Sexual Identity Crisis 24 September, 2007

Before the modern era, there was no tangible, mainstream conception of sexuality as an identity applicable to any person. Rather, a sexual act was viewed as a behavior, and not indicative of any greater meaning for the individual. A behavior could be condemned by a religion, or discouraged by a community, but it was the act that was perceived as immoral or deviant, and not the one committing it. “Sodomites” were perhaps a singled-out group of people, with references both in religious history, Western and Islamic law. Indeed, James I of England declared that sodomy, along with witchcraft, willful murder, incest and counterfeiting was one of the “horrible crimes that yee are bound in conscience never to forgive” (Bredbeck, 5).

However, such people were still targeted for a behavior, and identified as wrongdoers in general and not people of any certain “sexuality”. Furthermore, they were targeted as ones who willfully engaged in such “sinful” behavior or acted against God, but such acts were never described as disorders of the mind – nor were their practitioners ascribed a sexual identity – only immoral in choice and perhaps an identity of ‘wrongdoer’ or sinner. Throughout the Renaissance, acts of sodomy were considered to be against the divinity of the Catholic Church and deemed “unnatural”, but they were still considered behaviors that individuals could freely choose to engage or not engage in.

The question of identity in all its facets has plagued communities and individuals for centuries. Arguably, defining someone by what they do is very logically sound, as there are few things besides physical attributes that can be more easily used to “group” people into categories. The question becomes, however: why are categories necessary? And furthermore, what value do they have? Identity is a fascinating thing, but it would arguably not exist unless it benefited someone. To this end, when it comes to sexual behavior, how society came to perceive peoples’ choice of action as being determined by one of several “identities” is an important thing to consider. Additionally, why it is that labels of morality continue to apply to choices of non-harmful behavior is relevant to understanding the parallels between commonly perceived notions of individual identity and the power structures of religious, political and industrial society.

‘Betterness’ and ‘worseness’ are, of course, subjective and defined by a community to apply against and within itself. These identities stay in place because they have some value. Where do these communal notions of morality – and good vs. bad behavior – come from? Having a person assigned to a group fulfills a role in society for people to judge; in particular, to judge in comparison to themselves and their peers. If, for instance, homosexuality is considered “bad” by those in your community, and you, as an observer and member of the community, abstain from engaging in it, then you are able to identify yourself as someone on the opposing side of an immoral symbol – a “gay person”. Thus, you may consider yourself “good” by default. Likewise, if “alcoholism” is a “disease of the weak”, and you are not an alcoholic, then you can place yourself in a category of the stronger. Hierarchies of groups provide status. Status feeds the ego of individuals, which sedates them into oppression but more importantly encourages community among people. Those who commit “bad” acts or engage in “bad” behavior can be classified by their specific wrong – and thus, homosexuals, heterosexuals, and ‘sexuals’ of all kinds become relevant and identified groups.

It is difficult for many people not to classify people by actions; indeed, many would argue it is a reasonable way of judging and uses the least amount of prejudice. Additionally, if a person does something that hurts another, or commits an act that is considered illegal, then it is likely in the best interest of the community to take action against him or her. But, if such a method of judgment is valid, then there must certainly be parameters to its application. If not, every action committed would result in a coinciding identity.

Should one be drinking wine – is one not a wine-drinker? Should one be having intercourse, is one not an intercourse-haver? People, especially within American society, often identify with their profession (i.e. – “so, you are an accountant” – as opposed to “you do accounting”). This self-identification of Americans in particular is pretty widely known and often discussed, though most individuals, American or not, would stop short of actually describing their existence by what they do. In this sense, it seems it is only logical to identify someone as what they do while they are doing it. While one might drink martinis, one is not a martini-drinker while they are sleeping. While one might craft using wood, they are not a carpenter while playing with their children.

Identities relating to actions, be they professions or mundane practices, do not seem to be logically sound or relevant outside of immediate “doing”. This is because any attempt to define a person wholly on a single action or pattern of actions will undoubtedly collapse amongst competition from other actions, either past, present or future. This is to say, while someone may be a teacher, they are also a parent when raising their children, or a writer while at home. Since what someone is doing, long-term or short-term, is still always a temporary aspect of their schedule, current ambition or life, it is not meaningful to attempt to identify them by it.

Best regards,

Jameson Freeman

 

Bredbeck, Gregory. Sodomy and Interpretation: From Marlowe to Milton. Cornell University Press, Ithaca: 1991.

Pic by Jonathan Zuck Photography, © 2007