Hello Everyone,
Here are some questions think about. Answer one:
1. Do you find that the two sets of dual identity factors (Liu, 97 and Chan, 379) are a good basis for understanding dual-identity formation? What categories might be superfluous? What may be missing?
2. "At the same time, we must be careful to assume that the sexual identities of LGBAAs follow Western prototypes" (Liu, 97). How are cultural prototypes formed? What is their effect in society?
3. Respond to the following quote: "I identify as being both. I cannot separate the two parts of who I am" (Chan, 383). Consider the earlier reading by Siobhan Somerville on queerness--how might this challenge how we understand the apparent distinction between gay/lesbian and Asian American communities.
4. Explain a situation you experienced in which to concept of "face" was a factor?
-Brendan and Laura
Responding to question 4:
ReplyDeleteRather than having my mother overtly bring up the concept of face or stereotypically declare that I have somehow “brought shame upon the family”, it is something that I have felt and still feel is present. Face is the reason why I’d feel guilted into taking out my piercings when going to dinners with family friends. It is why I’ve set my facebook “interested in” category to men+women as visible to the whole world except for this special group containing all my relatives. It is why I don’t point out when either of my parents makes some heteronormative or sexist comment while in the company of others. It is why I’d take off the eyeliner and nailpolish I had on whenever guests would come. When I actually think about it, these actions (or lack there of) don’t derive from fear of how I will be perceived or treated. Lots of the time its me not wanting to upset my parents or somehow make them look bad. It solidifies the connection that who I am is directly correlated to how my parents raised me as well as their parenting skills. I'm not really sure whether its a purely Asian thing or not cause I do the same sort of policing myself when I'm with my white side of the family at a Bar Mitzvah. Think I’m going to get tired of this whole saving face thing after college and just give up seeing my relatives if it comes to that.
3. My initial response to this quote touched on issues we have discussed before at length--namely, how racial and sexual identities are often treated as separate identity markers, or as this speaker notes, "two parts" of who ze is. While I too have been raised to describe myself within the bounds of conventional identity constructs--race, gender, sexuality, class, etc.-- I also beginning to wonder if maybe "queer" is the only term that is both expansive and critical enough to suit me (or maybe anyone). Thinking about "queer" as a self-reflexive category that positions itself outside established structures, I realize I can comfortably call myself queer in a myriad of ways. The most immediate is a pervasive sensation of racial queerness, as a hapa individual with a long history of questioning my own racial location. Yet I've also felt geographically, economically, generationally, artistically, and even physically queer--perhaps I have internalized an incredible notion of self-difference to the point where I lack the ability to distinguish and definitively locate the "parts" of me, and only intuit that they are somehow antithetical to what I perceive as the norm. While I recognize the importance of political alignment to provoke collective change--and have done this myself in certain situations-- I also appreciate the (dis)alignment that queer as an identity signifier offers. Although queer is typically referenced in terms of sexuality, using it more broadly offers much potential in thinking about identity more holistically; it diminishes our reliance on individual, discretely-constructed categories that at best can only merge or intersect.
ReplyDelete#2
ReplyDelete(to clarify, "we must be careful to assume" should be "we must be careful NOT to assume")
There is a tendency in some Western gay communities to view sexual identity as existing innately within bodies, outside of cultural, geographical, and historical contexts. This is strongly tied to Western individualist philosophies that emphasize the existence of a "soul" and an "essence" - philosophies that themselves are most certainly culturally specific. Cultural prototypes are formed over time through complex systems of power relations, and they come to define, in part, the cognitive character of groups of people. I see this quote from Liu as a reminder to other clinicians to be aware of their own positionalities when dealing with LGBAA clients. To blindly assume a white, Western schema in understanding an LGB[or TQQIA, for that matter]AA person's struggles with identity is to dismiss relevant differences in subject formation of European American and Asian American LGB people. Dismissal of relevant contextual information renders a clinician's work unproductive at best, and possibly even harmful.
As a brief aside, I have reservations using the term “dual identify” because it implies (1) that an individual can only identify with two categories (or at best, that only two are significant enough to warrant this term) even though myriad identifies exist and can be equally, if not more, substantial. And (2) that identifies can be quantified and summed up rather than experienced as uniquely different for each individual.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that discussing dual identity factors, namely sexual orientation and race, contributes to a necessary understanding of identity formation. Identities develop at different paces and assume different levels of significance. As the Chan study stresses, the queer identity of a LGB-AA may or may not be more significant to an individual than his or her AA identity. Vice-versa. Thus, I believe that analyzing these factors provides a sound foundation to holistically study a identity. This should not, however, be misinterpreted as “I understand Asian-American identities and I understand queer identities. Therefore, I understand queer Asian-American identities.” This fallacy is akin to an expert in Asian history and American history being an expert in Asian-American history. Rather, I maintain that analyzing and having discourse on individual identities have value, though it is not sufficient in fully understanding identity formation.
No categories of identity, to me at least, are superfluous. To regard somebody’s characteristic as “superfluous” is to regard somebody as “superfluous.” Trivialization of identity is dehumanizing and dangerous. Additionally, I don’t believe that we can exhaust a list of factors; almost everything is significant.
4)
ReplyDeleteGrowing up, I was always a bit of a tomboy, which generally wasn't a source of much tension. However, when I was twelve and preparing for my bat mitzvah I ended up conflicted about what I should wear. This was one of the only times I saw my extended family and I was "becoming a woman." Thus, I ended up wearing this pastel pink/green/yellow tweed suit with this ridiculous pink bow on the back. I saw my choice to dress girlier as a sacrifice I was making for my family in order to better fit the part of a young woman.
In terms of face, I feel like this is something a lot of queer youth go through when it comes to their families. Thomas touched on it really well. When it comes to my own experiences, I feel like my family did not care as much about me being gay as much as how it would reflect on them and the family's reputation. I felt like they did not worry about how others would treat me for being gay as much as what the rest of the family would think and how they would look down upon our family because of my sexuality. To this day not all of my family is aware about my sexuality (my immediate family knows though), and the main reason is because if they knew they would treat my mother and my family differently. Simple as that.
ReplyDeleteI feel like I "save face" whenever I go back to the South and dress like everyone else and change the tone of my voice. When I masquerade myself as something I am not to please others. I feel as humans, we do all do this everyday.
Going off of Candace's response, the current usefulness of "queer" as a label is the position of immanent critique that it assumes. By having been positioned outside of normative categories it has been able to gain the status of critiquing them. Now I think this is very useful and there always needs to be a form of critique that challenges dominant positions through being. I think there might be a danger, and maybe it doesn't even exist at all, that "queer" could come to lose its position of critique by being adopted into the mainstream, whether through appropriation, co-optation, etc. Despite its usefulness "queer" cannot be the only identity of critique open to individuals struggling against dominant narratives, but other, perhaps more locally strategic, categories could be adopted in order to position the critique of normative society outside of just the bounds of sexuality. I think it also points to this particular historical moment of "queerness" and how the critic needs to think about its development and critique the term itself in developing new strategies of resistance (if resistance is even the point. maybe it isn't.)
ReplyDelete