This week I would like to point out how Arienne Rich’s concept of ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ is sustained through popular culture; most specifically, through the state apparatus’ and the acceleration of images, as outlined by Althusser and Baudrillard. Compulsory heterosexuality outlines how individuals are forced to conform to and ‘desire’ heterosexuality. This sees heterosexuality as an institution, one that affects everyone. Trying to understand how individuals are convinced to assume they are heterosexual one can use Baudrillard’s concepts of acceleration and deceleration; on a daily basis individuals are bombarded with images of positive and ‘normal’ heterosexuality as well as negative and ‘abnormal’ homosexuality. These images are pushed on us at an increasing rate. We (the masses) then slow down, or decelerate, to a point of apathy or indifference in which we don not question such images and just absorb their message of compulsory heterosexuality. Therefore, image and media representation of heterosexuality is one way we are all forced into the institution of heterosexuality.
In addition to Baudrillard, Althusser is also useful in explaining compulsory heterosexuality. In order to be profitable, those who own the means of production must insure that the conditions of reproduction are reproduced. Althusser looked specifically at the reproduction of the necessary labour. In order to constantly have labour, there must be a next generation; heterosexuality is still believed to be the only form of reproduction, and it still is the major form of reproduction. So, to ensure profit, one must ensure heterosexuality. Compulsory heterosexuality is maintained through the state apparatus’; the repressive state apparatus uses laws (for example, no same-sex marriages, “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies etc) within the government, military and other areas of the repressive state apparatus. Also, less obvious, the ideological state apparatus demands conformity to heterosexuality. For example, the ideal nuclear family is the standard, schools teach opposite sexes, ‘proper’ reproduction, and our culture assumes individuals to be heterosexual unless otherwise proved, and tells jokes that make homosexuality abnormal and heterosexuality implied.
1 comment:
We can also take Althusser further here and talk about how these endless images of normative heterosexuality interpellate us as heteronormative subjects. Let me know if I'm off-track here with the interpellation thing, but here's what I've got:
We watch TV - we follow Meredith and McDreamy on Grey's, and get a thrill from the intensity (and very heteronormative) unfolding of their star-crossed love only as long as we can identify ourselves within that discourse. If heteronormative intimacy/love had no appeal to me, Grey's Anatomy would have no appeal to me. But I recognize that I am being hailed in the sense that I can identify with (in my case) Meredith and thus I get queasy butterflies during elevator scenes. To an extent, if I cannot recognize myself in heteronormative ideology, my subjectivity would be dissolved in the instance of Grey's, because I could not be hailed by that heteronormative discourse and therefore could not be called into subjectivity.
Now I’m just pulling stuff out of my ass, but could we even tie this to Butler in the sense that this dissolving of subjectivity due to a lack of recognition of oneself within heteronormative discourse would be synonymous with or indicative of an unintelligible identity?
(For those of you who don't watch Grey's Anatomy, could we say that, because you could not recognize yourself as being hailed into my discussion, I dissolved your subjectivity?)
Post a Comment