An aggressive impulse to generalize & Myth community
-
What is your opinion about the word "queer"? Do you find it useful, not useful? Are you ambivalent? Why?
In E. Patrick Johnson’s essay, he quotes Michael Warner, “The preference for ‘queer’ represents, among other things, an aggressive impulse of generalization; it rejects a minoritizing logic of toleration or simple political interest-representation in favour of a more thorough resistance to regimes of the normal.” The usage of the word queer often erases and ignores many queer folk specifically issues they face related to race and class. Since the term queer is meant for all LGBTQIA2+, it does not account for everyone and queer theory marginalizes people of colour. In Johnson’s essay, Isling Mack-Nataf said, “when I hear the word queer, I think of white, gay men.” I think that is indicative of whose perspective and issues are centralized in queer theory. But it makes me wonder why the the ruling or hegemonic class loves to make a general labels for people when these labels involve so much erasure? How do they benefit from making these classifications? This can be connected to Jasmine Zine’s concept of Exalted Subjects.
Jasmine Zine says that by talking, dressing, acting, and behaving like Canada’s exalted subjects which are white Canadians, it gives you national capital that you can use to better navigate this country and become more successful. The immigrants who have more national capital and have assimilated to white Canadian culture are closer to these exalted subjects. In this hegemonic country, erasing your “browness” or “Muslimness” and aligning yourself with whiteness will take you further. In the queer community, erasing aspects of yourself to align with white gay men might also provide national capital and/or provide community.
Jasmine Zine argues that this erasure does not guarantee you acceptance into the national community. She asserts the promise of community by assimilation is a myth and we will never actually be accepted. As I believe that I agree with this sentiment, I think queer people of colour should be wary of true acceptance in the queer community and true representation in queer theory. Zine goes on to say, “secularism masquerades as universalism and provides justification for curtailing religious freedom and choice.” By banning the hijab in Quebec soccer leagues, the choice is taken away from young Muslim girls to play soccer. Instead of providing universal rule for equality’s sake as they may have perhaps intended, the Quebec soccer league was simply exclusionary. As Zine’s third theme for gendered cultural politics in Canada—Death of Culture—outlines, the push for secularism is a product of the Québécois’ fear of losing their own culture and values. Zine asserts that in Canada, multiculturalism is seen as a threat to white privileges and entitlements for white Canadians.
So does shrinking yourself give you an invite to community? Do we even need these communities when we are all so different within it? Gloria Anzaldúa says that “queer is a false unifying umbrella, but at times we need this umbrella to solidify our ranks against outsiders.” As the female Muslim students that Homa Hoodfar interviewed have tried and failed to be understood by non-Muslim Québécoise and Anglo women, is community with exalted subjects even possible while maintaining your own identity?
