The “borderlands” as explained by Gloria Anzaldua in Borderlands/La Frontera is not merely the literal territory in which her identity was formed but a mental state of being that exists indefinitely, containing several unique characteristics that help one to identify other groups that occupy a similar figurative space.
One of the major aspects of the “borderlands” as Anzaldua describes it is the fragmentary nature that it entails. She refers to this when she writes, “Living on the borders and in margins, keeping intact one’s shifting and multiple identity and integrity…”(Anzaldua 25). In this passage, the author refers to her identity as one that is potentially in pieces. Because she has multiple ancestry lines, she suffers from being categorized as “not whole.” Instead of denying it, however, she acknowledges the patchwork qualities of her identity and reveals even more of the internal strife suffered by one with torn motives and loyalties. If she assimilates into the Anglo culture, she would be considered a traitor to her people; but if she lives in the Anglo world while fully embracing her Chicana heritage, she would be completely marginalized and alienated from her surrounding world. Anzaldua’s goal for herself and others that are afflicted by the fragmentary status of living on the “borderlands,” is to be fully each element that makes up her being, rather than being part of a larger whole.
Anzaldua makes a point of addressing the duality of living on the “borderlands.” While she makes the obvious point that living on the “borderlands” threatens one’s identity because it is not of the majority on either side of it, she presents a positive aspect to this state as well. The author explains how living on the border can actually support one’s identity in some ways. Since the person is identified by not just one specific culture, but usually two or more, the “borderlands” is the only place where a person can experience all of their cultures without completely assimilating to any particular one and
foregoing all of the rest of their heritage. The only flaw with this proposed plan, is that the “borderlands” itself creates an identity that is even more specific and narrow. If one veers too far towards any particular part of the combined culture, then they will be targeted for tyranny.
Because the “borderlands” serves as both a vessel of support and danger, the person living on it must develop a keen sense of awareness, which is another characteristic of people like Anzaldua. Since persecution is a reality, from all sides, one must be fully prepared and alert to the threats that target the minority culture. This necessity to survival results in heightening of the senses. There are benefits to this hyper-awareness, including a perception that is often not accessed by those comfortable enough to not care.
A border in Anzaldua’s world is that which lacks legitimacy as seen in the first chapter when she writes, “Borders are set up to define the places that are safe and unsafe, to distinguish us from them,” (Anzaldua 25). She emphasizes the vagueness of this term by explaining the ease with which the outside and inside of a border are identified, in comparison to the border itself which lacks such a definition.
Anzaldua is a proud, lesbian Chicana who might appear to be in a very similar predicament as gay couples seeking to be married with children. This is true, but not in the sense of connection merely through homosexuality. Both are marginalized by their vague status in relation to a larger sphere, and suffer by their inability to assimilate without losing some part of their identity.
Gay couples seeking to model their family after the typical American family module are presented with an identity crisis, similar to that presented in Borderlands/La Frontera. Since many homosexual people reveal their sexual preferences to their families and friends as a way of “coming out,” one can see how these people might seek acceptance from the gay community and culture after facing rejection and alienation from their own families. It is after assimilation into the gay community that the average homosexual person finds a long-term mate. Couples that choose to marry and adopt position themselves awkwardly on both sides. Since marriage and children have traditionally been the keystones of the heterosexual union, other gay couples may see this step as a betrayal. These people feel that their counterparts are foolishly trying to emulate the very people that have shunned and rejected them in the first place.
This is not the only cause of turmoil within the gay community. Homosexuals also suffer amongst themselves when they adopt children, but are not allowed to be married. Gay marriage is considered illegal, which illegitimates the home that they are trying to create. Theoderek Wayne explores this side of gay unions when he writes, “The illegality of same-sex marriage fosters a feeling of alienation among homosexuals.”
Gay couples seeking this merger may encounter friction from their community, but it is the majority, or heterosexual society, that will pose the largest threat. State Representative Randy Ball argues in his article against gay adoption:
This issue has to take into consideration the influence that
religion has on the public. Throughout our society is the
deeply rooted Judeo-Christian ethic that holds that homosexuality
is immoral and that we should not put children into that
environment.
Gay marriage and adoption are threats to physical reproduction and the destruction of the family unit as society knows it today, however minuscule the chances of it occurring are. Because homosexuals have prided themselves on the severe difference between their lifestyles and that of heterosexuals, it is with justification that heterosexuals discover the new invasion of their “territory” as a threat, not only to their pride but to the future of their society. The majority feels threatened because homosexuals as a group have embraced a lifestyle that is not popular with the heterosexual family. Their reason for doing this is to erase the negative stigma that goes along with their preferences and at the same time form an identity that is theirs to revel in.
It is because of the opposing forces of both their gay community and the majority of modern society that gay couples wishing to unify and raise children are faced with a very difficult decision to make. One option for them is to fully embrace their gay community and way of life as separate and the conceptual opposition of the heterosexual lifestyle and risk being ostracized by the majority. Their other option is just as unappealing and involves risking what identity they have embraced and leaving the defined space of homosexual to enter into the unknown sphere of marriage and parenthood as a gay couple. This move does not come without the threat of possibly encountering hate from both sides of the figurative border.
The challenge for these particular gay couples, from Anzaldua’s perspective, is to overcome the tendency to identify themselves as part homosexual (their partner choice) and part heterosexual (their lifestyle choice). Instead, empowerment will come from identifying themselves as fully each element of their being. This change in the definition of their “category” will actually create a new and separate category, or a third state of being. Just as Anzaldua considers her borderland culture a separate one unto itself, gay couples seeking marriage and children will legitimize their existence by embracing their identity as separate.
Anzaldua presents many difficulties that accompany life on the “borderlands,” but she does manage to convey a general feeling of acceptance. She explains the hardships of this existence, but shows the contentment and pride that can be reached with true exploration of identity. Just like Anzaldua, gay couples seeking the family life are not completely barred from this altered existence. Life on the “borderlands” can limit the expression of the several parts of one’s existence, but can also give one the opportunity to create a new identity and experience.
References:
Anzaldua, Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera. Ed. Joan Pinkvoss. San Francisco, Aunt Lute
Books, 1999.
Ball, Randy. “Should Gay Couples be Allowed to Adopt?” The Daily Item. Bucknell
University. 11 August 2002. http://www.orgs.bucknell.edu/flagb/
gaymarriagedebate.htm
Wayne, Theoderek. “Private Freedoms, Public Legislation: A Case for Same-Sex and
Polygamous Marriages Using John Stuart Mill's On Liberty.” 24 July 2002.http://
216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:vq_zu83dUZcJ:www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/liberty/essays/essay1.html+alienation+of+homosexual+adoptive+parents&hl=en
One of the major aspects of the “borderlands” as Anzaldua describes it is the fragmentary nature that it entails. She refers to this when she writes, “Living on the borders and in margins, keeping intact one’s shifting and multiple identity and integrity…”(Anzaldua 25). In this passage, the author refers to her identity as one that is potentially in pieces. Because she has multiple ancestry lines, she suffers from being categorized as “not whole.” Instead of denying it, however, she acknowledges the patchwork qualities of her identity and reveals even more of the internal strife suffered by one with torn motives and loyalties. If she assimilates into the Anglo culture, she would be considered a traitor to her people; but if she lives in the Anglo world while fully embracing her Chicana heritage, she would be completely marginalized and alienated from her surrounding world. Anzaldua’s goal for herself and others that are afflicted by the fragmentary status of living on the “borderlands,” is to be fully each element that makes up her being, rather than being part of a larger whole.
Anzaldua makes a point of addressing the duality of living on the “borderlands.” While she makes the obvious point that living on the “borderlands” threatens one’s identity because it is not of the majority on either side of it, she presents a positive aspect to this state as well. The author explains how living on the border can actually support one’s identity in some ways. Since the person is identified by not just one specific culture, but usually two or more, the “borderlands” is the only place where a person can experience all of their cultures without completely assimilating to any particular one and
foregoing all of the rest of their heritage. The only flaw with this proposed plan, is that the “borderlands” itself creates an identity that is even more specific and narrow. If one veers too far towards any particular part of the combined culture, then they will be targeted for tyranny.
Because the “borderlands” serves as both a vessel of support and danger, the person living on it must develop a keen sense of awareness, which is another characteristic of people like Anzaldua. Since persecution is a reality, from all sides, one must be fully prepared and alert to the threats that target the minority culture. This necessity to survival results in heightening of the senses. There are benefits to this hyper-awareness, including a perception that is often not accessed by those comfortable enough to not care.
A border in Anzaldua’s world is that which lacks legitimacy as seen in the first chapter when she writes, “Borders are set up to define the places that are safe and unsafe, to distinguish us from them,” (Anzaldua 25). She emphasizes the vagueness of this term by explaining the ease with which the outside and inside of a border are identified, in comparison to the border itself which lacks such a definition.
Anzaldua is a proud, lesbian Chicana who might appear to be in a very similar predicament as gay couples seeking to be married with children. This is true, but not in the sense of connection merely through homosexuality. Both are marginalized by their vague status in relation to a larger sphere, and suffer by their inability to assimilate without losing some part of their identity.
Gay couples seeking to model their family after the typical American family module are presented with an identity crisis, similar to that presented in Borderlands/La Frontera. Since many homosexual people reveal their sexual preferences to their families and friends as a way of “coming out,” one can see how these people might seek acceptance from the gay community and culture after facing rejection and alienation from their own families. It is after assimilation into the gay community that the average homosexual person finds a long-term mate. Couples that choose to marry and adopt position themselves awkwardly on both sides. Since marriage and children have traditionally been the keystones of the heterosexual union, other gay couples may see this step as a betrayal. These people feel that their counterparts are foolishly trying to emulate the very people that have shunned and rejected them in the first place.
This is not the only cause of turmoil within the gay community. Homosexuals also suffer amongst themselves when they adopt children, but are not allowed to be married. Gay marriage is considered illegal, which illegitimates the home that they are trying to create. Theoderek Wayne explores this side of gay unions when he writes, “The illegality of same-sex marriage fosters a feeling of alienation among homosexuals.”
Gay couples seeking this merger may encounter friction from their community, but it is the majority, or heterosexual society, that will pose the largest threat. State Representative Randy Ball argues in his article against gay adoption:
This issue has to take into consideration the influence that
religion has on the public. Throughout our society is the
deeply rooted Judeo-Christian ethic that holds that homosexuality
is immoral and that we should not put children into that
environment.
Gay marriage and adoption are threats to physical reproduction and the destruction of the family unit as society knows it today, however minuscule the chances of it occurring are. Because homosexuals have prided themselves on the severe difference between their lifestyles and that of heterosexuals, it is with justification that heterosexuals discover the new invasion of their “territory” as a threat, not only to their pride but to the future of their society. The majority feels threatened because homosexuals as a group have embraced a lifestyle that is not popular with the heterosexual family. Their reason for doing this is to erase the negative stigma that goes along with their preferences and at the same time form an identity that is theirs to revel in.
It is because of the opposing forces of both their gay community and the majority of modern society that gay couples wishing to unify and raise children are faced with a very difficult decision to make. One option for them is to fully embrace their gay community and way of life as separate and the conceptual opposition of the heterosexual lifestyle and risk being ostracized by the majority. Their other option is just as unappealing and involves risking what identity they have embraced and leaving the defined space of homosexual to enter into the unknown sphere of marriage and parenthood as a gay couple. This move does not come without the threat of possibly encountering hate from both sides of the figurative border.
The challenge for these particular gay couples, from Anzaldua’s perspective, is to overcome the tendency to identify themselves as part homosexual (their partner choice) and part heterosexual (their lifestyle choice). Instead, empowerment will come from identifying themselves as fully each element of their being. This change in the definition of their “category” will actually create a new and separate category, or a third state of being. Just as Anzaldua considers her borderland culture a separate one unto itself, gay couples seeking marriage and children will legitimize their existence by embracing their identity as separate.
Anzaldua presents many difficulties that accompany life on the “borderlands,” but she does manage to convey a general feeling of acceptance. She explains the hardships of this existence, but shows the contentment and pride that can be reached with true exploration of identity. Just like Anzaldua, gay couples seeking the family life are not completely barred from this altered existence. Life on the “borderlands” can limit the expression of the several parts of one’s existence, but can also give one the opportunity to create a new identity and experience.
References:
Anzaldua, Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera. Ed. Joan Pinkvoss. San Francisco, Aunt Lute
Books, 1999.
Ball, Randy. “Should Gay Couples be Allowed to Adopt?” The Daily Item. Bucknell
University. 11 August 2002. http://www.orgs.bucknell.edu/flagb/
gaymarriagedebate.htm
Wayne, Theoderek. “Private Freedoms, Public Legislation: A Case for Same-Sex and
Polygamous Marriages Using John Stuart Mill's On Liberty.” 24 July 2002.http://
216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:vq_zu83dUZcJ:www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/liberty/essays/essay1.html+alienation+of+homosexual+adoptive+parents&hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment