Black Is, Black Aint, or, Why Do I Feel Like Im On the Set of School Daze?
Kevin Byne's initial blog post, entitled "No Fats, No Fems" drawed connections between Jim Crow iconography ("no coloreds!") and the contemporary calls on sites like men4now, adam4adam, and blkgaychat for "No Fats or Fems".
Soon after "Black Funk" founder Heru critiqued Larry Lyon's semi-nude photographs on his blog as a reinscription rather than a critique of "body fascism".
Atlanta writer and student Charles Stephens seconded this, and added that he was concerned over what he called the "Keith Boykinization" of the blogsphere.
Feeling somewhat uneasy about some of the critiques that were being made, I then offered the following response, which is posted below. Please join in this discussion. I think it's useful.
*****
by Frank Leon Roberts
Originally "published" on Kevin Byne's blog here.
What disturbs me the most about this discussion is what I see as a deeply unsettling and essentialist re-inscription of black authenticity rhetoric, re-framed and disguised here as a conversation about internalized body fascism.
Why is it that in the debate that has issued above, I feel as though I’m on the set of Spike Lee's "School Daze" with Larry, and by extension Keith, starring as Tisha Campbell and the “Wannabees” while Heru, and by extension Charles, stars as Keem-ee and the “Jigaboos”?
Brothers, is this discussion really about internalized body facism, or is it just our black queer way of pointing fingers at who we believe the academic/social justice Wannabees are versus who we see as their proud Jugaboo counterparts; our way of separating the light skin "Good Hair" girls from the dark skinned "Bad Hair" sisters?
I’m absolutely disgusted by this on-going investment in imagining a tug-a-war between the supposed "organic", afrocentric, homely/homie, vernacular queer black intellectual vs. the bourgie, muscled, internally fascist, ivy-league educated (Harvard or Princeton, J.D. or Ph.D.) "luke-warm" social justice activist.
So Heru, your move here to frame Larry as the young, naive, uncritical, I-go-to-Princeton-but-im-full-of-shit, almost-muscled, "eurocentric" black brat (whose arrested intellectual and activist development is no doubt a result of his "middle-class, bourgie-intelligensia, Eurocentric approach to connecting with people") basically helps frame you as the wise, grounded, "afrocentric", fat and fem Molefi Asante, poised to set the muscle-flexing "youngsters" Straight.
What I don’t hear here is any consideration of how the politics of erotic display, exhibitionism, and (muscle) showcasing which is popular in the blogsophere might constitute ambivalent yet nonetheless important forms of black queer self-fashioning and corporeal exploration. Because this "look at me, I am fabulous" rhetoric bears resemblance (or indeed cites elements) of dominant muscle-boy discourse, does not mean that it can be completely reduced to, in its final turn, these same regulatory logics. To assume that a black gay man displaying his fit body on his blog is automatically an ideological endorsement of "no fats, no fems" is as terribly reductive a reading as one that would suggest that "fat" and/or "fem" black subjectivity is somehow always already liberatory, "grounded", or progressive.
Again, keeping with black hair as a metaphor, I am reminded here of cultural debates over the supposedly "internally racist" nature of many "eurocentric" black cultural practices (the silky weaves, the hot combs, the blond bombs). Im sure we are familiar with how this critique usually goes down: the girls who wear the weaves or straighten their hair are accused of "selling out" or "internalizing" eurocentric forms of beauty, while the "girls" that rock Afros and "stay nature" are hailed as the culturally connected unsung heroes; the "authentic" race men and women.
But before we're so quick to dismiss the "tits and ass" scholars and social justice activists (which I assume would include Keith Boykin, POCC's Michael Roberson, Larry, myself, and various Others)where is our discussion of how we use, re-make, and self fashion our bodies in ways that might work simultaneously with and against dominant discourse? As british culturalist Kobena Mercer argues in his crucially corrective essay "Black Hair/Black Politics", any "one-size fits all" approach to how the black (queer) body should self-fashion or present itself runs the risk of reinscribing a sort of blatant essentialism that is ultimately anti-progressive, and quite frankly, "anti-black."
When I see Larry's photographs, I see the usual "look at me, my abs are hot" rhetoric of neoliberal gay body politics, but I also see what I would call a "body longing", an attempt to feel sexy, to feel fabulous, to feel (w)hole, in a culture that ultimately demonizes the black queer body in any and all of its incarnations: the “ugly”, homie fat fag or the DL, homo-thug, infectious muscle niggah. Lets not act as though muscles and sweat are always read as "good" things. Likewise, being "fat" or being "fem" cannot be our litmus test for determining who the "real" (i.e. grounded) organic intellectuals are.
So Charles even in your critique of what you call the "Keith Boykinization" of the blogosphere (which I assume you feel represents a sort of unsettling rhetoric of neoliberal black homonormativity) you still, ultimately, reify the very essentialist terms regarding black queer identity that you claim to critique. Muscles, ass, tits == men who are usually superficial, uncritical, "luke-warm" social justice activists while fats, fems, and bellies === men who are charged to resist the status quo, men who occupy the outer most margins of our black queer world. Tempting as this equation might be, its lack any kind of rigorous intersectional analysis. There is no discussion of the muscle man that's still fem, or the "fat" boy that still relies on educational status as a means of authenticating his status as "better than thou"; or the ass-queen that is still on the Bottom, or the "fat and fem" queen that is still deeply classist, and elitist. I dont need to name, names. I see these intersectional identities all the time in this "community". And so I dam sure know not to assume that because someone is perched on their blog with that abs flexed, they are automatically “internalizing” body fascism. They might be simultaneously recycling, and working with and through various discourses in a way that might be ultimately smart, negotiated, and useful. This of course is what Jose Esteban Munoz calls the “disidentificatory” nature of much minoritarian queer cultural practice.
So rather than thinking in binaries, we might want to think through the ways in which each of us is multiply implicated in various and concurrent identifications. Otherwise, this whole discussion is really nothing more than a unproductive quest for the determining what (progressive) Black Queer Is, or Black Queer Ain’t.
Huh????????????? Reading the verbage in your response feels as if you are trying to prove another point...which is besides what your orginal intentions were. And that was to address what was written on another individuals blog...I need an interpreter to understand your response, and I have a Ph.D....I digress(We know you're smart Frank).
From what I could understand, you made a terrific point. But since being involved in the gay community, I have never in my life been exposed to so many discomfortable, nonsensitive, arrogant, non-secure, and outright shady people in all my life...and if we really examine our self-conscious, we will find that this is where the "no fats" "no fems" really come from...and besides, why must people be so critical in what another person desires may be....If they prefer people who is not feminine and fat, should they be criticized?
Posted by
Anonymous |
7/27/2006
What I don’t hear here is any consideration of how the politics of erotic display, exhibitionism, and (muscle) showcasing which is popular in the blogsophere might constitute ambivalent yet nonetheless important forms of black queer self-fashioning and corporeal exploration. Because this "look at me, I am fabulous" rhetoric bears resemblance (or indeed cites elements) of dominant muscle-boy discourse, does not mean that it can be completely reduced to, in its final turn, these same regulatory logics."
This is exactly what Larry was attempting with his post "You too can." However, the first four responses to his post centered on the "text" of the picture rather than his words. Larry had to interject with the 5th response by asking his readers were they "reading" the text- meaning his words. The fact his first four responses only commented on the "text" of the picture suggests three things: 1) they "understood" what Larry was attempting and chose not to comment but did choose to comment on his abs 2) they simply did not "understand" what Larry was attempting and he had to redirect their focuses to the "other" text 3) they understood what Larry was attempting, but interrogated his attempt. The fact his readers commented, at the beginning, on the picture, rather than his ideas surrounding the picture, is something, perhaps, we should also think about. I'm writing about this specific aspect because it ties into the critique Heru made about congeniality. In the context of how Heru read Larry's post, I believe it was important to call into question the tenuousness of the academic/social justice "selves" and question whether or not those selves are or may become contentious. Larry attempted to negotiate his selves with his post and Heru critiqued the factors which could possibly disrupt or even prevent such an attempt. I said all of that to say we are exploring the multiplicative and not binaries.
I absolutely agree with you that we should each examine our individual "selves" to understand how (and why) we negotiate our "selves," and what exactly it will mean if I'm an academic, who is committed to social justice, but also negotiates themselves, for example. This is what black/gay/queer/socialist/feminist/middle-class/trans/intellectual/anarchist/vegan etc....people have to do anyway, right? How do we do it? Why do we do it?
I appreciate the fact Larry is exploring these things. I also appreciate Heru, Charles. S, and Kevin's invaluable comments. Great discussion!
First time poster- long time reader. I appreciate your work.
Posted by
Anonymous |
7/27/2006
Frank,
I appreciate your input into the conversation and think that it has been valuable.
Gordon,
I would like to encourage you to read the other Blogs on which this conversation has taken place. Very little of the critique of "no fats, no fems, has been about critiquing personal preference. It has actually been about how we have allowed our desires to inform who is privileged and who is marginalized within our community.
Thanks,
Kevin
Posted by
Ynkuya |
7/29/2006
Frank...
I'd like you to connect the NF/NFs discussion (that i've been reading on your blog and the others as well...i've read ALL the messages...haha) with the one re: Mario below. How much of our "desire to know" his (and so many others') sexuality parallel with or even intertwined a "sexual desire" of that person?
Like...whenever I read blogs that insinuate who may or may not be gay, often, the discourse is enshrouded on who we think is cute. Since Mario is cute, he's 1) sexually desired and thus 2) creates an epistemological desire him. Though Lance Bass came out the closet, I've heard a flurry of "but he's ugly, so it doesn't matter," "but i wonder if Justin is...HE's hot!," etc to, at the very least, undergird an idea that sexual desirability somehow is in cahoots with the desire to "know" and "proclaim" others' sexualities at will.
So how much of our desire to "know" is situated in the desire to "fuck"? And how much of our desire to "fuck" creates our desire to "know" and to categorize? Connecting this with NF/NFs discourse is important because, for me, I don't see this true desire to liberate others (though Lance said he's felt more free at this time in his life than ever...the response has generally been *crickets*) but a desire to fuck patently...to let the queers know who we can and cannot fuck. And since we don't want to fuck with fats or fems, we very rarely hear about fats or fems being possibly gay...or people don't care...
Al Roker
Ruben Studdard
Rodney Jerkins
(I'd say Luther Vandross but he was such a special case that I'm not sure how to analyze him)...
I'm not saying in ANY way that ANY of these dudes are or are not gay/bi. What I'm saying is that because of their rotund, protuding bellings, there seems to be less of a desire to know them epistemologically or sexually. On one messageboard I frequent, a question was asked to all the gays whom we thought were gay but closeted. The answers were on this wise: Raz B, Omarion, Terrell Owens, Kanye West, Pharrell Williams, Eva Pigford, MC Lyte, Queen Latifah, Condoleeza Rice (as some examples).
What I see in the examples of men given are alllll dudes that are not fat / not fem and are sexually desirable. I'd argue that the women that were noted (save Condoleeza) are generally noted as sexually desirable as well.
So basically I'm asking: is there a way that we can and should connect the discourse of NF/NF to a discourse of epistemological knowledge of someone's sexuality? Why is it important to "know" Mario's sexuality? Is it because he fits well within the NF/NF paradigm and is "cute"?
--
I want to echo that I believe the conversation isn't about personal preference but about systematic preference...wherein queers of color privilege a certain body over another to the point that the fat/fem body is demonized, disinvited (to parties) and simply dick-less (fat/fem = not a "man" at all).
Posted by
AC |
7/29/2006
Could someone explain what this conversation has to do with the liberation of same gender loving men of African decent? John Henrik Clarke once stated that, “if it’s not about nation building, then it’s not about anything.”
Posted by
Anonymous |
7/29/2006
It seems to me that the discussion raises more questions than it answers. For instance, ultimately is there a real difference b/w preference and privilege? Aren't they different sides of the same coin? If this is true, then how can we subvert the NF/NF mentality, for it is legitimate.
Preference infers/implies a sampling of sorts. For example, I prefer chocolate cake to vanilla. This means that I have sampled both, and my palate prefers chocolate. Is there something wrong with that? Truly, what's wrong with a man saying that he prefers muscles to flab?
Sadly, it seems that we are talking about queer form of social darwinism. Biologically, we prefer the strongest, fastest, fittest people. Socially, we prefer...well, the same. Ruben Studdard withstanding, most of our R&B crooners are fit. Even Ruben understood that. Soon after he won American Idol, he went on Access Hollyword (or one of those celeb news shows) and said that he was going to try a fitness and diet plan. Then there's Gerald Leveret. He too tried a diet. And we all know of Luther's yo-yo dieting, which probably contributed to his demise.
Bodies are texts as someone earlier wrote, and they are commodities. So when you see Ruben, as I did this past week on Eve (a show on the UPN, as well as a guilty pleasure of mine), what is he selling. He was deeply into Shelley (Eve's character); however, she rejected him. This is a sad conversation, truly, because it asserts our desire for aesthetics, and someone is going to left out. It's just that simple.
Posted by
Unknown |
7/29/2006
the interesting thing re: what Jackson says is that many folks HAVEN'T "tried" fems/fats as "commodities..."
rather, it seems to be a patent dismissal because it is expected. and can we (or should we?) connect the discussion of what the healthy body appears to be with HIV/AIDS? is it possible that the gym body asserts a certain type of "healthiness" that is not apparent in the limp (read: weak) wristed and the fat? how is NF/NF a way to say, "we're healthy...we don't have HIV/AIDS" if it is at all?
i've had similar (but different) discussions with friends who assert that they must date someone that is at least 3 inches taller than they...so i posed the question, "If he is 2.5 inches taller, he's not qualified?" What constructs of power and control are being given to height? What constructs of power and control are being given to bodies in general to allow some to assert NF/NF as more than a preference but as a pass into acceptable queerness...
Posted by
AC |
7/29/2006
keith boykin aint light skinned to me. maybe i missed the memo, but last time i checked black people are more than either light skinned or dark skinned.
Posted by
Anonymous |
7/30/2006
sounds like a whole lot of whining hiding behind big words, about nothing. seriously, is this really a discussion that people are truly pretending is intellectual? get real.
people have a right to have preferences, thats called being human. if somebody works out a lot, and puts a lot of time into their body, there is nothing wrong with them expecting the same.
some people prefer masculine men. i dunno, something about MAN and MASCULINE just seems right to some people. lol.
Posted by
Anonymous |
7/30/2006
hey frank...i've been thinking about this a lot lately too. and perhaps being on the margins of who may be able to participate in this debate because i'm deemed an "outsider" (ie. a lesbian) i can add something else to the mix. either way i posted something to my own blog about it.
Posted by
shuck'n'jive |
8/04/2006
totally off topic: but I intend to quote you/credit you on the term "body longing" in the near future.
peace!
Posted by
Anonymous |
8/17/2006