The Official Blog for ENGL 41416.

Adrienne Rich makes a strong case for the lesbian as the ultimate marginalization within feminist culture in her essay, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” She writes of a “male power” that not only “deny women [their own] sexuality,” but also “…force [male sexuality] upon them.” (291) This is a system so rigid that it makes for a society where deviant sexuality is nearly impossible to conceive of.  Rich seeks to expand the term “lesbian”  into a word that includes any woman who have at any time engaged in “primary intensity among women” and asserts this group to be one that “bonds [sic] against male tyranny.” (292) In doing this, Rich removes the lesbian from the GLBTQ community, and reappropriates them as representative of the female struggle, albeit on a sexual extreme. This reappropriation is made, however, at the expense of the male homosexual; further, in defending this decision, Rich engages in the very of stereotyping of homosexual men that she loathes being done to women who act outside the compulsory frame.

In order to strengthen the association between lesbians and women at large, Rich describes what she calls “a lesbian continuum, we can see ourselves as moving in and out of this continuum, whether we identify as lesbians or not.” (293) Rich is adamant in her assertion that lesbianism need not describe the kind of physical/emotional/sexual relationship as the ones seen in the society of compulsory heterosexuality. One can include themselves within the lesbian continuum whether one seeks to live the life of a Beguine, “who ‘practiced Christian virtue on their own, dressed and living simply and not associating with men'” or even simply if one remembers “the impudent, intimate girl friendships of eight or nine year olds.” (293)

Women like Emily Dickinson and Zora Neale Hurston, according to Rich, lived outside of the world of compulsory heterosexuality and instead within the lesbian continuum:

Dickinson never married, and had tenuous intellectual friendships with men, lived self-convented in her genteel father’s house in Amherst, and wrote a lifetime of passionate letters to her sister-in-law Sue Gilbert and…her friend Kate Scott Anthon. Hurston married twice but soon left each husband…her survival relationships were all with women, beginning with her mother. Both of these women in their vastly different circumstances were marriage resisters, committed to their own work and self-hood…Both were drawn to men of intellectual quality; for both women provided the ongoing fascination and sustenance of life.”
Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence (Rich, 293)

By being “committed to their…self-hood,” Dickinson and Hurston eschewed one of the principles of male power, and refused “to cramp their creativeness” for the sake of living within the frame of compulsory heterosexuality. (293, 291) These women, who didn’t (to our knowledge) engage in openly homosexual behavior, instead represented those women who shared an aforementioned “primary intensity” and passed in and out of the lesbian continuum as a result.

These women, Rich asserts, are considered to be (among other things), “emotionally and sensually deprived,” and as creative women, “the work…is undervalued, or seen as the bitter fruit of ‘penis envy’ or the sublimation of repressed eroticism or the meaningless rant of a ‘man-hater.’ (293) Rich is calling upon all women, regardless of sexual identity, to rise up against these stereotypes, for they subjugate all women for their gender as much (and according to Rich, if not more) than they subjugate lesbians for their sexuality. In this sense, lesbianism for Rich is a symptom of greater discrimination, one that can only be overcome with the help of all women.

Immediately before this “rich” text is a passage that, in analyzing anachronistically, serves to first separate the bonds between lesbians as members of the “gay” community so that what comes after can cement the bonds between lesbians and women at large. Rich, however, breaks the bonds of sexuality unconvincingly. She claims that because lesbians are tethered to gay men, they are “deprived of a political existence through ‘inclusion as the female versions of male homosexuality.” (292) Without going further, this statement provokes many questions. For one, is Rich implying that lesbians are denied the rights they deserve because of their connection to male homosexuals? Or are lesbians perhaps pushed to the background while male homosexuality is given comparatively greater political freedom?

Rich seems to be implying a little of both:

“…there are differences: women’s lack of economic and cultural privilege relative to men; qualitative differences in female and male relationships – for example, the patterns of anonymous sex among male homosexuals, and the pronounced ageism in male homosexual standards of sexual attractiveness.”
Rich, 292

What Rich fails to articulate (purposefully or not) is the great dichotomy inherent in the very pairing of “male” and “homosexual.” While men may have more economic freedom on paper, there were many decades (certainly at the time Rich penned this essay) that men could not claim such high paying jobs were they to openly admit their homosexuality. This secrecy extends to Rich’s point about level of anonymous sex, beyond it being a well-worn argument by the religious right against the immorality of homosexuality in both sexes.

Lesbianism may be “a profoundly female experience,” but Rich doesn’t admit an important reality: gays and lesbians are marginalized for the same reason, that being their divergence from heterosexuality (compulsory or otherwise). The fact that women are subjugated regardless of sexuality does not make her plight any more important, or the plight of male homosexuals any less relevant. (292)

Advertisements

Comments on: "The Shared Existence of the Lesbian and Homosexual Man." (4)

  1. Laura Rizzo said:

    I also wrestled with her division here. She expands the definition of lesbian so much, but breaks the ties to the homosexual man. I actually thought based on her definitions that there would be plenty of homosexual men who could be on the lesbian continuum, and were being excluded simply because of biology. Her generalizations about the male homosexual community I also thought were really hostile and unconvincing.

  2. L.R. Corcoran said:

    Yes. I agree. It seems that Riche is hard-pressed to offer a Lesbian continuum and simultaneously exclude men from it. That is, one could readily imagine a ‘gay continuum’ if you will, where males bond in many different, intimate and fraternal ways without it becoming sexual. What seems to be implicit in Riche’s distinction is that women as opposed to men use these bonding relationships in order to resist over-powering, male power structures. Perhaps indeed this is a fruitful difference between the two, but as David rightly pointed out that not long ago, and certainly all too often in many places today, openly gay men are ostracized and discriminated against. Could they not as well need a bonding mechanism in order to create support? I suppose the counter claim to this could run the line of something like, “well gay men are still men, so they are not openly marked, and can readily slip back into non-marginalized roles.”

    • It’s an interesting counter claim if it worked the way Rich seems to think it does. Yes, biologically men can pass much easier than women (though Arzner may disagree); however, such passing essentially requires denial of identity in much the same way as the Mozambique woman Rich cited. A man can portray all the hallmarks of masculinity, but to reveal his homosexuality would negate the image of masculinity that supposedly gives him more of a political voice.

      As I wrote in my post, I felt as if Rich was writing in a time where tolerance (let alone rights) for both gays and lesbians was tenuous if not non-existent, and Rich saw an opportunity to market lesbianism to the white heterosexual feminists Anzaldua abhorred. If you can’t beat them, join them by making them think they are just like us, that our lesbianism is an overarching theme of feminism. It does seem more plausible that lesbians and straight women can band together in a way that gay and straight men were (and still are) unlikely to.

  3. K. Campbell said:

    I appreciate the questions you raised about Rich’s preoccupstion with severing the connections between lesbians and male homosexuals. I think that while Rich’s comments seem problematic, that her main focus is uniting all women. In The Second Sex, Simone De Beauvoir’s asserts that women cannot unite because they identify with men in various positions, instead of with other women. With this idea in mind, it is possible to understand at least one of the reasons that Rich is so adamant in removing a homosexual connotation from “the lesbian continuum.” Lesbians are associated with homosexual men, and therefore separated from heterosexual women. Therefore, their issues often become “gay” issues, rather than women’s issues. I feel it may have been somewhat more convincing for Rich to argue instead that lesbians should be viewed as women first, instead of marginalizing male homosexuals by implying that their relationships are as unreasonable as heterosexual relationships. I was also confused by her comment that it would seem more natural for both male and female desire to be directed toward females, but if all females direct their feelings toward other females, then what happens to the males who direct their feelings toward females as well? While I interpret thus as a metaphoric way of declaring women should cleave to women, it does bring and interesting image to mind: the end of heterosexual relationships, or maybe just a limitation on compulsory heterosexuality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: