It is undoubtedly Hopkins' thesis that the best way to eliminate homophobia and heterosexism is to dismantle the categories of male and female. He achieves his point by highlighting the fact that although the masculine identity is supposedly "natural", there is a cultural impetus for boys and men to purposefully maintain their masculine aura, which (he says) contradictorily implies that the masculine identity is something that one has to intentionally work at and hone. It is necessary at this point to remember that natural abilities do need honing; if someone naturally is talented at music or sports, to actually achieve any prowess at said natural talent, one must "practice, practice, practice". Moving on, Hopkins chooses not to enlighten us with a discussion on just how socially constructed masculinity is, especially in comparison with "homosexual behavior". He does not make any claims about whether sexual orientation is constructed or not, and he also does not make any claims about how constructed the anti-masculine (or homosexual) identity is. This is important to know because there is a huge difference in the assertion that A) masculinity is a constructed identity and those who do not play into this identity are embracing a more natural state of being, and the other possibility B) that the homosexual identity is also a construction, just not one sired by society. I have a feeling that Hopkins is sympathetic with option A, but it is also possible that he is a social constructionist. But not knowing his point of view on this matter greatly distracts from the acceptance or rejection of his proposal. His proposal is slightly different than his thesis; his thesis is that "heterosexism" can only be completely eradicated if there are no sex-compulsory identities... his underlying proposal is that we should eradicate these identities because it would be better to not have gender have any influence over personhood whatsoever. In the end, I agree with Hopkins' thesis (if I allow myself the assumption of his categories of what heterosexism is), but I disagree with his proposal.
Being a woman implies heterosexuality, simply because that is accepted as the natural, healthy biological fact of being a woman for most of society. I am not sure in what way the word "enforce" is being used in the second part of the question.
Hi Summer,
ReplyDeleteYou raise an interesting point about practice and natural skills. I wonder if Hopkins' point can be supported by considering the differences between gender, and, for ex., musical talent. On the "traditional" account, gender is an essential part of personhood. Should a person have to practice his own identity? It seems a bit different from "talents" per say...yes?
Great questions too about where Hopkins stands on the "constructiveness" of sexuality and what the goals of deconstructing sex/gender categories should be, if not a more natural state. Good question for Butler too. Where, though, did you find support for A?
Stephanie
I would actually disagree that natural gender is so different than natural talents/dispositions for personhood. This is a purely anecdotal, subjective viewpoint, mind you, because I personally feel that studying philosophy and loving music is as much in my blood (not like a genetic thing though, ;) as being a woman is... maybe even more so!
ReplyDeleteAs for support of A... I guess I just got that vibe around page 429 when he talks of masculinity's "incessant self-monitoring", which, it seems, homosexuality lacks.