Sexuality and Appendx :
|
Harvard's decision to remove the doors to the toilet stalls is ironic,
then, for their removal undermines the university's purpose and the conventionally
understood function of the men's room in several ways. Apart from
almost eliminating the usage of the toilets, it is especially ironic that
Harvard's endeavor to abolish the gay male sexual activity transpiring
in the privacy of the locked toilet stalls actually magnifies the overall
homoeroticism of this Science Center men's room. Conversely, the
doors have not been removed from the toilet stalls of the adjacent and
equally conveniently located Science Center women's room. Yet this
does not indicate that Harvard does not believe or suspect that lesbian
sexual activity occurs in its toilet stalls. Characteristic of patriarchy
is the invisibilizing and negation of lesbianism and the relegation and
production of lesbian sexual practice as male heterosexual fantasy.
Accordingly, when compared to Harvard's treatment of the Science Center
men's room, Harvard's decision not to remove the doors to the toilet stalls
in the women's room can be interpreted as a demonstration of Harvard's
complicity in the invisibilizing of lesbianism. Insofar as Harvard
openly acknowledges the danger that gay male sexuality poses for the patriarchal
system by forcing gay male sexual practice from the men's room, Harvard
responds defensively to the greater threat of lesbianism by not explicitly
addressing it at all.
Of course, the Appendx project is not more dynamically homoerotic
because of the omission of sexuality from the list of realities privileged
by its founding editors. On the contrary, for the reader unaware
of the theoretical contextualization of the reality of sexuality in the
founding editors' comprehension of "Blackness such that the term refers
not only to color and ethnicity, but also engages aspects of social technologies
and practices affecting a broader range of 'others,"' the opposite may
be effected. Since this reader will fail to recognize the various
ways in which sexuality informs and is included in the "range of'others"
identified with the term Up till that time, I felt much the same way about the declarations as I did about the doorless toilet stalls when I entered the Science Center men's room. For those men, like me, who realize the purpose for the removal of the stall doors, the suppression of gay male sexuality will always be associated, however subtly or blatantly, with the Science Center men's room. Similarly, for the reader who is aware of the cultural politics of sexuality but not aware of the theoretical standpoint of the founding editors, the "statement of intent" and "journal description" will probably be associated with the marginalization of people who are systematically oppressed because of their cultural sexualization or sexual orientation. Or, whereas it is unlikely for a man to fail to notice the absence of the stall doors, some men might not see the connection between the doorless toilet stalls and the queer aura of the Science Center men's room, just as the uninitiated reader of the declarations, who is oblivious to the cultural politics and immediate theoretical contextualization of sexuality, might not notice the omission of sexuality from the list of crucial realities. In this case, the reality of sexuality is silently elided, and everyone subjugated and tormented as a result of sexuality is still discursively dominated, exploited, and assaulted, however silently. Now that the founding editors' intentions are no longer ambiguous, it
is clear that the apparent omission of the reality of sexuality from the
declarations was really inadvertent, as it was merely theoretically contextualized
in a way inaccessible to readers like me. My experience with the
declarations has taught me that I must always keep in mind the danger of
exclusion when ideas are presented ambiguously. I cannot emphasize
enough the absolute necessity of inclusion, specific articulation, and
awareness. To ostensibly disregard or treat obscurely an important
reality when the intention is to be inclusive, to carelessly and speciously
lump together important realities when the intention is to differentiate,
to irresponsibly subsume or subordinate one reality under another when
the intention is to liberate, is to further negate and oppress the people
who live these realities. As proposed by the founding editors, and
demonstrated in the first issue of Appendx, we should challenge
"pervasive ide
|
"Blackness,"
this reader might interpret the omission of the reality of sexuality as
actually heterosexualizing the "critical space" Appendx intends
to construct. Indeed, this is exactly how I interpreted the "statement
of intent" and "journal description" when I first read them. For
me, at the very least, the omission of the reality of sexuality always
invokes the false and harmful assumption that heterosexuality is neutral
and universal. It was not until the theoretical framework to the
declarations was explained, to me by the founding editors that I came to
understand their meaning.
Bryan Reynolds