by Deborah P. Britzman
Is there a queer pedagogy? Damn straight!
I have to admit that when I first started reading this article I thought it was more than I wanted to take on. As I started reading it a bit more, my opinion started to change. Finally, by the time I was finished, I had my own perspective which is what I would like to present here. Basically, my perspective will be as follows, unless the shoe fits, you can’t walk a mile in my shoes.
The first point that Britzman makes is the reaction that gay and lesbian can have not only on his own colleagues, but also on society in general. “Why is it unthinkable to work with gay and lesbian writing when one thinks about experiences like friendship, community, research methodology, curriculum theorizing, and education theory? (Pinar, p 211)
When talking in terms of gay and lesbian, Britzman discusses the idea of pedagogy as a dichotomous relationship between an open and honest discussion of difference on the one hand, and the traumatic perception of difference as a disruption, as the outside of normalcy, these same terms evoke in “normal” people on the other. (p 212) Britzman thinks of Queer Theory as “provoking terms of engagement that work both to recuperate and to exceed the stereotypes that contain and dismiss gay and lesbian subjects. (p 213)”
At this point I want to inject with my own perspective of what being gay means. For one, in almost every context, every day, gay people are usually defining themselves—not as being gay but as not being straight. Not one day goes by where we are not confronted with the heterosexual schema of daily living. I don’t believe that heterosexuals think in the same way. What I mean is, they unconsciously take for granted what is deemed to be “normal”. Their being straight does not hinge on ‘their not being gay’. Yet, as Britzman has pointed out, the idea of dialoguing with gays and lesbians is almost considered to be disgusting. There is great difficulty in separating the notion of sexuality from the physical act of sex. This is what I mean about the dichotomous relationship or one perspective hinging on the other. Queer Theory “insist, using psychoanalytic methot, that the relationship between knowledge and ignorance is neither oppositional no binary. Rather, they mutually implicate each other, structuring and enforcing particular forms of knowledge and forms of ignorance. (p 214)”
Britzman chooses to follow Queer Theory’s insistence upon three methods: “the study of limits, the study of ignorance, and the study of reading practices (p 215).”
The Study of Limits
Is there a queer pedagogy? Damn straight!
I have to admit that when I first started reading this article I thought it was more than I wanted to take on. As I started reading it a bit more, my opinion started to change. Finally, by the time I was finished, I had my own perspective which is what I would like to present here. Basically, my perspective will be as follows, unless the shoe fits, you can’t walk a mile in my shoes.
The first point that Britzman makes is the reaction that gay and lesbian can have not only on his own colleagues, but also on society in general. “Why is it unthinkable to work with gay and lesbian writing when one thinks about experiences like friendship, community, research methodology, curriculum theorizing, and education theory? (Pinar, p 211)
When talking in terms of gay and lesbian, Britzman discusses the idea of pedagogy as a dichotomous relationship between an open and honest discussion of difference on the one hand, and the traumatic perception of difference as a disruption, as the outside of normalcy, these same terms evoke in “normal” people on the other. (p 212) Britzman thinks of Queer Theory as “provoking terms of engagement that work both to recuperate and to exceed the stereotypes that contain and dismiss gay and lesbian subjects. (p 213)”
At this point I want to inject with my own perspective of what being gay means. For one, in almost every context, every day, gay people are usually defining themselves—not as being gay but as not being straight. Not one day goes by where we are not confronted with the heterosexual schema of daily living. I don’t believe that heterosexuals think in the same way. What I mean is, they unconsciously take for granted what is deemed to be “normal”. Their being straight does not hinge on ‘their not being gay’. Yet, as Britzman has pointed out, the idea of dialoguing with gays and lesbians is almost considered to be disgusting. There is great difficulty in separating the notion of sexuality from the physical act of sex. This is what I mean about the dichotomous relationship or one perspective hinging on the other. Queer Theory “insist, using psychoanalytic methot, that the relationship between knowledge and ignorance is neither oppositional no binary. Rather, they mutually implicate each other, structuring and enforcing particular forms of knowledge and forms of ignorance. (p 214)”
Britzman chooses to follow Queer Theory’s insistence upon three methods: “the study of limits, the study of ignorance, and the study of reading practices (p 215).”
The Study of Limits
The first begins with the idea that one “must engage the limit of thought—where thought stops, what it cannot bear to know, what it must shut out to think as it does—allows consideration into the cultural conditions that, as Judith Butler writes, make bodies matter, not as sheer positivity, but as social historical relations, forms of citation that signify more than individuals or communities need or want (p216).” Fouceault summed it up by saying that exclusion sets the limits of inclusion. I would venture to say this is also the reverse when it comes to the ‘club of heteronormalcy.’ Queer Theory aligns itself to this notion of both Fouceault and Douglas Crimp who states “identification is, of course, identification with an other, which means that identity is never identical to itself (p218).” Therefore for a gay curriculum to be included would be in the form of a “special day or event” [gay pride day] or some other publicly recognized symbol of ‘acceptance’ or tolerance.
How I loathe the word tolerate. By explanation it means “to put up with” which people equate with acceptance. Wrong people! It means we [those who are “deemed normal”] will allow you [those deemed to be on the outside of “normal”] to believe that you are participating members of society—for now. But don’t get too settled in for we can remove tolerance at our discretion. “But in thinking beyond the limits of curriculum, more is required than a plea to add marginalized voices to an overpopulated sit. Inclusion, or the belief that one discourse can make room for those it must exclude, can only produce, as Judith Butler states, that theoretical gesture of pathos in which exclusions are simply affirmed as sad necessities of signification (p219).” However, I have meandered from the main topic here which is queer pedagogy. So, to continue...
The Study of Ignorance
What Delany defines as queer space or “the margin between claims of truth and the claims of textuality [a space where] all discursive structures are formed (p221)” is in reality lived experience. Britzman then goes on to try and explain this experience in terms of ignorance. Using the example of “No One is Safe”, I got the impression it was a rather fear-mongering tactic used by heteronormal society as a means of keeping those queers in their place. Why is it we fear what it is we don’t [want to] or are afraid to understand? This is the sense of ignorance which is most predominant.
Queerness is set up to be the social disease which can be transmitted to anyone. In particular, heterosexual men are in the most fear. Like AIDS, it is suspected that queerness can be spread to anyone at anytime. This places everyone one as suspect. It could be the mailman, the guy who packs your groceries, even the guy you work with at the factory. No one is immune from suspicion [though most straight men would deny this]. The problem is that when gay men or women talk to non-gay men and women, we aren’t looking at them as potential sexual partners. However, when a straight man is talking to a gay man, his main thoughts are about the guy’s sexual partners and this instils disgust and fear of catching “it”. Sedgwick explains this idea that everyone is suspect in her example of a class on gay and lesbian literature. The discourses which evolved due to the readings blurred the boundaries between “us and them” and widened the divide of who is suspect. Anyone could be gay or lesbian and therefore the group was leery of everyone else.
The Study of Reading Practices
Shoshana Felman breaks down reading practices into three sub-categories of 1) reading for alterity; 1) dialogue; and 3) reading for theory. Her first begins with the acknowledgement of difference in identity. Hello! The reading goes back and forth between the signified and the signifier [what is being read, and the reader]. What is the transformation [to and within myself]? Secondly, reading evokes a dialogue within the reader. This seems quite natural and yet for the heterosexual person reading, they can’t imagine the life of the Other. Finally, how one reads is important. “There is a consituitive belatedness of the theory over the practice, the theory always trying to catch up with what it was that the practice, or the reading, really was doing (p 225).” In my mind, this leads to the dialogue always taking place in retrospect and does not directing the reading.
My Thoughts
Wow! I really did enjoy this reading up to the part where it got a little too technical in the language being used. I am such a hillbilly from the backwoods of Cape Breton. I dunno, big words just seem to make we want to go take a nap! Overall, I felt that Britzman did a good job of explaining the lack of gayness in the curriculum without denying there is definitely a gay pedagogy. The way that I learn, relate, think, and ultimately transform information and turn it into a retrospective dialogue within, is different than that of the heteronormal community. As I said, they can not walk a mile in my shoes because they are not me. How can on truly know what it is I am experiencing when they are in no way sharing the same experience? Unless you are on the fringe, can you know what it is really like? If you are not a minority, can you understand what they go through? There are many things we try to understand however, we can never honestly put ourselves in someone else’s place. To say, “I completely understand” is condescending and unreal. I would rather be honest, accept the differences, and be empathetic to the Other. Know that deep down, we are the same, not different, and we need acceptance, not tolerance.
Pinar, W. F. (1998). Curriculum: Toward new identities. Pinar, William F. (Ed).
Atom Feed (xml)