When Zeus eradicated the race of duality, men/ women, the colossi entwined as one, he opened the gates to love to kalos and to honor. As a group of deities that never ventured to look further than the mirror for companionship, what needs, what wants and what desires are there if supplied before requesting. And what of contemplation? Stagnant thought can only pursue impulses derived from the basest principles, the fueled feral fires of Hades haven, greed, avarice and it's principle impetus for war, power. If Love derives nobility of soul then Eros may be found lacking upon scrutiny. Clive would not or could not commit to a love that was real, though judged inappropriate by society and the only world Clive knew, a niche was etched out for him with out judiciary repercussions along with monetary and social occlusion.
Does this make him a coward, does he dishonor himself for utilizing the exit clause; perhaps not in Maurice's case, but what of Clive's wife's life, her nights in eros absence. Is she to be "better through his friendship with his lover?" 1
Certainly in Clive's opinion it is the righteous act of contrition and absolved as he is intrinsically good,( isn't he) while he loves another man , tries to convince Maurice to marry also, then, all four could go to concerts, picnics,be each other's godparents. It is all so respectable and convivial.
Perhaps there was too much of the collossi in Clive's and Maurice's friendship. What need of virtues nobility if what is agathos is a sacrifice. If within the same soul,beat the same soul and ultimately, euros is a challenge if... when a shining boy- man hides a smallness, a meanness beating a brave savage front. Scudder begins love by threats, yet Maurice emerges a man ready to take chances, understanding Scudder to be lacquered in mob mentality.
However, Scudder watches his ship, literally come in only to depart, perhaps in the calculating portion that is Scudder, he sees "sir", as the benevolent man he was before ironically Scudder's educating Maurice, the pretentious snob. Likely,life is a small room without a view for the times delegate shame on unconventionality.
Likely,life will surely grow as small as the room without a view.
Likely, Scudder, will wake up one morning in that small room without a view and no connections.
Likely,"...it has been through the slothfulness of those...so ordained"1
Likely, one fine morning with the sun shining from the window of anther's room, he will have grown another soul, one darker than the youthful one layered in dreams that has long since departed from the dock.
1.Bernadee,Seth, Plato's Symposium,2001
university of Chicago Press, London
2. Bernadee,Seth, Plato's Symposium,2001
University of Chicago Press, London
I have not Plagerized, saw anyone cheating, On my honor
Sandy Olson Hill
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Maurice/Symposium
In the second half of Forster’s, Maurice, Maurice has an epiphany. He decides that a life without love is not worth living and therefore decides to give up his cushy lifestyle as a stock broker to live in seclusion with his love, Scudder. I think this is a noble decision, to give up everything in your comfortable lifestyle in order to live out the rest of your days in the company of your love. It is a huge shame that Maurice was forced to make such a choice but in that day in age, the turn of the century for a man to love another man in a romantic way was preposterous.
In Plato’s Symposium a group of superiors all join one another to recline, eat food, drink wine and give speeches. The men discuss the god of love, Eros and they are all hesitant to give a eulogy of him because he is so great a god that whatever is said may not live up to his greatness. It is so crazy to be that hundreds and hundreds of years ago homosexuality in a sense was a symbol of power, class and control. Men of power in ancient Greece could have sexual experiences with whomever they pleased as long as they were not a part of the same social class. The ancient Greeks would have sex with young boys, men and women even if they were married. It is unbelievable to me that this kind of behavior not only was widely accepted but seen as powerful.
At least Maurice was not going around having sex with whoever he pleased. He had moral and values and only wanted to love and be loved like everyone else in society, yet the love he longed for was considered immoral and illegal at that.
In Plato’s Symposium a group of superiors all join one another to recline, eat food, drink wine and give speeches. The men discuss the god of love, Eros and they are all hesitant to give a eulogy of him because he is so great a god that whatever is said may not live up to his greatness. It is so crazy to be that hundreds and hundreds of years ago homosexuality in a sense was a symbol of power, class and control. Men of power in ancient Greece could have sexual experiences with whomever they pleased as long as they were not a part of the same social class. The ancient Greeks would have sex with young boys, men and women even if they were married. It is unbelievable to me that this kind of behavior not only was widely accepted but seen as powerful.
At least Maurice was not going around having sex with whoever he pleased. He had moral and values and only wanted to love and be loved like everyone else in society, yet the love he longed for was considered immoral and illegal at that.
Hmmmm....
Finally Maurice has freed himself from the ongoing troubles in his pursuit of happiness. I was happy to see Scudder step up to the plate instead of Maurice for a change. With the relationship between Maurice and Clive, it was continually Maurice makng the sacrifices and wanting to take the chances to further enhance the relationship they had. For me, it felt too one-sided for anyone in that situation to find happiness. But in the second half of Maurice, Scudder really presses his passion and desire for Maurice. He doesn't care to think of what others might see in them. And most importantly, he risks it all when he deliberately misses his train and sacrifices a sure career elsewhere for his love with Maurice. Maurice was hesitant to express his true feelings for Scudder because of his past experiences with Clive. He had opend his heart before and got burned. So I didn't blame him for wanting to hold back so much. But thankfully, Scudder pushed forward making that extra sacrifice that enabled Maurice to see that it was safe to let go and show his love.
I found this loyalty in Plato as well when it states "there is no one so bad where one would say nothing and leave behind their beloved or not come to his aid when he is in danger." Scudder couldn't leave Maurice behind and so he stayed. "And what is more, lovers are the only ones who are willing to die for the sake of another; and that is not only true of real men but of women as well." Scudder risked his entire future for Maurice. In Plato, the Gods admired the lover more than the beloved. "A lover is a more divine thing than a beloved, for he has the God within him." And so was the case for me in Maurice. I was proud for Scudder for stepping up and making it all happen between him and Maurice.
I found this loyalty in Plato as well when it states "there is no one so bad where one would say nothing and leave behind their beloved or not come to his aid when he is in danger." Scudder couldn't leave Maurice behind and so he stayed. "And what is more, lovers are the only ones who are willing to die for the sake of another; and that is not only true of real men but of women as well." Scudder risked his entire future for Maurice. In Plato, the Gods admired the lover more than the beloved. "A lover is a more divine thing than a beloved, for he has the God within him." And so was the case for me in Maurice. I was proud for Scudder for stepping up and making it all happen between him and Maurice.
Ancient Greek Philosophers=Preppy British College Boys
The social gathering depicted in Plato’s Symposium greatly resembles a get-together that would transpire in Forster’s Maurice. In Symposium, scholarly males are coming together to engage in philosophical discussions, all while indulging in the nectar of the Gods! Replace the wine with scotch and you have got a typical night at Cambridge. There is even the humorous comment Pausanias makes about being in a “bad way” after the heavy drinking her partook in the night before. Doesn’t this seem like a whinny college boy lamenting about being hung-over and kicking himself for letting his buddies convince him to do just one more keg-stand?
The exclusive male-only nature of the gathering in Symposium mirrors one which would take place in Maurice’s day. When Eryximachus summons the flute girl out of the room, one has to wonder, Is it because he doesn’t want any auditory noise distracting from their deep discussions? Or, could his order to make this musician leave the room have greatly to do with her gender? The closeness the men share is Symposium also reminded me of the cuddly relationship of Maurice and Clive when they were school boys. The part were Agathon tells Socrates to lie down near him so that he can gain wisdom by touching him reminds me of something cute and flirty Maurice may have said to Clive.
The men’s thoughts on love are all very different and interesting. The intense love affair of the gods, Achilles and Patroclus, that they speak of, obviously doesn’t resemble that of Maurice and Clive in the least. However, at times I was concluding that maybe Maurice could fantasize about the idea of his relationship with Clive being so strong and surviving all odds, like that of Gods.
The slavery aspect of certain relationships talked about in Symposium sort of reminded me of a marriage. Two individuals take a legal step to be together. This union did strike me as a little one-sided; it is almost as though the lovers in the union would start to fill the roles of “parent” and “child”. I mean this in the sense that one individual would hold a superior dominating position and teach the other to be “wise” and “good”, much like a father would raise his son. I could definitely see Maurice taking on the role of slave, perhaps this is because of Forster’s portrayal of him being a little lost/confused puppy.
I feel Forster ties in Greek literature/culture throughout Maurice to show a society in which homosexuality was not only accepted but at times encouraged. From Symposium, one can see that the acceptance of bi-sexuality and homosexuality is deeply rooted in Greek Mythology. The idea of there once being a third race, that was androgynous, constitutes that ambiguity is natural. Even the idea that men being with men sexually is more natural because it is normal to feel the love of someone who resembles your own self, both physically and mentally, is touched on. No wonder Maurice and Clive sought comfort in the writing of the Greeks. Funny, how two cultures so similar in terms of elitism and male superiority can differ entirely about the idiosyncrasies of sexuality.
The exclusive male-only nature of the gathering in Symposium mirrors one which would take place in Maurice’s day. When Eryximachus summons the flute girl out of the room, one has to wonder, Is it because he doesn’t want any auditory noise distracting from their deep discussions? Or, could his order to make this musician leave the room have greatly to do with her gender? The closeness the men share is Symposium also reminded me of the cuddly relationship of Maurice and Clive when they were school boys. The part were Agathon tells Socrates to lie down near him so that he can gain wisdom by touching him reminds me of something cute and flirty Maurice may have said to Clive.
The men’s thoughts on love are all very different and interesting. The intense love affair of the gods, Achilles and Patroclus, that they speak of, obviously doesn’t resemble that of Maurice and Clive in the least. However, at times I was concluding that maybe Maurice could fantasize about the idea of his relationship with Clive being so strong and surviving all odds, like that of Gods.
The slavery aspect of certain relationships talked about in Symposium sort of reminded me of a marriage. Two individuals take a legal step to be together. This union did strike me as a little one-sided; it is almost as though the lovers in the union would start to fill the roles of “parent” and “child”. I mean this in the sense that one individual would hold a superior dominating position and teach the other to be “wise” and “good”, much like a father would raise his son. I could definitely see Maurice taking on the role of slave, perhaps this is because of Forster’s portrayal of him being a little lost/confused puppy.
I feel Forster ties in Greek literature/culture throughout Maurice to show a society in which homosexuality was not only accepted but at times encouraged. From Symposium, one can see that the acceptance of bi-sexuality and homosexuality is deeply rooted in Greek Mythology. The idea of there once being a third race, that was androgynous, constitutes that ambiguity is natural. Even the idea that men being with men sexually is more natural because it is normal to feel the love of someone who resembles your own self, both physically and mentally, is touched on. No wonder Maurice and Clive sought comfort in the writing of the Greeks. Funny, how two cultures so similar in terms of elitism and male superiority can differ entirely about the idiosyncrasies of sexuality.
Back to One?
Back to One?
Though there were many interesting aspects in Plato’s “Symposium”, perhaps the most interesting discussion was the subject of sex brought up by Aristophanes. Plato notes; “First of all, the races of human beings were three, not two as now, male and female; for there was also a third race that shared in both, a race whose name still remains, though it itself has vanished.” Though the story tells of human who possessed both male and female genitalia, these people also seem to possess both characteristics we commonly deem as male and female. Although we no longer see people with the physical characteristics noted, have these androgynous characters really disappeared?
Aristophanes assertion that we no longer have people who are both male and female no longer seems to hold true. Though one could assert that intersexed individuals are an example of those with both male and female sex organs, I’m inclined to think more of gender identity than sex. There is certainly growing segments of the population that identify as neither exclusively male nor female. Three specific groups come to mind when thinking of people who journey between gendered boundaries.
Perhaps the most commonly identified of those who do not fit the gender binary are transgender individuals. Feeling that the body they were assigned does not match their true gender, these people often choose to live life in their “true” gender. For some “true” gender may mean going through re-assignment surgery, while others simply choose to live their life in gender without undergoing surgery. Transgender individuals must frequently go between the male and female world; changing genders is not as simply as it appears. Obtaining driver’s licenses, finding employment, traveling and procuring medical care are all instances where the transgender individual must go between the realms of their assigned sex and their true sex.
Crossdressers are another excellent example of those who frequently cross the borders of gender identity. Unlike trans individuals, CD’s chose to emulate gender for one reason or another; Drag queens/kings do so for performance value, fetish CD’s do so for sexual gratification and, throughout history, women have often chose to take on a male identity in order to access areas or situations that were inaccessible because of their gender. The crossing from one gender to another must be very different for the CD; s/he does is changing gender out of some sort of desire, while the transgender individual is simply doing so to be him/herself.
The final group, the one I find most compelling, are those of a sort of amorphous identity. A growing number of people seem to no longer fit the gender/sex norm whatsoever. These people may look transgender, yet still strongly identify as their pre-determined sex. Unlike the butch/femme look which queer individuals are labeled by their mannerisms, gender amorphous people are somewhat different because they simply chose to rebuff the expectations of what male and female is. Some biological women may chose double mastectomies and men may wear makeup and dresses, yet they still strongly identify with their biological sex. It’s a very fascinating and liberating idea, yet it is not explored very often in the mainstream media.
When Aristophanes talks about the destruction of this dual-sexed human he notes: “Now, they were awesome in their strength and robustness”. People who transcend gender, as we know it, a contemporary version of this mythical human, are awesome in strength; they have to be. Though Aristophanes tale ends with the separation of these dual sexed beings, they seem to have been reborn.
Though there were many interesting aspects in Plato’s “Symposium”, perhaps the most interesting discussion was the subject of sex brought up by Aristophanes. Plato notes; “First of all, the races of human beings were three, not two as now, male and female; for there was also a third race that shared in both, a race whose name still remains, though it itself has vanished.” Though the story tells of human who possessed both male and female genitalia, these people also seem to possess both characteristics we commonly deem as male and female. Although we no longer see people with the physical characteristics noted, have these androgynous characters really disappeared?
Aristophanes assertion that we no longer have people who are both male and female no longer seems to hold true. Though one could assert that intersexed individuals are an example of those with both male and female sex organs, I’m inclined to think more of gender identity than sex. There is certainly growing segments of the population that identify as neither exclusively male nor female. Three specific groups come to mind when thinking of people who journey between gendered boundaries.
Perhaps the most commonly identified of those who do not fit the gender binary are transgender individuals. Feeling that the body they were assigned does not match their true gender, these people often choose to live life in their “true” gender. For some “true” gender may mean going through re-assignment surgery, while others simply choose to live their life in gender without undergoing surgery. Transgender individuals must frequently go between the male and female world; changing genders is not as simply as it appears. Obtaining driver’s licenses, finding employment, traveling and procuring medical care are all instances where the transgender individual must go between the realms of their assigned sex and their true sex.
Crossdressers are another excellent example of those who frequently cross the borders of gender identity. Unlike trans individuals, CD’s chose to emulate gender for one reason or another; Drag queens/kings do so for performance value, fetish CD’s do so for sexual gratification and, throughout history, women have often chose to take on a male identity in order to access areas or situations that were inaccessible because of their gender. The crossing from one gender to another must be very different for the CD; s/he does is changing gender out of some sort of desire, while the transgender individual is simply doing so to be him/herself.
The final group, the one I find most compelling, are those of a sort of amorphous identity. A growing number of people seem to no longer fit the gender/sex norm whatsoever. These people may look transgender, yet still strongly identify as their pre-determined sex. Unlike the butch/femme look which queer individuals are labeled by their mannerisms, gender amorphous people are somewhat different because they simply chose to rebuff the expectations of what male and female is. Some biological women may chose double mastectomies and men may wear makeup and dresses, yet they still strongly identify with their biological sex. It’s a very fascinating and liberating idea, yet it is not explored very often in the mainstream media.
When Aristophanes talks about the destruction of this dual-sexed human he notes: “Now, they were awesome in their strength and robustness”. People who transcend gender, as we know it, a contemporary version of this mythical human, are awesome in strength; they have to be. Though Aristophanes tale ends with the separation of these dual sexed beings, they seem to have been reborn.
Nevermind the Bollocks--Here's Maurice!
It's a line both in the book and the film adaptation of Maurice, a line so droll in its Edwardian snobbishness that it drips with humor and truthfulness at the same time:
"England has always been disinclined to accept human nature."
(For any seekers, this line appears on page 211 of the book, during one of Maurice's treatment/visits to Lasker Jones.)
I see loads of truthfulness in this line, as far as what one can observe of English culture from a distance, both in time and miles--from the Brits' banning of specific cultural elements throughout their history, from the illegalizing of pornography during the Victorian era to the banning of illicit "video nasties' (and what a purely, innocently British, nearly childlike, term that is) during the '80s.
And what's the social effect of such acts as placing bans on cultural elements?
4 syllables--say 'em with me:
REBELLION.
Rebellion is a cultural effect, a cultural product, just as, according to Halperin's essay, sexuality is a cultural effect, a cultural product.
Ah, a link shines here. For Maurice Hall, the sexual desires tormenting him, his homosexual wants, are a rebellion forged from British strictures placed against such desires. Forster himself places agreeing hints in his book, as where academic officials admit that homosexuality more or less occurs as a passing fad for boys--a rebellious act akin to pulling a fire alarm or dropping a spider down a girl's dress (my examples, not Forster's, and yes, I'm aware of the Leave It to Beaver-ish datedness of such pranks--nothing else is springing to mind at the moment, sorry!).
I've got to say, too, if England excels in its disinclinations toward human nature, the US, in recent years, seems "superinclined" towards human nature, what with the overflowing media acceptance of homo/hetero/anything-goes-sexuality in film (Brokeback Mountain), tv (Will and Grace), print (Brokeback Mountain, again), and e-everything [ooh, is the Internet gendered?--I know, I know, subject for a future blog entry]. Perhaps such a "superinclination" carries an agenda, as in high tolerancies for sexuality might stifle any attempts at rebellion. Very BushAmerica Chic!
Back to the Brits. I can't help thinking that England's chief cultural rebellion of the '70s, the punk movement, carried not a sexual charge, but screamed a charge of sexuality--or rather, anti-sexuality. I believe the look of the '70s Britpunks, an abrasive melange of male/female elements--black leather, wildly colored hair, jewelry made from misappropriated safety pins and chains--worked to create a largely androgynous image, an image superimposing a singular aggression of rebellion over any binary sexual division.
I feel odd revealing this, as I had my years in a punk "underground," and yes, hearing the opinion of a local backwoodsman in a convenience store several years ago, "Which restroom d'ya go inta?'
Despite my punk years, I never felt the loss of any sexual division.
Then again, I wasn't in London, either, railing against unemployment and Thatcher.
And if Maurice had been written during the late '70s, I wonder in what ways, if at all, the punk rebellion would've changed anything, everything, or nothing.
"England has always been disinclined to accept human nature."
(For any seekers, this line appears on page 211 of the book, during one of Maurice's treatment/visits to Lasker Jones.)
I see loads of truthfulness in this line, as far as what one can observe of English culture from a distance, both in time and miles--from the Brits' banning of specific cultural elements throughout their history, from the illegalizing of pornography during the Victorian era to the banning of illicit "video nasties' (and what a purely, innocently British, nearly childlike, term that is) during the '80s.
And what's the social effect of such acts as placing bans on cultural elements?
4 syllables--say 'em with me:
REBELLION.
Rebellion is a cultural effect, a cultural product, just as, according to Halperin's essay, sexuality is a cultural effect, a cultural product.
Ah, a link shines here. For Maurice Hall, the sexual desires tormenting him, his homosexual wants, are a rebellion forged from British strictures placed against such desires. Forster himself places agreeing hints in his book, as where academic officials admit that homosexuality more or less occurs as a passing fad for boys--a rebellious act akin to pulling a fire alarm or dropping a spider down a girl's dress (my examples, not Forster's, and yes, I'm aware of the Leave It to Beaver-ish datedness of such pranks--nothing else is springing to mind at the moment, sorry!).
I've got to say, too, if England excels in its disinclinations toward human nature, the US, in recent years, seems "superinclined" towards human nature, what with the overflowing media acceptance of homo/hetero/anything-goes-sexuality in film (Brokeback Mountain), tv (Will and Grace), print (Brokeback Mountain, again), and e-everything [ooh, is the Internet gendered?--I know, I know, subject for a future blog entry]. Perhaps such a "superinclination" carries an agenda, as in high tolerancies for sexuality might stifle any attempts at rebellion. Very BushAmerica Chic!
Back to the Brits. I can't help thinking that England's chief cultural rebellion of the '70s, the punk movement, carried not a sexual charge, but screamed a charge of sexuality--or rather, anti-sexuality. I believe the look of the '70s Britpunks, an abrasive melange of male/female elements--black leather, wildly colored hair, jewelry made from misappropriated safety pins and chains--worked to create a largely androgynous image, an image superimposing a singular aggression of rebellion over any binary sexual division.
I feel odd revealing this, as I had my years in a punk "underground," and yes, hearing the opinion of a local backwoodsman in a convenience store several years ago, "Which restroom d'ya go inta?'
Despite my punk years, I never felt the loss of any sexual division.
Then again, I wasn't in London, either, railing against unemployment and Thatcher.
And if Maurice had been written during the late '70s, I wonder in what ways, if at all, the punk rebellion would've changed anything, everything, or nothing.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
The Bitter Sweet Irony of the Bow and that of the Arrow
I was not clear on the identity of Eros and as a result I googled and found my way to a web article written by Ron Leadbetter. Leadbetter explains that Eros, the Greek god of love and sexual desire, is often portrayed with wings and armed with a bow and arrow. In addition, Eros has been deemed the sheer source of one’s rise to desire. Leadbetter makes reference to a poet by the name of Sappho, who describes Eros as “being bitter sweet, and cruel to his victims, yet he was also charming and very beautiful. Being unscrupulous, and a danger to those around him, Eros would make as much mischief as he possibly could by wounding the hearts of all.” This made me instantly reflect on Maurice’s relationship with Clive, or lack there of, and the dinner discussion from Symposium. It appears that Eros has released his arrow, in regards to Maurice. Specifically, Eros has embodied Maurice and as a result Maurice is motivated by his sexual desire; the splendor and the shame. Maurice is so taken back by the rejection of his beloved that we find him contemplating suicide, more than once during the second half of the novel. At this time, I realized that Maurice was a dark soul, seeking the light of day, the light of beauty, the light of love. However, all that Maurice is bestowed with is darkness which leads to isolation from his family and the object of his Eros- Clive. So, is it better to love and risk the danger and mischief of Eros than to not love at all? Is it worth the sacrifice of our self worth, is it worth the agony of loss, and is it worth the scar that the arrow leaves? More importantly, the scar forever reminds you of the time that you allowed Eros to drive your inner most thoughts to rise to the surface and risk it all. Each man in the Symposium shared their thoughts of how Eros drove men and women to such lengths that nothing seemed important than that of their desire and seeking fulfillment of that desire. Lovers, those beloved, men and women- regardless to that of our preference, we all find ourselves prey to Eros. “It was destiny, I was not looking for anyone- s/he just found me, I have no idea how this happened, I just felt that something over came me, and I could not control myself,” etc. At times we find ourselves seeking Eros and at others times, not so much, yet Eros always finds it’s way to us- this is the bitter sweet irony of the bow and that of the arrow.
maurice & plato
At the end of Maurice I couldn’t help but feel proud of him and his courage. He finally seemed to accept his feelings for Scudder. This allowed him to relinquish those that he had for Clive which were almost suffocating him. In a “to hell with it” style he proudly announced his feelings and actions and in a way defied not only Clive but society. This particular moment really brought a section of Plato’s Symposium to mind.
As Pausanias stated on his turn, “There should have been a law as well to prohibit the loving of boys, in order that a lot of zeal would not have been wasted for an uncertain result; for it is not clear where the perfections of boys has its end with regard to the vice and virtue of both soul and body.” From reading Maurice it seemed that it was a common knowledge that boys would go through similar feelings as Maurice, but as they turned into adults and accepted the responsibilities to society that all was to end. Then, just like the characters in Plato’s story, they were obligated to marry. Poor Maurice suffered for many reasons, but mostly because his love for Clive was “wasted”.
For each of our readings so far, they all express societies need to repress and control human desire. For Maurice they restricted same sex relations and for Halperin and Plato even though their society was more open they still did set guidelines as to what was acceptable. If Aristophanes version of Eros is correct and we are all created from one being and just long to find our other half, regardless of gender, why does society try to stop this from happening? And if we do find this other half why does society tell us that we have to follow their guideline and get married, have 2.5 kids and settle down? The biggest question of them all is why have we allowed it?
We are all blessed with free thinking minds and should not let allow ones jealousy of another mans happiness to control what is socially acceptable. Maurice mentally broke free from this and appears to finally find happiness and piece. From reading these stories it has shown me that literature is a very powerful way to show the wrongs society has placed on us.
As Pausanias stated on his turn, “There should have been a law as well to prohibit the loving of boys, in order that a lot of zeal would not have been wasted for an uncertain result; for it is not clear where the perfections of boys has its end with regard to the vice and virtue of both soul and body.” From reading Maurice it seemed that it was a common knowledge that boys would go through similar feelings as Maurice, but as they turned into adults and accepted the responsibilities to society that all was to end. Then, just like the characters in Plato’s story, they were obligated to marry. Poor Maurice suffered for many reasons, but mostly because his love for Clive was “wasted”.
For each of our readings so far, they all express societies need to repress and control human desire. For Maurice they restricted same sex relations and for Halperin and Plato even though their society was more open they still did set guidelines as to what was acceptable. If Aristophanes version of Eros is correct and we are all created from one being and just long to find our other half, regardless of gender, why does society try to stop this from happening? And if we do find this other half why does society tell us that we have to follow their guideline and get married, have 2.5 kids and settle down? The biggest question of them all is why have we allowed it?
We are all blessed with free thinking minds and should not let allow ones jealousy of another mans happiness to control what is socially acceptable. Maurice mentally broke free from this and appears to finally find happiness and piece. From reading these stories it has shown me that literature is a very powerful way to show the wrongs society has placed on us.
Dogma Style
Forster’s use of Plato’s Symposium as a feature in the novel Maurice lends a classical foundation to the theme of the novel.The ancient Greeks were accepting of sexual relationships between members of the same sex, even though the Law specified that a man should take a wife. Contrast that with the prevailing attitudes of Maurice’s day: the Law was the same, take a wife, yet there was no tacit understanding that one could have sexual relations outside that social framework as there was in Plato’s time.
While Maurice broke ground for its day, it can be seen as just a modern adaptation of Plato’s dialogue on the subject of sexuality. Just as Plato acknowledged the proverbial white elephant in the room by bringing sexuality out into public discourse, Forster aims for the same goal, although it would take years for the novel to reach a wide audience. The turn of the 20th century was a time of great changes in our society. The world was becoming smaller through communications. The geographic world as we know it had been discovered and mapped. Forster lived in a modern era of enlightenment where, it seemed at the time, there was little more to discover. Naturally the thinking man should turn his light of discovery inward toward his most intimate of secrets: sexuality.
In Maurice’s time a man branded with the label of homosexual would face grave, even fatal consequences. The prudent, noble man would have no use for such selfish and self-indulgent proclivities. It would run afoul of virtues, honor, and the Christian morals that had become the basis for what is socially acceptable in England. Man was to serve one God, one country, and one woman and family. The Greeks served many gods, some masculine and some feminine. The ideals of virtue and honor held true in Plato’s time, yet the concept of morals had not been corrupted by monotheistic dogma. Simply put, Plato’s characters enjoyed the passions of their bodies without the guilt that modern religion had instilled in the society of Maurice’s time.
The simplistic contrast and comparison notwithstanding, man (and woman) are complex beings with many needs beyond the prurient. When “descent” society dictates with whom these personal needs may be met, a part of the soul is left un-nurtured. If we are creations of God, made in his image, then would it not stand to reason that the needs of the flesh are to be satisfied by flesh just as the needs of the soul are to be nourished by God? These are innate parts of the human experience: created by God, stifled by Dogma.
While Maurice broke ground for its day, it can be seen as just a modern adaptation of Plato’s dialogue on the subject of sexuality. Just as Plato acknowledged the proverbial white elephant in the room by bringing sexuality out into public discourse, Forster aims for the same goal, although it would take years for the novel to reach a wide audience. The turn of the 20th century was a time of great changes in our society. The world was becoming smaller through communications. The geographic world as we know it had been discovered and mapped. Forster lived in a modern era of enlightenment where, it seemed at the time, there was little more to discover. Naturally the thinking man should turn his light of discovery inward toward his most intimate of secrets: sexuality.
In Maurice’s time a man branded with the label of homosexual would face grave, even fatal consequences. The prudent, noble man would have no use for such selfish and self-indulgent proclivities. It would run afoul of virtues, honor, and the Christian morals that had become the basis for what is socially acceptable in England. Man was to serve one God, one country, and one woman and family. The Greeks served many gods, some masculine and some feminine. The ideals of virtue and honor held true in Plato’s time, yet the concept of morals had not been corrupted by monotheistic dogma. Simply put, Plato’s characters enjoyed the passions of their bodies without the guilt that modern religion had instilled in the society of Maurice’s time.
The simplistic contrast and comparison notwithstanding, man (and woman) are complex beings with many needs beyond the prurient. When “descent” society dictates with whom these personal needs may be met, a part of the soul is left un-nurtured. If we are creations of God, made in his image, then would it not stand to reason that the needs of the flesh are to be satisfied by flesh just as the needs of the soul are to be nourished by God? These are innate parts of the human experience: created by God, stifled by Dogma.
Individualism vs. Social Construction
In thinking about our class discussion last weak about social construction, I am beginning to questions the foundation of our society, and therefore the make-up of us as individuals. By today’s standards, our society, at least in America, is considered to be one that is open and accepting to choice, where we as individuals have the ability to exercise our free will. But do we really have a choice in life, or does the make up of our society pre-determine our destiny?
Take marriage, for instance, in our culture it is assumed that we as individuals want to grow up and find our “soul mate”, get married, have children, and die old together in a house surrounded by a white picket fence. This could even be referred to as a sub-section of the “American Dream”, right along with being successful in our careers and becoming disgustingly, filthy rich. Doesn’t everyone in our society want to be successful in love and marriage? And aren’t we expected to strive towards, and work hard our whole lives in the pursuit and achievement of that goal?
Even Aristophanes states in Plato’s Symposium that some men in ancient times had no personal drive or interest in the sanctuary of marriage, but were forced to conform by their society. He states, “When they are fully grown men, they are pederasts and naturally pay no attention to marriage and procreation, but are compelled to do so by the law, whereas they would be content to live unmarried with one another.” Has society even evolved from those times? It seems to me that the only progress we have made is to do away with the legalities in forcing marriage upon individuals. It’s still practically a necessity though. No one today wants to reap the repercussions of having to tell their mother that they are not getting married and bearing grandchildren simply because they don’t want to.
What about monogamy? According to Aristophanes, we as humans, under the influence of the god Eros, have only one purpose in life, that of finding our “soul mate.” He explains that, “Each of us, then, is a token of a human being, because we are sliced like files of sole, two out of one; and so each is always in search of his own token.” Men and women have never been, and still are not seen as individuals, as a complete person, but merely as one half of a whole. But what if we don’t want to spend our life looking for that one special person, destined to live out our lives in monogamy? What if we want to experience, and enjoy lots of different people in our lives?
According to society’s framework, that’s not exactly acceptable. It’s labeled promiscuous, childish, foolish, and maybe even selfish. No one may tell you it’s wrong, but it’s understood. Add the fact that you may be having same sex relations, and you’re practically an outcast of society. But how is this possible when “we” as a whole are so open minded today in our society?
In my opinion the answer is our social construction. The roots go a lot deeper than society, however, and are seeded in our basic human need to be accepted. Society plays upon that need, decides what is right and what is wrong, and waits for us as individuals to comply. Are these the limitations of our free will? Possibly. Although we as individuals can choose our path in life, won’t we always choose to fit in, be a part of, and be accepted in our society? It seems to be the natural choice to me.
In thinking about our class discussion last weak about social construction, I am beginning to questions the foundation of our society, and therefore the make-up of us as individuals. By today’s standards, our society, at least in America, is considered to be one that is open and accepting to choice, where we as individuals have the ability to exercise our free will. But do we really have a choice in life, or does the make up of our society pre-determine our destiny?
Take marriage, for instance, in our culture it is assumed that we as individuals want to grow up and find our “soul mate”, get married, have children, and die old together in a house surrounded by a white picket fence. This could even be referred to as a sub-section of the “American Dream”, right along with being successful in our careers and becoming disgustingly, filthy rich. Doesn’t everyone in our society want to be successful in love and marriage? And aren’t we expected to strive towards, and work hard our whole lives in the pursuit and achievement of that goal?
Even Aristophanes states in Plato’s Symposium that some men in ancient times had no personal drive or interest in the sanctuary of marriage, but were forced to conform by their society. He states, “When they are fully grown men, they are pederasts and naturally pay no attention to marriage and procreation, but are compelled to do so by the law, whereas they would be content to live unmarried with one another.” Has society even evolved from those times? It seems to me that the only progress we have made is to do away with the legalities in forcing marriage upon individuals. It’s still practically a necessity though. No one today wants to reap the repercussions of having to tell their mother that they are not getting married and bearing grandchildren simply because they don’t want to.
What about monogamy? According to Aristophanes, we as humans, under the influence of the god Eros, have only one purpose in life, that of finding our “soul mate.” He explains that, “Each of us, then, is a token of a human being, because we are sliced like files of sole, two out of one; and so each is always in search of his own token.” Men and women have never been, and still are not seen as individuals, as a complete person, but merely as one half of a whole. But what if we don’t want to spend our life looking for that one special person, destined to live out our lives in monogamy? What if we want to experience, and enjoy lots of different people in our lives?
According to society’s framework, that’s not exactly acceptable. It’s labeled promiscuous, childish, foolish, and maybe even selfish. No one may tell you it’s wrong, but it’s understood. Add the fact that you may be having same sex relations, and you’re practically an outcast of society. But how is this possible when “we” as a whole are so open minded today in our society?
In my opinion the answer is our social construction. The roots go a lot deeper than society, however, and are seeded in our basic human need to be accepted. Society plays upon that need, decides what is right and what is wrong, and waits for us as individuals to comply. Are these the limitations of our free will? Possibly. Although we as individuals can choose our path in life, won’t we always choose to fit in, be a part of, and be accepted in our society? It seems to be the natural choice to me.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Assignment #1
In a 3-page argumentative essay (double-spaced, typed), address one of the following prompts:
1. In “Is There a History of Sexuality?” David M. Halperin suggests that there is nothing “natural” about sexuality, and that it is a socially and historically determined construct. Following his line of argument, we could also say that gender norms within a given culture are social constructs. Select only one scene from Forster’s novel Maurice and examine it closely. Think about the relationship between gender, social power and sexual expression in that scene (i.e., what type of speech, action, or expression is permissible?). To what extent does that scene support Halperin’s view (via Foucault) of sexuality as “set of effects produced in bodies, behaviors, and social relations” enacted through “a complex political technology,” rather than as a “natural fact” (416). In other words, does Forster’s work seem to support the idea that sexuality and gender norms are socially constructed?
2. Compare the same or similar scenes from Forster’s novel Maurice (written 1913-14) and the 1987 Merchant/Ivory film production of the novel. Pick only one scene. Think about what omissions or additions were made to that scene in the film version, and what decisions by directors and producers may have led to these differences (the time it was made, etc.). To what extent do these additions or omissions in the film offer a different view of gender and sexuality than the book? (For instance, to what extent does the film heighten or subdue Maurice or Clive’s dilemma about “masculinity” in the scenes with Ann, Clive’s wife?) How does the film version alter or complicate our reading of the book?
3. What is the function of Greek culture (whether Clive’s classical studies, the students’ reading of Plato, or Clive’s visit to Greece) in relationship to the way gender and sexuality are constructed in either the film or novel version of Maurice?
• a fresh title strongly indicating the essay’s content
• a clear thesis statement in the introduction, including a “what” and a “so what”
• analytical points directly related to the thesis, arranged in body paragraphs
• a topic sentence at the beginning of each body paragraph (or a VERY compelling reason for putting it elsewhere)
• textual support for every textual claim
• deft integration of quotations
• correct citation of outside sources (these sources include handouts from class).
Essay Due Date: Wednesday, February 14: Valentine’s Day!
Put your name, course #, and assignment # in the heading.
1. In “Is There a History of Sexuality?” David M. Halperin suggests that there is nothing “natural” about sexuality, and that it is a socially and historically determined construct. Following his line of argument, we could also say that gender norms within a given culture are social constructs. Select only one scene from Forster’s novel Maurice and examine it closely. Think about the relationship between gender, social power and sexual expression in that scene (i.e., what type of speech, action, or expression is permissible?). To what extent does that scene support Halperin’s view (via Foucault) of sexuality as “set of effects produced in bodies, behaviors, and social relations” enacted through “a complex political technology,” rather than as a “natural fact” (416). In other words, does Forster’s work seem to support the idea that sexuality and gender norms are socially constructed?
2. Compare the same or similar scenes from Forster’s novel Maurice (written 1913-14) and the 1987 Merchant/Ivory film production of the novel. Pick only one scene. Think about what omissions or additions were made to that scene in the film version, and what decisions by directors and producers may have led to these differences (the time it was made, etc.). To what extent do these additions or omissions in the film offer a different view of gender and sexuality than the book? (For instance, to what extent does the film heighten or subdue Maurice or Clive’s dilemma about “masculinity” in the scenes with Ann, Clive’s wife?) How does the film version alter or complicate our reading of the book?
3. What is the function of Greek culture (whether Clive’s classical studies, the students’ reading of Plato, or Clive’s visit to Greece) in relationship to the way gender and sexuality are constructed in either the film or novel version of Maurice?
• a fresh title strongly indicating the essay’s content
• a clear thesis statement in the introduction, including a “what” and a “so what”
• analytical points directly related to the thesis, arranged in body paragraphs
• a topic sentence at the beginning of each body paragraph (or a VERY compelling reason for putting it elsewhere)
• textual support for every textual claim
• deft integration of quotations
• correct citation of outside sources (these sources include handouts from class).
Essay Due Date: Wednesday, February 14: Valentine’s Day!
Put your name, course #, and assignment # in the heading.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Pompous Title Here
After watching the movie and reading Maurice, I truly felt sorry for some of the characters. I can’t imagine living in a society where you would lose all respect and the love from your family and friends because of your sexuality. I am glad we have come a long way in today’s society where such acts of sexuality do not wind up in instant betrayal. Its a shame how society’s view controls Maurice and ultimately pushes him to an emotional breakdown. Halperin shows some of the same examples from classical Athens. While it was wrong for Maurice to have a relationship with the same sex, it is also wrong in Athens for an individual to have a relationship with someone with the same position in society.
Halperin’s work showed me how much has changed though the years. In classical Athens, it wasn’t a big deal at all for men to sleep with other men or boys. In fact, it showed power and your position in society. Now, going back to Maurice, the same experiences resulted in a crime. Watching the movie Maurice really put it into perspective for me of what life was like to be gay in the early 1900’s. Forced to live a secret life and be in constant fear of others going against you would keep me highly stressed 24/7.
I personally felt sorry for Maurice having to go through life trying to fulfill society’s expectations all the time. He should have been able to express feelings of celebration and happiness instead of demonstrating confusion and disappointment.
Halperin’s work showed me how much has changed though the years. In classical Athens, it wasn’t a big deal at all for men to sleep with other men or boys. In fact, it showed power and your position in society. Now, going back to Maurice, the same experiences resulted in a crime. Watching the movie Maurice really put it into perspective for me of what life was like to be gay in the early 1900’s. Forced to live a secret life and be in constant fear of others going against you would keep me highly stressed 24/7.
I personally felt sorry for Maurice having to go through life trying to fulfill society’s expectations all the time. He should have been able to express feelings of celebration and happiness instead of demonstrating confusion and disappointment.
Significance of Greece in Maurice - Halperin
After viewing and reading Maurice and reading Halperin’s essay, I cannot stop thinking of the significance of Greece throughout the story. Ancient Greece appears to be a metaphor for sexual liberation for the characters; reading Plato’s Symposium, the Maurice and his friends are introduced to a world where having homosexual sex is acceptable. If Greece is indeed a metaphor for sexual liberation, then, perhaps, Clive’s solo journey to Greece is symbolic of his sexual awakening and subsequent decision to squelch his desires by marrying a woman. In addition to the metaphorical qualities of Greece in Maurice, several ideas come to mind.
Halperin discusses the significance of social status and same sex relationships in ancient Greece in great detail. Penetrating someone of a lower social status was completely socially acceptable, however the inverse or two people of the same status having intercourse was not acceptable. Maurice and Clive are from a similar social background; the parallel social status of the two makes them unsuitable sexual partners from a classical Greek standpoint. Maurice’s relationship with Scudder, however, would be perfectly acceptable as he is both younger and from a lower social standing.
Penetration seems to equate to power in ancient Greece. Those with the power to penetrate had to want to penetrate; those who would rather be penetrated were deemed “sick”. Similarly, without the ability to penetrate, women would always remain second- class citizens in Greece; those who tried to challenge the status quo were equated as sick as well.
Though a cursory glance would suggest that Greece was more sexually liberated, one must ask “for who?” A small group of men with the ability to wield power over a entire society is not unusual; in fact, it seems that Ancient Greece and present-day America have a lot in common in that sense.
Halperin discusses the significance of social status and same sex relationships in ancient Greece in great detail. Penetrating someone of a lower social status was completely socially acceptable, however the inverse or two people of the same status having intercourse was not acceptable. Maurice and Clive are from a similar social background; the parallel social status of the two makes them unsuitable sexual partners from a classical Greek standpoint. Maurice’s relationship with Scudder, however, would be perfectly acceptable as he is both younger and from a lower social standing.
Penetration seems to equate to power in ancient Greece. Those with the power to penetrate had to want to penetrate; those who would rather be penetrated were deemed “sick”. Similarly, without the ability to penetrate, women would always remain second- class citizens in Greece; those who tried to challenge the status quo were equated as sick as well.
Though a cursory glance would suggest that Greece was more sexually liberated, one must ask “for who?” A small group of men with the ability to wield power over a entire society is not unusual; in fact, it seems that Ancient Greece and present-day America have a lot in common in that sense.
Ancient Greece: Hedonistic Narcissism at its finest.
After reading Halperin’s “Is there a History of Sexuality” I was upset by the fact that the Athenians used sexuality as a way to oppress marginalized individuals. I mean don’t get me wrong, I have a strong appreciation for Greek culture. After all, they brought us falafel, baklava and the greatest creation ever made from chickpeas…hummus! However, their contributions to the world of food don’t counteract the fact that they make Jenna Jameson look like Mother Teresa. At least Mrs. Jameson uses sex as a means of procuring wealth and not for perpetuating an unjust cycle of domination. When Jenna looks at herself in the mirror when she reaches the end of her “porndom” journey, she may arguably have a few regrets. But, I highly doubt one of them would be “I used my sexuality to subjugate woman, boys, foreigners and slaves.”
I guess what infuriates me about the Athenians is the idea that those of high-status could get as freaky as they wanted with whoever they wanted, but their sexual escapades helped keep a tyrannical system in place. Unlike, the fee-lovin-tyedye-wearing hippies of the 60’s and 70’s, the Athenians used their sexual liberty to keep others shackled. (yes, and I mean shackled figuratively, literally, and one could even interpret this as a bondage reference.) Maybe some people can find admiration for the Athenians because they were accepting of homosexuality, but the nature of the sexual relationships practiced and the roles each partner were forced to take on tell that the Athenians were actually uptight and rigid when it came to the birds and the bees.
“Sex is portrayed in Athenian documents not as a mutual enterprise in which two or more persons jointly engage but as an action performed by a social superior upon a social inferior.” This excerpt from Halperin’s essay says it all.
“Social Inferiors” were forced to live in a society where every aspect of their being is controlled. Their sexuality should have been something they could exercise according to their own free will. By not even owning their sexuality they were made to feel like something below an animal. These “Social Inferiors” were tools of pleasure for the hedonistic elite. It just goes along with the idea that the upper-class felt they were entitled to whatever they desired. Since these “enterprises” were NOT mutual aren’t we really talking about a society where gangs of power-hungry RAPISTS walked the streets? I just wonder what happened to those brave souls, male or female, who refused to give in to the elitists’ advances.
Speaking of brave souls, I have come to the conclusion that Maurice is not one. So he is a member of a yuppyish wealthy circle who wouldn’t be in favor of his loving inclination toward men, but he just strikes me as a coward. I don’t expect him to parade through the streets with a “WE’RE QUEER WE’RE HERE!” sign, but at least get a little more backbone. Maurice is terrified of who he really is and in the beginning of the novel takes denial to a whole new level. I am talking about the dreams he has where he interprets them to not be lusty, but Christian based. The conclusion he reached about his dreams proves to be both humorous and annoying.
I guess what infuriates me about the Athenians is the idea that those of high-status could get as freaky as they wanted with whoever they wanted, but their sexual escapades helped keep a tyrannical system in place. Unlike, the fee-lovin-tyedye-wearing hippies of the 60’s and 70’s, the Athenians used their sexual liberty to keep others shackled. (yes, and I mean shackled figuratively, literally, and one could even interpret this as a bondage reference.) Maybe some people can find admiration for the Athenians because they were accepting of homosexuality, but the nature of the sexual relationships practiced and the roles each partner were forced to take on tell that the Athenians were actually uptight and rigid when it came to the birds and the bees.
“Sex is portrayed in Athenian documents not as a mutual enterprise in which two or more persons jointly engage but as an action performed by a social superior upon a social inferior.” This excerpt from Halperin’s essay says it all.
“Social Inferiors” were forced to live in a society where every aspect of their being is controlled. Their sexuality should have been something they could exercise according to their own free will. By not even owning their sexuality they were made to feel like something below an animal. These “Social Inferiors” were tools of pleasure for the hedonistic elite. It just goes along with the idea that the upper-class felt they were entitled to whatever they desired. Since these “enterprises” were NOT mutual aren’t we really talking about a society where gangs of power-hungry RAPISTS walked the streets? I just wonder what happened to those brave souls, male or female, who refused to give in to the elitists’ advances.
Speaking of brave souls, I have come to the conclusion that Maurice is not one. So he is a member of a yuppyish wealthy circle who wouldn’t be in favor of his loving inclination toward men, but he just strikes me as a coward. I don’t expect him to parade through the streets with a “WE’RE QUEER WE’RE HERE!” sign, but at least get a little more backbone. Maurice is terrified of who he really is and in the beginning of the novel takes denial to a whole new level. I am talking about the dreams he has where he interprets them to not be lusty, but Christian based. The conclusion he reached about his dreams proves to be both humorous and annoying.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Deciphering Halperin
Halperin's Essay "Is There a History of Sexuality" is well researched in a style he is enamored with, chiefly his own. It is equally apparent he relishes rhetorical queries embellished with multi syllabic nouns it takes a thesaurus to translate. While Halperin defines sexuality as an essence akin to an entity, it is politics which define society's narrow minded edicts and mores.
For instance, in E. m. Forster's Maurice, familial expectational compasses map out pre-ordained destinies for Forster's initially compliant characters, Maurice and Clive. Both are educated, after tutors in an all boys school where same gender adoration is tolerated, even expected until perceptions, the glean of society's discerning eye flutter to scorn if worships embryo of innocence births Love's lust. As in Halperin's example of superior over subordinate, it is the proverbial "non-citizen" so to speak,Maurice to Clive's monies status' who is extricated from grace (school) as the deviant, innocent is the adolescent/youth-man whose ancestral genealogy heralds gilded merits which middle to poor classes except as their due. As Maurice and Clive delve deeper into heights deemed shameful, it is Clive the atheist, and non-conformist, who in a psychosis breakdown claims himself cured of this sin of no sin. Enamored of women, first Maurice's sister Ada, then marriage to another, Maurice the prideful snob endures heartbreak to love again with Scutter an "inferior" a subordinate, distrustful and untrustworthy, yet the impetus for Maurice's journey to self revelation. He is saved though never realizing how Clive loved others, how Clive deceived himself about God, and how Clive will continue to delude himself and his bride, while Maurice dons a mans skin only to find there is no place for him, unfit for Scutters world, ostracized from his own as apologizing to his family he learns he is tolerated to disliked by his mother and sisters. Compared so often to his ordinary father, he has been groomed to fill an unexceptional life. In this way, Forster prepares the perceived for the exceptional. While the Scutters, the subordinates understand which path the unerring compass ordains.
For instance, in E. m. Forster's Maurice, familial expectational compasses map out pre-ordained destinies for Forster's initially compliant characters, Maurice and Clive. Both are educated, after tutors in an all boys school where same gender adoration is tolerated, even expected until perceptions, the glean of society's discerning eye flutter to scorn if worships embryo of innocence births Love's lust. As in Halperin's example of superior over subordinate, it is the proverbial "non-citizen" so to speak,Maurice to Clive's monies status' who is extricated from grace (school) as the deviant, innocent is the adolescent/youth-man whose ancestral genealogy heralds gilded merits which middle to poor classes except as their due. As Maurice and Clive delve deeper into heights deemed shameful, it is Clive the atheist, and non-conformist, who in a psychosis breakdown claims himself cured of this sin of no sin. Enamored of women, first Maurice's sister Ada, then marriage to another, Maurice the prideful snob endures heartbreak to love again with Scutter an "inferior" a subordinate, distrustful and untrustworthy, yet the impetus for Maurice's journey to self revelation. He is saved though never realizing how Clive loved others, how Clive deceived himself about God, and how Clive will continue to delude himself and his bride, while Maurice dons a mans skin only to find there is no place for him, unfit for Scutters world, ostracized from his own as apologizing to his family he learns he is tolerated to disliked by his mother and sisters. Compared so often to his ordinary father, he has been groomed to fill an unexceptional life. In this way, Forster prepares the perceived for the exceptional. While the Scutters, the subordinates understand which path the unerring compass ordains.
THE DESIRE TO CLASSIFY
Somewhere between ancient Athens and 1913 something happened—the need to categorize: homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, monogamous, polygamous, etc. Perhaps this polarization came about because of the rise of the Judeo-Christian church and its desire to make things black or white, good or bad.
To the ancient Athenian, there was no good or bad. A person (man) in power had absolute power; he could do no wrong. So, his sexual exploits were above reproach and simply fulfilling his sexual whims: not good or bad, not homosexual or heterosexual, just his desires fulfilled.
By 1913, the need to classify and categorize had pervaded society. Sexuality had gone “in the closet”. Religious values declared that sex was for procreation and blurred the classical distinction between sex and sexuality as Halperin described. By blurring this line between the act and the motivation, society could easily make a classification—if you had same-sex relations you were homosexual.
Durham is typical of the classical Athenian. His attraction to Maurice was what it was for a time: an attraction and a sexual relationship. Durham was later to make the distinction between sex (with Maurice) and his sexuality, the love between the young men notwithstanding.
Maybe the reason for that the novel Maurice was so controversial was that it un-blurred that distinction. A man could separate his sex from his sexuality; a difficult concept for the post-Puritan society of the early 20th century. However, a concept that the Athenian, whether citizen or non-citizen, accepted because that was their “norm”.
To the ancient Athenian, there was no good or bad. A person (man) in power had absolute power; he could do no wrong. So, his sexual exploits were above reproach and simply fulfilling his sexual whims: not good or bad, not homosexual or heterosexual, just his desires fulfilled.
By 1913, the need to classify and categorize had pervaded society. Sexuality had gone “in the closet”. Religious values declared that sex was for procreation and blurred the classical distinction between sex and sexuality as Halperin described. By blurring this line between the act and the motivation, society could easily make a classification—if you had same-sex relations you were homosexual.
Durham is typical of the classical Athenian. His attraction to Maurice was what it was for a time: an attraction and a sexual relationship. Durham was later to make the distinction between sex (with Maurice) and his sexuality, the love between the young men notwithstanding.
Maybe the reason for that the novel Maurice was so controversial was that it un-blurred that distinction. A man could separate his sex from his sexuality; a difficult concept for the post-Puritan society of the early 20th century. However, a concept that the Athenian, whether citizen or non-citizen, accepted because that was their “norm”.
Society vs. Sexuality
After reading Maurice I found myself sympathizing with several of its main characters. I began to try to imagine what it would be like if I knew that society, including my family, would turn against me because of my sexual preference. It stirred emotions such as fear, self-loathing, anger, confusion, and disappointment towards those who would criticize me. To feel that you are confined to yourself with no outlet to express yourself makes it easy to see why Maurice suffered as he does in the first part of the book.
Even though Forster represents Maurice as an average person you can see a very complex character underneath, which is similar to how I felt while viewing the movie. In both versions of this story it is evident that Maurice is a man of some statue and respect, but if society were to discover his secret they would turn their opinion of him to feelings of distain and disgust. This change in society’s view of his identity, the lowering of status because his sexual relations, has similarities and differences to Halperin’s examples from classical Athens. For Maurice it is considered unacceptable for him to have relations with someone of the same sex, but in Athens it is viewed as equally unacceptable for someone to have relations with someone of the same status. Both societies have set guidelines, just with different rules.
Halperin’s comparison of modern and ancient society’s view of sexuality opened my mind to consider the extent of power and control that sexuality could provide to people. Even in the more current sense it is visible how people use their sexuality to dominant or persuade others, but in Athens sexuality was more a way to confirm your status and to solidify it. It was almost expected for one of higher status to dominant someone of a lower status, thus confirming their power and control over the weaker.
The differences I saw between Maurice and Halperin was mainly just society’s change as to what is appropriate and the purpose behind sexuality. For this reason I also say that they are similar, either way it is society that dictates what is acceptable. I personally felt the quote by Maurice Godelier to ring true: “it is not sexuality which haunts society, but society which haunts the body’s sexuality.”
Even though Forster represents Maurice as an average person you can see a very complex character underneath, which is similar to how I felt while viewing the movie. In both versions of this story it is evident that Maurice is a man of some statue and respect, but if society were to discover his secret they would turn their opinion of him to feelings of distain and disgust. This change in society’s view of his identity, the lowering of status because his sexual relations, has similarities and differences to Halperin’s examples from classical Athens. For Maurice it is considered unacceptable for him to have relations with someone of the same sex, but in Athens it is viewed as equally unacceptable for someone to have relations with someone of the same status. Both societies have set guidelines, just with different rules.
Halperin’s comparison of modern and ancient society’s view of sexuality opened my mind to consider the extent of power and control that sexuality could provide to people. Even in the more current sense it is visible how people use their sexuality to dominant or persuade others, but in Athens sexuality was more a way to confirm your status and to solidify it. It was almost expected for one of higher status to dominant someone of a lower status, thus confirming their power and control over the weaker.
The differences I saw between Maurice and Halperin was mainly just society’s change as to what is appropriate and the purpose behind sexuality. For this reason I also say that they are similar, either way it is society that dictates what is acceptable. I personally felt the quote by Maurice Godelier to ring true: “it is not sexuality which haunts society, but society which haunts the body’s sexuality.”
Sexuality- Freedom of Choice
SEXUALITY- FREEDOM OF CHOICE
From the reading by Halperin I conclude that sexuality is a freedom of choice. For dating back to ancient Greek times in Athens, men of a citizen stature were able to “bed” those, and only those, who were not citizens. Citizen men were able to pick lovers from that of a lower social class not from their own class and the choice of these lovers had no boundaries to male or female; fair game to the citizen. It is apparent to me that the ancient times of Athens enabled choice and no judgment, as long as a position of power was portrayed in one’s choice to explore their sexuality. In opposing thought, Maurice, sets a tone that personal choice veering from that of the normal sexuality choice (boy + girl), is shameful and if discovered, unlawful. Ironically, Maurice is a man of much social stature; good job, nice family and exposure to the finer things in life. Maurice lives that of an aristocratic life, one that most likely is envied. Envied as a result of Maurice being exposed to the finer things in life, however, not the finest- freedom of choice. So here is the irony of Halperin’s thought of sexuality and the life of Maurice; if Maurice lived in that of ancient Greek times, engaging in his choice would be welcomed and not viewed unlawful. Maurice would not be subjected to secrecy nor shame nor living a life less fulfilling. In addition, Maurice went along with the Greek bylaws of sexuality and bedded that of a non-citizen; Scudder. And yet, even though Maurice was abiding the laws of the Greeks, in his modern times of the early 1900s, he was a scoundrel. Maurice was a man that should be subject to the highest punishment of the law, stripped of his social class and left to wallow in his sexuality. Wallow for the fact that as time pressed on from Athens to Europe in the 1900s, sexuality geared its ugly head, and freedom of choice was taken from man. So here is my inquiry, if we have found that the Greeks have provided us with a backbone of our legal system, medical advances and so much more- Why would we deviate from the freedom of sexuality that the Greeks put into play? Now viewing sexuality in that of the times of Athens, and the early 1900s with Maurice- where does that leave us today? With policies such as, don’t ask/don’t tell. With same sex unions not being recognized by the government, yet recognized by employers and insurance companies. So here we are, deviating from that of the Greeks, removing the welcoming and support to that of one’s freedom of choice. Evolving better that those times of Maurice in the 1900s and eliminating legal punishment to those who exercised their freedom of choice when it came to that of the social norm. Who exactly set the social norm of sexuality; boy + girl? However, still not truly accepting of one’s sexuality today lawfully and tying oh so very many strings to those who exercise their freedom of choice, when the choice is not boy + girl.
From the reading by Halperin I conclude that sexuality is a freedom of choice. For dating back to ancient Greek times in Athens, men of a citizen stature were able to “bed” those, and only those, who were not citizens. Citizen men were able to pick lovers from that of a lower social class not from their own class and the choice of these lovers had no boundaries to male or female; fair game to the citizen. It is apparent to me that the ancient times of Athens enabled choice and no judgment, as long as a position of power was portrayed in one’s choice to explore their sexuality. In opposing thought, Maurice, sets a tone that personal choice veering from that of the normal sexuality choice (boy + girl), is shameful and if discovered, unlawful. Ironically, Maurice is a man of much social stature; good job, nice family and exposure to the finer things in life. Maurice lives that of an aristocratic life, one that most likely is envied. Envied as a result of Maurice being exposed to the finer things in life, however, not the finest- freedom of choice. So here is the irony of Halperin’s thought of sexuality and the life of Maurice; if Maurice lived in that of ancient Greek times, engaging in his choice would be welcomed and not viewed unlawful. Maurice would not be subjected to secrecy nor shame nor living a life less fulfilling. In addition, Maurice went along with the Greek bylaws of sexuality and bedded that of a non-citizen; Scudder. And yet, even though Maurice was abiding the laws of the Greeks, in his modern times of the early 1900s, he was a scoundrel. Maurice was a man that should be subject to the highest punishment of the law, stripped of his social class and left to wallow in his sexuality. Wallow for the fact that as time pressed on from Athens to Europe in the 1900s, sexuality geared its ugly head, and freedom of choice was taken from man. So here is my inquiry, if we have found that the Greeks have provided us with a backbone of our legal system, medical advances and so much more- Why would we deviate from the freedom of sexuality that the Greeks put into play? Now viewing sexuality in that of the times of Athens, and the early 1900s with Maurice- where does that leave us today? With policies such as, don’t ask/don’t tell. With same sex unions not being recognized by the government, yet recognized by employers and insurance companies. So here we are, deviating from that of the Greeks, removing the welcoming and support to that of one’s freedom of choice. Evolving better that those times of Maurice in the 1900s and eliminating legal punishment to those who exercised their freedom of choice when it came to that of the social norm. Who exactly set the social norm of sexuality; boy + girl? However, still not truly accepting of one’s sexuality today lawfully and tying oh so very many strings to those who exercise their freedom of choice, when the choice is not boy + girl.
Maurice/Halperin
In reading Halperin's writings I gathered that he believes in Ancient Greece homosexuality was more about power than sexual preference. Someone who lived back then if they lived in present day maybe would not have acted on the same behavior because maybe they were not truly homosexual, they simply had the power to sleep with whomever they pleased. When I was reading Halperon's proposal I was thinking of what I read in the first half of Maurice and man did the times change. Hundreds of years prior to Maurice sleeping with young boy or men was a sign of power and superiority and nobody thought ill of it, however if you fast-forward to the early 1900's being homosexual is not only a sin but a crime. I think the Ancient Atheniens were much more liberal and as the years went on society just got really uptight. My main feeling on this thesis is confusion mixed with some disagreance. However, when it come to my feelings on Maurice I agree and relate a lot more. I think the novel is really accurate in portraying what life really would have been like for a gay man back in the 1900's, living a secret life, not being able to be with the one he loved and just being really confused about life and why he was the was he was. I really felt for the character when I was reading the first two parts because I can only imagine how difficult it would be living in a world where you can't be yourself becuase people are ignorrant as hell. I really don't feel as if Maurice is portrayed in a positive light in the novel or the film, the author writes him as sort of a selfish, frantic, depressed sort of character who doesn't treat women very well, including his mother and sisters. I really do sympathize with Maurice, I think it would be really hard to be a happy positive person if you were surrounded by a world who would reject you if they knew your secret, your true identity.
Sexuality vs. Society
In reading Halprin's explanation of the history of human sexuality, or the lack there of, I feel I am better understanding the character of Maurice, and his struggle. Given the time period he lived in, he was forced to choose between placing value in himself versus accepting the values and moral outlines forced upon him by society, a choice that he shouldn't have to make given than ones' sexuality, and sexual preferences, are personal, individual, and which may often engraved in our genetic make up.
As explained by Halprin, however, sexuality as we view it in today's terms, did not exist separately from social class, economics, or politics in ancient times, nor does it in Maurice. Men of Maurice's social class of "gentlemen" are expected to live, act, behave, marry, procreate, and even worship according to social ideals, and anything varying from the perceived standard goes beyond being immoral to criminal. For this reason, his homosexuality is an outward rejection of his society, and his religion, although unintentional at first. His final acceptance of his true sexuality, although a long internal battle, is a liberation of himself and an outward expression of truth and ethics in his own life. The theme of this being that individual identity, including sexuality, makes up social identity as a whole, and therefore we must hold more value in our own "inner light" in order to shine through the darkness of society.
In the quote by Maurice Godelier (the name is quite the coincidence), Halprin reiterates that "it is not sexuality which haunts society, but society which haunts the body's sexuality." Within the framework of the novel, I would interpret this to quote to suggest that it is the numb social construction of England which causes confusion for Maurice, who truly intends only to follow his heart in love. Without social pressures, such as the instance of his teacher Mr Ducie trying to "put him on track" by explaining that the sexual union of male and female (not another male) is what is "right with the world" and "wonderful", it could have been possible for Maurice to initially feel comfortable with his sexuality and sexual desires, rather that viewing himself as disgusting and dirty for loving another human being.
In my opinion, especially in the viewing of the movie, what I found to be disgusting is the self loathing Maurice had to suffer through in his attempt to live up to his society's ideals. The thought of the hatred and torment that Maurice felt, during a period in his life where he was in love and should have been overflowing with happiness, is what put a knot in my stomach. Why should one care so much about how he is viewed by society when society only turns it's head to gawk or condemn, but never to accept and embrace?
As explained by Halprin, however, sexuality as we view it in today's terms, did not exist separately from social class, economics, or politics in ancient times, nor does it in Maurice. Men of Maurice's social class of "gentlemen" are expected to live, act, behave, marry, procreate, and even worship according to social ideals, and anything varying from the perceived standard goes beyond being immoral to criminal. For this reason, his homosexuality is an outward rejection of his society, and his religion, although unintentional at first. His final acceptance of his true sexuality, although a long internal battle, is a liberation of himself and an outward expression of truth and ethics in his own life. The theme of this being that individual identity, including sexuality, makes up social identity as a whole, and therefore we must hold more value in our own "inner light" in order to shine through the darkness of society.
In the quote by Maurice Godelier (the name is quite the coincidence), Halprin reiterates that "it is not sexuality which haunts society, but society which haunts the body's sexuality." Within the framework of the novel, I would interpret this to quote to suggest that it is the numb social construction of England which causes confusion for Maurice, who truly intends only to follow his heart in love. Without social pressures, such as the instance of his teacher Mr Ducie trying to "put him on track" by explaining that the sexual union of male and female (not another male) is what is "right with the world" and "wonderful", it could have been possible for Maurice to initially feel comfortable with his sexuality and sexual desires, rather that viewing himself as disgusting and dirty for loving another human being.
In my opinion, especially in the viewing of the movie, what I found to be disgusting is the self loathing Maurice had to suffer through in his attempt to live up to his society's ideals. The thought of the hatred and torment that Maurice felt, during a period in his life where he was in love and should have been overflowing with happiness, is what put a knot in my stomach. Why should one care so much about how he is viewed by society when society only turns it's head to gawk or condemn, but never to accept and embrace?
Monday, January 22, 2007
Rendered Genders--the Future?
Sexual identities. They're the original binary opposition.
In terms of procreation, species survival, sexual identities being the uber-binary split can't miss. And yes, I know, such a split, such an opposition didn't begin with Homo sapiens, but we're the first species to cognitively make the acknowledgement for it, unless the higher apes are higher than we think.
And, considering the semiotic knot tying binary opposition to signifiers, does this make the binary split of sexual identities the ur-sign, the ur-signifier (you're either female or you're not; you're either male or you're not), the sign from which all others spring forth?
(Alright, I could do a big tangential job here concerning what just popped in my head, hearing "ur" in the pronunciation of Earth, from which anything and everything we conceive springs forth, but I won't. I've got a point to make below. This "urth" thing'll wait for another blog entry, perhaps.)
Ah yes, my point. My point comes from Halperin's essay, his chronicling of the sexual practices of ancient Athenian society. According to Halperin, sexual identities for the Athenians weren't based on preferences of either heterosexuality or homosexuality, but rather upon relationships of "superordinates"--male citizens--and "subordinates"--women, foreigners, slaves, etc. Superordinates had their way, any way, with whomever in the subordinate class--and "class" is the key term here. This is class interest, with the embedded potential for class conflict. This relationship of "ordinates" is purely economic. This is Marxism before Marx, with a freaky sexual bent.
Yes, yes, the point. It's nothing Marx-related, really. It's the way the Greeks redefined the binary split of sexual identities, shifting sexual preferences--they allowed anything, it seems--to economic privilege. And economics affects everyone involved in the two big tiers of the opposition: male/female and heterosexual/homosexual. This means YOU!
And shifts and redefinitions bring us into the current time and into the future, where the binary opposition of sexual identities might be threatened, in ways the ancient Greeks could never've imagined even if they chose to. There are strange shifts afoot.
It seems sexualities are being conceived with little to do with sexual preference, but rather with environments.
Remember metrosexuals? Clean, tidy urbanites who could be either straight or gay, as long as they were found in metropoli. It appeared their chief sexual preference had something to do with shacking up not so much in the city, and not with the city, but with basic city life. Please, no Candace Bushnell jokes!
I don't know what happened to the metrosexuals; the term seems to've died away like a great auk and the elephant bird.
(I should bring up here that I think the title character in Forster's Maurice might be a proto-metrosexual; then again, given the comparatively effete nature of males in Edwardian England, I think much of the populace of the era and place might be proto-metros.)
Virtual environments? There's the telesexual set, the gang into teledildonic devices (punch teledildonics into Wikipedia, if you dare!), wherein spatiality trumps contact, where pleasure exists in the space separating two or more partners anywhere in the world, of either gender, I'd imagine. Does this constitute an original gender, something the metrosexuals couldn't do.
And the future? Consider the shifts. Cloning, for one. What kind of sexual preferences or genuine gendered offshoots might emerge in a clone-friendly environment (an environment where there'd be no scarcity of pleasurable resources--take that, Marx!), after cloning sets in as a commonplace practice?
Might there emerge a sexual preference for relations with one's clone, a kind of (apologies in advance) full-body external masturbation?
Narcissisexuals?
Replicasexuals?
Simulacraphelia?
Tampering with the chemical levels of estrogen and testoserone in one's clone, petrie-dishing up a female or male pleasure-copy of yourself? Gender-hacking?
I don't know if such shifts, if they ever happen, would threaten the binary opposition of sexual identities. After all, there'd still be a hierarchy of "ordinates" in a cloned set, right?
Right?
In terms of procreation, species survival, sexual identities being the uber-binary split can't miss. And yes, I know, such a split, such an opposition didn't begin with Homo sapiens, but we're the first species to cognitively make the acknowledgement for it, unless the higher apes are higher than we think.
And, considering the semiotic knot tying binary opposition to signifiers, does this make the binary split of sexual identities the ur-sign, the ur-signifier (you're either female or you're not; you're either male or you're not), the sign from which all others spring forth?
(Alright, I could do a big tangential job here concerning what just popped in my head, hearing "ur" in the pronunciation of Earth, from which anything and everything we conceive springs forth, but I won't. I've got a point to make below. This "urth" thing'll wait for another blog entry, perhaps.)
Ah yes, my point. My point comes from Halperin's essay, his chronicling of the sexual practices of ancient Athenian society. According to Halperin, sexual identities for the Athenians weren't based on preferences of either heterosexuality or homosexuality, but rather upon relationships of "superordinates"--male citizens--and "subordinates"--women, foreigners, slaves, etc. Superordinates had their way, any way, with whomever in the subordinate class--and "class" is the key term here. This is class interest, with the embedded potential for class conflict. This relationship of "ordinates" is purely economic. This is Marxism before Marx, with a freaky sexual bent.
Yes, yes, the point. It's nothing Marx-related, really. It's the way the Greeks redefined the binary split of sexual identities, shifting sexual preferences--they allowed anything, it seems--to economic privilege. And economics affects everyone involved in the two big tiers of the opposition: male/female and heterosexual/homosexual. This means YOU!
And shifts and redefinitions bring us into the current time and into the future, where the binary opposition of sexual identities might be threatened, in ways the ancient Greeks could never've imagined even if they chose to. There are strange shifts afoot.
It seems sexualities are being conceived with little to do with sexual preference, but rather with environments.
Remember metrosexuals? Clean, tidy urbanites who could be either straight or gay, as long as they were found in metropoli. It appeared their chief sexual preference had something to do with shacking up not so much in the city, and not with the city, but with basic city life. Please, no Candace Bushnell jokes!
I don't know what happened to the metrosexuals; the term seems to've died away like a great auk and the elephant bird.
(I should bring up here that I think the title character in Forster's Maurice might be a proto-metrosexual; then again, given the comparatively effete nature of males in Edwardian England, I think much of the populace of the era and place might be proto-metros.)
Virtual environments? There's the telesexual set, the gang into teledildonic devices (punch teledildonics into Wikipedia, if you dare!), wherein spatiality trumps contact, where pleasure exists in the space separating two or more partners anywhere in the world, of either gender, I'd imagine. Does this constitute an original gender, something the metrosexuals couldn't do.
And the future? Consider the shifts. Cloning, for one. What kind of sexual preferences or genuine gendered offshoots might emerge in a clone-friendly environment (an environment where there'd be no scarcity of pleasurable resources--take that, Marx!), after cloning sets in as a commonplace practice?
Might there emerge a sexual preference for relations with one's clone, a kind of (apologies in advance) full-body external masturbation?
Narcissisexuals?
Replicasexuals?
Simulacraphelia?
Tampering with the chemical levels of estrogen and testoserone in one's clone, petrie-dishing up a female or male pleasure-copy of yourself? Gender-hacking?
I don't know if such shifts, if they ever happen, would threaten the binary opposition of sexual identities. After all, there'd still be a hierarchy of "ordinates" in a cloned set, right?
Right?
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)