Delany says that speaking “of gay oppression in the context of racial oppression always seemed an embarrassment” (quoted 204). Alexander, Gibson, and Meem note earlier in the chapter that “in an inclusive environment, individuals are encouraged to represent categories” (203). People are supposed to represent marginalized categories of sex, race, sexuality, class, ethnicity. Many of these people are also accused of selfishly shifting the focus to their own problems--problems seen as unimportant--at the consequence of “real problems.” For example, in businesses where it is rare for racial minorities and women to be promoted to high managerial ranks, they are accused of looking out for “their people” rather than the good of the company; their efforts to reward hard-workers are seen as favoritism, and if they bring up issues of sex or race, they are seen as personal concerns only, where a white male experience is the default. Delany may have felt the pressure to stay quiet about the intersectionality of identities and issues as they pertain specifically to him because of these kinds of attitudes. I think the word “embarrassment” is important, as many people are made to feel that their experiences are less important because of their race, class, age, sex, etc. Stereotypes help the attitude spread and persist by 1) creating one version of a group of people, and 2) depicting these people as deviations from the norm that shouldn’t be taken seriously. Delany also said that “somehow [to speak of gay oppression in the context of racial oppression] was to speak of the personal” (204), rather than the general. It was to speak of individual concerns rather than speaking of issues as they pertain to everyone. Delany also makes a clear connection, if not between sexuality and race, then at least between race and class. He describes racial oppression as “vast political and imperialist and nationalist systemics” (perhaps a general definition of racial oppression) as well as “material deprivation,” defining it by the physical and economic suffering as a result of race discrimination. Race and class seem to be inseparable by Delany’s definition.
They are correct in saying that Delany “ignores the core feminist insight that ‘the personal is political’” (205); but I think that his use of past tense signifies that he may have learned this by the time of his statement. Despite being told from several sides that his individual experience matters little compared with the similarity between the experiences of all gay men or all black men (or all men), Delany seems now to understand that the total experience has value, too.
In my life, there have been times when I brought up aspects of race, sex, gender, or other identities in a conversation only to have others roll their eyes or tell me I’m over-reacting by pointing out that the issue has many parts and influences. I get the same response when I point out sexism, heterosexism, racism, or other problems in people’s language or behavior. Recently, someone told me that people who are against racist jokes don’t understand that it’s a joke. When I tried to explain to her that humor can still be used to perpetuate negative attitudes about groups of people and contribute to poor treatment, she discounted my input because she was a Psychology major--which apparently makes her better and more qualified to talk about social concerns than a Women’s Studies major completing a certificate in LGBT Studies. (She is also white discussing how racism impacts minority groups (or doesn’t, in her opinion) with a member of a racial minority). These things don’t even become an issue in a conversation until someone refuses to acknowledge that we have problems based on identity and perception.
No comments:
Post a Comment