Comments on: Halperin’s History of Homosexuality – Chapter 4

By: bjbailie

bjbailie — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:44:30 +0000

I don’t think Halperin is negating agency, but describing how the understanding of the choices available to an individual are formed, ie, through the “seemingly heterogeneous mass of discourses, social practices, disciplinary mechanisms, institutional structures, and political agencies, all of which arose out of different circumstances and different contexts in Europe during the modern period” (Halperin 87) that form the milieu we currently live in. These things shape what an individual thinks is possible, and therefore available as a course of action, when asserting her agency.

By: revasias

revasias — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:01:51 +0000

Great Summary, J. I hate that I will miss the presentation. It is interesting how the public and the private are blurred when confronted with social hierrchies. Take notes!

By: zstuckey

zstuckey — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:52:07 +0000

The issue of identification reminds of how, when for instance, I am watching a Hollywood film with the compulsory heterosexual plot, I typically identify with the straight woman even though I am not straight in the contemporary sense. Butler’s peformativity is at play everywhere as this article gets at. The reproduction of compulsory identities is on tv, on covers of magazines, in my hallway outside my apartment (but not inside!).

By: Eileen

Eileen — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:02:04 +0000

Thanks for the overview of chapter 4, J. I found it interesting in the introduction to Halperin (which I will bring to class and discuss) that he points to what he calls the “pleasures of identification” in the work of doing history. He then dissects the possibilities and problems of identification in historical inquiry. Identification “picks out resemblances, connections, echo effects” (15). Also identification can allow us to examine “historical continuities” as he does in chapter 3 between the Greek dialogue and the Japanese text. My question is how we can connect Halperin’s notion of identification to rhetorical identification as posited by 20th century figures like Burke. How are the concepts different, similar? And what is the role of identification in doing rhetorical history?

I also think that your second question, J, would be interesting to put into dialogue with a Foucauldian framework and in relation to Laurie’s blog post. More on that later–looking forward to your presentation!

By: tanyakrod

tanyakrod — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:25:07 +0000

Thank you for this great summary, and for the provocative questions. I really appreciate Halperin’s approach to exploring the history of homosexuality, as he looks at the various threads, and the ways in which they intersect and connect to one another. He considers the mutliple factors at play in defining a complex notion, rather than pinning down an origin of one history that attempts to account for a holistic understanding of homosexuality. Yet, I do agree with you J, that agency and naming are of particular importance in understanding the concept of homosexuality. This is actually something I’d like to hear you talk more about in class on Thursday. Is there a particular reason why this aspect would be “forgotten” or not mentioned? I’m also intersted in the shift in meaning of the trait, effeminacy. I wonder what social, political or cultural influences evoked this shift, and how it became one of the most often used tools to identify gay men, ultimately leading to the creation of a stereotype that has the potential to serve as a tool of oppression. On another note, I’m really interested in your ideas about queering pedagogy. Can we also talk about this on Thursday?