Gay Identity and Capitalism...A Challenge to D'Emillio

In my mind the concept of being socially constructed is two fold…its not so much that things in life are not inaliable or concrete, but rather our own perceptions of what is are based on social constructs that determine exactly what things are. From there when we organize our thoughts around a particular group of people or truths we tend to form generalizations or stereotypes that dictate how we are to perceive that group. This leads into the concept of historically situated when we start to interpret things not based on our own life conclusions but rather the historical context in which the particular item is in. For instance taking into account race, we now associate the idea of slavery with race whereas previously slavery was a part of war and was cross cultural and not dependent on ones race. Historically situated to me has everything to do with the way society is structured in that particular time and place. Even from our own time and place it’s interesting how we view other times and places.
Looking at the gay identity we can see that this in and of itself a social construction and so is the heterosexual identity. Historically speaking we can examine this in looking back into our past as we can see that from the dawn of man sexuality has been something that everyone engages in at one point or another in their lives and in many different ways. The whole concept of gay or straight actually has just come about as an identity, either or. We look to the romans, the greeks, and centuries before and we have to wonder, what was sexuality to them. For one thing, it wasn’t about love and it wasn’t about children. It was just a natural way of life. Some African tribes didn’t even know that children were a result of intercourse till later in their lives. They treated it as some miracle that simply happened to a woman slowly after she started to show signs of pregnancy. So historically it makes sense that to form an identity around ones sexuality is actually dependent on the historical relevance. So when D’Emillo makes the statement that the gay identity is a social construction around the concept of sexuality, I can understand what he means by that. That through the context of history we have socially constructed an identity surrounding ones sexual orientation. Where I think D’Emillo misses the point is looking only at the gay identity and not looking or examining the historical identity that surrounded concepts of heterosexuality that became normalized. When sexuality became a taboo and suddenly to have sex was not only sinful, but also only heterosexual, we created an identity, while not named, around the idea of a man and a woman being exclusively together.
We can also use this same comparison to examine gender itself and how in our world we have constructed this very notion that there are only to genders, and two sexes. Male and Female. When in reality, there are multiple genders and multiple sexes that do not fall within the subscribed categories that are required of our current social and political climate. We can look at our own culture in comparison with that of India where we see an acknowledgment of a third gender. Nanda describes in her article the identity of the Hijra, who are a group of people born intersexed or considered Eunuchs. They are seen as sacred and given an identity as such. These people are in fact individuals who exist within contemporary Indian culture that are regarded as sacred and majestic and to see that this exists in another country really says something about the way the rest of the world views and observes gender. It is a social construction and in India one that has a historical identity that relates quite strongly to Hinduism. If these concepts and ideas are so fluid as they are in India then what does it mean about gender. As a gender advocate I know first had in that there are more than one type of male or female or intersexed person and that these identities of male and or female are based solely on ones genitalia but just like mentioned above, are socially constructed ideals of what a man should be and what a woman should be.
Finally on the idea of their interconnectedness as presented by Hill Collins raises an interesting connection to the historically situated question and the socially constructed. What is all of these things if in the back of our minds we already have all of these ideas that our oppressed lives have already put into us. She states that many women in the early women’s movement actually forgot to examine their own oppressive powers from either their class or their skin color. And how each of us has some insights into the way the world is based on our certain innate characteristics that become socially ascribed. When we look at things in such a way as to become the oppressed when we take no initiative to see our own short comings than we can’t be true liberators for freedom and justice. We have to realize that we area all individuals apart of a society that directs us in various ways that have been socially constructed over time. Generalizations turn into stereotypes which turn into identities about the way a person is.
Ultimately for me, it has been about the idea or concept that we are all a part of a global system. What does it mean to be human, what is the common characteristic that all of us have? Why do we separate ourselves into these tiny boxes that do not match our personalities and whom we have to mask our true selves under. Your not back enough, or your too black. Your too gay or not gay enough. Your too girly or not girly enough. All of these things that play on a social construct that is neither true nor relevant to the lives we lead. I personally am who I am, and whatever box I may fit into, is a box I and I alone can fit into.
Where we go from here, the idea of agency is to recognize this and to recognize everyone for that individuality and find our common threads rather than divide ourselves through our various differences.

Question #3

I think one of the most important tasks in any life circumstance is the idea of agency or what a person does with what they have been given in life. I think Patricia’s point of even acknowledging that she had hidden biased that were bred into her from our own cultural systems was a huge step in understanding the cultural, social, historical and socially constructed way the world works. When we apply agency to our lives and allow ourselves to see it in others we have the chance to not see the world as such a dreary, unimaginable place.
I think when we are looking at Michael Yates piece about class, we can see that the man has done a lot to raise himself out of the poverty he faced as a youth. There is something to be said about all of the horrible institutions that force a person into poverty and the various ideologies and cultural issues that make life miserable for people. With people like Yates however, they find ways out of the systems they are in. Yates found his way in to the educational system and truly has found a way to change his social situation that has affected his life in such a deep and profound way. Yates showed through his life work that human agency can truly be utilized to create a better world for oneself. His class became a small obstacle in his life, even though he had gone through so much.
All in all I think human agency is a key ingredient to making the world a better place and ensuring that all people, not matter who they are, are given a fair chance at life.