Spring Break
Queer language: Not so concerned with getting it straight
Thomas Dieter
Issue date: 11/10/09 Section: Forum
Talking about queer things is not as easy as it looks.
Oh, we queers have plenty of moles operating in straight people's offices, schools and hospitals. We are also in the military and manage to have sex lives, but don't tell anyone, okay?
From where I stand, it appears that we service straight people daily in more ways than one. But, when it comes to finding our voice amid the white noise of straight people, let's face it, we sound a little gay sometimes.
There are two categories of failed queer-language logic that strike me. They are vast generalizations and probably should not be charged with creating the foundations for a theory of anything. So there but by the grace of my Kanye West sunglasses go I.
Let's call the first category the "oh-my-god-did-you-see-Britney?" category. By referencing current pop culture icons like Britney or Kanye, the individuals who employ the "OMG, DYSB?" category of queer logic often already play into the current reigning political structure (and by politics, I mean Hollywood).
These figures gain access to the means of production (they are, like, on my favorite reality shows and YouTube videos!) insofar as they do not actually say anything of lasting importance. In a hegemony which absorbs dissent by embracing it fully, these queers get written off like Paris. Unfortunate. That's so un-hot.
The second category is the "you-be-crazy" category. "YBC" refers to the stuff labeled "too offensive" by most people, even liberals. This language succeeds in achieving a great deal of distance from typically debated issues (and standpoints) by virtue of itself. In this category, we pretty much know already that queerdom is affirmative rather than reactionary.
But queerness, in its self-purported freedom, does not always rub up against the heteros so well (but not out of lack of trying). After all, in the context of straight values and beliefs, queers at times embody certain taboos.
As far as I can tell, a basic premise of queer dialogue involves the inclusion of difference. It is an unfortunate coincidence, then, that different perspectives are often labeled "offensive" or "inappropriate."
Oh, we queers have plenty of moles operating in straight people's offices, schools and hospitals. We are also in the military and manage to have sex lives, but don't tell anyone, okay?
From where I stand, it appears that we service straight people daily in more ways than one. But, when it comes to finding our voice amid the white noise of straight people, let's face it, we sound a little gay sometimes.
There are two categories of failed queer-language logic that strike me. They are vast generalizations and probably should not be charged with creating the foundations for a theory of anything. So there but by the grace of my Kanye West sunglasses go I.
Let's call the first category the "oh-my-god-did-you-see-Britney?" category. By referencing current pop culture icons like Britney or Kanye, the individuals who employ the "OMG, DYSB?" category of queer logic often already play into the current reigning political structure (and by politics, I mean Hollywood).
These figures gain access to the means of production (they are, like, on my favorite reality shows and YouTube videos!) insofar as they do not actually say anything of lasting importance. In a hegemony which absorbs dissent by embracing it fully, these queers get written off like Paris. Unfortunate. That's so un-hot.
The second category is the "you-be-crazy" category. "YBC" refers to the stuff labeled "too offensive" by most people, even liberals. This language succeeds in achieving a great deal of distance from typically debated issues (and standpoints) by virtue of itself. In this category, we pretty much know already that queerdom is affirmative rather than reactionary.
But queerness, in its self-purported freedom, does not always rub up against the heteros so well (but not out of lack of trying). After all, in the context of straight values and beliefs, queers at times embody certain taboos.
As far as I can tell, a basic premise of queer dialogue involves the inclusion of difference. It is an unfortunate coincidence, then, that different perspectives are often labeled "offensive" or "inappropriate."
Note: writers will not reply to comments.
Be the first to comment on this story
Comments by registered users are approved by default.