Queer? Religious affair!

Reading Donald E. Halls' Queer Theories, I felt like being slapped in the face. He said that recently most queer theories are confined in a discussion of sexuality only. Meanwhile, with Hall's presentation of the real background in Queer Theory, I realized a wider implementation of the framework. Why was I trapped as well in the same way of thinking?

Before I go to writing the implementation of this framework to criticize the social condition in Indonesia, let us just see what upholds the theories. The basic of queer theory lies on how we define queer itself. Thus, that is the question. What is queer?

True, many people would just answer that the term queer connote to the concepts in sexuality, be they sexual orientation or sexual deviance. But before that, queer denotes the term of weirdness, or borrowing from Said's concept, "the others". Hall said that Queer represents the oppressed groups by the "regime of the normal".

Whoop, wait! Do not fall into the pitfall that "normal" here refers to mere heterosexuality! Michael Werner in 1993 define "regime of the normal" as a mode of government, a form of management of people, their activities, and expressions of selfhood. With the existence of "regime", logically there are oppressed groups. And these oppressed groups are referred to as "queer", the groups with potential to disrupt the hegemony of the "regime". With "regime", it means Foucauldian power hierarchy took place in ruling the relationship here. Foucault once proposed "domination-repression force", a domination by the power ruling over economy. Furthermore, there is a power struggle / dynamics here to determine which power should be on top, which power has the ability and capability to dominate. The dominance power then decide what are the "natural" and "normal" according to their standard. Thus, the repressed ones are the groups deviating from the idea of "norm". Interestingly, Werner said that these groups also include feminists. ethnic minorities, and activists of all persuasions. They are the groups that people are not supposed to be. Thus, for this groups, a change is strongly advised. If they can't change, they'd better be silent. Ooops, silence? Again you can refer back to Said's post-colonialism.

See, quite clear though that queer in Queer theories can be understood in a broader sense. The basic premise here is the power relation over these groups. How the powers are maintained through some kind of struggles or dynamics.

Interestingly, as I read the book, an idea popped up in my mind. What if we put religious affair in Indonesia into the framework? Let's just assume that Nietzsche's "Gott ist tot" has not really penetrate the mind of people. (No need to assume though. It is considered as a forbidden view already. LOL) Well, I've just realized that for many people in western hemisphere (and some from eastern part), the control over religion by the government is indeed a bizarre idea. But for years (and for majority, for their whole life) that kind of idea seems really 'normal' for Indonesian. True, most of us just take it for granted. For some people, they confess a certain faith only because they have to, only for the formal reason. Seen from Judith Butler's perspective of gender trouble, this is similar to the concept of drag, how people perform gender (a.k.a. religion) parodically. They create a satyric performance of (un)expected gender/identity. The difference with Butler's concept, people surround them are not really aware with the drag performance.

Recently, a dear ex-student also posted a question over the religion hegemony, how religious people are trying so hard to maintain the coverage of religious values over the whole country. Now, referring back to the queer framework of power, there is always an effort to keep the hegemony/supremacy. In this case, the religious people are imposing the idea that the truth lies in confessing religion. People without any religious beliefs are satanic, evil, demonic, and corrupted. Well, logically that makes sense. As the "regime of the normal", they would try to make everybody "normal", even if they have to 'demolish' the Queers. Afterall, Halperin (1995) said that the concept of queer is whatever is at odds with the normal, the LEGITIMATE, and the dominant". See, pay attention to the terms 'at odds' and 'legitimate'. It makes sense that to maintain the power and throne, one should not hesitate to destroy opposing force. And by sitting on top of the power pyramid, this 'regime of the normal' loses the ability to reflect on their own flaws and fails to see the others' perspective.

However, since the power dominance is in the field of identity, then for people who are still 'at odds' with the 'regime of the normal', just be a drag. Sorry Lady GaGa, this time I am against you. 'Don't be a queen, just be a drag'. Identity is just a matter of a term in national ID Card.

(Gee, this is just a scribble produced from confusion of thesis writing)