Acceptance of conceptual thoughts is a process that is rooted deep in the history, geography, culture, language, politics and many other areas. The societal norms situated within the cultural differences, the legitimacy of thoughts and choices authorized by political powers, the commercial value determined by the changing economy are the restrictions placed on the choices and objects that are rejected by the society. These choices that belong to the grey area of binaries are analyzed in Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s two books: Between Men and Epistemology of the Closet. The perception of homophobia within society, structuring of male-female relationships and the understandings of homosexuality, homosociality, and heterosexuality are the similar topics that relate to and enhance each other in the two works of Sedgwick.
In her introduction from her book Between Men: Homosocial Desire, Sedgwick aims to demonstrate “the immanence of men’s same-sex bonds, and their prohibitive structuration, to male-female bonds in nineteenth-century English literature…” (Epistemology of Closet, 15) In other words; she talks about the dislike against same-sex relations between men and how these relationships are structured within society, and also how these relationships are not innate, but culturally formed through centuries. In referring to the former; Sedgwick talks of how the society becomes an obstacle for the livelihood of homosexuality. She talks about different kinds of groupings that create and thrive the male bond-ship, but these relations are ‘prohibited structures’ within the society. This prohibition is both the reason and the result of the prejudice created by family, gender, age, race, etc. relations. It is the reason because since it is prohibited by society, it becomes more and more attractive; it is the result because since societal and political institutions impose this prejudice, it grows and manifests itself as a form of unchanging norms and regulations. Towards the end of the introduction, she talks about the treatment on homosexual people, and how the society is prejudiced against homosexuality as a result of “the texture of family, gender, age, class and race relations.” (2437) We see that she is referring to the radically heterosexual society who are ‘brutally homophobic’ and these radicals coming and being fed by family institutions, where parents and kinships are judgmental; by other genders, ages, classes and race relations, where the society is fixed upon certain norms and accepted values which demean homosexuality. Furthermore, she talks about how the economy and politics cannot change as long as the society remain homophobic. This is a simple criticism of the prejudice against homosexuality. She seems to suggest that as long as the negative perception and demeaning of homosexuality exists, societies, economies, and politics cannot thrive and survive. In a sense, she seems to say that homosexuality is not an ‘issue’ that needs to be ‘dealt with’ but just another perspective on looking at sexuality and gender. Later into the introduction, she says, “… while heterosexuality is necessary for the maintenance of any patriarchy, homophobia, against males, at any rate, is not.” (2438) In these lines, she talks about how attraction to the opposite sex can be a requirement for the stability and continuity of any patriarchy, however, having prejudice and/or dislike against homosexual people is not necessary for any maintenance of any power. In referring to the latter; Sedgwick talks mainly about homosociality being learned, or acquired through cultural interactions and not being innate; the social interactions between the same sex-specifically between men. She says, “… the structure of homosocial continuums is culturally contingent, not an innate feature of either ‘maleness’ or ‘femaleness.’ (2438) These culturally contingent continuums include the inequalities of power relations between male and female that are one of the elements of culture that shape homosociality. The patriarchal and gender systems are one of the examples in which the homophobes of homosexuality and the perceptions of homosociality are shaped according to political powers and societal norms; where in the former the maintenance of the power depends on the obligation of heterosexuality; and in the latter the acceptance of individuals is rooted in the rejection and alienation of homosexuality. Whatever the reasons are for the differences in the homosociality of male and female relations, the ‘explicit axiom’ is that the ‘articulations and mechanisms’ that are the tools for the shaping are a result of the inequalities between male and female relations.
In Axiom 2 of the introduction to her book Epistemology of the Closet, Sedgwick says that “virtually any aspect of modern Western culture, must be, not merely incomplete, but damaged in its central substance to the degree that it does not incorporate a critical analysis of modern homo/heterosexual definition.” (Epistemology of Closet, 1) In other words, she says that binary opposites govern freedom and understanding, more specifically, the freedom of sexuality and gender and the perception of these concepts is limited within certain boundaries that are established by the societal norms, political powers, and economic regulations. In her second ‘heuristic leap’ Sedgwick says, “… the recognition that categories of gender and, hence, oppressions of gender can have a structuring force for the node of thought, for axes of cultural discrimination, whose thematic subject isn’t explicitly gendered at all… dichotomies in a given text of culture as opposed to nature, public opposed to private, mind as opposed to body, activity as opposed to passivity, etc. etc. are, under the particular pressure of culture and history, likely places to look for implicit allegories of the relations of men to women…” (2444) In this quotation, Sedgwick refers to how perceptions of gender can be both formed as a reason and result of cultural differences and how compatibility of binaries within a cultural context are good tools that can be used to express the differences of male and female relations. It is a reason because cultural differences are one of the shaping tools in the different perspective on gender and sexuality and how these are received by societal norms, used by political powers to maintain patriarchal systems, as mentioned in the above paragraph, and the economic regulations which shape the trading and commercial industry. It is a result of the cultural differences in the sense that the acquired traditions and values of the society shape the understanding, perspective, idea, thought even feelings of individuals about certain concepts and issue, such as gender and sexuality. As Sedgwick says, the existence of binary opposites creates a boundary for the freedom of sexuality and gender, because there are only two ways: either dark or light, male or female, public or private, etc. etc. There is no room for a grey area, or in other words, homosexuality. The in-betweenness is prohibited by the cultural differences within the societal norms and political powers. The limiting of freedom of sexuality results in an even more interesting and sometimes a direct demand of acknowledgment of objects and choices. Sedgwick refers to the oppression of gender in her book by saying, “… The special centrality of homophobic oppression in the twentieth century, I will be arguing, has resulted from its inextricability from the question of knowledge and the processes of knowing in modern Western Culture at large.” (2443) In these lines, she talks about the source of where the focus of homophobic oppression springs up, which she says to be the growing thirst for knowledge in general but more specifically and widely in the western culture. We assume that Sedgwick refers to the growing enlightenment, instill revolution of the Victorian era and later modernity which allowed access to knowledge but in a limited and prohibited way. The Enlightenment paved the way to opening books and research for knowledge and truth, but the Victorian era was a period of limitations and restrictions based on morality and ethics; however, with modernity, the questioning once again found a branch to hold on. Later into the post-colonialism, post-modernity, and twentieth century, oppression takes on a form in different areas as a result of not particularly and directly political oppression, but societal norms and traditions. The perception of change and in-betweenness, the so-called grey area, becomes a taboo within particular societies, thus creating a rejection and prohibition of homosexuality and certain obligatory establishments in the gender and sexuality system. The result is obvious: writers such as Sedgwick dive into the studies of queer theory and feminism to understand the problem comprehend the taken actions and possibly solve the problems.
Both these works relate to and enhance each other by focusing on the idea of gender systems and sexuality being limited, restricted, prohibited. The homophobic reaction against homosocial desire explained in Between Men, is squealed in Epistemology of the Closet by the explanation of restrictions and how these restrictions come to exist. The cultural differences, political powers, and perceptions produced by the societal norms, values, and institutions create a sharing theme and a similar plot in which the concepts of homosexuality, homophobism, heterosexuality, and homosociality is studied, analyzed and objectified. In justifying different concepts, it is necessary to look into the legitimacy of the concept. The question is, what determines legitimacy? Who decides what is right or wrong, who says something is one way and another thing is the other way? And the binaries that exist in the global society what about them? What effect and power do binary opposites have in the institution of right and wrong? These two works also make us think about these questions, by putting forward a debate that has long been going on: gender and sexuality and who has the right to choose what? The power politics, changing economy, cultural effects, norms, and values of society are all points that each is born into; but the choices that each makes are not born with that individual. The objects determine these choices that the individual focuses on or is made to focus, by the values imposed upon by society, by the authority of the politics, etc., etc. Homosexuality and heterosexuality is one of these concepts; whereby the former is a ‘grey-area’ concept that is yet to be discovered and accepted by all societies, regardless of the concept being applied to the traditions; the latter is yet to be brought down from its high throne of binary opposites ruling over morality and judging individuals based on its limited and clear-cut ethics.