affinity language

[sophiaserpentia]

Originally published at Monstrous Regiment. You can comment here or there.

I’ve written a bit in the last few months about affinity politics and how it differs from identity politics.  This morning i was thinking about the language we use and how it affects the way we think about identity, affinity, and “who” or “what” people are.

Take the term “LGBTIQQ:” Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Questioning, and Queer.  This term has grown like a snowball because of attempts by activists to grow a coalition from scratch.  It started out as “Gay and Lesbian,” which (anyone alive during the 1970’s can tell you) was not always an obvious alliance.  The other terms were added as the coalition grew, in recognition of affinity between various groups, and to prevent re-invention of the wheel with regards to addressing similar political needs.

But the term feels unwieldy now because the community is changing its approach from identity politics to coalition of affinity.  If we want to be more inclusive, we can’t just keep tacking letters on (how about a P for polyamorous and a K for kinky too?).  Yet if more people join the movement, they deserve to be recognized somehow.  (At the same time, a danger here is that the needs of some of us could be lost in the wash — see Marti’s posts on the Transadvocate main page for insight about this.)

The difference between affinity and identity could be compared to the difference between analog and digital.  “Analog” looks at the world and sees continuous spectra; “digital” breaks the world down into discrete, distinct units. “Digital” makes it possible to condense information, but a lot of information is lost in the process.

The human brain looks for shortcuts.  It prefers digital over analog because categories make it possible to make decisions and draw conclusions without having to juggle a lot of possibly irrelevant information.  But when we do this to a person, we write over a lot of who that person is, and draw a lot of conclusions, possibly incorrect, about what they are like or what they think based on just a small amount of knowledge about them.

Our brains learn to break people down in a very digital way: “man” vs. “woman,” “gay” vs. “bi” vs. “straight:” distinct categories which we speak of as attributes that a person “is.” This leaves no room for contrary information (”How can he be ‘gay’ if he’s dating a woman?”) and it leaves no room for change (”You’re dating a man? I thought you were a lesbian.”)

We meet someone and then file away in our brain that this person “is a gay man” or a “is a straight woman.”  And then whenever we think about that person we pull whatever thoughts go along with “gay man” or “straight woman” and, accurate or not, apply those thoughts to that person and even write them as expectations of that person. We also treat these people according to the rules and dictates of society, many of which depend on this categorization of people.

Earlier forms of the liberation movement have reacted to this treatment by questioning the stereotypes without questioning the identity.  Affinity coalition is the next obvious step: questioning the discreteness of identity. It’s helpful to be able to describe where we are in our lives right now without having to be saddled with an identity forever and ever; a lot of these things change. Indeed, liberation depends on the loosening of categories just as much as it depends on the loosening of categorical expectation.

A few people around me have taken to describing themselves using numbers along the Kinsey spectrum rather than say they are “gay,” “lesbian,” “bi,” “straight,” “pansexual,” or what have you.  And they might say, “At this point in my life i am a Kinsey 3, but when i just entered adulthood i was a pretty firm Kinsey 0.”  Being able to express this variance-over-life is important because it helps to reduce the chance that someone will assign us to one category for life (and then have to deal with dissonance when we change). I’ve also heard the word “spectrum” being used to refer loosely to categories of people: for example, “female spectrum” as a term loosely referring to anyone who feels they are anywhere on the female side of totally androgynous.

I think this is a step in the right direction, but i wonder if terms like “spectrum” aren’t inherently dualistic.  We often think of a spectrum as a range going from A to B, and so i wonder if it’s still too easy to fall into dualistic or digital thinking.

To this end i pondered a number of other possible terms, which do not necessarily imply linearity: cluster, community, constellation, galaxy, nebula, orbit, set, sphere, universe, web.   Another factor is, if i use the term outside this journal, someone would have to intuitively know what i mean; this rules out some of the terms above.

I think i like “galaxy.”  If i were to say “the MTF galaxy” versus “the MTF spectrum,” you’d know roughly what i meant.

Comments

That...

[drooling-ferret.livejournal.com]

That, or genre fiction with a very specific target audience. ;)

Though I'm constantly hearing "bucket" used in this way at work (well, not this specific application, but as a general grouping word).

Re: That...

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

"Bucket"? I can see what they mean by that, but IMO there's too much of a possible negative connotation there.

Re: That...

[ineffabelle]

Mah bucket!!

(sorry, just had to...)

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

Our brains learn to break people down in a very digital way: “man” vs. “woman,” “gay” vs. “bi” vs. “straight:” distinct categories which we speak of as attributes that a person “is.” This leaves no room for contrary information (”How can he be ‘gay’ if he’s dating a woman?”) and it leaves no room for change (”You’re dating a man? I thought you were a lesbian.”)

We meet someone and then file away in our brain that this person “is a gay man” or a “is a straight woman.” And then whenever we think about that person we pull whatever thoughts go along with “gay man” or “straight woman” and, accurate or not, apply those thoughts to that person and even write them as expectations of that person. We also treat these people according to the rules and dictates of society, many of which depend on this categorization of people.

The other aspect of this (that often goes unacknowledged or is sometimes even actively denied) being that we do this to ourselves as well.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

The other aspect of this (that often goes unacknowledged or is sometimes even actively denied) being that we do this to ourselves as well.

Indeed.

[thumper-montoya.livejournal.com]

I dont know if I am the only one who thinks like this. But I find names only useful to everyone but yourself. Since we have to have a way to organize our brain to keep association, like "that person is such and such, so I can refer to them from now on as such and such."

I do the same thing. But I also try to generalize. Now usually everyone I talk to says that generalizing is bad. I dont want to be in the same category as "such and such". The thought is that if you generalize you lose some of your...individuality.

In my experiences you have two naming categories. Which go back to sociology renderings of reference to a person or group. Physical names and Non-physical names. You are male, white, brown hair and hazel eyes. But are you also bisexual, chatty, polite, cuddly? These "other" names, though descriptive in nature, can kind of pin you down.

What if I dont want to be polite? Do I have to now? Now that someone has labeled me with a non-physical name? Do I have to listen to their name? Maybe I can ignore everyones names...or maybe not.

So this brings me to my point. (long explanation for that sorry)
Why care what labels are out there? Why not be like me, and everyone else. Sure you can have a name, like Thomas. But we can all be Human, nothing less and nothing more.

So no Kinsey scale, no sexuality. I am Human and you should like me for that.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Sometimes a person just wants to be able to describe their feelings and experiences. Words are what we have to work with. It would be nice, though, to be able to use a word to describe my experience without subsequently being pinned down by it.

[thumper-montoya.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Expression without fear of being called a liar if your expression changes the next day.

Imagine a word were people thought each day about who they were. Where people were not crystals and instead water. Can you have structure without total organization? Total expression without chaos? Nice to think it is possible.

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

Consider also: array, assortment, cloud, crowd, grid.

I like cloud and crowd because neither automatically brings to mind (at least for me) the idea of an ordering or center or separateness/ exclusiveness, but could take on those connotations if appropriate. Nebula has a similar effect for me.

The strengths and shortcomings of community have been well-hashed-out.

Cluster, grid, orbit, sphere, and to some extent galaxy and web seem to me to strongly imply a center from which people are closer or further away. Not necessarily a bad thing depending on the context. Of these, I like cluster, galaxy, and grid especially.

Array, assortment, grid, and to some extent web and constellation suggest to me some form of ordering or subgrouping, although not necessarily linear (especially grid, web, and constellation). Again, not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm most wary of the separate/exclusive connotation. Universe to me seems strongly exclusive. "The female universe" seems like something very much separate from anything else. Likewise with set. To a lesser extent, perhaps galaxy and sphere.

I'm sure there are other ways to examine the terms but these are my initial reactions.

[dorisp.livejournal.com]

Maybe this is a silly question, but what is the difference between gay or lesbian and queer?