Week 8--Thinking about Home

I think Martin and Mohanty's article and thoughts about home, really connect to Persepolis for me.  They bring up the idea that home is supposed to be "where one live within familiar, safe, protected boundaries."  This reminded me of when Marjane went back "home" to Iran after being in Europe.  She had felt comfortable at home in Iran before she had left, though she felt somewhat constrained as to what she could do.  Then in Europe she had to make a new home for herself, in this place where she could do what she wanted, but at the same time, she was so alone and basically didn't belong.  Then when she gets back to Iran, everything is so different, and she feels weird, like she doesn't belong.  So does she have a home at that point?  She doesn't seem to have a home at all.  And she goes on to create a place and life for herself in Iran, but it still doesn't seem to be home.

I have always viewed "home" as exactly what Martin and Mohanty describe it as, "the place where one lives within familiar, safe, protected boundaries."  I also believe that you can have more than one home.  Personally, I call my camp, Bryn Mawr, and the places where I live with my parents to be home.  I was just thinking that when my mom moved to a new house, I still started calling it my home right away, but the house that I lived in up until that point will always be my home because of what it means to me.  Sometimes home can be tied more to the people who are constant in some places than just the places themselves.

This week in class, we talked a lot about community and the different concepts of "home," and our conversations reminded me of a conversation we had in the Core Gender Class last year about epistemic privilege. We talked a lot about the idea of exclusion from minorities, that minorities find a community in their marginalization, and thus actually make it impossible to band with other minorities or become de-marginalized because those who are not marginalized cannot reach out to them based on their lack of shared historical experiences, or lack of a shared "home." I thought this was a very pertinent thing to bring up with all this discussion of minorities banding together to "become" the majority, because it is a valid theory on why minorities cannot just band together magically.

Another pertinent article we read in that same class was by Michael Warner, and it was about the shared marginalized experiences of Christian fundamentalists and homosexuals. He argued that the two groups, although their ideologies are often considered polarizing and opposite, share a sense of marginalization in their minority. They also share exclusionary communities that give them a similar way of combining their ideology with their society.

In my Political Philosophy course this semester we read an article about a theory that people who live within diverse communities are the most inactive and most introverted and afraid people in the country. The theory was that there was more competition-driven productivity in more diverse areas, but there was less mixing of people and more people purposely excluding themselves from their neighborhoods. I think this is interesting when studied hand-in-hand with the "Home" article, which says that to not be home anymore means to realize that home was an illusion of coherence and safety based on exclusion of histories of oppression and resistance. It also states that there is a "jungle" outside of the home. Perhaps this theory of diverse communities being less able to trust each other has to do with the shattering of a sense of home or community. It definitely supports the theory that a community is based on shared and exclusionary values because if people in diverse neighborhoods do not have enough shared values or "homes" with the people who live around them, they lose their ability or motivation to trust one another.

In class, anne asked for some metaphors for our own home, and I was disappointed that we only heard one or two, because I think those personal metaphors are key to seeing variations in our interpretations of what home means.  When I thought about my own home, I thought of "base" in a game of tag.  There is at least some sense of safety or security-- even if it's less than ideal -- but at the same time, at base, we miss out on the "fun" that's happening around us -- the game of tag -- or, speaking outside the metaphor, taking risks, exploring the world and ourselves.

When that gets to hectic, we can come back to home base.

At every turn in Martin and Mohanty’s article I was reminded of an incident in a course of mine last semester. It happened during a discussion of an essay by bell hooks, where we were talking about the ways in which what we called “the feminist movement” (a term that these past few readings have called into question… is there really ONE movement? I don’t think so) had strategically oppressed minorities in order to operate effectively politically (or perhaps just because the majority of the women in the movement did not resist this marginalization) – black women marching in the back of “first-wave” feminist parades, etc. A girl in my class raised her hand, and commented in a lighthearted yet serious tone – “well, you know, sometimes it’s just too much to keep in mind!” This statement of hers has stayed with me, and I think her phrasing so eloquently illustrates the problem which Pratt, Martin, and Mohanty are trying to articulate… “what passes itself off as simply human, as universal, as unconstrained by identity, namely, the position of the white middle class” (203). When this student said that “sometimes it’s just too much to keep in mind”, she spoke out of the position of the white middle class, in a language which defines other races, sexualities, and classes as additions or afterthoughts. Indeed, it defines these “others” as politically messy territory, and differences which may challenge the fabric of “feminism”.

Mohanty and Martin suggest that a better way to be politically effective than marginalization is a politics of intimacy, where connections are “made at levels other than abstract political interests” (205). I think Takagi is getting at something similar when she asks about the moment of difference meeting difference, “queer meets Asian”, and how to “engage in dialogue” (30). Takagi says that marginalization is not enough in common. The fact that both of you are oppressed is not enough to guarantee effective dialogue. It seems like intimacy might be what is necessary. Intimacy could be what creates a dialogue that isn’t based on categories, on people as objects, but on people as subjects, who are always something more than their given/taken categories.

She describes her fear of coming out as a lesbian, and thus becoming lost in people’s ideas of the category of lesbian… becoming fit into the general stereotype by virtue of sharing personal information. I think there is one way in which labels serve as conversation stoppers (like heterflexible did for Anne in her meeting), but they can also serve as a moment of intimacy, and as a conversation generator… as long as we remember Judith Butler’s caveat that she is willing to “appear” as a lesbian, as long as it always remains “unclear” what that even means…

I found this piece really interesting. I also think it definitely has more of a clear feminist angle than some of the other literature we have been reading. For example, Cristy Chung says, "It's never the same for a woman of color, a person of color, in the world" (7). This quote resonates with the key feature of this article that I was drawn to most, and that is how Asian Americans and other Americans of color have a double burden to bear within the realm of sexual orientation: sexuality and race.

This article talks about the Asian American gay, lesbian and bisexual community, and continues broadens this subject to people of color. The aspect I focused on while reading this was the fact that not only do Asian Americans and other Americans of color have to overcome their own cultural stereotypes of "queerness," they also have to confront the white majority. And even if there are white queer organizations (where one would think people would be accepted no matter their race, because after all, they are all dealing with the same issues), being a person of color still is an obstacle to overcome. There are examples of these two struggles provided in the article. The first shows how it is difficult for an Asian American to confront their sexual identity and make their decision known, whether it be to in the personal or public arena. Eric C. Wat says that, "As Hong Kong immigrants, his parents separate his gay identity from his familial and cultural one" (5). He then looks at the case of a Vietnamese immigrant who was beaten by a group of white males in California. The media stated that this was an incident of gay-bashing, while the Asian media "assured its readers that the victim was not gay and was beaten because of his race" (5).

As I said before, Asian Americans also carry an additional burden of their race. Gil Mangaoang describes how he felt the need to keep his homosexuality a secret while being a Filipino activist in the United States. He said his situation was problematic because during the time of the 1970's, there were few gay organizations that were not dominated by white males. He said, "Minorities who were members of these gay organizations were generally seen as subordinates reflecting the dominant racist attitudes in sociey" (6).

I just find it terrible and disappointing when minorities (in this case gay, white men or women) discriminate against other minorities (gay men or women of color) because they feel the other is more of a  minority than they are. In reality, they are fighting the same battle for acceptance in the realm of sexual orentation.This concept just upsets me because I feel that when you are a minority you should be banding together, not making extra and unnecessary divisions. This relates to the concept of finding "home," because this distances people even further from finding a place or state of mind to call "home." How can you feel comfortable if other people like you are not accepting of you?