Manifesto

If I had to write my own contemporary manifesto about LGBT, queer, or sexual issues I would include what it means to fall into that category. This is so because a lot of people are still struggling to find out who they are and sometimes they go through really confusing parts of their lives where they just do not know what category they really fit into. But then I would go into how since they are people they do not belong into categories and just because your sexual orientation is a certain way that does not mean that they are not still an individual. Since they are an individual they should be treated as such.         Then I would talk about how everybody is a person and they should be treated as such. Part of treating a person as a person is to respect them enough to let them have their own feelings about who they are and not trying to change someone just because you do not agree. So because of both of those things I think I would try to have two different sections of the manifesto: the first section to people who are confused about who they are, and the second section would be for everyone to help them understand what being a good person should entail.         The format I would have in writing this manifesto would be one that did not have a lot of writing, maybe just some bullet points and a paragraph or two in each section. I would do it this way because not a lot of people are going to want to read something really long, and I would use this as a way to get the conversation going not just an ending point.

Internalized Homophobia

        If I were to write a contemporary manifesto related to LGBTQ issues it would be about internalized homophobia. I believe the subject of internalized homophobia is still rather new in the queer community even though it has been around since the beginning of queer history. It is a topic that is swept under the rug because as a progressive minority we don’t want to compare ourselves to people who are internalized racists. It is not only a difficult issue to think about, but most of us are unable to talk about it. What does it mean when we look at someone in our own culture and point out stereotypes about them that we do not want to be associated with? Because the outside world is plagued with labels about the queer community, how do we avoid labeling one another? It wasn’t until a year ago that the idea of internalized homophobia was introduced to me by my friend Jason. When he told me what is what and what it meant I immediately thought that it did not apply to me. As a person who continuously fights with society to break down what it means to be queer, how could I put my own culture in such a small box? As I began to think about myself and what the word lesbian was associated with, I began to unearth these feelings and resentments that had been building for years. I began to look at other lesbians, even my own partner, and see characteristics, that are commonly associated with lesbians, that I don’t want people to see in me. I believe that internalized homophobia is a major issue that the queer culture is avoiding and needs to be addressed in order to prevent negative labeling from within the queer community.

      I think it would be hard to connect and compare modern writing on internalized homophobia with that of early gay and lesbian thinkers because they spent more time trying to become accepted by the outside world, while the issues affecting the inner-workings of the queer community were left to brew. I can only imagine what some of the famous LGBTQ activists would think if they were brought to this time and presented with the problem of internalized homophobia.

Oscar Wilde

It’s interesting to me that Wilde, in his attempt to publicly identify a “love that dare not speak its name,” engages a conversation about pederasty, not queerness. As discussed in our class readings, what could possibly be conceived as contemporary, queer experiences were extensively existent long before Wilde’s birth in 1854. London’s notorious ~ Molly Houses ~ were ubiquitous in the 18^th century; men “deviating” from expected gender performances (read: masculinity) and engaging in sexual relations with other men were typical patrons of these early queer subcultures. It’s rather disappointing, then, that Wilde, who having been born nearly a century after the appearance of Molly Houses would most likely have frequented and/or at least known of their existence, chose to identify queer love as nothing more than pederasty.

Though, considering the violent realities many mollies faced (mob violence and hangings of mollies was a frequent, if not expected, phenomenon) it is easy to sympathize with Wilde’s obvious underscoring of queer realities in London. BUT STILL. Wilde’s need to hide behind pederasty is simply timid. Especially when discussing the process of naming ourselves in class (who gets to name us?), Wilde ignores the opportunity to assert his own authentic queer identity over the heterosexist judicial system (Charles Gill, etc.) that, instead, names him.  

Oscar Wilde

Oscar Wilde’s response was calculated and guarded, designed to show the love he was talking about in the best possible light, while attempting to refrain from labeling it with anything to which his enemies could latch on. Unfortunately for him, it was still pretty clear what he was talking about, and he ended up being sentenced to two years of hard labor along with the man he was being sentenced with. Interestingly, when sentencing him with the maximum punishment possible for the crime, the judge called it “totally inadequate for a case such as this”, though I don’t know if he meant there should be a stricter or lighter punishment.

For queers today, it is good that he basically admitted to the acts he was on trial for instead of lying. I’m sure if he’d gone along and acted repentant he would have gotten off scot-free, but instead he stuck with his acts, putting homosexuality in the spotlight and giving queers something to rally around. Being a somewhat outspoken homosexual is probably what he’s remembered best for today, which is something to keep in mind next time it seems easier to lie than to say what’s right.

The Bashful Magistrate

At Oscar Wilde’s sentencing, Justice Wills, the presiding magistrate, claimed that the crime of homosexuality “is so bad that one has to put stern restraint upon one's self to prevent one's self from describing, in language which [he] would rather not use” the feelings “in the breast of every man of honor who has heard the details of these […] trials” (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/wilde/sentence.html). If Wilde’s love dares not to speak its name, then I am curious why the law cannot name it either, even at the moment of Wilde’s punishment. Why is it that, while the criminal species of the homosexual was being constructed actively by sexologists, criminologists and psychologists, the law could only fail to state a judgment that would do justice to the criminal aberration that queerness came to signify?

            This piece will be too short to answer this question. But the judge’s rhetoric at sentencing is illuminating for two reasons: (1) it reveals that the law recoils from Wilde’s queerness even as it strives to incarcerate his unruly body, and (2) it reveals that Wilde is rhetorically positioned as irredeemable—that queers are, as a class, irredeemable before the law. Justice Wills claims that “It is no use for […] to address” Wilde, for “people who can do these things must be dead to all sense of shame, and one cannot hope to produce an effect upon them”   (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/wilde/sentence.html).  This irredeemability is structurally similar to a condition of fallen-ness, of sinfulness before God; Wilde is therefore a being fit only for punishment, not for social rehabilitation; as a queer, he is good only for spectacular punishment. Wilde must be made into a canvas onto which an antiqueer society can write its judgments; his body must be made available to their punishments.

It is because queer people are “dead to shame” that the law has nothing to offer but its harshest punishments. Justice Wills imposes the maximum legal penalty on Wilde, but concedes “it is totally inadequate for a case such as this” ((http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/wilde/sentence.html). Because Wilde’s love is unspeakable—unimaginable—Justice Wills is forced to concede that no criminal sentence would be appropriate to remedy the violation of law in the eyes of the law, because the crime is one that is shameless and which the (queer) criminal is unable to be rehabilitated from. Queerness is excessive to any criminal category; something shameful in the act of queer loving is wholly irreconcilable with the justice of straight societies. We might tentatively conclude then that queers are not ‘equal’ before the law at Wilde’s trial, but are rather ‘vulnerable before the law,’ made available to the law’s judgment in a way that straight people would not have to experience.  

Oscar Wilde's defense of Queer love is one without apology - he wishes not to gain the approval or sympathies of the court by appealing to any of their biases, dispositions or beliefs. He merely wishes to tell his truth: a queer love is not an unnatural love, and that this love certainly IS a love whose name should be spoken of. 

In regard to Wilde's rhetoric, his overall argument does not explicitly reflect himself - he is essentially speaking in third person. Although it may seem elementary, he uses this strategy to divert the argument from Gill's initial accusation. Rather, Wilde uses the defense as an opportunity to speak about a love that is not only his, but shared by many others as well, all of whom he aims to defend. Furthermore, Wilde draws on incredibly influential, intellectual and well respected men in history to prove his point - drawing on ethos to guide the opinion of his persecutor. He states that Queer love "dictates and pervades" the great works of Shakespeare and Michelangelo; it exists in ever word, every stanza, every moment of the great love stories - it is as pure and beautiful as that of Romeo and Juliet (if we can really call this a "great love" - but historically, the comparison works). 

Lastly, and powerfully, Wilde explains that this love is "so much misunderstood" by criticizing the world that it exists in. This love is SO pure, so beautiful, and so fine that it can not be understood in a world that would mock such a love, and "put one in the pillory for it." 

Then and Now

By referencing the Ancient Greeks, and other societies in which pederasty existed, Wilde historically grounds himself. While the individuals who are prosecuting him in court may not have known explicitly what we read in Finding Out, Wilde names iconic couples and figures, so that he literally has years of history backing his case. Connecting with the first two chapters of the aforementioned book, it was stated, essentially, that as Western Europe and the United States embraced imperialism and moved into other countries, the practice of pederasty diminished in certain cultures. The absence of culturally-sanctioned pederasty would have kept Europe and the US isolated from encountering this practice, setting it up in a “us-versus-them” situation when Western individuals were finally exposed to it. And when cultures encounter new or different practices, they are unlikely to take to them right away. In addition to this, the Judeo-Christian climate of Europe would have exposed most people to the “anti-gay” verses in the Bible, and put their minds in a moral setting which banned sodomy or same-sex love (for the most part); Wilde confronts this in his line about David and Jonathan. It is misunderstood because the public believed it to be a sin, while, as Wilde puts it, it was an intellectual relationship which was actually beneficial to both individuals.

We can link this to the birth of the modern homosexual through the different ways that society has tried to “figure out” gay people, such as through science or socialization theories. A dominant and pervasive opinion that vilifies something that is not experienced by the majority, often crushes the voices of the oppressed group, eliminating their ability to tell their story. Thus, they become misunderstood. 

self-defense

"It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors." -from the preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray

When I read Oscar Wilde’s self-defense on trial, charged with sodomy, I thought about the preface to his slim novel The Picture of Dorian Gray.  One of the lines that has always stood out to me was this: “It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.” Its placement in the preface to Dorian Gray is important.  However this line is interpreted, its function is to contextualize the novel, to assist in producing an interpretive framework for Wilde’s most influential work of art.

But what does he mean, and what is the connection to his trial?  Oscar Wilde was interested in aesthetics, “art for art’s sake,” but its a fool who doesn’t pick up on a vicious and brilliantly observed kind of subversive politics coursing through his works.  When you read one of his stories, Wilde felt, and strongly, that the wise reader would see themselves, the people, and the world around them--not the author, or even the characters.  The story to the you, like the preface to the story, offers distance, and a chance to reframe.

The trial, judgement, and popular condemnation of queer people throughout history has been little else but a vanity mirror for a heterosexist society.  The force with which vast and complex ruling bodies have come down unanimously on queer people throughout history like Oscar Wilde, Sylvia Rivera, and Cece McDonald has been absolute. It is disappointing that Wilde’s wandering appeal--to historical predecessors, to the universal aspect of love, to the equalizing intent of the law--sounds a lot like a keynote you’d hear at a big ticket HRC event today.  It’s degrading to have legally defend your love, because it is absolutely ludicrous and revolting to be put on trial for it.  Oscar Wilde’s speech is an ingenious rhetorical manipulation of his anti-gay social/political/legal landscape, but continues to exist as an artifact of the durability of regressive, conservative, anti-gay ideology.

Wilde's Love

A couple of my favorite lines from Wilde’s response to the attack on his sexuality include “there is nothing unnatural about it” and “it is that deep, spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect”. It is clear that because of the time period, Wilde was unable to say, for his own reputation and safety, that he was in love with another man. Therefore, while I didn't love the fact that he stuck to the argument that his relationship was acceptable because of the age of the two men and the pure nature of the relationship, it is understood that this was practically required of him. It is also therefore impressive that he was able to say so eloquently that this kind of relationship was perfectly fine without criminalizing himself. 

Wilde's rhetorical strategies include his comparisons to other well regarded figures such as Shakespeare and Michelangelo, his explanation of this relationship in a way that could make someone who hasn't had this kind of affection with a man feel jealous of it's pure, deep, intellectual nature, and his attention to detail of his wording as to avoid any sexual references. It is known that at Wilde's time, homosexuality was "so much misunderstood", and therefore constantly criminalized, ridiculed, and mocked. Honestly, I think Wilde's response was brilliantly strong, yet not overbearingly so, so that he could avoid being punished for the relationship he had. Although Wilde couldn't explicitly say he supported the love between people of the same sex, Wilde surely helped pave the way for future activism in support of homosexual love. We <3 Wilde.

1.27.14, Toni Calabrese-Thomas

   

"The Love that dare not speak its name"

Oscar Wilde’s explanation of “the love that dare not speak its name” created a big impact on the idea of homosexuality amongst his century. His ideas of very profound works of art and literature, such as the basis of philosophy by Plato and artwork by Michelangelo, build a strong argument of awareness in a hesitated topic that has been growing amongst the community. The rhetorical strategy of personification is used to explain that his idea of love is something authentic and real. For example, love is “beautiful”, “fine”, and “intellectual”. Love is being described as something feminine and elegant, but yet strong and endearing. Here, Wilde’s idea is to draw attention to the idea that homosexuality is powerful and growing. In reality, “the Love that dare not speak its name” is speaking out, not by words physically spoken, but by sonnets, verses, passages, and/or other works of great art that gives a deeper meaning and familiarity. In perspective, the world misunderstands this concept because it hides behind the fact that this type of love is realistic and occurring. By the works of these great writers, queerness has become a profound and growing topic in which others can relate and be expressive. 

Wilde's Argument - Sarah McKinley

Sarah McKinley
Blog Post #1 - Wilde

      Wilde appeals to historical great minds' representation of and participation in same-sex intimacy to legitimize contemporary same-sex intimacy in the minds of his accusers. He uses elevated artists like Michelangelo and Shakespeare and philosophers like Plato in his rhetoric to articulate not only that same-sex intimacy is natural, but also socially beneficial (I am recalling our class discussion related to capitalism) and perhaps an element of the creative process. He removes desire from same-sex intimacy in the minds of his accusers and instead paints it as intellectual, noble, and even platonic. Wilde presents a problematic, yet necessary given his delicate position, defense of same-sex intimacy that calls the dominant culture perverse for misunderstanding and sexualizing something that Wilde asserts is not sexual. He turns the prosecution's argument on its head. He calls same-sex intimate relationships “spiritual,” appealing to religious values of the culture.

     A strategy Wilde uses to desexualize same-sex intimacy in this context is to recall an image of Greek pederasty and to rename instances of contemporary same-sex intimacy as pederastic. “It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between an elder and a younger man, when the elder man has intellect, and the younger man has all the joy, hope and glamour of life before him,” he says. He justifies his own deviant sexuality to the dominant culture as something grounded in apprenticeship rather than desire. This is of course problematic but also brilliant to appeal to a sensibility that elevates Greek culture. It denies reality, but also resists apology.

It is of my personal opinion that Wilde was speaking directly when he wrote that “There is nothing unnatural about it”. He argues that queerness is no different than heterosexuality. His examples of pederasty and his mention of important, well-known queer men of the past, as well as his referring to homosexuality as intelligent, was his way of trying to mold homosexuality into something that his accusers could perceive as sophisticated and arguably scientific. I think that this is the point which resonates the most with the present-time battle for queer-love. I think about Lady Gaga’s song, “Born This Way” and the common misconception that doing, acting, or watching something can turn a person queer.  It’s a topic that we will also be talking about in class when we cover the neuroscience unit. I do believe that in pointing out the historical figures of the past –in the same way we use him now—was a good move towards making a point that should not have been ignored, (especially since fame, status, and power seem to be the however, his reference to pederasty, I feel were counterproductive. 

        Wilde helps to defend the “love that dare not speak its name” by bringing up people and sonnets from his history that also refer to this same kind of love. This was done so then the prosecutors would then rethink their position, because if they admired these people from the past who had such prestige such as: Plato, Shakespeare and Michelangelo who also thought the same way then it would be contradictory to punish Wilde for the same thing. Wilde also brings up all of the things that this relationship would bring about in the individuals involved. Such as, how this deep spiritual affection that is pure and perfect. We can relate Wildes’ text to the birth of the modern homosexual because people sometimes still bring up relationships from the past that could be classified as queer now.
        Also, the way that I surmise that his kind of love is so misunderstood in his century, other than the fact that he says that it is misunderstood, is if it was not misunderstood then there would be no need for a trial. If everyone agreed upon a certain idea, construct, or action then there would be no need for a person to have to defend themselves, in court, and everyone would just be living life as usual.

Oscar Wilde

Oscar Wilde in this quote is attempting to defend himself against a court of law for engaging in relations with another man. In his quote, Wilde’s main rhetorical strategy is trying to convince the jury and judge that the ‘love that dare not speak its name’ is a good and positive love, that has been present in history for as long as history has been recorded. He is causing people to question what they have assumed and what they believe to know about the idea of same sex love among their prized historical figures. It is also important that in this trial Wilde is not trying to deny the charges against him, he isn't denying that he loves men. He owns up to his identity, to the fact that he loves men and is unwilling to lie about that. He is defending this identity of his. It is interesting how he chooses to only associate himself with queer men of the past, and specifically the love between an older man and a younger man.

            There are many ways in which is love is misunderstood, such as the idea that homosexuality and homosexual tendencies were viewed as a disease or sickness that needed to be remedied. We can see this in Wilde’s attempt to in this quote redefine his love as something ‘pure as it is perfect’ and ‘misunderstood’ in this court case, that he is fighting against the very strong negative discourse surrounding homosexuality and queerness of all kind. 

Love, Sex, and Power: Analysis of Wilde's 'Love that dare not speak its name'

Oscar Wilde contributes in this passage to the so-called “birth of the modern homosexual” by passionately describing the love of an older man for a younger in terms understood by the audience of his time. He compares this love to Michelangelo, and to Shakespeare, author of the great love story Romeo and Juliet. In a time when sodomy was often associated with paganism and used as a justification for colonialism, these comparisons were significant. It is perhaps what paved the way for sexology as well; if this love and longing was so innate and powerful that even great men like Shakespeare could find themselves afflicted with it, then was worthy of study.

Wilde also is referring to pederasty, love between an older and a younger man. In speaking in this sense, his rhetoric reflects a power dynamic also present in opposite sex relationships at the time. Because falling in love was something men should not do, that they should go to satisfy their “urges” in brothels rather than undermine the social system, this also portrays men as having all the agency in the relationship. This is partially reflected in Wilde’s defense, he describes the affection of an older man for a younger man, making the older man the one with agency, with urges. Yet, later, when he speaks of the intellect provided by the older man, and the joy by the younger, he does describe it as a mutually beneficial relationship where both parties contribute, even if those contributions are set in predetermined roles. In doing so, he his both reproducing, and challenging, what his audience might understand about sexual and romantic love. 

Life in the Wilde

Oscar Wilde’s response invokes the undeniable history of queer culture and the romantic relationship between men. The first sentence of his answer discusses pederasty, or the love between an older man and a younger man. Wilde illustrates how this love is as old as time is and has been written about through plays, sonnets and poetry since the beginning of man. Wilde tries to convince the court that the love he shares with his love is only the most natural sort of love and that both parties in the relationship serve to benefit from one another.   

In the time of Oscar Wilde’s life the term “homosexual” was created thus making a separation of sexuality. In the late 1800’s homosexuality was considered a disorder and was believed to undermine the social system whose priority was to create lineage and workers. I believed that although Oscar Wilde’s preferences were extremely misunderstood he was one of those few people who could be public about his sexuality and not face all of the consequences. Because he was a famous literary symbol and not to mention, extremely wealthy, he had the social standing to do what he liked. Even though he did face some scrutiny, I believe that his “coming out” actually made him even more popular and recognizable because his sexuality made him exotic and people wanted to read his work.

Wilde’s reaction to the court’s question about the love that should not be spoken relates to the modern era because he believes that nothing is wrong with it and is willing to publicly defend himself and his lover. It opens up a wide range of factors that go on in today’s court rooms with gay marriage on the table, where people are defending their right to love whoever they wish to love.

PROMPT FOR THE FIRST QC BLOGGING ASSIGNMENT

A towering figure in modern Queer History, Oscar Wilde made an impassioned if guarded defense of Queer love when Charles Gill, the prosecutor in the case against him, asked him to define "What is the love that dare not speak its name?":

• 'The Love that dare not speak its name' in this century is such a great affection of an elder for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, and such as you find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare. It is that deep, spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect. It dictates and pervades great works of art like those of Shakespeare and Michelangelo, and those two letters of mine, such as they are. It is in this century misunderstood, so much misunderstood that it may be described as the "Love that dare not speak its name," and on account of it I am placed where I am now. It is beautiful, it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. There is nothing unnatural about it. It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between an elder and a younger man, when the elder man has intellect, and the younger man has all the joy, hope and glamour of life before him. That it should be so the world does not understand. The world mocks at it and sometimes puts one in the pillory for it.

After our discussion today of chapters 1 and 2, comment and critique Wilde's explanation and defense of his love. What rhetorical strategies is he using to buttress his delicate position as he faces a court of law? In what way to you surmise that his kind of love is "so much misunderstood" in his century? How can we link this text to the so-called birth of the modern homosexual?

1) Comment briefly and critically.There is no minimum length, but do not feel compelled to write more than a couple paragraphs. INITIATE YOUR OWN BLOG POST.  Do not comment or reply to this post.

2) The questions following Wilde's quote aim to guide your reaction to it in the context of our readings.

3) However, it may very well be the case that in blogging about this quote you choose to frame your response to the text along different questions or concerns.

4) Feel free to deviate... Pun duly intended!