Karl Mannheim explored this subject extensively in 1930s Germany,
later translated into his opus
"Ideology and Utopia." In a nutshell, his major conclusion can
be squeezed onto a bumper sticker proclaiming, "Where you stand depends
on where you sit." It boils down to his argument that a logic,
or a jurisprudence, that is posited on an exalted set of enduring
values is actually an epiphenomenon of group dynamics; that where the
proponent sits, his or her group association at various levels, will
whether consciously or not, determine where he stands.
Mannheim worked in a different era, where his ideas were lauded for
their intrinsic truth by those from Marxist Herbert Marcuse to the ideological forebear of American Neo-Conservatism,
Leo Strauss. Now, in the words of Dan Quaile "I'm no Karl Mannheim,"
but I'm going apply his principles to make a serious observation based
on a critical reading of a humorous essay. It's this 2006 N.Y Times OpEd
on the film "Brokeback Mountrain by the co-creator and principle writer
of the situation comedy, "Seinfeld," Larry David.
In his piece, under protection of the ancient flag of the jester, Mr.
David commented on male sexual dynamics that I contend is the root of
antipathy towards same sex marriage. And furthermore, because this
root is both unconscious and unexplored, it breeds irreconcilable hatred
across the political divide, that has the effect of making compromise in
distant issues less possible. Let's start by dispelling the illusion
that questions of gay rights are a common issue whether among male or
females. While this alliance is politically advantageous, for
mammalian males with few exceptions-humans not being one of them, sexual
dominance is a vital imperative. This article is about male
homosexuality only, as is Mr. Davids OpEd.
Let's start where Mr. David describes his group identity, that is where he
sits:
And I love gay people. Hey, I've got gay acquaintances. Good acquaintances,
who know they can call me anytime if they had my phone number. I'm for gay
marriage, gay divorce, gay this and gay that. I just don't want to watch two
straight men, alone on the prairie, fall in love and kiss and hug and hold
hands and whatnot. That's all.
He proclaims that in spite of the feelings he will acknowledge, he is not
among those groups that would do harm to gays by denying them equality of
marriage. Yet, those who oppose same sex marriage, by large majorities
of both sides of the political divide, are perfectly willing to enact same
sex civil unions. He is addressing something else, the last vestiges
of taboo, of stigma against what he describes occurred in the film. He will
use the essential elements of humor- paradox, conflict of values, hidden
motivations and fears that have no sanctioned social expression-until the
perfect release of shared laughter.
But I don't trust him (myself). If two cowboys, male icons who are 100
percent all-man, can succumb, what chance to do I have, half- to a quarter
of a man, depending on whom I'm with at the time? I'm a very susceptible
person, easily influenced, a natural-born follower with no sales-resistance.
He follows with a self effacing riff to show that he is talking about his
own idiosyncratic weaknesses, and not making a larger issue. He
substitutes ambivalent potential attraction to men with a lack of sales
resistance, and that he is a dunce (who just happens to have identified the
greatest mass market in television history) and then he talks about
the appeal of the gay life:
And gay guys always seem like they're having a great time. At the Christmas
party I went to, they were the only ones who sang. Boy that looked like fun.
I would love to sing, but this weighty, self-conscious heterosexuality I'm
saddled with won't permit it.
Larry David, in the tradition of all important humorists, has touched on
some profound truths. First, the meaning of homosexuality is quite different
for men and women; even though gay rights advocates have
conflated the two to the detriment of useful discussion.
Straight women can sing show tunes-and have deep healing friendships, while
men do so much less frequently. Mr. David, as one of the preeminent
humorists of our era, can use these these observations as grist for
humor, while other men have fewer options defined by our milieu.
Let's consider the possibility one element of acceptance of same sex
marriage is the displaced dissatisfaction with gender identity that
causes Larry David, and perhaps the bulk of the American male population to
be reluctant to learn, feel and then express with lyrical joyful emotion the
songs of American Musical Theater. As with all brilliant synedoche, the trivial act of singing a song
represents the profound, the free expression of emotion.
While only Mr. David can write of this reluctance; others, like the
millions who regularly watched Jerry Seinfeld and his buddies
who traverse the land-mines of masculinity, are forced into another
option.
They are living a Seinfeld-like parody of masculinity, epitomized on the
show by a trivializing relationship to women. Jerry, George, Cosmo and Elaine are stuck in a hell of infantile existence,
never knowing another human being fully. Larry David struck a chord
that resonated with the tens of millions of mostly young people who reveled
in the adventures of the foursome. Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld
turned ennui into fun.
Mr. David, didn't want to see the two cowboys making love, because he
wanted such actions to be forbidden, to continue to be taboo. I would
imagine he gave a bit of thought to this sentence: I just don't want to watch two straight men, alone on the prairie, fall in
love and kiss and hug and hold hands and whatnot. That's all.
These were straight men, not gay men who had just discovered their
orientation. With this choice of wording he depicts sexual orientation
as something intrinsic, in the blood; with these cowboys, like himself, not
being of this category.
This implies that if they had been gay men, he would have had no discomfort in the dramatization of their unfolding love. For Mr. David, and those who embrace the current mindset on this issue, there is no continuum of phenotypical expression of common genotypes. Gay is like a different race, in the blood. As long as they are clearly defined as such-irrespective of its falsity, he is fine in supporting everything they want. And, like those in his group, he wants all good things for these people, these different people.
The last group who were oppressed when they were seen as acting differently, but only got into real trouble when their condition was seen as inherent, were the Jews of Europe, an event that Karl Mannheim knew quite a bit about. But that's a much longer story, and unlike Mr. Davids OpEd, isn't funny at all.
(c) Copyright 2011 Al Rodbell
This implies that if they had been gay men, he would have had no discomfort in the dramatization of their unfolding love. For Mr. David, and those who embrace the current mindset on this issue, there is no continuum of phenotypical expression of common genotypes. Gay is like a different race, in the blood. As long as they are clearly defined as such-irrespective of its falsity, he is fine in supporting everything they want. And, like those in his group, he wants all good things for these people, these different people.
The last group who were oppressed when they were seen as acting differently, but only got into real trouble when their condition was seen as inherent, were the Jews of Europe, an event that Karl Mannheim knew quite a bit about. But that's a much longer story, and unlike Mr. Davids OpEd, isn't funny at all.
(c) Copyright 2011 Al Rodbell
