Review of 'Gay Studies in the Big Ten'

Review Author: Richard Paul Hamilton

Gay Studies in the Big Ten

By Richard Mohr

This article can be found in:

Journal or Book Title: Teaching Philosophy

Url: http://www.pdcnet.org/teachph.html

ISSN or ISBN: 01455788

Volume/Number or Edition: 7 2

Start page: 97

End page: 108

Summary

There seems to be two distinct ways of treating sexuality in a philosophical context. The first is to use issues surrounding sexuality as a means of illustrating a number of philosophical topics, such as embodiment, personal identity and various ethical issues. The second is to deploy a series of philosophical issues and questions as a means of challenging students' prejudices. The first route is probably the one most often used by mainstream philosophers, if they touch on the issue at all. The second is associated with courses such as gay and women's studies and as such is linked with a 'consciousness raising' approach. Mohr's article is an account of his use of the latter approach. It recounts his experiences teaching gay studies using a set of philosophical arguments.

At the time of writing, Mohr was working at a college he describes 'a science orientated land grant college' [97] in which the philosophy department was 'all white and all male'. He was, it appears, the only openly gay member of department. The college decided to offer a series of public lectures and Mohr offered to talk on arguments for gay rights. The lecture was poorly attended in comparison with other topics. Despite, or perhaps because of this, Mohr decided to offer a course on gay issues in the next semester. After a rather uncomfortable session on the course approval committee the proposal was accepted and achieved a reasonably healthy enrolment. Contrary to Mohr's expectations the course was not taken by 'gays in various stages of the coming-out-process'[98]. Rather, the enrolment was largely of heterosexual women and 'black football players'. Most of these students claimed never to have had any contact with gay people.

Mohr began his class by clarifying the nature of the discussion and stressing that the class would be a 'gay space'[99]. That is, no view could be expressed which would make gays in the class feel uncomfortable. He also stipulated that the nature of the discussion would be philosophical and not sociological, psychological or anecdotal. He began the course by showing a video of a group of young gays and lesbians discussing coming out. He did so in the hope of raising the consciousness of the non-gays and making gays in the class feel comfortable, even offering pop corn as a way of lightening the atmosphere.

The ensuing discussion did not go well. Following the screening, Mohr began by arguing with a lesbian woman in the group who objected to one of the character's dressing in drag. He insists that this is not oppressive but liberatory. Several of the heterosexual women in the group objected to the displays of physical affection. He challenges this by an appeal to consistency and coherence of argument. The black members of the group objected to Mohr's parallel between gay and black liberation. At the end of the group, several of the politicised gays in the group challenge Mohr's approach. They suggest that the effect of his manner had been to antagonise straight members of the group and to increase rather than decrease prejudice.[101] Mohr reports his depression following this class. He decides that it is imperative to tackle the racial tension inherent in the class: .installing a metal detector or talking things through seemed the only option.. He decides to raise the issue of black homophobia. He suggests that black men hate gays because of a 'pecking order phenomenon'. The black students in the group argue that paternity is a central part of black male identity and that gays represent a challenge to this. Mohr rejects this argument on the grounds that one should not support heterosexism using sexism.

Students apparently responded well to a discussion of Ronald Dworkin's attack on Lord Devlin over the Wolfenden report. Mohr used Dworkin's argument to arrive at an agreed definition of bigotry. The students proceeded to use this definition as criterion for judging arguments. He claims with some satisfaction that students had tried the definition out on room mates and family. This led on to a discussion of the relationship between the founding fathers and gay sexuality.

The next few classes were comprised of a series of films, including gay porn accounts of gay life and a discussion of pornography. This culminated in a discussion of the ethics of S&M. Following on from these topics, Mohr relates gay issues to issues of civil rights. There was considerable sympathy evinced by all members of the group on issues of equity, especially when Mohr pointed out that gays were regularly dismissed from jobs without legal recourse.[106] Mohr spends the next few weeks arguing for his position that gay presence, the sheer existence of gays in public, is the essential political act. This entails that gays should not seek to be respectable and ape heterosexual behaviour. Nor should they place any reliance on liberals.

Mohr reports that the most successful aspect of the course was a visit by a lesbian separatist. When she defined lesbianism in terms of motherhood, Mohr argued that this is a heterosexual notion. The speaker became verbally abusive and the class cheered giving some indication of their attitude towards him. He concludes that the course was a moderate success institutionally, with a few more similar courses being offered. It also had some successes in the wider community by encouraging one straight class member to participate in assisting homeless gay youths. Mohr therefore concludes on a note of hope

Comment

The question of philosophy and sexuality is of profound moral and intellectual importance. One thing that feminism and gay studies has impressed upon is the problematic nature of the assumption that philosophy can ever be truly impersonal. As I suggested at the beginning there are two ways in which sexuality may be taught in relation to philosophy. These ways can complement each other. An increased sophistication of philosophical argument may lead students to challenge all kinds of prejudices. Similarly, the issues raised by feminists and the gay movement challenge all sorts of prejudices about the nature of philosophy.

This said, I cannot read Mohr's article as anything more than an object lesson in how not to broach the issue of sexuality among undergraduate students. In his defence, he does make clear that he expected to teach mainly gay students. However, rather than continuing to teach the course as he planned it, he would have been far better revising his aims and objectives in the light of his actual enrolment. If anyone appeared to lack philosophical sophistication it was Mohr himself. For instance, he did not include a discussion of the nature of philosophical analysis and argument at the outset. As a result, students were confronted with both a topic and a style of argument with which they were unfamiliar. What Mohr automatically treats as examples of prejudice and bigotry may simply be expressions of students. insecurity in an unfamiliar environment. This is exacerbated by the obvious vanity, arrogance and smugness of Mohr himself.

The issue of black male sexuality is a complex one. Mohr decided to gloss over this topic by teaching them the 'right way' of thinking. I am particularly appalled by the attitude displayed in his comment about 'installing metal detectors'. The black men in the class (who were after all football players) cite a serious issue, which Mohr dismisses. It is, it seems, acceptable to define lesbianism in terms of motherhood but not black male heterosexuality in terms of fatherhood. There is an important question here and it seems to me that these men were beginning a serious attempt to question their own prejudices. This was immediately undermined by Mohr's dismissive attitude.

We live in a different time and a different place. I imagine that in Britain, with less of a Christian fundamentalist heritage and an increasingly open attitude to gays in public life, we would be less likely to encounter such open attitudes of hostility. The enrolment system here means that we would be unlikely to get such a wide diversity of students as in an American college. It's an interesting question how we might deal with this issue in a class with a large contingent of Islamic students.

I agree that insults should be avoided. But this is merely a question of basic classroom practice. 'Poof' or 'faggot' is no more acceptable than is 'bitch', 'nigger' or even 'fatty' in a classroom discussion. However, I am concerned with the notion of a 'gay space'. Surely the point of philosophy is to challenge. It is for the tutor and members of the group, in negotiation, to decide what they find offensive. It would have been better to have had an open discussion on this matter at the outset rather than simply passing injunctions. We surely cannot achieve deeper understanding by ruling certain views out tout court. It seems there is an assumption at work here that classes based around sexuality should employ lower standards of rigour than should other sorts of classes. Such an assumption, I contend, is demeaning rather than empowering.

Created on: April 17th 2007

Updated on: June 4th 2007