Head Canon:Sexuality and Sexual Identity in the 23rd century
WARNING!FLAMING, HATE SPEECH, INTOLERANCE, BIGOTRY, AND STATEMENTS OF PRIVILEGE ARE NOT ALLOWED ON THIS JOURNAL. Sorry, but they are just..not
So, procrastination once more on a Sunday afternoon. First week back at school was long and stressful, but for the most part, pretty awesome. Anyway, as some of you have probably figured out, one of my majors is English and I spend alot of time studying literature. This semester, I'm pretty psyched about the lit theory class I'm taking. Particularly, I'm excited about studying Queer Theroy (big surprise.)
For those of you who do not know, each literary theory (Marxist, feminist, post-colonist, historical, etc) is, to put it in laymen's terms, a "lens" through which literature is analyzed. To make a very, very, very, VERY long story short, in the abstinence of objective truth left by the abandonment of New Critical theory in the 1960's, different schools of literary theories study the way we, the readers, construct and impose our own meaning upon the ambiguous text in regards to a certain aspect of the text and our own socially constructed “interpretative groups.” Queer theory analyzes the social constructs of gender, desire, and sexual orientation identities and how implicit patriarchal/heterocentric/internalized-homophobia structure meanings which repress manifestations of sexualities divergent from the mainstream.
Basically, slash fic for the college student. Only, like, all academic and pretentious and shit.
I'm not going to do a queer theory reading of Star Trek (not today, anyway...) because, frankly, that would take all day. Q and Picard alone are worth libraries. If you want to know more about queer theory, see here, here, and here. If you want to know more about literary theory in general, see here for lit theory and more about postmodernism here. All I'm going to do here is explain a bit about my personal head canon about sexuality in the 23rd century. It's kinda hinted at in my fics, but not really explicitly stated.I hope it clears up some of the ambiguities! Actually...I dont:)
History of Sexuality 101:
For those who do not know (and it's totally okay if you don't!), sexual orientation rose as a social identity in the 19th century when homosexuality began to be treated as a pathology by the medical profession. Before then, in the Anglo-centric Western world, there were homosexual and heterosexual acts, but no one was labeled as a homosexual or heterosexual person, and no one took on either label as an identity. (Of course in both African and Native American cultures, this was not the case. In Native American cultures, for example, we have the concept of the "two-spirit" person, who were what we today would call "genderqueer" (like me) and were revered by their cultures as spokespeople of The God.) Even today, some queer theorists (notably, the late great Eve Korofsky Sedgwick) suggest that that the adoption of sexual orientation as a social identity is as arbitrary as defining oneself as monogamist or polyamorist or attracted to people of certain races or whatever. Furthermore, they argue the process of labeling further marginalizes the queer community and contributes to 'heterocentrism.' Others, however, like me, feel the world is already heterocentric and, realistically, the marginalized community must be united under an umbrella label in order to work together to collectively achieve social change (even if the label is a social construct which does not allow for the differences in individual identity.)
I'm not going to debate this issue here, I just felt like it should be brought up. For the record, I think both sides have a point.
Anyway, Eve Korofsky Sedgwick (one of my favorite people) coined the terms “minoritization” and “universalization” to study the experience of LBGTQ people. A “minoritizing” view of queer culture studies LGBTQ identities by focusing on our minority positive in a heterocentric culture. Closely linked to minoritization is “biological essentialism,” the view that a percentage of the population is born queer just as others are born straight, and sexual desire is genetically/physiologically rooted. Evidence supporting this view includes, though is not limited to, various studies on the brains of both straight and LGBTQ people (the documentary “Gay Brain” goes into detail about this, if you're interested.) By contrast, “universalization” focuses on the homosexual potential in all people and the gray areas on the Kinsey scale and/or the Klein Grid. Universalization is linked to “social constructalism”, the view that sexuality is a product of social, not biological, factors. Note that social constructalism does not view sexual orientation as a choice, but as something which develops naturally in regards to the social environment and cannot be changed or controlled. Social constructalism acknowledges that whether or not someone self-identifies as queer or acts on same-sex desires is heavily contingent upon their social atmosphere. It also recognizes that because gender and gender expression are social constructs, categorizing individuals as “gay”, “straight” , or “bisexual” is incredibly limiting and does not adequately describe the spectrum of human sexuality. Modern queer theory uses a combination of minoritization and universalization to study the queer experience.
I suggest looking up the Kinsey scale here and the Klein grid here before continuing. It'll take less than a minute to read both pages, or at least glance at the charts to get an idea of complexity of sexual orientation.
Sexuailty in the 23rd Century:
So, we have seen that throughout history, sexuality and sexual identity is often shaped by the socio-moral structures of particular societies. Most of you are probably aware of the consolidation of the queer community in the 1920's, the radicalization of the community in post-Stonewall 20th century, and the deep sense of alienation which further partioned us from the mainstream after the AIDS epidemic and the government's response (or lack thereof.) There's a great article called “The Invention of Heterosexuality” which explains this better than I could.
Which begs the question...what would sexuality be like in the 23rd century?
Well, as much as I love “Torchwood”'s “Everybody is bi” attitude, I somehow doubt that everyone will be biologically geared to bait all ways. I suspect some people will still be asexual and bi-romantic, or homosexual and bi-romantic, of bisexual and homo-romantic, or whatever. I suspect that the First Contact would open up new doors to sexuality. If already in the 21st century, the lines between the queer and straight world are smeared, I can only imagine that the introduction of thousands of other cultures (several of them multi-gendered) would almost render the idea of being attracted to one or two genders null and void. Let's face it:Kirk was little alien sexual. Isn't that a sexual preference in itself? With all the different genders which now exist, and with all the different social constructions of gender identities from various planets, I have a very difficult time writing Star Trek fanfiction where the characters adopt queer and/or straight identities as in the way we self-identify today.
Therefore, in my head canon, the 23rd century is a world beyond gay and straight. It's hard to write a coming-out story in this universe because I simply have a hard time believing in the prevalence of internalized-homophobia in the future. How I view each character's sexuality depends on my mood, honestly. Kirk is pansexual in everything I write. McCoy is straight to me...I have nothing against any slash pairings with McCoy, but I just can't write them. There is a beautiful queer sensibility about Kirk and Spock's friendship, and I chalk up their closeness in TOS to the kind of "romantic friendship" which can blossom between queer men or straight men liberated of modern constructs of masculinity. Even in fics where I don't pair Kirk and Spock with each other, I read both as queer and as having a very pure love that is romantic without being sexual, like Dante for Beatrice, or Orestes and Pylades. I don't think this would interfere with Spock/Uhura. This complexity of sexuality is not merely limited to homosocial relationships. Kirk and Uhura in my Kirk/Spock/Uhura stories have a very complex relationship based on the ambiguities of some queer friendships between same-sex people, only, played out by two people of different sexes. I also would like to think that the acceptance of so many different interplantary cultures would entail be a greater appreciation of polyamory and open relationships; that there would no longer be the institutionalized oppression of those of us who resist the hetero-patriarchal privileging of heteronormative, monogamist, Judeo-Christian-marriage relationships.
Is this interpretation supported by canon?
No.
I'd like to think it would be, but let's face it: Star Trek is pretty patriarchal, especially when compared to sci-fi writers from Joss Whedon to Ursula Le Guin. All the relationships in canon are conventional, "middle-class white America-pandering" hetero-normative relationships. The few exceptions are either purely subtextual (Garak/Bashir, arguably Kirk/Spock) or dragged out for a single episode to make A Very Special Point (the episode where Riker falls in love with a gender-ambiguous alien, the infamous lesbian kiss in DS9.) However, Gene Roddenberry originally conceived idea of the Federation as his utopia. As our culture's ideas of "utopia" changed over the past 40 years, canon changed. “Star Trek” is still somewhat patriarchal, ESPECIALLY the reboot. I love J.J. Abrams, but goddam does he have an epic queer!fail record, though at least his female characters were pretty good (though the reboot still fails the Bechdel test.) However, I chock this epic!fail up to the hetero-normative patriarchy which prevades our culture. Do I expect canon to change for the better anytime soon? No. It's a mainstream franchise, and I'm honestly not a big fan of most mainstream franchises for this reason. But am going to stop writing queer interpretations of the text in fanfiction?
Hell no!
So, yeah, that's basically how I see queer identity in the 23rd century, regardless of what ship I'm writing about. Hope that explains some of the sexual gray areas in my fic, for those of you who read it.
I will leave you with this.
So, procrastination once more on a Sunday afternoon. First week back at school was long and stressful, but for the most part, pretty awesome. Anyway, as some of you have probably figured out, one of my majors is English and I spend alot of time studying literature. This semester, I'm pretty psyched about the lit theory class I'm taking. Particularly, I'm excited about studying Queer Theroy (big surprise.)
For those of you who do not know, each literary theory (Marxist, feminist, post-colonist, historical, etc) is, to put it in laymen's terms, a "lens" through which literature is analyzed. To make a very, very, very, VERY long story short, in the abstinence of objective truth left by the abandonment of New Critical theory in the 1960's, different schools of literary theories study the way we, the readers, construct and impose our own meaning upon the ambiguous text in regards to a certain aspect of the text and our own socially constructed “interpretative groups.” Queer theory analyzes the social constructs of gender, desire, and sexual orientation identities and how implicit patriarchal/heterocentric/internalized-homophobia structure meanings which repress manifestations of sexualities divergent from the mainstream.
Basically, slash fic for the college student. Only, like, all academic and pretentious and shit.
I'm not going to do a queer theory reading of Star Trek (not today, anyway...) because, frankly, that would take all day. Q and Picard alone are worth libraries. If you want to know more about queer theory, see here, here, and here. If you want to know more about literary theory in general, see here for lit theory and more about postmodernism here. All I'm going to do here is explain a bit about my personal head canon about sexuality in the 23rd century. It's kinda hinted at in my fics, but not really explicitly stated.I hope it clears up some of the ambiguities! Actually...I dont:)
History of Sexuality 101:
For those who do not know (and it's totally okay if you don't!), sexual orientation rose as a social identity in the 19th century when homosexuality began to be treated as a pathology by the medical profession. Before then, in the Anglo-centric Western world, there were homosexual and heterosexual acts, but no one was labeled as a homosexual or heterosexual person, and no one took on either label as an identity. (Of course in both African and Native American cultures, this was not the case. In Native American cultures, for example, we have the concept of the "two-spirit" person, who were what we today would call "genderqueer" (like me) and were revered by their cultures as spokespeople of The God.) Even today, some queer theorists (notably, the late great Eve Korofsky Sedgwick) suggest that that the adoption of sexual orientation as a social identity is as arbitrary as defining oneself as monogamist or polyamorist or attracted to people of certain races or whatever. Furthermore, they argue the process of labeling further marginalizes the queer community and contributes to 'heterocentrism.' Others, however, like me, feel the world is already heterocentric and, realistically, the marginalized community must be united under an umbrella label in order to work together to collectively achieve social change (even if the label is a social construct which does not allow for the differences in individual identity.)
I'm not going to debate this issue here, I just felt like it should be brought up. For the record, I think both sides have a point.
Anyway, Eve Korofsky Sedgwick (one of my favorite people) coined the terms “minoritization” and “universalization” to study the experience of LBGTQ people. A “minoritizing” view of queer culture studies LGBTQ identities by focusing on our minority positive in a heterocentric culture. Closely linked to minoritization is “biological essentialism,” the view that a percentage of the population is born queer just as others are born straight, and sexual desire is genetically/physiologically rooted. Evidence supporting this view includes, though is not limited to, various studies on the brains of both straight and LGBTQ people (the documentary “Gay Brain” goes into detail about this, if you're interested.) By contrast, “universalization” focuses on the homosexual potential in all people and the gray areas on the Kinsey scale and/or the Klein Grid. Universalization is linked to “social constructalism”, the view that sexuality is a product of social, not biological, factors. Note that social constructalism does not view sexual orientation as a choice, but as something which develops naturally in regards to the social environment and cannot be changed or controlled. Social constructalism acknowledges that whether or not someone self-identifies as queer or acts on same-sex desires is heavily contingent upon their social atmosphere. It also recognizes that because gender and gender expression are social constructs, categorizing individuals as “gay”, “straight” , or “bisexual” is incredibly limiting and does not adequately describe the spectrum of human sexuality. Modern queer theory uses a combination of minoritization and universalization to study the queer experience.
I suggest looking up the Kinsey scale here and the Klein grid here before continuing. It'll take less than a minute to read both pages, or at least glance at the charts to get an idea of complexity of sexual orientation.
Sexuailty in the 23rd Century:
So, we have seen that throughout history, sexuality and sexual identity is often shaped by the socio-moral structures of particular societies. Most of you are probably aware of the consolidation of the queer community in the 1920's, the radicalization of the community in post-Stonewall 20th century, and the deep sense of alienation which further partioned us from the mainstream after the AIDS epidemic and the government's response (or lack thereof.) There's a great article called “The Invention of Heterosexuality” which explains this better than I could.
Which begs the question...what would sexuality be like in the 23rd century?
Well, as much as I love “Torchwood”'s “Everybody is bi” attitude, I somehow doubt that everyone will be biologically geared to bait all ways. I suspect some people will still be asexual and bi-romantic, or homosexual and bi-romantic, of bisexual and homo-romantic, or whatever. I suspect that the First Contact would open up new doors to sexuality. If already in the 21st century, the lines between the queer and straight world are smeared, I can only imagine that the introduction of thousands of other cultures (several of them multi-gendered) would almost render the idea of being attracted to one or two genders null and void. Let's face it:Kirk was little alien sexual. Isn't that a sexual preference in itself? With all the different genders which now exist, and with all the different social constructions of gender identities from various planets, I have a very difficult time writing Star Trek fanfiction where the characters adopt queer and/or straight identities as in the way we self-identify today.
Therefore, in my head canon, the 23rd century is a world beyond gay and straight. It's hard to write a coming-out story in this universe because I simply have a hard time believing in the prevalence of internalized-homophobia in the future. How I view each character's sexuality depends on my mood, honestly. Kirk is pansexual in everything I write. McCoy is straight to me...I have nothing against any slash pairings with McCoy, but I just can't write them. There is a beautiful queer sensibility about Kirk and Spock's friendship, and I chalk up their closeness in TOS to the kind of "romantic friendship" which can blossom between queer men or straight men liberated of modern constructs of masculinity. Even in fics where I don't pair Kirk and Spock with each other, I read both as queer and as having a very pure love that is romantic without being sexual, like Dante for Beatrice, or Orestes and Pylades. I don't think this would interfere with Spock/Uhura. This complexity of sexuality is not merely limited to homosocial relationships. Kirk and Uhura in my Kirk/Spock/Uhura stories have a very complex relationship based on the ambiguities of some queer friendships between same-sex people, only, played out by two people of different sexes. I also would like to think that the acceptance of so many different interplantary cultures would entail be a greater appreciation of polyamory and open relationships; that there would no longer be the institutionalized oppression of those of us who resist the hetero-patriarchal privileging of heteronormative, monogamist, Judeo-Christian-marriage relationships.
Is this interpretation supported by canon?
No.
I'd like to think it would be, but let's face it: Star Trek is pretty patriarchal, especially when compared to sci-fi writers from Joss Whedon to Ursula Le Guin. All the relationships in canon are conventional, "middle-class white America-pandering" hetero-normative relationships. The few exceptions are either purely subtextual (Garak/Bashir, arguably Kirk/Spock) or dragged out for a single episode to make A Very Special Point (the episode where Riker falls in love with a gender-ambiguous alien, the infamous lesbian kiss in DS9.) However, Gene Roddenberry originally conceived idea of the Federation as his utopia. As our culture's ideas of "utopia" changed over the past 40 years, canon changed. “Star Trek” is still somewhat patriarchal, ESPECIALLY the reboot. I love J.J. Abrams, but goddam does he have an epic queer!fail record, though at least his female characters were pretty good (though the reboot still fails the Bechdel test.) However, I chock this epic!fail up to the hetero-normative patriarchy which prevades our culture. Do I expect canon to change for the better anytime soon? No. It's a mainstream franchise, and I'm honestly not a big fan of most mainstream franchises for this reason. But am going to stop writing queer interpretations of the text in fanfiction?
Hell no!
So, yeah, that's basically how I see queer identity in the 23rd century, regardless of what ship I'm writing about. Hope that explains some of the sexual gray areas in my fic, for those of you who read it.
I will leave you with this.