This post is admittedly a premature reflection stemmed from an unfinished article and headline news.
I heard on NPR this morning of a proposed California legislation about the mention of historical figures' sexual identities, particularly the homosexual heroes. Those against of course hide their distaste poorly by saying, "I think it important to study historical figures, but I don't need to know who they slept with." And its true, unless it is pertinent to the historical story, we do not need to know who any of our historical heroes slept with. So then we do not need to know if they are gay or not...right?
I do think it is important for our historical figures to be mentioned for their heroic work and I do think that better circulation for who homosexual historical figures were is important for the homosexual community. Demonization is illegitimate way to deal with our uncomfortabilities. A silent demonization is to not make mention of a hero's sexual preference, leading many to believe (at least at present) that the here was a heterosexual. I think it will go a long way in recognizing that homosexuals are not licentious buffoons who only care about sex and stuff.
A question was asked by an interviewer if it was exotifying homosexuality. The answer was a "no". I would disagree. In some respects it may actually exotify homosexuality as something new. But exotic soon fades away. It was exotic at one point to have actual Black men acting. It was exotic to have women running companies. Both are less exotic now.
So does that mean we are encouraging homosexuality. I admit, it is a possibility, but I believe it is strongly promoting reality. I do believe homosexuality in practice (as opposed to celibate) is sinful, and an aberration from the intended creation, but this does not mean I discourage homosexuality by villanization. In fact I believe that you encourage truth and thus the Gospel by recognizing historical fact as it stands.
Volf writes something pertinent in an article titled, A Vision of Embrace:
There are many reasons why "others" are excluded, driven out of our world. To start with the most innocent, we strive to get rid of that which blurs accepted boundaries, disturbs our social identity and disarranges our symbolic cultural maps. Often, however, dehumanization and consequent destruction of "others" are a projection of our own individual or collective hatred of ourselves. "Others" become scapegoats, concocted from our own shadows as repositories of our sins so we can relish the illusion of our sinless superiority.
I think I will rest this premature reflection there.
Permalink
