Talking Sex…Jamaica-Style!

I had the most amazing reaction to a presentation I made last week when I spoke at the ACS Cross Roads (Cultural Studies) Conference at the University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona campus. My paper which was entitled: “Enforced Heterosexuality and the “the fear of a Gay Planet”: Critiquing Contemporary Narratives of Masculinity in Jamaican Popular Culture” examined the current Jamaican sexual politics. It was located in the larger context of Adrienne Riche’s concept of a Western enforced heterosexuality and ‘the fear of a gay planet’.

I focused, however, on how Jamaican national identity is constructed, historically, by ancient, colonial jurisprudence which seek, in the main, to criminalize certain expressions of sex; in the process, enshrining a culture of sexual violence, hatred and gendered and racial discrimination. My presentation highlighted how race, class, colour and gender are subsumed under the sexual lingua franca of the modern West, with its great preoccupation with ascertaining and locating personal and cultural identities and subjectivities through sexual practise. The overall intent was to question the impermanence, albeit the seeming illogicality of applying labels like homo-, hetero- and bisexuality in our current Caribbean/ Jamaican realities.

In the post presentation discussion, a member of the audience – a Jamaican woman, who I later learned was also a Ph.D. and a film maker, announced that she was ‘queer’. Her comments came as part of a very heated exchange with another male member of the audience – an American, who originally challenged my contentions about the politics of sexual labeling here.

The Jamaican woman ‘came out’ as a way of shutting up the, apparently, obtuse American, at least this was how I read it. He, cynically, queried whether or not there were gay people in Jamaica. His comments were directed at me. The woman, however, demanded that he clarify his use of the word ‘gay’ as he seemed to have missed my point. He responded that, the distinctions were ‘semantic’.

Needless to say, this further ignited the woman’s already excited passions. She stated very loudly for all to hear: “I am queer! I am Jamaican! I live in Jamaica!...What do you mean by gay?” Her last question trailed off into an anguished appeal for more than just clarification, but also reflected what I thought was the pain of having one’s identity erased from the discussions. Incidentally, this was the very point I was making, at the time.

Discussions about sex here have been hijacked by an extreme focus on male homosexuality which, basically, denies the experiences of everyone else in the debate. The American, obviously, missed this nuance, in his blithe disregard for these apparent complexities which, in part, explain sex and sexuality in Jamaica as well as the woman’s own placement in that dialogue.

The ACS Conference was, certainly, living up to its billing. It was more than ‘filling a gap in the international cultural studies community’. By all appearances; it was also therapy. At one point, I wondered whether I was in church. After all, the audience’s contribution had an eerie feeling of an ‘altar call’ in which I was, fortunately or not, placed in the role of high priest.

Yes, all bets were off. It was open season and sex was the target! Indeed, this was only one panel. I heard there were others where the responses were even more dramatic. Pity, I only saw one other. I was preoccupied with professional work and church commitments as well as the need to catch up on needed rest.

For my part, I had never witnessed this much passion expressed in relation to a topic by any audience of this kind. But, then again, this was the start of a long weekend of ‘academising’! Plus, we were talking sex – the very stuff of our beings and, incidentally, the title of today’s entry which I thought would have made for interesting reading, especially with the "Jamaica-style" added!

The other panelist, herself, a Jamaican who teaches at Brandeis University in the United States expressed ‘concern’ that the Jamaicans might not have demonstrated the appropriate levels of meekness which it is claimed come so ‘naturally’ to us. According to her, we/ they (the Jamaicans) were in a rabid, no nonsense mood, causing fear and disquiet amongst the foreigners.

Indeed, the Jamaicans (in the audience) seemed eager to divest themselves of the ideological baggage of foreign imposed labels, with their narrow, taxonomical definitions authored by the West. Admittedly, I did not know what to expect or even how I was to dress for the occasion. One friend/ colleague had earlier questioned whether my jeans and blue striped polo shirt were appropriate. Notwithstanding that I had presented at other conferences, both here and overseas before, I was still uncertain because of the sheer magnitude of the ACS Cross Roads Conference.

I sought the advice of an older, female colleague on the matter. She, however, wasted no time in informing me that she had other, more urgent commitments. Left, then, with the full brunt of my anxieties, I was forcefully reminded that I had volunteered to bell the proverbial cat. The troublesome issues had been placed squarely on the agenda – sex in Jamaica! How very interesting! How very intimidating! The opportunity was clearly now mine to ensure that I saw my own way. After all, a presentation with a title like “enforced heterosexuality and the fear of a gay planet….masculinity…popular culture…Jamaica” was bound to ruffle more than some feathers.

Allow me a few indulgences, if I could, to share my position on some of these very troubling issues; that is, in the context of my presentation. Firstly, I make no special claims on the issue beyond a simple effort to argue that the limitations of sexual labeling, especially, in Jamaica are symptomatic of a society fundamentally vested in racist, colonial elitism. I wished to suggest that this be considered as a legitimate premise for rigourous academic interrogation of sexuality in Jamaica. As a result, traditional approaches to theory and methods must, by necessity, be reconfigured.

The standard academic practice of excluding rather than including the voices of those without conventional theoretical platforms or ‘authenticity’ on which to make their voices heard must be urgently revisited. Any efforts to read sexuality as a purely physical act is, largely, aimed at disregarding the likely nuances suggested by my position as well as to reify traditional systems of oppression in the society, as a result.

Rewind to the earlier mentioned confrontation and my presentation. With my recent encounters with some members of the ‘progressive liberal (pink) media’ (read the entry before the previous one!), uppermost in my mind, as well as the Jamaican Prime Minister’s now infamous remarks to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC): “Not in my cabinet”, I eagerly anticipated the discussion. I was, however, completely surprised at the point at which the confrontation erupted between the American man and the self-declared ‘queer’, Jamaican woman.

Vainly, I tried to intervene by way of reiterating that the matter was not semantic, as the American had claimed. I stated, in between, the face-off, that the Western, white, male, intellectual, elitist agenda which is primarily responsible for demonizing Jamaica as ‘the most homophobic place on earth’, was vested in constructing the debate purely around sex. In so doing, other critical issues which were in need of being ventilated were suppressed such as the importance of desire in constructing fear of the ‘other’.

I argued that, if the matter was purely a question of sex, then, there was need for explanation of the phenomenon of ‘gay parties’ in Jamaica which do not sit well with the constructions of the country as either the ‘most homophobic’ or even a mildly homophobic place on earth. It also did not explain the vast numbers of ‘gay paraphernalia’ which complement this phenomenon, specifically the Jamaican media’s fascination with ‘gayness’. If sex were the only consideration, in other words, there would be no need for the trafficking and wholesale consumption of videos of gay parties, many of which have been circulated here in the last year.

Indeed, the fascination throughout all levels of the society with this state of affairs would cease to be, primarily, because the tapes were not explicitly sexual. If they were then surely the repugnance (?) of it all, (to strictly heterosexual sensibilities, that is) would result in a boycott. However, there was clearly more at stake than meets the eye, as reflected by media reports, on this issue last year.

It is possible that, the mostly upper- and upper-middle class owned and controlled Jamaican media have very real investments in maintaining ideas about ‘gayness’ as a purely ‘effeminate’, largely garish and definitely offensive. By so doing, they direct attentions away from some of the more problematic areas of sexuality and its relationship to constructing the national identity as well as citizenship issues, by forcibly placing it into the realm of ideological conjecture and, therefore, beyond the reaches of the so-called ‘common man’.

The collective commitment to maintaining ‘homophobia’ as part of the popular set of ideas which discursively govern the performance of masculinity in Jamaica begs questioning in the wider context of the complexities of the race-colour-class triad which originated in plantation hierarchies, historically. Though real for many, these are often difficult issues to explain in clear and precise terms.

The conflation of ‘uptown’ with ‘brownness’ and the transference of values of respectability to that group automatically renders its inverse – ‘downtown’, oppositional. The binary created means that to be black, at the very least to be perceived as black means that one starts from a place of deficit.

The anxieties of the brown, upper classes of Jamaican society, therefore, demonize the black under-classes, for the most part, the vast majority of whom exist outside of the reaches of privilege. Constructions of Jamaica as 'the most homophobic place on earth' locate these concerns squarely at the feet of the mass of black, disenfranchised bodies who populate Jamaica's underclasses. In so doing, further alienating black, lower-class Jamaicans from the 'nation' as an ideological construct.

It might even be reasoned that this is but another of the manifestations of the complex and disabling triple jeopardies of race, class and gender at work in post-independence Jamaica for many. The international gay lobby is in many ways, then, complicit with and exaccerbates these imbalances in the society's internal class logic and, therefore, further exposes vulnerable black youths to greater risks.

Obviously, talking sex 'Jamaica-style' is hardly sexual. No titilation and racing pulses here, at least, not in sense in which we traditionally consider sex. We are more likely, it appears, to come to blows rather than to make love on this one!

Pastor Wright and the Obama Campaign: American Media Coverage & Race

So what are Senator Obama’s views on race? And, why has he avoided talking about it till now? Well, the short answer is because it is never a good thing to discuss the subject that nobody else wants to “touch with a long stick”, as we say in Jamaica. Because, even while you give voice to what most people are thinking and trying to be very diplomatic about, yours becomes the lone voice of dissent. The one which “bite and tear out di excitement!”, which is never a good thing, as I said before.

But, alas, the good Senator – and the lone black candidate in ongoing elections in America, at that, has gone and done it! That very thing no one else wanted to discuss – the unpleasantness of race and its significance to and in America, specifically to the elections. How will that play out after the “Race in America” (my unofficial title!) speech on Tuesday, March 18, 2008? Well, CNN says that it has improved Senator Obama’s stocks. According to them, based on a recent CBS/Gallup poll, he has rebounded after falling almost five percentage points to Senator Clinton since the infamous Pastor Wright tapes surfaced. (Makes you wonder about some other tapes we have heard about, right?)

However, if you are like me, after his Tuesday speech you are especially convinced that Obama is more than just another sentimental favourite, or the proverbial 'great black hope', in other words! This is not just because he plans to end the war in Iraq – a dream which most Democrats, we are told, holds dear. But, in reality, Senator Obama represents a meaningful difference and possibly change in the winds, if not the foundations of American politics, especially its foreign policy. This is something to be looked forward to, specifically in terms of Senator Obama’s very crucially posed question of whether the war in Iraq has caused Americans to be any safer than they were before the tragedy of 9-11 stalked its land. (And, I would also add: is the rest of the world any safer, too?)

Recall if you might that the global ‘War on Terror’ has even come to the otherwise ‘peaceful’ (well, you know what I mean!) shores of the Caribbean. Some of our own nationals were said to be linked to plans to blow up planes in at least one American airport in New York City. Before that, there was the concern that countries like Trinidad and to a lesser extent Guyana and others have housed persons linked to military Islam and, quite possibly, Al Qaeda. That is certainly something to think about, specifically in the aftermath of the American media coverage of Senator Obama and his associations with the pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Jeremiah Wright.

I have resisted commenting on this topic, for as much as I could, though the temptation has been great. In the last couple of days the ‘controversy’ about race in America has certainly heated up and looks likely to impact Senator Obama’s chances of earning the Democratic nomination and, ultimately, the job of President. It is like owning Obama’s difference, in terms of his physical blackness (even), somehow qualifies me to be considered a bad person according to the current tone of the discussion. Indeed, acknowledging race in today’s society is, many respects, definitely not politically correct. This is especially the case in the aftermath of criticisms of American super power imperialism, colonialism and slavery. It is almost equivalent to suggesting that the Holocaust never existed or that man did not walk on the moon. Both of which, as you are aware, remain contentious issues for many in terms of their critique of American media and their capacity to define our realities.

More significantly, the question of race in America has once again reared its ugly head and, of all places in an election campaign and courtesy of the only black candidate in the fray, at least through his associations with his minister of religion. In reality though, Senator Clinton also had earlier intimated her own dis-ease about race by appearing to question the legitimacy of the history of black Civil Rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and others. Senator Clinton’s suggested that President Lyndon B. Johnson actually provided the grist for the achievements of the Civil Rights Movement and not the prominent African-Americans leaders amongst who King Jr. is to be counted. Naturally, the former First Lady was roundly criticized, both in the media and elsewhere, especially within the black community for such radical comments.

However, what is significant about Senator Clinton’s remarks vis-à-vis those made by Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama’s spiritual guide, is that they are perhaps not as contentious and as “fiery/ incendiary” as the, mostly white, American media have characterized them. While, there can be no doubt that Pastor Wright’s comments are, indeed, flammable, especially in the context of the racial tensions which swim below the surface of American society, there can be little doubt that part of the response of the media is, itself, implicated in the discussion on race in that society.

American media outrage is to be viewed, I believe, in the wider context of whether there is justification for the fears about race (ism) that would, ultimately, lead an American like Pastor Wright to invoke the unforgivable charge – “God damn America!” Among others, this seems to be the piece which has caused the most consternation and has lead to the near two weeks of media efforts at “digging deeper” and the critical review of Senator Obama’s relationship with Pastor Wright. Which it is felt impacts his own vision of America and the American people and, ultimately, whether he is capable of the job of being Commander-In-Chief. Indeed, Senator Obama’s wife Michelle had also earlier said that now that her husband is running for President she is (finally) proud to be an American. That too drew the ire of Senators Clinton and McCain, at the time, and required immediate damage control in terms of clarification.

Most recently, President Bill Clinton’s remarks to the effect that Senators Clinton and McCain love America, (perhaps unlike other unnamed Senators, whose issues have intruded on the real concerns in the campaign?) have turned up the heat on the discussion. More than a jab as it has been called by some in the media, in terms of President Clinton’s ‘subtle’ rebuke of Senator Obama and his eloquent, presidential-like speech on race in America, this comment opens up a potential can of worms. It is somewhat reminiscent of the invocation of the Patriots Act during the post 9-11 period - the reality being that, ‘true patriots’ do not criticize America, especially during times of terrorism and war. Indeed, the witch hunts of Americans said to be linked to Communism in the 1950’s are somewhat echoed in these comments.

What is notable also is whether the efforts to criticize the unseemly parts of the discussion about race, especially from the campaign platforms, is not itself another of the efforts by the media to gag those who would otherwise have something meaningful to say on the subject? I am almost of the view that the white American media, regarded as a liberal in many respects, reserves the right to be able to set the tone of the discussion on this very emotive and potentially flammable debate. Of course, it does not help matters that most of the presenters are not black and that their positions seem fairly insensitive, if not intolerant, towards minority concerns in this discussion.

In fact, CNN journalist Lou Dobbs has criticized Senator Obama for not having what he regards as, “fully formed views” on a range of subjects, including race and immigration. Indeed, Mr. Dobb’s comments come in the aftermath of Senator Obama’s earlier criticisms of statements made by Dobbs approximately two weeks ago regarding Senator Obama’s vision of immigration. Among others, Senator Obama criticized Mr. Dobbs for “fear mongering” and, in the words of the CNN newsman, “made all kinds of charges”. In a way, this is also reminiscent of Senator Clinton’s campaign’s claim that she would “throw the kitchen sink at Senator Obama” just before the Ohio and Texas Primaries and Caucus. Needless to say Senator Clinton won the Primaries in Ohio and Texas, but lost the Caucus (in Texas) to Senator Obama.

Which makes me wonder whether this is not another of the Clinton campaign’s strategy to bog Senator Obama down in aside issues which she herself had started much earlier? It also makes me wonder whether the claims of some of the guests who have given their views on Senator Obama’s relationship with Pastor Wright should not be viewed with suspicion by these very media? That they are given a platform such as CNN and others on which to air, in some instances, some questionable views may well prove worrisome for the Obama campaign leading into Pennsylvania, in particular, where he is trying to woo blue-collar, white American voters.

In at least one instance, one of Lou Dobbs’ commentator said that there are (basically) two types of black people – those like Pastor Wright (who express the fire and brimstone approach to race) and those like Senator Obama who are, effectively, ‘bargainers’. In the case of the latter, ‘bargainers’ are those African-Americans who ‘bargain’ with white America as a means of achieving acceptability. In effect, there would be no other basis on which white Americans could accept blacks in the same society than through a process of ‘bargaining’.

The speciousness of this comment, of course, needs not be said as it also implies that it is blacks who need the acceptance of white and not everyone in the interests of living in peace. It further underlines that the sentiments expressed by Pastor Wright are, somehow, typical (that word again!) and that, therefore, all blacks are effectively not to be trusted if even because they hold, or share in such views.

The reverberation, however, is that the comments made in reference to blacks and Pastor Wright also indict whites for believing this to be the norm amongst blacks in America. To which end, I must agree with Lou about the potentially offensive remarks made by Senator Obama about his grandmother being a “typical white” American “of her generation” as regards her fears of young black men and the types of comments she would make about them in private.

By all appearances, neither Obama nor Dobbs seems to have gotten it that both remarks – whether said directly or facilitated in the context of an interview that is not challenged, is just as dangerous. The effect of which is that they serve to reinforce negative attitudes towards and about each other without seriously critiquing such views as a means of finding common ground. Senator Obama, of course, stands to loose much more in the short term in terms of his own political future.

Which begs the question of what is the real state of the union regarding race in America? And, why is it that beyond the ‘incendiary’ remarks made by Pastor Wright can there not be an understanding in and by the American media that part of the difficulty with reporting race in America is precisely that – reporting race in America? By giving this subject as much play as it has received in the almost two weeks of its existence has served to resurrect unpleasant memories, for many, about its turbulent history in that society, and how both sides were implicated in the discussion as well as the reality of racial politics in America.

By not accepting that there are flammable views on either sides, notwithstanding the importance of the elections and the fact that Senator Obama is, himself, a black man who must have been impacted in some ways by these views is to miss the larger opportunity for a meaningful resolution of this subject. Surely, Senator Obama alone cannot make that change. However, a vote for him must, by necessity, be a step in the right direction to help address this scourge in American history.

Hopefully, the American media as well as the American people will not loose sight of this vision and make meaningful decisions in terms of how they report on and, ultimately, choose the next President – be it Senators Obama, Clinton or McCain.