Subject: Re: Eric's homosexuality
gauthier@SLU.EDU
Date: Wed Feb 26 1997 - 22:41:38 GMT
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Andrew Kennis wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 gauthier@SLU.EDU wrote:
>
> >
> > Before I have another go at this topic, I'll say a few things about myself.
> > My best friend from high school is a lesbian. The chair of my Ph.D.
> > exams is a lesbian. I live in the Central West End area of St. Louis.
> > There is a high concentration of gays and lesbians in this community
> > because it is fairly liberal. I don't have a homophobic bone in my
> > body.
>
> I see what you are saying. Since you know a lot of gay people, you must
> not be homophobic.....right? Wrong. "Knowing" gay people, even being
> friends with gay people, does not automatically translate to not being
> homophobic.
um, maybe we should define our terms.
Homophobia--irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality.
I live in an area that is fairly densely populated with homosexuals. I
chose a lesbian to head my Ph.D. exams. If I was afraid of homosexuals,
I would not do that.
My best friend--"a person whom one knows well and is fond of"--is a
lesbian. I think it is self evident to most peole that one does not have
an irrational hatred for one's friends.
If you need help with this logic, let me know. I teach the subject here
at SLU>
> > > I might be the most liberal person on this list. I certainly
> > support gay rights and gay marriages. That I even have to mention such
> > information on this list is outrageous.
> >
>
> First of all, you are not the most liberal person on this list, *I am*.
> HA! So there!
Well, if you do your research on me, you may discover I registered
Republican in 1988 in Kansas. It was just so I could vote against Bob
Dole in the primaries and the general election though.
>
> Secondly, supporting gay marriages and gay rights isn't liberal, it's
> sensible.
I agree that it is sensible, but you are being naive if you don't believe
society considers such a view liberal.
> >
> > And it wasn't in your post, but openly gay men were not allowed to serve
> > during WWII. I've asked an expert on the period for confirmation.
> >
>
> Errr, so what? Eric was not openly gay.
>
> --AK
um, AK, it's fine if you don't think he's gay. But where is your proof
that he isn't? At least I'm using textual evidence. You are simply
arguing by assertion.
Now, round 4:
Salinger clearly does use stereotypes. In one of the stories, he has a
man sleep with another man's wife. That's unscrupulous. The man is a
lawyer. Wow! An unscrupulous lawyer. In "Down at the Dingy" the
servants make comments about Lionel's fathers nose (he's Jewish). In
this case, the character being bashed through stereotypes (like I've
argued in "Eskimos") is meant to be received with compassion--a point
that the namecallers seem to ignore. In "For Esme" Esme uses
stereotypes: she says most Americans act like animals. Sergeant X takes
her to task for making such a suggestion, but if you read these stories
at all carefully, we see that most Americans (adults in particular) do
behave like animals.
I might also suggest we look at Eric's characteristics in another (more
theoretical light) than simply "stereotype." We should talk about gender
codes. One's sex is biologically determined. You are either male or
female. One's sexual preference (according to the latest scientific
studies) are at least partially biologically determined. One's gender is
determined by society.
When Salinger was writing, speaking with a high voice, crossing one's
legs, taking an interest in women's fashion, etc., would all be expected
in the female gender. That is why, for example, Seymour's wife discusses
this year's fashion with her mother, why she (and others like Ginnie
Maddox) cross their legs.
In contrast, the males cross their legs at the ankle (Bob Nicholson) or
with the knee on the ankle (Jean De Daumier Smith). They presumably
speak with lower voices since Salinger only comments on one character
with a high voice.
Why is this important? Well, as everyone has so astutely noticed.
Thinking that a man is gay because he crosses his legs, likes women's
fashion, speaks with a high voice, etc., are all stereotypes. The thing
is, men in the late 1940's would NOT want to be thought of as being gay.
So men consciously would choose not to cross their legs like women, talk
about women's fashion, use a high-pitched voice, etc. And Salinger makes
it fairly clear that doing such things are choices--yes, even the high
voice. Remember, Eric speaks through his layrnx rather than his
diagragm. That is something that he can control. Just as the leg
crossing, etc. So, what this shows us is that Eric is choosing to gender
himself as a female in society. A society that was homophobic (openly
gay men were court marshalled during WWII). Why would he do this? Just
because he enjoyed risking being beat up on the street?
I think not.
And, just a final note, about the curious reactions that I have sometimes
solicited. Having read papers at several conferences, I can safely say
that queer theorist would be excited to discuss the possibility that one
of the characters is gay. Usually, the lament is that gays/lesbians are
underrepresented in literature.
Paul Gauthier
gauthier@slu.edu
p.s. I'm going back to the digest only. 25 messages in a few hours
frightens me.
-
To remove yourself from the bananafish list, send the command:
unsubscribe bananafish
in the body of a message to "Majordomo@mass-usr.com".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 14:59:01 GMT