"The desire for control is tempered through a desire for collaboration. I want to maintain ownership of my experience, but I want to share it as well."
In this thought from her essay "Making My Narrative Mine: Unconventional Articulations of a Female Soldier," Dr. Manda Hicks voices contradictory desires often encountered in the social sciences, particularly the areas dealing with culture. What is the line between appreciation and appropriation? Is it possible to acknowledge without otherizing? Can I recognize ethical issues within the exclusivity of the cultures to which I belong while still seeking acceptance within them? Can I share myself while still maintaining my identity and my integrity? Is it even possible to be authentic?
From the concept of the "gold star" homosexual to forcing women to prove their legitimate interest in various "boys club" activities, exclusivity remains a prominent component of gaining acceptance within a culture, particularly a historically otherized culture. A homosexual may feel the need to exhibit his or her commitment to homosexuality by claiming the "gold star," a term applied to homosexuals who have never had sex with a member of the opposite sex. It is easy to see how concept of a "gold star" would gain favor. Homosexuals are a traditionally oppressed group. Through exhibiting a lack of sexual desire for the opposite sex, homosexuality is theoretically shown to be a "legitimate" lifestyle. I can completely understand the need prove one's own legitimacy, but in the end, such litmus tests only serve to be exclusionary.
Culture has a very strong impact on identity. We all want to feel inclusion and belonging. However, the very nature of using culture to create our identity forces us to relinquish some control over our identity. Is it ultimately possible to create our own identity while sharing it with others? Does the creation of my identity inherently depend on difference?
I know I have written a lot of questions here, and I don't have the answers. However, if I were to recommend a rubric with witch to judge one's own authenticity, I would have to rely on Sartre. Sartre was a proponent of avoiding acting in what he called "bad faith." Acting in bad faith is essentially giving up your ability to choose under the guise the decision was made my forces outside of your control. Rather than choose which lover to stay with, a person acting in bad faith might let his or her lovers fight it out, removing that person's culpability. Am I behaving in a certain way because of my desire for belonging or am I behaving that way because it is the way that I choose to behave? Am I forcing someone to prove their legitimacy to prove my own? Can I collaborate without sacrifice?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHrbeBTiO5w
No comments:
Post a Comment