Alexander and Wallace discuss the needed changes regarding LGBT discourse. They explain that while it is a start to address the negative factors, such as homophobia, this does not undermine our heterosexual society. The suggestions they offer are to challenge heteronormative privilege, consider how we are participants in dominative heteronormative discourse, and to avoid merely limited inclusion in discourse.
The ideas of Alexander and Wallace are not unlike those of the feminist theorists, Weedon and Ang who suggest changing the discourse to fit the topic. Like Weedon who stemmed from Foucalt and other poststructuralists, Alexander and White suggest a way of looking at discourse that emphasizes its ability to change, unlike the fixed definitions of structuralists Barthes, Levi-Strauss and Saussure.
Alexander and Wallace present a few questions at the end of their essay. They suggest we should ask why we divide ourselves into "gay and straight," "male and female," etc. While not an inherently bad question to ask, I got the idea that they found something wrong with this division that was hard for me to agree with. Certainly dividing into groups and thinking less of the "other" is immoral. However, it is natural to classify people into groups, to create categorical descriptions. It allows us to create discourse surrounding the subject and shows that we are not all the same. It would be unreasonable not to classify people. That said, I agree that the idea that one of the groups in each pair shouldn't become the dominant one and that we should be able to speak in an inclusive way as Alexander and Wallace suggest.
The ideas of Alexander and Wallace are not unlike those of the feminist theorists, Weedon and Ang who suggest changing the discourse to fit the topic. Like Weedon who stemmed from Foucalt and other poststructuralists, Alexander and White suggest a way of looking at discourse that emphasizes its ability to change, unlike the fixed definitions of structuralists Barthes, Levi-Strauss and Saussure.
Alexander and Wallace present a few questions at the end of their essay. They suggest we should ask why we divide ourselves into "gay and straight," "male and female," etc. While not an inherently bad question to ask, I got the idea that they found something wrong with this division that was hard for me to agree with. Certainly dividing into groups and thinking less of the "other" is immoral. However, it is natural to classify people into groups, to create categorical descriptions. It allows us to create discourse surrounding the subject and shows that we are not all the same. It would be unreasonable not to classify people. That said, I agree that the idea that one of the groups in each pair shouldn't become the dominant one and that we should be able to speak in an inclusive way as Alexander and Wallace suggest.
0 comments:
Post a Comment