You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January 2008.

So it’s 1:26 a.m. right now. Just got home from the gymnase. I’m pretty sure the English language could start getting rid of the personal pronoun I to introduce sentences when listing events that have happened. I feel the context speaks for itself. It could be like (you) understood — I, understood. I like it…who would be the authority on this decision? I suppose I could contact some British official, but the American Language doesn’t have quite the system of L’Acadamie Francaise. I’m not a purist by any means when it comes to language, but shouldn’t we have some sort of policing agent? Should words like wOOt be allowed in our dictionary? I found this little tidbit interesting: This was the number one word of 2007 according to Merriam-Webster Online. Just as a reference, number two was facebook.

1. w00t (interjection)

expressing joy (it could be after a triumph, or for no reason at all); similar in use to the word “yay”

So I started this blog thinking I would talk about gay men and their gym habits. Why do so many of us spend so much time at the gym? Why do those who don’t wish they had the time/money/motivation to go to the gym? Couldn’t a nice walk around a lake, a good run outside, or perhaps even a sport/dance class/yoga class be just as if not more beneficial socially, physically, and (oh no) spiritually? When I was dancing at least 5 hours a day, I still felt the need to go to a gym….why? I don’t know. Really, I want to understand perfection, I suppose

I don’t mean to criticize, but is the pressure for gay men to be thin and beautiful stronger than that for women? I’m not sure. The trends of eating disorders are shifting, and I fear the “ideal” gay male body is becoming smaller and smaller. What for I ask?

Alright, I’m going to be done now. I’m tired and may need to sleep. I have to go to work at Express tomorrow…

What does it mean to be queer?

After discussing Judith Butler’s essay on Performativity and Citationality in relation to sex (as in male and female) in my Theorizing the Dancing Body class, I find myself questioning the importance of the “hard sciences”. I will try my best to summarize the argument, first, and then go deeper into my thoughts. Judith Butler states that sexual difference is part of the regulatory practice that produces the very bodies it governs. We cite things in order to substantiate and add weight to an argument, or to stabilize it. The process of sexual difference could therefore be seen as the reiteration of a set of norms. What becomes the norm is only brought about by the repetitions and iterations which reaffirm the said norm. We, therefore produce the norm, which becomes law. It is not true that we exist outside of the law or because of the law. We produce the very law that governs the way we are produced. In effect, what we consider as demarcations for sex are produced, much like gender — not in the same way as gender, but as unstably as gender. Because the historicity of sexual difference is dissimulated in itself, we see the bifurcation of sex as a “natural” occurrence. Natural, however, must be produced…at least the idea of it. Just because we cannot see when it is produced, does not mean it is not produced and has always been that way.

It is through this performativity and continual citationality that certain conventions and norms are established. If there were to be only two sexes, then why does intersex exist? Is such an occurrence a freak of nature, or unnatural? I think not. What Butler tries to examine is the level of agency which is given to certain groups. The concept of hegemony is exceedingly more clear after conceptualizing Butler’s thesis. When such a concept of natural is repeated enough, or cited enough, or performed enough, it becomes the norm, which creates a minoritative (i think i just invented a word) or deviant group. This group, of course, has the choice to attempt to conform to the norm, but it must realize that it is only the norm because it is being produced that way. We walk on our legs because we have two of them, but our arms could also be used to walk if we were on all fours. We are products of culture.

How, then, does this relate to homosexuality? It is not without much care that I relate this, for it could easily be taken the wrong way and used against homosexuality, in fact it could be used to criminalize it if used unintelligently. The idea that hetersexuality is produced through performativity and citationality, means that homosexuality is also produced. It is only in the context of heterosexual as normal does the idea of the production of homosexuality become problematic. It is the homosexual who is the deviant, who does not fit into the norm, or the natural. This idea that heterosexuality is natural and therefore stable (or right) is going back to Butler’s statement about who has agency. If homosexuality were the norm, heterosexuality would be viewed as the deviant, and therefore an unstable sexuality.

The time has come, my little chickadees, to start a brand new blog yet again. I know I have done this many times, but I think this really will be the one and only last time ;). haha, you know that will never be the case.

I will explain a little bit about myself. I am a 5th year senior at the University of Minnesota studying Dance and GLBT studies. I want to go to grad school to study Queer Theory and dance and become a scholar/professor. I want to make a difference and give queer readings to those things which are not known. I want to re-write the queer history of modern dance from a male perspective. I’m completely ambitious.

I love Judith Butler and everything she stands for. I’ve become quite the feminist in my studies, which I never would have thought possible. I am a gender/sex/sexuality theorist most specifically. I am also interested in the performativity of the homosexual on and off stage. It’s so interesting who we are and what part we play. The role of the gay male throughout history is most intriguing. I plan to graduate from college Fall 08, and I would love to dance in the area.

I also love fashion, music, musical theater, all that is drama-filled, and everything fun and ridiculous. I’m a big nerd, and I’m pretty sure Harry Potter is my christ. I’m mostly athiest, and my blogs may tend to go that way, but I promise I’ll not shy away from any religious friends. I definitely have my share.

I hope this blog can be a good place for me to vent, try things out, and really dig deeper. I’m going to put one of my queer theory blogs that I originally posted on myspace on here for a taste of my writing. It’s way wordy, but I think most of it makes sense.