If the world has no deeply philosophical or ethical meaning, why do humans insist on attributing value to the human vessel, and why does humanity presume dominance within its culture and over other organisms?
2. If it is the case that the pursuit of pleasure is the only reason for existence, why, then, should the human pursue intelligence with the intentions of going insane with knowledge?
3. Do humans have the worth in order to determine their own nature; and if this is so, why does the human attribute value instead of unlimited sexual intimacy and natural instincts?

I can only begin to describe the nature behind these questions; but ultimately the philosophical standard within these are so overwhelming and reaching into the unknown that I find myself without sufficient knowledge to provide insight into how people might change their classification of the human condition, and thereby their life goals. If there were ever any intention behind the primary source and this supplementary source, it would be to recognize the fault of the sexual body as a whole—both within the queer and straight communities. Both have negated one another effectively, and at the same time perpetuated stereotypical notions on the body and how it must be used.

If ever equality should be defined and sought, it should be on the basis of re-visualizing the contours and conceptions of the human body rather than the social (or moral) body to which we attribute our advanced humanity. There are many pitfalls in allowing for the body to become hegemonic and at the same time blurred of distinction; but history has proved that radical changes in the structure of the human help to further the development of society and its causes. I recognize as a young scholar that there will always be dissent among intellectuals and the common man, radical and conservative parties, and religious and nonreligious institutions; and I recognize that as I age, my knowledge will, too, grow concerning the development of the body, social construction, and queer theory. But the matter of this post is to recognize the seriousness posed by classifying the queer and the straight mentality as essentially natural, and to move towards a less-gendered category, which visualizes the body as sexual and instinctive rather than restrained and immoral.

For now, the equality of the body is still unattainable; yet, when I return to this post thread ten years from now, the "queer" may in fact be a determinable part of the human, and the conditions necessitating moral behavior may perpetuate new visualities of the body, "love," and reproduction. What I inevitably hope to see are immense changes in the conception of the queer, the human condition, and the body.