How Upsetting

Zero Books, work and ‘being ourselves’

If you’re someone with an interest in left-wing theory and criticism, I would recommend you check out Zero Books. I’ve read quite a few of their releases now and, while not always agreeing with them, they have almost always been interesting and worthwhile reads. ‘Intellectualism’ is a very loaded word these days yet Zero doesn’t shy away from works identified as such. This is particularly noticeable in its books on popular culture - an area where ‘criticism’ has become reduced to, and dominated by, winking attempts at sarcasm. This has, of course, spread across the media - not least because of the odd tendency for television critics to move onto broader social commentary. The collection of essays on Michael Jackson was an utter joy for me to read, treating pop music as something worthy of high-minded writing (ranging from relatively straightforward criticism to prose poetry) and examining the different meanings, contexts, implications, relations contained both within and around Jackson.

This apparent fear of serious engagement and sincerity is something that has been on my mind for quite a while now (if you read this blog even semi-regularly, you’ll probably be aware of that). Not only in terms of culture and politics, but almost life itself. It was with great surprise and interest, then, that I found myself reading about this exact subject midway through this book. Its broad area of concern is the modern office work environment and capitalism’s encroachment on ‘emotional labour’. To put it brutally simply, the theory is that (for reasons I won’t go into here - read the book!) it is no longer desirable for the modern worker to be someone who does what they are told and quietly gets on with their job; rather, we are encouraged to ‘be ourselves’ and ‘think outside the box’. Management strategies are overwhelmingly aimed at ‘nurturing’ our emotional identity and our sense of authentic self. Our work is presented as the pathway to our ‘true’ selves. This means also that the modern workplace acknowledges the problems inherent with capitalist work and seeks to paper over them - managers will joke about working for the weekend like everyone else; corporate social responsibility programmes proclaim to tackle the ills of capitalist society; ‘creativity’ is fetishised, albeit as a very limited, profit-driven and unthreatening concept.

The result of this is that we are not encouraged to think about external society - its structures and power relations - but rather about ourselves and our immediate work environment. Any problem with work is re-conceptualised as fundamentally apersonalproblem. Marxism’s theories about alienation become meaningless, rendered instead as a subject for self-help and self-improvement.

Yet, the book argues, this alienation is still happening. Indeed, it’s more insidious than ever. Whereas with previous ‘Fordist’ models of work there was a strict separation of ‘work’ and ‘pleasure’, the commodification of emotional labour and corresponding entwining of ‘self’ with work has destroyed this. When you are constantly encouraged to ‘be yourself’ at work (albeit an apolitical, idyllically submissive version of yourself), where does the separation come from? How do you ‘switch off’?

This takes us back to the initial point, as the book argues that the result of this is an increasing infantilisation. Again, to no doubt do the argument a great disservice in its simplication, it theorises that the work where you are encouraged to ‘be yourself’ becomes identified with the ‘adult’ world and in response (and perhaps in subconscious protest at selling an emotional performance of your ‘self’) we self-consciously retreat from ‘maturity’ and being ‘serious’. Thus we have a generation of people who refuse to ‘grow up’, who refuse ‘adult’ responsibilities in their personal lives and who very ostentatiously pursue ‘play’. This ties into what I’ve previously written about conversation becoming so devalued that no-one wants to be seen as ‘too serious’ or ‘too earnest’ - instead we must accept everything but seriously engage with nothing. We find ourselves valuing ‘being ourselves’ but increasingly (without even realising it) we mock and undermine this at every opportunity, switching uneasily between an ‘authentic’ self (typically a creative self, a ‘fun’ self, a ‘liberal’ self) and rejecting this notion of ‘authenticity’ as meaningless with constant, corrosively self-reflexive irony. I almost fell off my seat when the book specifically mentioned Broadway Market in East London as a place to go and observe these traits in action.

To pick just one of the enormous number of strands here, the notion of ‘accepting everything but engaging with nothing’ occurs to me when looking at current ‘debates’ on for example, pornography, or social media. It seems that more and more we immediately rush to a glib ‘liberal’ opinion where anyone advocating that such things may have negative effects on us is at best worthy of ridicule, at worst of scorn. There is with many a reluctance to seriously consider such debates - whether it be because it’s seen as too po-faced, too dull or just pointless - and it has fostered an atmosphere where something like Zero Books can identify as a ‘radical’ publisher merely by publishing works which aim to discuss things with a degree of intelligence. Nonetheless, in a ‘lolz culture’ this proves invaluable in providing new perspectives and opportunities for discussion - as I hope my brief description of ‘Dead Man Working’ has demonstrated.

Donna Summer: Feeling Love for our Entertainers

I can’t say that I was ever a huge fan of Donna Summer, but I was sad to hear of her passing. ‘The Donna Summer Anthology’ was one of the cds I would always check out of the library when I was a kid (others included ‘Barbra Streisand - The Concert’ and the soundtrack to ‘Miss Saigon’…are we seeing a theme here?) and she was one of those legends whose music was just always there - so ubiquitous that you forgot it came from a real person and never thought about her as an individual. In some ways, I suppose that’s a great tribute to her work.

When such a star dies, the outpouring of appreciation is always moving and life-affirming. You almost feel part of a community with music at its core. I remember walking through Trafalgar Square the day after Michael Jackson died and finding a group of fans gathered around a boombox, dancing and singing to his music. They had attracted onlookers, stood in a circle around them, clapping and filming on their mobiles. It was utterly joyful. There is something uniquely powerful in sharing the transcendent state which the best music, the best artists, bring to us.

Donna Summer, of course, had largely faded from public view in recent years. You weren’t likely to pick up a newspaper or switch on the tv and read about her. With Michael Jackson, whatever his activity (or lack of it) he was put in front of us. With increasing frequency, he was put in front of us for us to laugh at, pity, demonise, ridicule. The same thoughts came to mind when Whitney Houston died. How could they not? As with Michael Jackson, she had very public problems. Unlike Michael Jackson, she had attempted to return to the ‘ordinary’ business of the pop fray, putting out new music, making new videos and trying to convince us all that it was business as usual (as usual as the business of being Whitney Houston could be). The disastrous ‘X Factor’ performance joined the Diane Sawyer and Oprah interviews in being material for ridicule.

One of the most striking speeches I read from Whitney’s memorial came from her real bodyguard, Ray Watson. It was familial and warm yet, in the most striking excerpt, he admonished our culture of ripping these people to shreds:

We got to give a little back to all our entertainers. We got to treat them with dignity and treat them with love and stop ridiculing them. It means so much if we just give them a little love and not just buy a ticket. We buy a ticket, they give their lives to you. They’re not with their families. They’re in and out, on stage, off stage, on planes, off planes, traveling, on buses, just so we can have some entertaining. Whether they’re on the court or whether they’re on the stage or whether they’re on TV, they’re giving us entertainment to make our lives just a little brighter and our nights a little smoother. So, let’s give back to them. Let’s give them love, not just a ticket.

Of course, it’s possible to overstate things. People like Whitney and Michael lead lives that most can only dream of. They enjoyed untold wealth, influence and luxury as a result of their ability to entertain. It’s also easy to imagine such an argument being used to mute any criticism of an artist, however valid it may be. However in asking us to look at what we do when we are so readily vicious about these artists whose music soundtracks our lives, I think it’s valuable. We do live in a culture where celebrity personalities are emphasised and amplified and, in many ways, people like Whitney and Michael became ‘targets’ indistinguishable from the current crop of desperate reality tv stars. 

When I saw that crowd in Trafalgar Square, I wondered if Michael Jackson could ever truly have understood how much he was loved. The joy that Michael and Whitney brought us was obscured by all of the negativity in their latter years. With someone like Donna Summer, we sometimes just forgot it. I’ve long thought that we are far more critical of the legends who have the temerity to keep creating. At some stage, we seem to want them to stop and allow us to hold onto our nostalgia for what they were - and by extension, who we were when we loved them. It’s ever more easy to instantly share our superficial opinions with the world and the quickest way to create an ‘identity’ is to affirm the things that you are not. We don’t often enough take the time to share our affections instead. As lovely as the tributes are, it’s sad in a way that the artists have to die before we even realise how much they meant to us.

RIP Donna Summer

Believing What You See: Iran’s ‘Gay’ Hangings

Yesterday a report that four gay men in Iran were due to be executed for being gay went viral. I read the report, firstly in Pink News and then beyond, with some suspicion. The reports were vague, relying largely on responses from nameless sources and Western activists. Despite Pink News quoting two sources for the story, the latter source seemed to rely on the first. In fact, every single report of the story relied on ‘reports’ from something called the “Human Rights Activist News Agency”. Given that the vast majority of readers are going to be ignorant of this organisation (I certainly was) you would expect some context as to its reliability, but there was none. There was remarkably little variation in the reporting, suggesting no independent verification. From past experience, I thought it reasonable to assume that many of the writers of these reports had made no effort to verify the story or even ascertain further details. Indeed, it’s not the first time that there has been a horror story about gay executions in Iran - and it wouldn’t be the first time that such a horror story had spread across the world with little evidence behind it.

Today, a photo purporting to show the four men’s execution (EXPLICIT CONTENT) was widely shared on social media. Again, I was suspicious. If such an event had taken place with so many onlookers, surely we would be beyond relying on a single report? Surely we would have further details of the men aside from some names in inverted commas? The fact that people sharing the photo couldn’t even agree on which day it was taken further troubled me. So this evening I did some googling. I found this great article. You must read it but in short it argues that many Western gay activists (notably Peter Tatchell) are so eager for ‘gay victims’ that they completely abandon any attempts at objectivity or rationality. It goes on to examine the reports regarding the four men and finds them wanting, to say the least. Unlike, I imagine, pretty much all of those who disseminated the story, the writer actually attempts to find out further information from HRANA and fails.

I then noticed something else: the image purporting to show the men’s execution had ‘2008’ in its file name (at least on the site I first found it linked to this story). Finding that odd, I put the image into Tinyeye search, which aims to find other instances of any picture you input. And there it was - sites using the image in 2008. Notably, they give next to no details about it, observing only that it shows a public execution in ‘Borazjan 2008’.

That search literally took seconds. The fact that none of the hundreds, thousands of people who have shared it, including some professional journalists, noticed this is worrying to say the least.

However, what does it matter? Maybe there are four men as described and Iran certainly has demonstrable form in human rights abuses and executions, including against gays. It is undoubtedly a brutal regime.

The problem is that it was a brutal regime last week and it will be a brutal regime next week. As the image shows, it was a brutal regime in 2008 when it executed four men who are anonymous to the world, preserved forever in that grim image. Yet the issue was not that it’s a despotic regime, or that it uses capital punishment (something it shares, of course, with America). The issue was that it was killing people merely for being gay. That was what made so many suddenly take notice.

This raises troubling issues. Not least, it raises the issue of how easy it can be to manipulate people into believing a certain narrative about Iran - a narrative which, of course, aids the manipulation itself. Given the drumbeats of war sounding for Iran in many powerful quarters, it’s not difficult to imagine how dangerous this could be. I saw many comments, mostly on American sites, demanding that ‘we’ bomb Iran. Some had a tone of ‘alright, now I’m in’, suggesting that previously they had not been eager to support a war but had been convinced by this barbarity. Given the lies and manipulation which led us into the Iraq war, you would surely expect us to be more wary of these emotional responses and, moreso, of whatever information led us to them? There has been a steady drip of stories about Iran’s barbarity over the past year or so - the fact that they so neatly serve powerful interests should put us on guard. It’s a sinister insight into how the softening of public opinion for an attack on Iran could happen (if it’s not happening already).

The very interesting thing is that many of the stories have concerned totemic liberal values such as gay rights and women’s rights. The ‘everyday’ oppression in Iran rarely inspires much ire - it’s these issues which get people worked up. It’s reminiscent of when we have been encouraged to support war in Iraq and Afghanistan on the grounds that it would improve the lot of women. You don’t have to spend long reading about either conflict to see that these claims are, at best, problematic.

The response also reminded me of the response to the murder of Stuart Walker in Scotland last year. There was another case where liberal-minded and I’m sure well-intentioned people rushed to judgement based on little information. That case also quickly went viral with many expressions of disgust and demands that something be done. Within hours, however, it became clear that the case was far more complex and Stuart’s sexuality might not have played a part in his death. As quickly as the outrage and concern arose, it vanished. I didn’t see a single person correct themselves or even admit that they might have got it wrong. Everyone moved on and I sincerely doubt that even 1% of the people who wrote about it have any idea of, or even interest in, what happened in Stuart Walker’s case since.

As with Stuart, we know absolutely nothing about these four Iranian men (assuming the case is real). They have immediately become ‘four gay men’ and that is the extent of their identity. The problem with that is that it becomes the extent of their usefulness. If it transpires that they were executed for, say, rape, the outrage and concern vanishes, people move on, no-one spends any time thinking about why they were so quick to get it wrong. As the Paper Bird piece argues, they are useful ‘gay victims’ for advancing certain agendas and world views and nothing else matters:

But don’t you see?  Marking them “gay” means they are not “innocent,” not in the Iranian judiciary’s eyes. You know nothing about these four men, nothing at all. But you’re still content to call them names that convict them. What gave you that right?

The truly sad thing is that someone, somewhere, deliberately decided to deceive in finding the 2008 photo and linking it to this story. The fact that this deception has so easily and so quickly spread around the world only serves to obscure the real brutalities of the Iranian regime; it serves to bolster the idea that the West will stop at nothing to discredit Iran and so strengthens the regime. More immediately, of course, it serves to obscure the reality surrounding the four men or, if they do not exist, others like them. Others like, in fact, the men in the 2008 photograph.

‘X Factor’, Britney Spears and ‘The Voice’

When ‘X-Factor’ first arose from the ashes of ‘Pop Idol’ in 2004, it was intended to be different. Michelle McManus had won the second ‘Pop Idol’ and, while undoubtedly a nice person and able to carry a tune, she was by no means a pop star. As its name suggests, then, ‘’X-Factor’ was intended to be about more than singing. It explicitly aimed to recognise that there was something almost indefinable which made a truly great pop star – something which made a mediocre singer like Madonna infinitely more interesting than ten thousand big-voiced pub singers.

It was certainly an interesting concept but one which (whether by design or by necessity) was quickly jettisoned. “It’s a singing competition!” became a mantra for the judges and audience alike, though even that became less true as the series progressed. In the endless chase for ratings it became very much a modern reality show, emphasising the personalities of the ‘contestants’ and ramping up the cruelty and contrived conflict at every opportunity. In the 2011 series Misha B was arguably the only contestant who had ‘it’, yet she was mercilessly undermined for dramatic effect and we ended up with three bland acts in the final (though certainly Little Mix are enough of a blank canvas to facilitate some decent pop singles). In short, ‘X-Factor’ these days shows nothing but contempt for pop music. ‘Talent’ is defined as being a) likeable and b) being able to hold a tune, and little else. Acts with a sense of their own artistic identity are maligned. ‘Versatility’ is fetishised but in a very narrow sense equated with the willingness to sing anything that sells records. The biggest crime of all is a desire to be creatively involved – if you want to do well from ‘X-Factor’, do not under any circumstances say that you wish to write your own material or, God forbid, aren’t particularly interested in ‘pop music’ (in its most narrowest sense  - taken to mean dance-pop).

It is perhaps naive to believe that it was ever different yet the show’s progression/degeneration can be easily traced in the lineage of its judging panel. It initially began with three industry people who could ostensibly spot ‘talent’. From there we have overwhelmingly moved to more ratings-driven choices, with each judge playing a set ‘role’. You could conceivably argue that people like Cheryl Cole or Tulisa are meant to illustrate the original concept of being pop stars despite rather modest talents, yet this is nonsensical given the decisive shift away from that idea. Indeed, when Cheryl launched her solo career on the show she mimed her performance, a quite staggering display of contempt for both contestants and audience of the ‘singing competition’. It both highlighted and undermined the charade – Cheryl is a pop star who began life as a tv personality and, despite the frequent brilliance of Girls Aloud, the latter has remained her most prominent role. This meant that she could perform as a tv personality – the singing (and even the song) were incidental. We are encouraged to buy into the person as an individual brand. This is the idea of a pop star being pushed by ‘X-Factor’ – a personality first, a singer second, an ‘artist’ a very distant afterthought. In this sense Olly Murrs is the archetypal contestant - someone who is able to present tv shows while churning out catchy, undemanding singles – while Leona Lewis’ swift decline could be attributed to her failure as a ‘personality’.

What ‘X Factor’ has become has reached its apotheosis with the appointment of Britney Spears as a judge on ‘X Factor USA’. She is in many ways the perfect ‘X-Factor’ pop star – Britney as a brand & persona long ago eclipsed Britney as a person. It’s almost irrelevant to ponder Britney as an artist because she is the ultimate blank canvas, reflecting everything and nothing, at once devoid of personality and containing everyone’s personalities. She may still put out albums but really, at this stage, no-one would bat an eyelid if she was used to advertise hedge funds.

It is a dead-eyed idea of pop as something which, at its best, sells. That becomes its primary purpose and, to this aim, it must not be demanding, difficult, too interesting or have aspirations towards being an art form (other than as, perhaps, a Warholian commentary on cultural void at the heart of pop which has been replaced by the marketplace).

The launch of ‘The Voice’ in deliberate contrast to ‘X-Factor’ has been interesting. It already seems clear that it cannot hope to even begin to challenge the notions of pop disseminated by the latter. Yet in some ways it seems like a sincere effort. The instant admission that the contestants have all been pre-vetted is a hugely positive move, moving away from the deliberate cruelty and humiliation of the audition stages of ‘X-Factor’. It does try to avoid the traps of modern reality tv with its emphasis on the contest rather than the contestant. We aren’t led to believe that the contestants all mess around in a house together; there are no ‘profiles’ of each individual every week and no ironic ‘quizzes’ wherein we are encouraged to ‘get to know’ the individuals. It displays a very self-conscious interest in ‘talent’, from its judges performing live to contestants who play instruments and speak about song-writing.

All of this is much mocked, usually with an appeal to the oft-derided notion of ‘authenticity’. This criticism works in two ways – firstly to suggest that the show is obsessed with the sneering notion of ‘real music’, secondly by highlighting that it’s a tv show and involves manipulation and so isn’t actually ‘authentic’. I think the first is unfair – I don’t think the show is overly concerned with ‘real music’ in the sense of any specific genre or even the idea that artists write songs – indeed, the two favourites to win, Ruth Brown and Jaz, are ‘simply singers. However they are singers who seem to be treated with respect, guided to improve and grow in confidence without artificial hoops to jump through such as singing ‘big band’ or whatever. The ‘authenticity’ being pursued is one that is in opposition to the ’X-Factor’ ideal of blankness. Yet it almost goes back to ‘Pop Idol’ and its idea that a good voice is enough. Madonna certainly wouldn’t make it past the pre-audition stage of ‘The Voice’.

The second criticism, though largely facile, does inadvertently highlight another big problem with ‘The Voice’ – it doesn’t quite work as a tv show. In avoiding the contrivances which make ‘X-Factor’ entertaining and aiming for an ostentatious sincerity, it ultimately misses both the entertainment of a trashy reality show and the honesty which it aims for. How could it not? The American version is far more astute regarding this and is based almost entirely around the relationship between the superstar judges.

Ultimately, I do prefer ‘The Voice’ to ‘X Factor’. The latter feels exploitative and unpleasant; I feel grubby when I watch it. The greatest crime of the former to date is that it’s a bit dull. I suppose if there’s a ‘lesson’ here it’s that pop music can never be reduced to a magic formula which works on television. ‘X Factor’ is explicitly aimed at a television audience while ‘The Voice’ naively aims itself at an audience who will appreciate ‘good singing’, assuming that this is enough. Both, perhaps, contribute to the reduction of pop music to a talent show and the increasing emphasis on pop stars as next-door ‘personalities’. To coin a phrase, the next pop revolution will not be televised.

Crumbs from the Table: Obama and Gay Marriage

“I favour legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriage” – Barack Obama in 1996

“They don’t have any thoughts - they have emotional responses” – Gore Vidal, when discussing gay marriage, on the American people

Yesterday a British friend excitedly told me that she had ‘leapt into the air’ when she heard of President Obama’s comments on gay marriage, believing that “he’s won the next election!” Across social media sites people were falling over themselves to praise the President for his courage, his righteous morality, his decency. I was sent links which implored me to sign a ‘thank you’ card which is to be sent to the White House. The inevitable slew of broadsheet columns were overwhelmingly positive; some wearily observed that it was possible to be cynical about the comments but credited Obama for his skilful politics in cornering Mitt Romney on the issue.

It seems that it’s game, set and match – Obama is a good guy. He’s progressive, he’s liberal and he’s one of us. The disappointments have been washed away, cleansed in the serene waters of ‘saying nice things about gay people’.

Even as I write this, I’m well aware of what the response of many would/will be to it: I’m cynical; a Trot; ungrateful, unrealistic and unfair; I am that worst of all creatures – a negative person. In fact I’ve written before about the totemic elevation of an issue like gay marriage above all other concerns, even other human rights ones. Well, it doesn’t get any more elevated than this.

Taking the comments entirely on their own merit, I agree that it’s a good thing for the President to personally support equal rights. I can appreciate that it in the toxic climate of American politics, it can be viewed as a big deal. However I don’t see what is gained in hysteric gratitude for some crumbs from the table. Some blogs have already noted that Obama’s ‘evolution’ on gay marriage seemed to begin with whole-hearted support (the quote above). The further he edged onto the national stage, the more opaque his views became. Then, when he was preparing to run for President (and indeed when he did so), he was wholeheartedly against gay marriage. In the years since, the profile of the issue has grown tremendously, to the point where it seems to threaten the supremacy of abortion and reproductive rights as totemic ‘liberal’ issues. So, in the midst of fundraising season for an upcoming election, President Obama speaks out. He speaks out after the Vice-President speaks out (which was, depending on who you believe, a ‘gaff’ which bounced Obama into speaking, or a ‘test-run’ for it – I’d go for the latter). He speaks out while his aides brief the media, “It’s not like we’re trying to pass legislation”. He speaks out while simultaneously washing his hands of the issue, pushing responsibility for it to individual states. So yes, I am cynical about the ‘endorsement’ but I can’t fathom how anyone couldn’t be. The President has made some personal comments which serve to shore up his electoral base in an election year, instantly portray his opponent as a reactionary bigot and eclipse many of his administration’s human rights abuses – all without actually intending to do anything! As one tweet put it yesterday

Obama has endorsed gay marriage the same way he endorsed ending torture, closing Guantanamo, and limiting illegal settlements

Yet his words have been greeted as some kind of latter-day Emancipation Proclamation. This is a very deliberate comparison because you can be certain that, very early in any discussion of gay marriage, someone (usually a white gay man) will compare it to slavery and/or racial segregation. There are grand claims about it being the ‘last great civil rights issue’ (which, incidentally, I’m sure many under the ‘T’ of ‘LGBT’ would take issue with). I have watched open-mouthed as these statements have been shared again and again without challenge. Does no-one see the problem in (more often than not) privileged white people describing themselves as victims of something akin to the brutal and systemic oppression of an entire people based on the colour of their skin?! I have at times almost expected someone to compare the legal inability to call your relationship a ‘marriage’ to the holocaust, such has been the grotesque self-pity on display. From where I’m sitting the lack of ‘gay marriage’ is not preventing gay people in the Western world from fully participating in society and indeed rising to positions of power within it. To borrow Marxist terminology, the issue of gay marriage does not prevent you from being part of the ruling class and enjoying all of the privileges inherent to that position.

Class is one of (perhaps the) most fundamental issue which is papered over by the fixation on gay marriage. Arguments in favour of it appeal to healthcare rights, social benefits, taxation and wealth – there is absolutely no acknowledgement or even recognition that gay marriage won’t make the slightest difference to the structural inequalities which mean that a wealthy gay man and a homeless gay man will never experience these rights and benefits in remotely the same way. Just as I’ve argued that a fundamental belief in human rights must apply to everyone and not just privileged liberals, I think that a belief in equality necessarily demands a commitment to radical reform which improves the lot of an entire class, regardless of their sexuality.

Then there is the issue of marriage itself and its privileged position within society. If you are arguing for marriage on the basis that it grants you access to certain privileges, the question must surely be asked of whether state-recognition of your relationship should bring such access? It’s often noted that society is changing – conversely, as the clamour for gay marriage grows and grows, the take-up of heterosexual marriage declines. People are living in a myriad of different ways, an abundant variety of family units. Couples live unmarried for their entire lives; couples have open relationships; people have polygamous relationships, living with two or more ‘partners’ and so on. Marriage is a formal construct which has varied hugely from culture to culture, period to period. If we are to argue that all consenting adults should be able to have their relationships recognised by the state, presenting gay marriage as the final frontier seems entirely arbitrary.

Without this context, demands for gay marriage as most commonly depicted are merely demands for the privileged status enjoyed by the already privileged.

It was with a grim inevitability that yesterday, in amongst the various articles on gay marriage which popped up on my RSS feed, there was one about the resumed ‘military trials’ at Guantanamo Bay. Obama had suspended these when he took office, promising to use open, civilian trials and close Guantanamo. On the day he lifted this suspension he codified in law the practice of holding detainees indefinitely without charge. As the trials resumed last week the American government once again sought to suppress any evidence regarding and discussion of torture, abuse and rendition. In recent discussions regarding Guantanamo I have found myself wondering if the detainees would perhaps get more attention if they made it known that they were gay and wanted to get married. That sounds like an unnecessarily glib comment but I think it raises fundamental points about the nature of human rights and when we sit up and take notice. Indeed, the case of Bradley Manning seems to have been one of the few incidences of shadowy US government activity which has been covered by the ‘gay media’ due to Bradley’s sexuality and/or transgender. Yet even this isn’t linked to Obama or at least, if it was, it’s now swept away by the emotional gratitude towards his ‘personal support’ for gay marriage. Gore Vidal’s quote at the beginning may be vitriolic but the fixation on gay marriage yet simultaneous belief that it’s an issue which exists in a vacuum smacks of gut emotional responses overriding all else.

As a postscript, I’ll declare my personal interest – I’m gay and I’m engaged. Personally I don’t really care if I get a civil partnership or a civil marriage – I don’t see much difference. My boyfriend does care and wants to get married. So I understand this at first hand. However I think that, when we get married, society is still going to be unequal – not just in terms of competing client groups but in fundamental structural ways. When gay marriage becomes a reality, as it surely will, the fight for human rights and for equality will have barely begun.