26 June 2009

Pursuant to the last post

After I had had published the previous post, several more thoughts occurred to me regarding this 'heteronormativity'.

First is more thoughts towards the neologism issue. Neologisms are a sort of club or sect language, as I said. They are also a way of controlling debate in the way of Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland. Those who remember noted modern linguist Humpty's scenes will remember his great theory of language. From memory, it went something like this:

Humpty: My words mean what I want them to mean.

Alice: The question is, can you do that?

Humpty: The question is, who is master? That is all.

Modern linguists are absolutely concerned with power and mastery. Neologisms are a way of controlling and asserting mastery over language. It also reduces debate to a three card trick, one which I have been trapped in many times. You cannot call your opponent on their assumptions or meanings during a debate because she/it is always redefining their terms to suit them as the debate progresses/ goes against them. Neologisms are perpetual weasel words. The she/its would be more honest if they argued in pig Latin.

Next, I have not seen the entire piece, but the sections quoted in the article contradicts themselves. The movies encourage heterosexuality in children who are predetermined homosexuals. The article seems to be working both the idea that children are a tabula rasa (blank slate) upon which society writes their character, while at the same time the are also inherently homosexual. Is the article saying that homosexuality is inherent whilst heterosexuality is a construct that constantly needs reinforcement? Perhaps I should look it up and look more closely into the issue.

Finally, it strikes me as amusing just how often academics get it absolutely wrong. By this I mean they often come up with elaborate theories which sound good even to me, and then they choose some example which not only doesn't prove their theories, but actually disproves them.

The basis of their theory is that movies aimed at children generally portray heterosexuality as the norm. I can agree with this point: my debate is mainly what they do with this premise. But after saying how these movies promote the normalcy of heterosexuality, what movie do they single out as an example? Little Mermaid. That's right: a romance between a girl who is half fish and a human male is promoted as a paragon of heterosexuality. If they were going to coin a neologism, they should have termed what happens ni this movie as "cryptozoophilia". It would be a more accurate description of this situation. That would make a more interesting article. Disney promotes illicit love between humans and mythical beasts/monsters rather than heterosexuality or even homosexuality.

Not to worry, though. I'm sure Disney's next movie after Little Mermaid promoted heteronormativity. Let me check... that movie was... Beauty and the Beast. Whoops. Cryptozoophilia again. Don't worry. I'm sure there must be some movie out there which proves their theory right. Let me know if you she/its find it.

And in the meantime, ixnay onay ethay eologismnay, ooyay umday itshays.

No comments: