Journal Entry #7

The article “‘I went to bed with my own kind once’: The Erasure of Desire in the Name of Identity” by David Valentine raises some truly interesting questions about the nature of identity as regards gender and sexuality. Earlier in the course of this class I was interested by the notion of temporality and how that factored into our discussions about sexual identity. It seemed to me that if we can refer to ourselves (as we often do) as different people over the course of our lifetimes, defined by these temporal slices that are themselves characterized by different phases of life, that it is curious that it is uncommon to see this kind of logic extend to the realm of sexuality and gender. I brushed these thoughts aside, thinking that the reason why we do not think of mutability as a regular property (that is, non-abnormal) of gender or sexuality is the pressures and assumptions made by a heteronormative, patriarchical society, but the Valentine article provides a more interesting and comprehensive view of what my query was hinting at but never addressed, which is more precisely that of identity.

In my previous conception I imagined a world in which identity was malleable, all the while assuming the need for identity in the first place. So the question then, is if indeed identity has become naturalized right underneath our very noses, if it is not indeed an essential property of sexuality, or the way we experience our sexual desires, then what forces have naturalized it? Why is it mind boggling to think outside of the terms of sexual identity? Historically it would seem like a convenience. A device that allows those with mutual goals to come together and assess each other, as well as a way in which to define (and preserve) the norm against “deviants” and whatever was abnormal to it. But it doesn’t end there.

Now, more than ever, the problem of identity is a political one. In order to establish rights for every practiced sexuality there seems to be a need for a solid and coherent identity. How, after all, could one defend the rights of a people whose defining characteristics could be seen as mutable (or a “choice”?). It is safe to say that there is a lot at stake for different groups of people when the whole concept of sexual identity is questioned. By even considering that there could be no such thing as sexual identity, one seems to discredit arguments for equal rights, as well as the very nature of other people’s experiences (if indeed this experience is shaped by the identity).

Given all of these negative repercussions, why not simply leave the topic alone and allow the world to continue with the assumption of sexual identity? Because something too is being lost when we cling to these conventions. Simply put, the whole imposition of identity forces us to be consistent (which is of course the hobgoblin of little minds) when we simply are not. The concept of sexual identity pigeon holes us, alienates us, like Miss Angel, co-opts our language and uses it against us. The concept of identity forces us to use its (often inadequate) language to describe our experiences, and the mental impulse to preemptively fit ourselves into preordained boxes and sub boxes causes us to lose the details that are vital and original to our actual experience. It’s difficult enough as it is to render desire into language without having to reconcile it with a label and its long list of connotations and history. Perhaps given these new notions about the way in which desire, not identity, shapes our lives, the struggle for “gay rights” can instead be viewed as paving the way for each individual to freely and justly live in a way that expresses their desire for however they happen to feel (not “whoever they happen to be” at the moment).

Ct. 654