Something that I think is worth looking closer at is how the ideas of queer and racial identities evolved in our class over the semester. I think it’s interesting to note how our discussions of both queer and racial identity have been framed. Queer has been equated to a gay man or lesbian and race is either black or white. At the beginning of the semester we discussed what queer might mean in theory and what the “umbrella term” might cover. But all of our reading assignments, which heavily frame out discussions, have stuck to this dichotomy. Both queer and race have become so narrowly defined that they became exclusive rather then inclusive.
Watching this slow narrowing of terms that I had always envisioned as incredibly broad suprised me a great deal. Maybe I was expecting a more diverse range of authors and stories from this class. Sure there were glimpses of diversity with Arnaldo Cruz-Malave, some references to queens , and a little talk of different fetishes. But where are the bisexuals , transgendered, or those queers so enigmatic as to be unclassifiable? Where were the Asians, Indians, Middle Easterners, Latin Americanss, etc? Does literature by Persian Transgendered individuals just not exist? (Or maybe it’s just not very good literature?)
I can rationalize the lack of both queer and racial diversity in out course materials because it may not have been as productive of a class or the class may have lasted for near five years if we had discussed everything and everyone under the sun. However, I think it’s very interesting that in our discussions we never strayed away from the texts to discuss these various aspects of queer and racial identities. We strayed to things like the House of Gaga and Noah’s Ark but not to transsexuality?
But there is a wide range of literature by a plethora of Queer authors out there. Here are some interesting links that I found that I hope will act as a leaping off point for further exploration:
We’ve all taken literature classes. At UMD, they’re usually called “English.” In my middle and high schools they called them “Language Arts,” and in elementary school we just called it “reading” and “writing.” But no matter what name you use, the classes almost always have the same gist: this is literature, read it. We’re taught that literature is narrative fiction (not non-fiction or poetry) that is well-written (as based on a Westernized, patriarchal, upper- or middle- class white aesthetic) with themes that are relevant to that same aesthetic. There’s a Western canon of literature from the Greeks through the Romantics and the Humanists to the Modernists, and it’s easy to identify its contents: The Iliad, The Great Gatsby, Romeo and Juliet. The books that everyone reads if they want to know “literature.” I did had some great teachers in high school that tried to stray from this limited vision of literature, but even they were constrained by student/parent expectations and department/ school district curriculum policy. These policies and expectations generally boil down to this lesson plan: teach “literature” all semester, but you can add one “other” book of your choice.
This unfortunately-common practice is much like the practice of random inclusion we discussed in class last week. We talked about how the presence of, say, one woman of color at a conference of white feminists makes the conference neither diverse nor inclusive. The fact that not every woman at the conference is white does not necessarily make the group more open to challenging or changing the dominant perspective– to use our language from class, this presence does not say anything of the proximities of the woman of color within the movement or of the movement to the woman of color.
The same random inclusion is very popular in literature-education today. As an English major, I’m irritated by the major’s relatively specific course requirements for American and European writing (basically five or six required courses) but sole course requirement for “Literature of African Americans, Peoples of Color, Women, and/or Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals.” I think the issue is even more acute in the area of teaching English, so I looked at the requirements for the English side of the English education program. I’d like to clarify that I’m not criticizing the English or Education departments, but rather the systemic issues that make these things necessary to maintain accreditation.
There are 13 required courses: 5 core courses, 5 British and American concentration courses, and 3 miscellaneous courses. Out of the dozen or so emphases offered for English majors (from Film and New Media Studies to Mythology and Folklore), education majors have their emphases literally chosen for them: American and British. Three credits of the English-ed program are in the “Women/Minority” category, and unless the student chooses carefully from one of the miscellaneous categories, they’re likely to graduate without having taken any course with literature outside of the US and Europe.
While I understand the benefits of having some sort of consistency in curriculum across the country, I think the ethnocentricity of focusing on only the Westernized, patriarchal, upper- or middle- class white aesthetic has severe consequences in limiting the ways in which students can imagine alternative ways of thinking, knowing, and doing.