Because TV’s Glee is seeped in theatricality and musical theater, it is only natural that the plots involve discourse and exploration of queer topics. Largely, these have focused on the show’s gay representative, Kurt Hummel, and deal with literarily trite but relevant events such as his coming out, and pitting the queer glee club culture against the masculine jock athletics. More recently however, in the “Gaga episode” entitled “Theatricality,” an important matter has arisen for debate. Normally, homosexual culture is the oppressed and the morals of the show revolve around accepting Kurt (and thus homosexuality as an entity) as he is. The Gaga episode was no different, but finally begs the question: is this always correct?
Here is the assumption: any backlash against gay culture is bigoted and wrong. Here is my rebuttal: in the battle to accept (not tolerate, accept) queer culture, heterosexual culture is not bigoted to maintain its sense of sexual identity.
I think some groundwork of the battle between queer culture and open-minded heterosexual culture is in order first. There is often a fallacy that to be critical of queer mores is to be a part of the oppression. Since we’re dealing with a TV show, I’ll stick with that medium. I point to a famous Seinfeld episode involving gay characters, where the straight characters must constantly clarify “…not that there’s anything wrong with it…” or else be labeled a bigot for noting something about a homosexual character. In a similar circumstance, Arrested Development features (as a minor character) an overly flamboyant individual who purposefully incites sexual harassment for the purpose of winning legal cases. What I see in these examples is the fear straight people have of seeming bigoted. But society shouldn’t be separated into classes of “oppressed” and “oppressor.” Among straight culture, there are allies. But being an ally should allow for a sense of sexual identity as a heterosexual. And that sense of identity need not be synonymous with oppression.
(Let’s return to Glee to get a good example of what I mean. This essay mostly assumes that the reader is familiar with the series, and is meant as an introspective, not a critique.)
In the episode of note, Kurt and the female members of glee club take some heavy flack for dressing up as Lady Gaga, and Kurt fires back at the jocks, declaring his independence. Similarly, Finn is harassed for his own theatricality. He, however, is less adept at rebuking his oppressors and takes out his anger on Kurt, with whom he now shares a room. When Finn expresses his frustration over Kurt’s refusal to blend into society, it is fair to give Kurt the moral victory, but points must be awarded to Finn for his honesty. When challenged, he admits that it would make life a lot easier on him because, truthfully, they are not in New York or San Francisco and every deviation from normality is felt by the community that much more. Still, through this point the show rightfully maintains the established format: ignorant heterosexuality oppresses the valiant and courageous queer culture; queer culture turns the other cheek.
Where the true conflict—and my qualm with the episode—lies, however, is in the giant soapbox confrontation between Mr. Hummel and Quinn. To his (and the writers’) credit, Kurt’s father has an excellent speech in which he pits the old generation of ignorance against the new generation which is supposed to be more accepting. And yet, I found myself waiting for Finn’s rightful rebuttal. Why? Because, although Finn was less than sensitive to Kurt, and although he used deplorable language, he is the one who has been sexually violated, not Kurt.
One should take note that Finn does not once attack Kurt or his sexuality. He instead expresses his frustration at being thrust into queer culture and being robbed of his own sexual identity. Kurt, motivated by his unreciprocated crush on Finn, has compelled their parents to move in together. Kurt finds himself sharing a room with his crush, while Finn finds himself literally removed from his own identity. Finn comes home to find any trace of himself or his sexual identity absolutely removed. Who is the oppressor here? Finally, Finn confronts Kurt and speaks honestly: how can he be expected to feel comfortable—to sleep and get undressed—in the same space where he is being coveted? It is not a question of tolerance or acceptance, but rather one of sexual identity and privacy.
This amounts to a sort of psychological rape. If it is wrong to force Kurt to blend in, then isn’t it also wrong to force Finn to live in this situation? I turn to Judith Halberstam’s model of “the bathroom problem.” Public toilets offer us two options, male or female, but what of those individuals who feel they deviate from the norm? Should there be a third “queer” bathroom? In this instance, the answer is no. But Kurt isn’t asking Finn to be allowed into the men’s room. He isn’t even asking permission to go use the women’s room. He is instead forcing Finn to begin using the third Queer room, when Finn has already stated his commitment to the men’s room. Finn crosses the line when he calls the decorations “faggy,” but that does not mean he is wholly morally wrong. So when Mr. Hummel enters and berates Finn for insensitivity, I did not see the oppressive heterosexual superiority getting it’s comeuppance. I saw a heterosexual man being erased by queer culture. Again, in this situation, who is the oppressor, and who is the oppressed?
In this example, we can see where accepting queer culture can lead to the oppression of heterosexual identity. I shouldn’t need to clarify, but I find I sound bigoted if I don’t, so I will: this does not mean that homosexuality is wrong or that queer culture is not usually being oppressed. What it does mean is that in conjunction with heterosexual culture learning to accept and appreciate expressions of queer culture, members of queer culture should also be mindful of their affect on individuals of heterosexual culture.
For clarification, let’s look at the conclusion of the show, where I take real issue. Instead of diving into the issues of Finn’s identity, we find the same tired plot device and moral of the straight character coming to defend the gay character in a moment of epiphany. But in this instance, Finn shows up in make up and a dress to express solidarity with Kurt as he protects him from the jocks. This is where the true eradication of Finn’s identity comes. Although he has expressed his own trepidation over theatricality, and faced this in his own way by impersonating Kiss, we find he is not allowed to defend Kurt as himself. He must choose a new identity, don the red dress, and then go to the aid of the oppressed homosexual. What does that say about heterosexual culture, if we are not allowed to maintain our own identity while sticking up for equality?
Overall, I think that Glee has dealt with queer topics in a very accessible and realistic (within the paradigm of the show) way, but this time their tired format has exposed a fallacy in queer theory. Jasbir K. Puar expressed concern over an American sense of “sexual superiority” that heterosexuality can exhibit over queer culture. But in fighting off this sexual superiority, and moving towards true equality, we must make sure not to establish a reverse discrimination of sorts, forcing heterosexuality to become queer to accept and defend queer culture. Although it is wrong to call the blanket “faggy,” We must not be forced to don the red dress.
No comments:
Post a Comment