The Hawaii state House of Representatives has passed a civil unions bill. Hopefully this will stimulate a similar situation to what was occurring between one and two years ago, when California and Connecticute legalized same-sex marriage in 2008, and Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire in 2009. Following the repeal of same-sex marriage in California and Maine the steam of this chain of events seemed to waver. The dominoes stopped falling. Hawaii, although not directly legalizing same-sex marriage, is establishing a legal equivalent (which sadly can be defined as separate but equal) that will reintegrate same-sex marriage into the public consciousness.
The most interesting facet of the story, however, comes from Hawaii Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona: "The state House's last-minute political maneuvering is unfortunate for the people of Hawaii who have voiced their support for traditional marriage. If the Legislature wanted to establish the equivalent of same-sex marriage, they should have put it on the ballot for the people to decide."
This seems, unfortunately, to be the usual, and convoluted, talking point clung to by opponents of same-sex marriage. Such positions are not only disingenuous, but also suggest a deep misunderstanding of the system of government in the United States. First is the phrase "last-minute political maneuvering," which was used by the Republicans ad nauseum during the health insurance reform debate. "Last-minute" ultimately translated into "I don't support this so any decision in favor of it will be too soon for me." Major debate over gay rights has existed steadily in the United States since at least the 1960's-70's. The only last-minute thing about it is that it's taken so long for it to actually happen. The label "last-minute" itself is a political maneuver, so this objection, which is disingenuous anyways, is patently deceptive. All of politics is political maneuvering. If politicians were doing ballet maneuvers I'd be worried.
Next is his statement that the "political maneuvering is unfortunate for the people of Hawaii who have voiced their support for traditional marriage." Yes, well, it's fortunate for people who see "traditional marriage" as a political sham. Stop political maneuvering, Lieutenant Governor! What exactly "traditional marriage" means is a debate for another day, but to suggest that we shouldn't pass something because people are against it is ridiculous. If that were the case, nothing would ever pass, because there would always be at least one person protesting. This is also a tactic that Republicans utilized during the health insurance debate, claiming that passing a law was irresponsible because "tax-paying citizens" were against it (and they often backed this up with random percentages that they grabbed from thin air). The problem with this argument is a simple one to understand. Tax-paying citizens are always for it; argument void, next objection please.
The next objection is where a fundamental misunderstanding emerges: "If the Legislature wanted to establish the equivalent of same-sex marriage, they should have put it on the ballot for the people to decide." It amazes me when any side argues that there is one particular issue that should be subject to direct democracy. The hypocrisy is astonishing, although I know that, at this point, it shouldn't be. When a politician says that the people should decide, it almost certainly means that they oppose something that has passed and won't to hide behind popular democracy in order to get it defeated. I'm sure Lt. Gov. Aiona has supported many bills that passed without a popular vote, and so is, by his own logic, complicit in political maneuvering that undermines his constituents. Direct democracy is used as a political tool to benefit personal agenda; it is sadly sometimes understood by some as a genuine expression of interest in popular opinion by politicians. The Lieutenant Governor does not have me fooled.
All of this, in one way or another, relates to an article that I read on the Chicago Tribune website today. The title, Gay marriage threatens family stability, directly presents another central same-sex marriage talking point. The article starts off by relating the plans of Illinois State Representative Deborah Mell to marry her partner in Iowa. From this the author, David E. Smith, leaps to the "public purpose of marriage."
Smith suggests that marriage (between a man and a woman) is so important because it "provides particular benefits to society." He fails to establish any of these benefits, except for procreation. This is an important tactic. First, by concealing these "benefits" he denigrates the role of same-sex couples. It is important to note, however, that these public "benefits" are not a function of marriage. There is no public benefit within marriage that cannot occur external from the institution, procreation included. There are plenty of unmarried heterosexual couples with children, single parents, etc. Because there are no public benefits unique to marriage, Smith's initial premise, that marriage is a public institution, is inherently false. Marriage is, ultimately, a public acknowledgment of a private union, and any "benefits" from marriage, rather than preceding from marriage to society, travel directly from society to the married couple.
That marriage merely functions to create and nurture the next generation degrades the institution of marriage by constructing it as a sexual mechanism and ignoring any emotional or personal component. It also degrades the roles of people external from the heteronormative nuclear family that are involved in nurturing children (foster parents, teachers, tutors, other relatives, etc.).
Smith's argument against marriage as an affirmation of love is the role of government in sanctioning the institution. He suggests that the government is creating a "healthy society" by condoning the type of union that is required for successful childbearing. When attempting to find evidence for this argument, however, it falls apart. Suddenly, all of the other "public" benefits of marriage have disappeared, and procreation stands as the central component. But now, not just procreation, but "healthy" (heteronormative) procreation. His argument has shifted, and the problem is that he is now, by default, arguing against "unhealthy" procreation, which, if the heteronormative nuclear family is healthy, would be a single parent household or a homosexual couple. However, because homosexuals cannot copulate, the healthy procreation argument for marriage doesn't apply. The lack of procreation will not raise an "unhealthy" generation, and therefore will not impede on the heteronormative parental system. If he wants to argue against childbearing and raising, he also need to argue against single parent families, foster families, and other "nontraditional" familial structures.
He claims that "the social science is clear and irrefutable: children do best in stable, healthy homes with both a mom and dad," without actually citing any of this so-called "social science" (which, I admit, does exist, but is the minority when it comes to the understanding of child psychological development). At the end of the article he throws in the key words that clue the reader into his agenda: "government has a compelling interest to recognize, protect and promote the God-ordained institution of marriage." Rather than an institution to benefit the public, it is now a biblical institution, again without any citation of why he believes this or what it means. If it is "God-ordained" then the government does not permit heteronormative unions because of social benefit, but because of religion (something that the United States Constitution prohibits). His argument has changed at least three times during the article.
All I'm looking for is a little consistency.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Homosexuality and the Census
And, lastly for today, I would just like to post a story from MSNBC about the census and say a few words:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36183327/ns/us_news-census_2010/
First, one word: Finally. Finally some official recognition. There are plenty of ways to work within the system to achieve recognition, and here is one. Unlike conservatives who are bashing the census, and then backtracking, social minorities are vigorously sending in their census forms this year as a means to gain sociopolitical recognition. The census functions, not only to represent a number of groups in fiscal considerations, but also to forward social acceptance.
The higher the official population of any particular minority, the more tools and resources that emerge to facilitate the equality of that group. The (un)official documentation of same-sex marriage, as a type of protest, may evolve into a broader discourse about marriage and the social position of every citizen. If anything, it allows couples to check a box that, for years, has been a locus of their silence.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36183327/ns/us_news-census_2010/
First, one word: Finally. Finally some official recognition. There are plenty of ways to work within the system to achieve recognition, and here is one. Unlike conservatives who are bashing the census, and then backtracking, social minorities are vigorously sending in their census forms this year as a means to gain sociopolitical recognition. The census functions, not only to represent a number of groups in fiscal considerations, but also to forward social acceptance.
The higher the official population of any particular minority, the more tools and resources that emerge to facilitate the equality of that group. The (un)official documentation of same-sex marriage, as a type of protest, may evolve into a broader discourse about marriage and the social position of every citizen. If anything, it allows couples to check a box that, for years, has been a locus of their silence.
Religion and Sex Education
There is an interesting story coming out of Canada today about the sexual education curriculum in Catholic schools. In the United States, the sexual education curriculum of public schools is enough of a problem, but in Canada they are taking it a step further. Public and Catholic schools will now be teaching the same sex ed material (the material is, however, subject to parent approval of when it is "appropriate" to be taught).
There are two important restrictive factors in this dynamic, one actual and one potential. First, the Catholic school board: "The Catholic school boards were not prepared to begin teaching children in Grade 1 the proper names for their genitals, nor were they prepared to tackle the issues of sexual orientation and gender identity in Grade 3." Interesting enough, this is the mainstream position in America. It honestly surprised me that a country would already be proposing to teach genitals at grade one, a step which I think could potentially be positive. The most commonly recognizes problem with restrictive sexual education is early pregnancy and STDs. However, there is another potential function of sexual education: understanding and acceptance.
Everyone encounters genitals, even in early life (though many people prefer to deny this). It is natural to want to know what they are and why they are there. Children have that natural curiosity. They are also not as heavily subject to moral "disgust," the sense that something should be repressed. They should be taught to challenge repression and to understand why repression occurs. Everyone has genitals, of one form or another. Teaching younger children makes them more aware of their body and prevents more awkward introductions to sexual education that occur later in life.
Sexual identity is an even tougher subject when it comes to schools. Sexual functions, organs, and identities all eventually become stigmatized. It is important to catch children before this occurs. Sexual organs make an individual aware of themselves. Learning about sexual identities makes children more aware of their peers, and more accepting of difference. Derogatory terms relating to sex become staples in the upper-elementary grades and onwards. Why should something so natural, something that people deal with every day in the real world, be allowed to mutate into something so stigmatized and strange? This question refers back to (some) religions and religious beliefs. This mutation occurs because of fear and silence. Difference is suppressed, silenced, and ignored. Reality is skewed, and children are prevented from learning simple concepts that are only stigmatized by external constructs.
This goes back to parents, as well. The article emphasizes the centrality of parents in the sexual education debate. Liberals, fortunately, want to include both Catholic and public school parents, a justified strategy. I am particularly glad that parents aren't able to designate the sex ed material, but merely the ages. I've always been perplexed by why it's believed that sexual education should be relegated to parents. Biology itself isn't relegated to parents, so why sexual education? Sexual education is, for some reason, treated like religion, an ethos that varies between households. However, the realities of sex and sexual activity do not vary between context.
Procreation is a constant, and the most central fact of life. Gender and identity stem organically from procreation, from the most miniscule fibers of who you are. Why repress? Why ignore? There is so much more to this topic, and even answers to these questions, but I've already gone a bit away from the article, and I should leave it here: We learn the senses, why we have eyes, and hands, and ears, from an early age. What is another body part or three?
There are two important restrictive factors in this dynamic, one actual and one potential. First, the Catholic school board: "The Catholic school boards were not prepared to begin teaching children in Grade 1 the proper names for their genitals, nor were they prepared to tackle the issues of sexual orientation and gender identity in Grade 3." Interesting enough, this is the mainstream position in America. It honestly surprised me that a country would already be proposing to teach genitals at grade one, a step which I think could potentially be positive. The most commonly recognizes problem with restrictive sexual education is early pregnancy and STDs. However, there is another potential function of sexual education: understanding and acceptance.
Everyone encounters genitals, even in early life (though many people prefer to deny this). It is natural to want to know what they are and why they are there. Children have that natural curiosity. They are also not as heavily subject to moral "disgust," the sense that something should be repressed. They should be taught to challenge repression and to understand why repression occurs. Everyone has genitals, of one form or another. Teaching younger children makes them more aware of their body and prevents more awkward introductions to sexual education that occur later in life.
Sexual identity is an even tougher subject when it comes to schools. Sexual functions, organs, and identities all eventually become stigmatized. It is important to catch children before this occurs. Sexual organs make an individual aware of themselves. Learning about sexual identities makes children more aware of their peers, and more accepting of difference. Derogatory terms relating to sex become staples in the upper-elementary grades and onwards. Why should something so natural, something that people deal with every day in the real world, be allowed to mutate into something so stigmatized and strange? This question refers back to (some) religions and religious beliefs. This mutation occurs because of fear and silence. Difference is suppressed, silenced, and ignored. Reality is skewed, and children are prevented from learning simple concepts that are only stigmatized by external constructs.
This goes back to parents, as well. The article emphasizes the centrality of parents in the sexual education debate. Liberals, fortunately, want to include both Catholic and public school parents, a justified strategy. I am particularly glad that parents aren't able to designate the sex ed material, but merely the ages. I've always been perplexed by why it's believed that sexual education should be relegated to parents. Biology itself isn't relegated to parents, so why sexual education? Sexual education is, for some reason, treated like religion, an ethos that varies between households. However, the realities of sex and sexual activity do not vary between context.
Procreation is a constant, and the most central fact of life. Gender and identity stem organically from procreation, from the most miniscule fibers of who you are. Why repress? Why ignore? There is so much more to this topic, and even answers to these questions, but I've already gone a bit away from the article, and I should leave it here: We learn the senses, why we have eyes, and hands, and ears, from an early age. What is another body part or three?
Doe v. Reed: Creating a Closet
Today is a busy news day (as far as I am concerned), so I will be posting a few separate blogs (much shorter than the last one).
First is Doe v. Reed, a Supreme Court case that is, in a few ways, rather strange. The Huffington Post did a brief story (here) regarding the case and the retirement of John Paul Stevens. If anything, I think this is a good note for John Paul Stevens to leave on, which relates to one of the reasons this case is so strange. Justice Stevens and Justice Antonin Scalia agree (and I also agree with Scalia).
Usually a debate about sexuality and immorality are the predominate components of a court case that stems from same-sex marriage. Homosexuals are usually the victim. The power dynamic has shifted here. But the shift is strange. Even Justice Scalia is critcizing the complaints by anti-gay petitioners: "The First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights to legislate, or to take part in the legislative process." Anti-gay protestors are utilizing the amendment that clearly states that there is a right to free speech to essentially conceal their speech. They are attempting to pervert the right to petition the government into the right to petition in secret. But why?
A simple answer is projection. Anti-gay protestors are projecting their anger and hatred onto the homosexual community, assuming that this anger will be reflected back at them if their names are revealed. This is, unfortunately, possible, but it is always a possible byproduct of free speech. There are social repercussions, and any illegal repercussion should be stymied by the law itself. In this case, simple fear multiplies, and, in turn, will probably facilitate the emergence of more fear. It is interesting that this fear, created by the anti-gay protestors themselves, is forcing them into a figurative "closet," a space of repression that parallels the sociopolitically marginal space that homosexuals have been relegated to for years.
They are concealing their identities, silencing themselves in order to navigate around a frightening minority. No one deserves to be silenced or repressed, but this type of silencing, done to oneself due to fear and hatred, is especially grotesque. There is no reason for this power dynamic to exist. For one group to be literally, or to feel like they are, oppressed by another group. The anti-gay protestors are constructing a struggle, acting like there has to be a winner, a usurper, an oppressor. This is a false dichotomy. Political debate should be fluid and identity should not be limiting.
I hope (with a hope that I know will probably be unfulfilled) that the protestors learn something from this. That they learn what it feels like to be relegated to a silent space, to be afraid of what an Other may say or do. And that this realization transforms into acceptance, evolves into tolerance, and that the United States may become a more unified and equalized nation.
First is Doe v. Reed, a Supreme Court case that is, in a few ways, rather strange. The Huffington Post did a brief story (here) regarding the case and the retirement of John Paul Stevens. If anything, I think this is a good note for John Paul Stevens to leave on, which relates to one of the reasons this case is so strange. Justice Stevens and Justice Antonin Scalia agree (and I also agree with Scalia).
Usually a debate about sexuality and immorality are the predominate components of a court case that stems from same-sex marriage. Homosexuals are usually the victim. The power dynamic has shifted here. But the shift is strange. Even Justice Scalia is critcizing the complaints by anti-gay petitioners: "The First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights to legislate, or to take part in the legislative process." Anti-gay protestors are utilizing the amendment that clearly states that there is a right to free speech to essentially conceal their speech. They are attempting to pervert the right to petition the government into the right to petition in secret. But why?
A simple answer is projection. Anti-gay protestors are projecting their anger and hatred onto the homosexual community, assuming that this anger will be reflected back at them if their names are revealed. This is, unfortunately, possible, but it is always a possible byproduct of free speech. There are social repercussions, and any illegal repercussion should be stymied by the law itself. In this case, simple fear multiplies, and, in turn, will probably facilitate the emergence of more fear. It is interesting that this fear, created by the anti-gay protestors themselves, is forcing them into a figurative "closet," a space of repression that parallels the sociopolitically marginal space that homosexuals have been relegated to for years.
They are concealing their identities, silencing themselves in order to navigate around a frightening minority. No one deserves to be silenced or repressed, but this type of silencing, done to oneself due to fear and hatred, is especially grotesque. There is no reason for this power dynamic to exist. For one group to be literally, or to feel like they are, oppressed by another group. The anti-gay protestors are constructing a struggle, acting like there has to be a winner, a usurper, an oppressor. This is a false dichotomy. Political debate should be fluid and identity should not be limiting.
I hope (with a hope that I know will probably be unfulfilled) that the protestors learn something from this. That they learn what it feels like to be relegated to a silent space, to be afraid of what an Other may say or do. And that this realization transforms into acceptance, evolves into tolerance, and that the United States may become a more unified and equalized nation.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan and Sexual Sensationalism
Bacha Bazi, a taboo cultural practice in some Central Asian communities, has become a marginal feature in Western news media as a result of a PBS Frontline story"The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan." This practice is, as the story attempts to suggest, extremely problematic. It is a complicated intersection of culture, moral relativism, and economic insecurity, all issues that the story, to varying degrees, wrestles with. However, major components of this discourse are shoved into the periphery: sexuality, crossdressing, and psychosexual development. The story fails to develop these issues and to analyze Bacha Bazi both historically and culturally. Instead, pathos and inherent infantalizationa are utilized to make the material explicitly disgusting for both Western audiences and audiences that prefer sexual repression and normativity.
I will first comment on some of the quotes from the video and the text below the video. The narrator, describing Shafiq, says that, though he was said to be 11, he "looked no older than 9." This is precisely what I mean by infantalization. Representing the boys as younger than they are through this type of exaggeration allows the narrative to be structured around a sexual ethos that negates any broad evaluation of the sexual dynamic involved in Bacha Bazi. Nine presupposes prepubescense, whereas eleven is the beginning of sexual maturity. Sex itself is subordinated to an inappropriate age dynamic, a subversive restructuring of the Western "nuclear" family. Sex is often a footnote, repressed by "research": "According to our research, the boys are used for sex by powerful men."
Crossdressing, pederasty, and Central Asia are all topics that will illicit a uniform response from Western audiences. Sex doesn't need to be investigated, the social and individual functions of Bacha Bazi don't need to be expanded or understood. Cultural and sexual otherness are enough to frighten and disgust. The problem with the piece is that it relies to much on these factors, representing cultural and sexual practices unfamiliar to audiences, and doesn't examine the more familiar roots of the problem: sociopolitical hierarchies expanded by military power and drugs. Not to say these factors aren't mentioned, but their roles in investigating Bacha Bazi are minimized. Sexual taboos, cross dressing and sodomy, are exploited in order to take a relatively bottom-up analysis of the issue. The story of Shafiq seems to suggest that a minimalist approach, the charity of one individual, may partially solve the issue. That a separation of sexual object and sexual master will dissolve the intricate power balance. This is simply not the case. This may, at least for a while, work in Shafiq's case, but complete dissolution of the system requires us to transcend Bacha Bazzi itself, and its transgressive appeal, and to focus on a system that condones economic, political and social subordination (and in this regard, Western civilizations themselves can improve, suggesting the moral relativist and moral absolutist debate).
The "dissolution" of the system, as I have termed it, requires us, however, to investigate more complicated issues. The cultural issues that it raises should be well known. Bacha Bazi is intrinsic to (certain) cultures in the region, and shouldn't be regarded as inherently evil. That this Frontline episode is appealing to a Western gaze is obvious, and the function and ethics of that gaze should always be recognized. Psychosexual development, and "proper" social and sexual relationships, aren't constructed by modern "Western" institutions.
This brings us to historical examples. The major examples, which are ironically part of the Western tradition, are ancient Greece and Rome. Greece is now famous for its pederasty, and Rome is known to have been involved in similar practices (though they were more heavily regulated), and other forms of sexual "deviance." Bacha Bazi is similar to some practices in both cultures. However, in Greece and Rome, like Bacha Bazi circles, these practices were mostly identified as healthy social relationships. This isn't to say that subordination and rape did not occur. However, the compass by which to interpret such terms is shifted. The text under the video suggests that the men were smug, unaware of what they were doing. This is supposed to function as a mechanism through which to produce disgust for the man. It points, however, to these deeper cultural issues, the difficulties of penetrating cultural "Others" with external gazes.
This all suggests an even broader question, a question of philosophy: how does free will exist within a cultural context, and is there a morally absolute "free will? The latter question involves social power dynamics. Society inherently forces individuals to conform to certain moral and social codes. Is free will, then, a viable possibility? Well, within the cultural context, yes, because any system produces individuals within that system that are compliant to the system's demands. Free will is a function of the moral and societal mechanism. There is no "absolute" free will, no ability to do "what you please"; there are merely relative free wills, codes of acceptable and necessary behavior that emerge from the power structures and institutions of any given society.
These issues are often not recognized when one culture interprets another. This brings me to a video by The Young Turks in which they analyze "The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan."
The Young Turks do a good job of summing up some of the sexual issues implicit to the Frontline episode. They also talk a bit about religious hypocrisy, a central feature of many issues relating to sexuality. However, they give in to the "disgust" that allows the intricacies of the sexual issues to be evaluated (and, in that regard, are a microcosm of most of the audience). The disgust is utilized, in a way, to conflate the dancing itself with sex. The dance stands in for the act of sex, and a perfectly harmless cultural tradition becomes associated with a sexual taboo. Blame is displaced, and therefore any question of why the practice is problematic, or what it means for psychosexual development is subordinated to pathos and Western idealizations of "childhood."
One last note that has to do with culture is the way in which Ana Kasparian states that the boys are "forced" to dance. This force goes back to the function of moral and social systems on free will. In the United States, children are almost universally "forced" into school. Like the Bacha, some enjoy it, and some do not. The argument would then be that US schools provide the service of educating children so they have the possibility of economic mobility. We can, however, relate this to Bacha Bazi. Economic mobility is almost nonexistence for many people in the regions that practice Bacha Bazi. A bacha, therefore, is able to provide a means of economic stability for their family. Also, a Bacha learns a type of "profession," a subversive education, that provides a social function (however disgusting to an external gaze). This isn't to say that traditional Western education and Bacha education have similar goals or outcomes, but the free will issue is analogous.
It is not also to say that I am defending either system, as the Bacha system certainly has major problems, mostly stemming from individual identity. Bacha education also unfortunately categorizes the boys in a certain way, making it difficult for them to move into a new profession or lifestyle (which the documentary does, fortunately, examine). However, economic and social mobility is, inevitably, also a Western capitalist ideal, further demonstrating the complexity of this issue. Ultimately, it is most important to note that the possible sexual implications of Bacha Bazi are still relatively ambiguous, and psychosexual philosophy and cultural/historical analysis should be separated from the pathos and cultural absolutism that is prevalent in this highly contentious, and difficult, issue.
I will first comment on some of the quotes from the video and the text below the video. The narrator, describing Shafiq, says that, though he was said to be 11, he "looked no older than 9." This is precisely what I mean by infantalization. Representing the boys as younger than they are through this type of exaggeration allows the narrative to be structured around a sexual ethos that negates any broad evaluation of the sexual dynamic involved in Bacha Bazi. Nine presupposes prepubescense, whereas eleven is the beginning of sexual maturity. Sex itself is subordinated to an inappropriate age dynamic, a subversive restructuring of the Western "nuclear" family. Sex is often a footnote, repressed by "research": "According to our research, the boys are used for sex by powerful men."
Crossdressing, pederasty, and Central Asia are all topics that will illicit a uniform response from Western audiences. Sex doesn't need to be investigated, the social and individual functions of Bacha Bazi don't need to be expanded or understood. Cultural and sexual otherness are enough to frighten and disgust. The problem with the piece is that it relies to much on these factors, representing cultural and sexual practices unfamiliar to audiences, and doesn't examine the more familiar roots of the problem: sociopolitical hierarchies expanded by military power and drugs. Not to say these factors aren't mentioned, but their roles in investigating Bacha Bazi are minimized. Sexual taboos, cross dressing and sodomy, are exploited in order to take a relatively bottom-up analysis of the issue. The story of Shafiq seems to suggest that a minimalist approach, the charity of one individual, may partially solve the issue. That a separation of sexual object and sexual master will dissolve the intricate power balance. This is simply not the case. This may, at least for a while, work in Shafiq's case, but complete dissolution of the system requires us to transcend Bacha Bazzi itself, and its transgressive appeal, and to focus on a system that condones economic, political and social subordination (and in this regard, Western civilizations themselves can improve, suggesting the moral relativist and moral absolutist debate).
The "dissolution" of the system, as I have termed it, requires us, however, to investigate more complicated issues. The cultural issues that it raises should be well known. Bacha Bazi is intrinsic to (certain) cultures in the region, and shouldn't be regarded as inherently evil. That this Frontline episode is appealing to a Western gaze is obvious, and the function and ethics of that gaze should always be recognized. Psychosexual development, and "proper" social and sexual relationships, aren't constructed by modern "Western" institutions.
This brings us to historical examples. The major examples, which are ironically part of the Western tradition, are ancient Greece and Rome. Greece is now famous for its pederasty, and Rome is known to have been involved in similar practices (though they were more heavily regulated), and other forms of sexual "deviance." Bacha Bazi is similar to some practices in both cultures. However, in Greece and Rome, like Bacha Bazi circles, these practices were mostly identified as healthy social relationships. This isn't to say that subordination and rape did not occur. However, the compass by which to interpret such terms is shifted. The text under the video suggests that the men were smug, unaware of what they were doing. This is supposed to function as a mechanism through which to produce disgust for the man. It points, however, to these deeper cultural issues, the difficulties of penetrating cultural "Others" with external gazes.
This all suggests an even broader question, a question of philosophy: how does free will exist within a cultural context, and is there a morally absolute "free will? The latter question involves social power dynamics. Society inherently forces individuals to conform to certain moral and social codes. Is free will, then, a viable possibility? Well, within the cultural context, yes, because any system produces individuals within that system that are compliant to the system's demands. Free will is a function of the moral and societal mechanism. There is no "absolute" free will, no ability to do "what you please"; there are merely relative free wills, codes of acceptable and necessary behavior that emerge from the power structures and institutions of any given society.
These issues are often not recognized when one culture interprets another. This brings me to a video by The Young Turks in which they analyze "The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan."
The Young Turks do a good job of summing up some of the sexual issues implicit to the Frontline episode. They also talk a bit about religious hypocrisy, a central feature of many issues relating to sexuality. However, they give in to the "disgust" that allows the intricacies of the sexual issues to be evaluated (and, in that regard, are a microcosm of most of the audience). The disgust is utilized, in a way, to conflate the dancing itself with sex. The dance stands in for the act of sex, and a perfectly harmless cultural tradition becomes associated with a sexual taboo. Blame is displaced, and therefore any question of why the practice is problematic, or what it means for psychosexual development is subordinated to pathos and Western idealizations of "childhood."
One last note that has to do with culture is the way in which Ana Kasparian states that the boys are "forced" to dance. This force goes back to the function of moral and social systems on free will. In the United States, children are almost universally "forced" into school. Like the Bacha, some enjoy it, and some do not. The argument would then be that US schools provide the service of educating children so they have the possibility of economic mobility. We can, however, relate this to Bacha Bazi. Economic mobility is almost nonexistence for many people in the regions that practice Bacha Bazi. A bacha, therefore, is able to provide a means of economic stability for their family. Also, a Bacha learns a type of "profession," a subversive education, that provides a social function (however disgusting to an external gaze). This isn't to say that traditional Western education and Bacha education have similar goals or outcomes, but the free will issue is analogous.
It is not also to say that I am defending either system, as the Bacha system certainly has major problems, mostly stemming from individual identity. Bacha education also unfortunately categorizes the boys in a certain way, making it difficult for them to move into a new profession or lifestyle (which the documentary does, fortunately, examine). However, economic and social mobility is, inevitably, also a Western capitalist ideal, further demonstrating the complexity of this issue. Ultimately, it is most important to note that the possible sexual implications of Bacha Bazi are still relatively ambiguous, and psychosexual philosophy and cultural/historical analysis should be separated from the pathos and cultural absolutism that is prevalent in this highly contentious, and difficult, issue.
Sex News Blog Opens
Hello! This blog is currently in (quick) development. The goal is to feature news stories (on a, hopefully, daily basis) that involve sex and sexual identity. Yes, these are broad categories. I will probably focus on sexual identity, but I'd like to delve into both the most important and most bizarre news stories that deal with all forms of sex and sexual deviancy.
The format will usually be the same: I will link a news story, or show a video from a news blog, website, or radio show. Then, I will give my own, usually very unique and inflammatory, opinion of the issue. Because that's what news often is, especially when dealing with sex, base opinion, and I think other points of view, which aren't as often heard, should be out there.
Sometimes I will not link a news story, however. In that case, two other things may happen. I may either just discuss some sexual issue, in a sort of essay format. Or, I may link a segment of a movie/TV show, or other media (music, etc), and analyze the content from a (usually) sexual perspective, delving into the portrayal of sex and sexual deviance in modern media.
Well, that's a rather brief, and probably not full, overview of what I'd like to eventually do with this blog. I hope to get it fully up and running later (despite the fact that I have no viewers yet), when I post a story about the Dancing Boys in Afghanistan.
The format will usually be the same: I will link a news story, or show a video from a news blog, website, or radio show. Then, I will give my own, usually very unique and inflammatory, opinion of the issue. Because that's what news often is, especially when dealing with sex, base opinion, and I think other points of view, which aren't as often heard, should be out there.
Sometimes I will not link a news story, however. In that case, two other things may happen. I may either just discuss some sexual issue, in a sort of essay format. Or, I may link a segment of a movie/TV show, or other media (music, etc), and analyze the content from a (usually) sexual perspective, delving into the portrayal of sex and sexual deviance in modern media.
Well, that's a rather brief, and probably not full, overview of what I'd like to eventually do with this blog. I hope to get it fully up and running later (despite the fact that I have no viewers yet), when I post a story about the Dancing Boys in Afghanistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
