Theoretical Connections
John Marble's note about the BYT party and the craigslist M4M ads posted in it's wake reminded me of this video (above) from Jed Brubaker, a guy I met at the last TNG party. Jed is a graduate student in communications and technology, and craigslist “missed connections” are an interest of his. I’ve never read Jed’s research, and to be quite honest, his video (above) confuses me. I'll be the first to admit that maybe I'm not smart enough to figure out queer theory (Foucault? Gobbeldy-Gook), but I am intrigued by how gay identity is decided and debated online in ways that don’t take place offline, and done so in a way that the entire world can take part in, whether through craigslist, Facebook, or even here on TNG.
Jed mentions in this post a particular craigslist debate that is often evident on TNG as well: the dissatisfaction with mainstream gay culture felt by gay people who live in DC. As with TNG, the responses to one man's post about his dissatisfaction were fierce, cuminating in a discussion about identity which transcended the individual who made the post. In referencing another writer, Jed goes on to mention how “modern group identities are built on collective experience.” Being that our gay identity is “fractured,” and not completely homogenized, I suppose such a furious online dialogue is understandable among people who have had very different gay cultural experiences.
While going online seems to provide more options for communicating, connecting, and understanding one another, It's probably worth our time to ask ourselves if the medium of online interaction is ultimately a boon or a burden. I’m the first to admit that it might be a mixed bag.
I’ve certainly grown in understanding and patience since I’ve started contributing to TNG, and it’s made me reflect on my life and beliefs and helped me organize my thinking. For me, getting other people involved in the same process of discussion and refelction was a central appeal. But what about potential downsides? People are often mean and dismissive online, often because they can be so anonymously. Does cultivating these behaviors online translate to being assholes in “reality”?” Does the effect of community “policing” that takes place during online interactions a sum positive or a negative? Is there such a thing as too many options for connection? Are we all better served by unplugging completely in favor of a much smaller real world?
7 comments:
In the video a fellow (the "poster") posts on Craigslist's Missed Connections three times. In the real world, the poster was separated from an object of his affection (his "crush") three different times. Each time, the crush expressed, through gaze or word, an intention to meet the poster. At the same time, some physical thing - a door or a phone - kept them apart. It seems each of three crushes lacked integrity.
In Cyberspace the poster is never given positive suggestions for how to meet and engage lastingly with potential mates. Instead he gets a constant "no". The implied statement - the lesson - is that he cannot meet men. This from a forum intended to help people meet.
Is gay culture isolating ? Are we responding to HIV and other STDs by boomeranging back to rigid boundaries from the 1950s ? Maybe the crushes visit the Cyberspace dialog often enough to have learned the lesson. Maybe this is why they lack integrity. Maybe in their own lives they desire not to be alone yet believe they have no other choice. I hope the poster does not learn this lesson, though it seems inevitable that he will.
If we are being called to a referendum, I vote for being open. For loving men in the moment. For inviting sacredness into our sexuality, using it neither too loosely nor too tightly. For having integrity, matching our words and actions. For keeping clear boundaries. For being available to love one another. And for watching the drama of closing doors, missed connections, and Foucaultian disciplinarization fall away. Like the poster, I seek to enjoy the gift of being gay.
Just curious, what is "Foucaultian disciplinarization?"
That's a question I've asked myself: Is gay culture becoming more isolating? Going online for sex is efficient and usually means less social interaction for our community, but even the club venues haven't provided much room for us to relate on a level that extends beyond the sexual. How do you suggest we approach, as you say--
"loving men in the moment. For inviting sacredness into our sexuality, using it neither too loosely nor too tightly. For having integrity, matching our words and actions. For keeping clear boundaries. For being available to love one another. And for watching the drama of closing doors, missed connections, and Foucaultian disciplinarization fall away"
We need meaningful interaction to accomplish this, no? Is an online forum a place where this can be accomplished? You seem to imply that it's not.
Disciplinarization is mentioned in a quote during the video. The way I understand it (and a philosophy major should double-check this), disciplinarization means that people's actions can lump together to create a social control that nobody intended. In the video, people's actions combine into a control that teaches gay men there is no acceptable way for them to connect, so they stay isolated. Disciplinarization in the video is created largely through people's lack of integrity - by the difference between the characters' indicated intention, and actual action. So the weapon against isolation is integrity.
The online forum in the video was not a place for positive interaction; it was a place where the main character was given a negative message - and in fact was part of the disciplinarization because it declared an intention to bring people together, but acted to keep them isolated. But in real life an online forum CAN be a good place for meaningful interaction. It is happening at this moment, in fact!
As to other venues for meaningful contact ? Just about any place has potential. Meaningful contact comes when I am open to other people. What I mean by being open is, being willing to engage in a spoken or physical dialog, or a combination of the two. So the state of openness can happen anywhere.
What is difficult for me is that I wait for other people to show they are open to me first; or worse yet, I wait for the "right people" to show they are open to me. So I spend a lot of time waiting. And that's a pretty isolating experience.
With sex, I think we are doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Sex, or physical contact in general, is a delightful thing to share with someone (or several someones). But a lot of guys make it exclusively a physical thing; like some sort of athletic event. So then my partner and I are isolated from each other. Which feels so empty to me. Why not let sex have meaning as a beautiful way to connect IN THE MOMENT, and enjoy it with many people in many moments ? If sex is merely athletic, I might as well just go for a jog.
So my homework after all this writing is to be open to people regardless of their appearance or social status; and to have integrity between my words and actions.
Oh - if my understanding of disciplinarization is totally wrong, I hope someone will shed better light on it! ;)
Disciplinarization is mentioned in a quote during the video. The way I understand it (and a philosophy major should double-check this), disciplinarization means that people's actions can lump together to create a social control that nobody intended. In the video, people's actions combine into a control that teaches gay men there is no acceptable way for them to connect, so they stay isolated. Disciplinarization in the video is created largely through people's lack of integrity - by the difference between the characters' indicated intention, and actual action. So the weapon against isolation is integrity.
The online forum in the video was not a place for positive interaction; it was a place where the main character was given a negative message - and in fact was part of the disciplinarization because it declared an intention to bring people together, but acted to keep them isolated. But in real life an online forum CAN be a good place for meaningful interaction. It is happening at this moment, in fact!
As to other venues for meaningful contact ? Just about any place has potential. Meaningful contact comes when I am open to other people. What I mean by being open is, being willing to engage in a spoken or physical dialog, or a combination of the two. So the state of openness can happen anywhere.
What is difficult for me is that I wait for other people to show they are open to me first; or worse yet, I wait for the "right people" to show they are open to me. So I spend a lot of time waiting. And that's a pretty isolating experience.
With sex, I think we are doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Sex, or physical contact in general, is a delightful thing to share with someone (or several someones). But a lot of guys make it exclusively a physical thing; like some sort of athletic event. So then my partner and I are isolated from each other. Which feels so empty to me. Why not let sex have meaning as a beautiful way to connect IN THE MOMENT, and enjoy it with many people in many moments ? If sex is merely athletic, I might as well just go for a jog.
So my homework after all this writing is to be open to people regardless of their appearance or social status; and to have integrity between my words and actions.
Oh - if my understanding of disciplinarization is totally wrong, I hope someone will shed better light on it! ;)
Thanks for clearing that up. I too am interested in how one can achieve greater openness, not just in one to one interactions, but on a group level, maintaining the room for opinions without creating this sense of "disciplinarization" you define.
The posting in the video came from Michael Foucault's (pronounced [mikel fuko]) work titled Society Must Be Defended as was stated in the posting. This work of Foucault's is an examination of relations between war and politics from 1971 until his death in 1984. The use of the term disciplinarization is used in relation to knowledge.
Disciplinary second definition means of or relating to a particularly field of study (disciplinary specialization) it could be a form of those two words. When foucault uses this term it is in relationship to the suppression of knowledge - the censorship of statements as the post stated.
It could also lend itself to the idea of disciplinary techniques largely used on organizations by the state as Foucault used the terms "disciplinarization of the states" - It is a very intriguing combination of words.
As I found out Foucault's work dealt mostly with and about how the prison is a form used by the disciplines and can also be found in schools, hospitals, military barracks, etc; he calls this a new technological power.
Now how all that relates to missed connections? How the heck do I know, but I do agree with you both in that the gay community (particularly men) must find a way to connect and relate more than just on an animalistic nature.
I think most guys seek and look for: connection with another person, meaning in life, love and the desire to love, and acceptance - the desire to be wanted. If most of us had that, just as a man with his dog, someone to love him no matter what - we would then be able to be content. Lonliness and the fear of being alone drives men to post and to see connection - even if it is for but a moment and open to everyone to see.
I hope both of you guys submit posts to TNG in the future on this subject (or others). It's a question we need to answer among ourselves.
Post a Comment