Danger
A
thirteenth-century tile from Chertsey Abbey, England, showing
King Mark kissing his nephew Tristan.
Saint Augustine, the Father of Christianity whose contempt for same-sex
passion helped shape Christian intolerance, once loved another
man. Augustine was devastated when his lover died. Torn apart,
in unbearable pain, he turned to the Christian god. After his
conversion Augustine came to regret the sexual aspect of his
relationship, writing “. . . I contaminated the spring of
friendship with the dirt of lust and darkened its brightness
with the blackness of desire.”
Augustine shaped his pain and shame into a weapon. It is still a
danger. Betrayal, self-loathing, revenge, the Judas kiss –
alongside all the miracles and wonder of queer existence, these
destructive patterns persist. How do people who have been so
thoroughly associated with evil learn to be good to themselves
and each other? With no sense of what is good and right that can
embrace us, we can be demoralized. We can stay trapped in
self-hatred and internalized homophobia. We can be deprived of
spirit, courage and kindness. Or homosexuality can lead us
through the fire, to a deeply ethical, yet radically open, way
of living in the world.
Ethical
behavior is traditionally based on obedience to a code of rules
that defines virtue and prohibits vice. For centuries this code
has contrived and derived from gender. A “good woman” and a
“good man” are she and he who emphatically disavow a
capacity for destabilizing the “natural functions” of their
sex. The very word “bad” is derived from the Old English bœddel
– a derogatory term for sodomites.[ii]
As lesbian and gay people, we practice the very possibilities
that are prohibited by society’s implicit and explicit ethical
norms.
It is a dangerous transgression. Shame yawns
greedily, ready to devour us. How many queer people internalize
a sense of wrongness? Today any gay newspaper contains
advertisements from straight-looking, straight acting GWM
seeking same – a mirror image to confirm self-hatred and
contempt for queer potentialities. How many of us are lost to
self-loathing, fear, humiliation, failure? We succumb to failure
of nerve – we cower. We make up a new set of rules delimiting
virtue and vice, and use them to punish one another.
As
well as an abstract set of rules we cannot follow, ethics is a
set of concepts we can scarcely do without. But ethical concepts
like “integrity,” “honesty” and “altruism” may
presume a different sense of self and world than gay and lesbian
people can attain. When boys and girls grow into men and women
with opposite-sex attachments, they are confirmed at every turn
by culture and society. The rites and rituals of opposite-sex
dating, mating and marriage confer them place and status in the
human community. Boys and girls who aspire to same-sex passions
and attachments develop a very different sense of self and
world. Dorothy Allison writes, “by the time I understood I was
queer, that habit of hiding was deeply set in me, so deeply that
it was not a choice but an instinct.”
We stay hidden, isolated and invisible, or become hyper-visible
– as heroes, clowns and victims – roles and offices that are
just as lonely and claustrophobic as the closet. The self is
incarcerated with secrets and burdened with shame. The yearning
to know and be known is frozen and entombed.
How
does anyone who grows up queer imagine they have integrity –
that they are pure, unbroken, untouched, whole? Honesty means we
will not survive; disguise and dissimulation are prerequisites
to our existence. And altruism – devotion to the interests of
others – is just as impossible, when becoming who we are is
what offends. Capacities for moral agency derive from a strong
sense of self and engagement with the human community.
Lesbian and gay people grow up deprived of both. We are
each torn apart and town away from the social fabric. How then
can we develop capacities for ethical behaviors and moral
choice?
We
can craft and practice an ethics that is informed by the
peculiar experience of being queer. The enterprise requires a
more complex sense of self and one’s engagement with the human
community than traditional ethical concepts can presume. For
lesbian and gay people, the self is a locus of possibility, a
place of action and change that subverts the social order. This
order is heterosexuality; heterosexuality consists of the
conventions, rules and economic relationships that form the
social environment. Monique Wittig writes of how, one by one,
lesbians break the social contract. In our voluntary
associations with one another, we imagine a new form of social
bond. Wittig writes, “. . . If ultimately we are denied a new
social order, which therefore can exist only in words, I will
find it in myself.”
This is not the form of self envisioned by contemporary
psychology as a locus of private meanings and unique
characteristics withheld from social life. Queer people
encounter themselves as something else. Our most intimate
passions and personal pleasures invent an outer world that is
not yet possible.
We
envision social transformation desperately, with our desires,
and we envision it playfully, with style. Lesbians in lipstick
or lumberjack shirts, gay men in leather or crinolines – the
self we present to the world is not self-evident. Style takes
the self as a work to be
accomplished. Following Michel Foucault, we can see
self-fashioning as an opening for creative life.
Inventing, costuming, practicing and staging the self, we make a
tiny space within the apparatus of power where choice is
possible. Being queer is itself an ethical practice; we use our
sexuality to craft forms of self and relationship that exceed
the evident unfreedoms we inherit.
A
complex sense of self, forged in social transformation and
self-invention, informs an ethics that is peculiarly gay. For
lesbian and gay people, goodness does not arrive through silence
and self-sacrifice. We gain strength and voice from others’
strength and voices. We give space to others when we invent and
present ourselves. A queer form of altruism requires neither
obedience nor subservience. Living for others is a creative
choice, emerging through passions and pleasures. Living for self
is not about winning power over others. It means using one’s
singular voice, across its entire range, to sing the world to
life. Care of an unstable, invented self is a key to a rich,
multifaceted community, where new kinds of relationships become
possible through being queer.
Ethics
is visible not only as a code of rules or a series of concepts
governing individual behavior. Ethics also consists of the moral
climate, the ethical atmosphere of public discourse and
institutions. It is this ethical environment we address with the
pursuit of political equality for queers. We seek
decriminalization of homosexuality. We want protection from
discrimination in housing and employment. We lobby and litigate
for an education system that stops terrorizing queer youth. We
want the right to marriage and its attendant privileges.
Underlying our demands is a passion for justice. And there is a
danger. The effort to convert homosexuals into entitled
participants in the democratic process can tempt us to renounce
our peculiarities. Representing ourselves as a group or category
“deserving” equal rights can mean disguising and denying
queer difference.
There
is a tension between gay and lesbian people who seek respect and
tolerance for their private passions, and those who see radical
meaning in queer difference. On the one hand, respectable queers
are the ones who find acceptance and forge alliances. They work
patiently to create incremental social change. Eric Clarke
cautions that contemporary social tolerance of gays and lesbians
effects “the transformation of political aspiration into
managed inequity. Tolerance is the ruse by which respect for
difference covers over a legitimated disrespect. . . .” To be assimilated, homosexuality must be erased, desexualized
and silenced. After a long battle by gays, lesbians and allies
in the church, the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster (Greater
Vancouver) passed a resolution in June 2002 permitting (not
compelling) parishes to celebrate same-sex unions in
quasi-marriage ceremonies. Queer Christians rejoiced. But there
are dangers in normalizing our existence. Acceptance comes only
at the cost of disavowing morally unworthy – or queer –
sexual practices and identities. Commentator Davis Harris writes
urging tolerance in a National
Post article (June 22nd 2002) titled “Gay
Unions Shouldn’t Divide the Church.”: “The blessing of gay
unions should help bring stability to gay relationships. This,
in turn, should reduce the spread of various diseases which have
a high economic, as well as social cost.” Nothing has
challenged his negative stereotypes of homosexuality. Yet he
promotes acceptance, with the view that through adherence to a
heterosexist paradigm we might be de-gayed. Deprived of the
complex network of allusions and associations that compose his
image of (unstable, diseased) homosexuality, we might become
almost the same as anyone else. “Good” gay people are
divided from “bad.” Those who can be recuperated to sameness
are separated from those who persist in difference. Even the act
of granting grudging acceptance to some gays and lesbians
creates and upholds negative stereotypes of homosexuality, while
saying that some righteous queers do not conform to them.
Conformity is a precondition for public presence. Our difference
cannot make a difference. Gay rights in this sense require
submission to moral regulation that pits us against one another,
and against our own capacities for myth and meaning.
Giotto,
The Judas Kiss, detail of fresco, 1305
Same-sex
passions flourish, at all times, in all conditions, no matter
what punishments and permissions await us. Our capacity to live
despite the absence of an environment of justice affords telos
– purpose – to queer existence. We are called to create
a world where there is safety and security for all of who we
are. The ethical environment that homosexuality predicts values
equality and not equivalence. Enfranchisement cannot derive from
conformity to approved behaviors. Instead, we can invent a
sociality where difference makes a difference. Being good can
become as multifaceted and fabulous as being gay.
Queer
is deeply suspicious of any
moral stance. Our suffering and exile are evidence that
conventional morality is bunk. The moral climate supports
hierarchy and exclusion while paying lip service to democracy
and belonging. Virtue is a ruse that makes slaves content to
serve. Values alibi inequities. This kind of cynicism at least
can free us from the endless treadmill of seeking acceptance. No
longer constrained by a need to fit in, we can fly out, and
explore the far reaches of queer identity. There is a danger.
When we care less, we could be careless. Exiled from the moral
majority of fools and bullies, we could pretend to
self-sufficiency, admit to needing nothing at all. But if we
pretend not to ask and refuse gratitude for the crumbs we are
given,
we fail to live the paradox of dependence and independence. We
cannot be fully independent until we are enmeshed in and
supported by a community. We achieve an altruism of
living-for-others when we speak for and through our uniqueness.
And it is when we give ourselves away in love and community that
we come alive to our selves.
Homosexuals
are forced to exile, suffering and solitude. We can use these
experiences to become careless or de-moralized. Or we can use
them to craft a beautiful life, following a path of deep
humility. If we are humble, we are willing to receive, to ask,
and to learn. We accept change; we are open to a multiplicity of
meanings and functions. We are incomplete; we acknowledge need
and dependency. We receive and give thanks. This humility
queerly leads us to strength and pride. Through humility we
become neither powerless victims, nor arrogant self-seekers.
Instead we are singular members of a community. In community we
share our gifts. We use our desires to weave a world of meaning,
where each of us can find the responsibilities and commitments
that lead to lasting joy. ▼
[i]
Confessions 3.1,
quoted by Boswell, 1980, (135).
[ii]
John Ayto, 1990 (48).
[v]
See Halperin, 1995, (73-77).
[vi]
Eric Clarke, Virtuous
Vice: Homoeroticism and the Public Sphere, (Durham: Duke
University Press, 2000), quoted by Lisbeth Lipari, 2002,
(170).
[vii]
Thomas Merton, 1956, writes: “True poverty is that of the
beggar who is glad to receive alms from anyone, but
especially from God. False poverty is that of a man who
pretends to have the self-sufficiency of an angel. True
poverty, then, is a receiving and giving of thanks.” (94).