Category Archives: Stereotype

Shift From Exile to Diaspora

Posted on by
Reply

Sima Shakhsari’s essay on how the war on terror increased the hyper visibility of queer Iranians via cyberspace delved into a lot of complex issues surrounding Iran and the country’s attitude towards homosexuality.  What I found most interesting about the piece was the exploration of the shift from exile to diaspora.  The juxtaposition of a backwards and traditional Iran and the fast paced, innovative Internet provided by Shakhsari helps us to understand the shift in depth.  As a result of the war on terror, the media was constantly covering Iran and information on Iranian queers became more visible.  This in turn gave them a stronger international presence and identity which before that point was denied as seen in instances like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia University where he declared “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country”.

Before the war on terror, this mentality of homosexuality as a non-existent factor within Iranian culture figuratively stripped Iranian queers of their Iranian identity not only within Iran but outside of Iran as well.  For example, although many queer Iranians living outside of Iran consider themselves exiles, “the Iranian exilic imaginations have incessantly excluded Iranian queers” (Shakhsari).  This is extremely important to note because Iran didn’t even fully acknowledge individuals of Iranian descent that identified as queer in their most negative image – exile.  Instead, Iranian culture placed “queer” in the image of Western civilization and attributes the queering of Iranian individuals as perversion from the West.

Identifying as a queer individual automatically makes an issue of sexual orientation political as we see in Arsham Parsi’s case.  “This situation is both a burden and a tremendous personal responsibility for me…I fully devote my labors toward achieving for myself and my fellow citizens in Iran the treasured dream and desire of so many millions around the globe…freedom.” (19, Shakhsari)  This sentiment coupled with the war on terror and the innovation of technology ultimately led to an increase in engagement, communication, and support for Iranian queers located outside of Iran – ultimately ushering in the shift from exile to diaspora.

Hiding Prejudice Behind Virtual Walls

Posted on by
Reply

Shakhsari: Sima Shakhsari unmasks the role that hegemonic and heteronormative imaginations play in shaping the neoliberal tolerance policies that have become popularized through virtual media with regards to Iranian Queers living within and beyond the nation’s borders.

Reading this article brings up my personal apprehension with the validity given to campaigns for equality based on tolerance as opposed to acceptance. Sima Shakhsari’s piece on the apparent shift from denial of the existence of the Iranian Queer community to the sudden “chic” and tolerance of queerness exposes the utility behind the queer aesthetic in advancing the nation-state’s flawed reputation as an antiquated and repressive place. As spelled out in Shakhsari’s article, fighting for women and gay rights is commonly seen as a sign of democracy, modernity, and compassionate civility. Using cyberspace as a medium to promote this seemingly tolerant policy allows for supposed opposition groups to advocate for gay rights on solely a topical level. If I were a blogger, re-posting an article about the “gay-hangings” in Iran without positing my own commentary on the heteronormative discourses that support a homophobic atmosphere would be a convenient way for me to touch on the issue of gay rights with a metaphorical 10-foot pole, i.e.from a safe distance.

It is unsettling to find that cyberspace, a virtual world that offers the opportunity for us to challenge and reassess the ways of the “real world,” can be manipulated to replicate the same power dynamics that exist in reality. Though the internet has offered many marginalized minorities a safe-space to empower themselves and build community, this article has helped me realize the way in which this medium can simultaneously be used to exploit these same populations. Shakhsasri illustrates how the heteronormative imagination that dominates our “real world” can ultimately saturate the borderless territory of the world wide web, disciplining and denouncing the humanity of the very populations that seek liberation.

 

 

 

Audience, Accessibility, and African-American Art

Posted on by
Reply

A brief summation of works read this week:

A) Raiford: The Black Panther movement used photography to both deconstruct and reconstruct the meaning of the African-American body in order to tailor their public image.

B) Jones: Artists of African descent in Southern California, even with virtually no help from the (white) art establishment, created a flourishing community that translated their lived experiences into art that challenged social injustices.

C) Johnson: African-American artists risk alienating with a single-minded focus on “black solidarity”, something that can prove divisive for the viewers.

Art critic Ken Johnson’s piece on “Now Dig This! Art & Black Los Angeles 1960-1980” is now infamous for the bizarre analysis of the “divisive” nature of African-American art that it contains. Johnson seems to be unable to critique any form of art without comparing it to the work of white male artists. African-American art, it seems, has no intrinsic value – it only has value by its relationship to the art of white men. This de-legitimizes not only African-American art but the artists themselves, people who contribute more than simply race to their work (though race and ethnicity are obviously important parts of their work). Johnson refuses to see “Now Dig This!” as a varied collection of the works of many different artists, stunningly different in their backgrounds and their work alike. For lack of a better phrase, these artists are literally colored by their collective blackness, and Johnson is rendered blind to all else. Furthermore, the incredibly diverse artistic makeup of “Now Dig This!” appears to be ranked by supposed accessibility. Ken Johnson, a white man, feels alienated by the work of these artists (not all of whom are black, yet another point he misses!), claiming that the work “divides viewers between those who, because of their life experiences, will identify with the struggle for black empowerment, and others for whom the black experience remains more a matter of conjecture…those viewing from a more distanced perspective may regard as social realist clichés, like the defiant fist” (Johnson).  One must suppose that not only is the work of these artists divisive according to Johnson, but it is actually clichéd! Not to discredit the entirety of the African-American artist community, Johnson does single out a few artists that he feels have succeeded – those who “complicate how we think about prejudice and stereotyping” (Johnson). Such a statement is significantly less inflammatory, yet it is followed by the absurd proclamation that the “art of black solidarity gets less traction because the postmodern art world is, at least ostensibly, allergic to overt assertions of any kind of solidarity” (Johnson). Somehow, solidarity has become passé, or is not nuanced enough in African-American art. Perhaps, following Johnson’s advice, artists of African descent should be less “obvious”, adhere less frequently to “clichés” of social justice and solidarity. Maybe African-American artists and artists of all other backgrounds involved in “Now Dig This!” and similar projects will provide more accessible and less “clichéd” works hinged on issues of racism, oppression, and solidarity, when racism, oppression, and solidarity are no longer a problem, Mr. Johnson.