Hitoho Sumi
The deprivation of women’s right by a section of obnoxious Naga patriarchs and subsequent denial and suppression of their right to demand their right through a peaceful democratic process is mind boggling and so frustrating to the point of numbness. The prevailing understanding of patriarchy, in general, among those who think they understand patriarchy exacerbates the current situation. For instance in the local dailies Nagaland Page the editorial titled “where have all our young men gone?” the editor lashed out against all male accusing every “so-called modern Naga male”, questioning their courage, guts, education and so on, yet it was devoid of any merit in terms of reasoning, research, and knowledge and only reaffirmed the archaic understanding of patriarchy. The remarkable thing here is the very fact that the local dailies refused to publish an article that sought to engage with oppressive nature of patriarchy and endeavored to throw light on the issue of reservation, which by the way the editor wrote fervently on the subject albeit without, like i said, merit. In my previous article titled “Rhetoric of Women Empowerment: Challenging law and the need to go beyond legal ambit.” I have more or less tried to engage with the basic crude understanding of patriarchy and, as the title suggests, the need to go beyond legal ambit. In this article an attempt is made to engage with the changing face of patriarchy, enlarging the understanding of patriarchy, and to go beyond the simple dichotomy of gendered patriarchy.
The central message of this article is very simple i.e. patriarchy knows no gender. That patriarchy is a mentality that is very often legitimized and institutionalized and most of the time normalized through imposition of various morals, values, practices, and retribution against those who fail to or do not comply. That patriarchy is a personification of oppression and suppression. That, for example, when male members oppress and deny female members of their right, say right to vote, then it is those male members who are patriarchal so also on a similar vein if the female members prohibit and deny sale and consumption of alcohol then it is those female members who are patriarchal. With this understanding, i now delve into the issue of sexuality and anticipate that the message on why we need to redefine and relearn our understanding of patriarchy, on how not to become patriarchal ourselves, gets clear to the reader.
We live in a globalized-(post)modern world whereby social transformations are plural; it gives equal importance to various forms of culture and civilizations despite their heterogeneous and polymorphous existence. It denies the notion of superior and inferior culture and that these pluralistic courses of social transformation do not necessarily follow a linear path. It visualizes a plural vision of society and culture. Social, cultural and dominant construction of various beliefs, practices and patterns of behaviors have been criticized heavily and been debunked. Sex and sexuality plays an important role in human history, either as an instrument of control, a form of art or as a science, or religious practices. With a transformation in thinking and heightened awareness the overall views over sexuality have also changed.
The definition and general understanding of sexuality is rather complicated; sexual identities, desires, and categories are fluid and dynamic and it encompasses a wide range of feelings, emotions and individual experiences. Queer theory, for its part, continually suggested that sexual subjects were "constructed and contained by multiple practices of categorization and regulation" and that all categories of sexuality, including heterosexuality, contained within them "varying degrees and multiple sites of power" (Cohen, 1997). The tendency to polarize sexuality with that of heterosexual and homosexual as two binary opposite creates a misunderstanding and narrows the wider aspect of sexuality. In fact culture/society regulates and controls sexuality and limits it simply to the act of reproduction. However an individual doesn’t get his/her sexuality from external forces rather it comes from within. The patterns of socialization, environment, and education have nothing to do with an individual’s sexuality.
Sexuality, as a part of identity, is constructed by the social forces which operate and impinge on all aspects of our identity. Although one cannot ignore the kind of channelizing of sexuality by society or culture, yet it would be a blunder to say that sexuality is given by culture or that an individual gets sexual orientations through society or culture. It should be clear that when we talk about sexuality it is not about the sexuality of heterosexual or homosexuals or lesbians etc., rather it is the sexuality of every individual regardless of age, sex, ethnic etc.
On July 3, 2009 as the Delhi High Court in India stated that consensual sex between two adults is a legal act, overturning a 148-year-old colonial era law that criminalized homosexuality it send a wave of diverse reaction across the country as well as world. On one hand, Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LGBT) in India celebrated the judgment which was supported by many activist, legal practitioners, students, sympathizers etc. whereas, on the other hand many religious organizations and orthodox people protested against the decriminalization of homosexuality. Indeed it was quite predictable to see various organizations, institutions, groups, individuals and overall the society to react in a very frenzied way. Sexuality is solely an individual’s choice and it depends and differs from individual to individual, yet society has taken a total control of sexuality deciding ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ behavior of individual’s sexuality.
Heterosexuality has been institutionalized; it is constructed as a normal, universal and monolithic. The notion of normal and acceptable sexual behavior i.e. vaginal intercourse clearly reflects the dominant construction and naturalization of heterosexuality. The question of normality in the subject of sexuality does not arise if we accept that sexuality is relative and it depends on individual; as what is normal for an individual can be viewed as abnormal for another. Yet when we look at our society at present it is the dominant groups and institutions that defines what is to be accepted as “normal” and in doing so excluding and oppressing the “others” who are labeled as being “abnormal”. In fact over a period of time the concept of normal and abnormal has changed, the guilt feeling latched onto sexual behavior only became part of a typical occidental stance from the moment when the medieval Church had broadened its grip upon the peoples from Europe. Until then, open and unrestricted sexuality would rule. In prizing virginity and chastity the church has taken a u-turn on moral values pertaining to sexual behavior embraced intercourse only for reproductive means and outstripped any other form of erotic antics.
It is through a conscious effort of understanding sexuality that we can avoid the widespread view on sexuality which is too narrow and patriarchal. The dominance of heterosexual discourse and the patriarchal power restricts the wider aspect of sexuality and is rather enforced through the existing institutions such as family, organized religion etc. Altman (2001) argues understandings of and attitudes about sexuality are both affected by and reflect global political-economic phenomena such as commercialization; AIDS; international monetary organizations and their medical, economic, and political policies; gay and women's groups; international trade and labor; tourism; and information technology.
In fact there is a vast literature on sexuality and various issues related to sexuality and problems related to it. One cannot ignore the attitude of the state as well as various institutions pertaining to sexuality, yet we must get prepared for the possibility in what certain patterns regarded abnormal by the state of affairs, would not be perceived in the same way down the line. Patterns of polygamy are usually determined by economic indicators, for instance. Even in societies that allow multiple unions, only those wealthy-ones would be entitled to do so, and monogamy, although not compulsory, is by and large the most widespread framework. Statutory syllabus that regulate pre-matrimonial affairs and extra-conjugal also vary in most cultures. There is a huge amount of societies in which extra-conjugal affairs aren’t just tolerated but expected, with no room given for condemnation.
We can see on one hand that with various movements and widespread awareness the view on sexuality has somehow broadened: at least when it comes to the sexuality of gays, lesbians, transgender etc. Yet on the other hand there is a long way to go when it comes to the sexuality of “every individual”, because it then includes the sexuality of children’s too. For instance various groups and organizations/institutions have already begun to accept the sexuality of homosexuals as being “normal” yet when it comes to the sexuality of children they would still deny such thing and would not even acknowledge it. “…that sexual expression is acceptable only when you are older and then it should be between males and females. Academic, legal, media and social discourses also give particular meanings to society's notion of what a child should be and do and eventually what the final product should look like. Hopefully, the final product would be a heterosexual male or female who reflects society's notion of what it means to be male and female.”(Fredman.L and Potgieter.C, 1996).
The overall issue of sexuality is rather complicated and becomes controversial when dealt with or defined, yet that should not be the justification for overlooking the suppression of minorities and the whole power relations that comes into play. Just as one should not see sexuality only through binary poles of heterosexual and homosexual so also one should take into consideration the sexuality of children as well. History has shown us clearly how the concept of normality and abnormality or deviance in regard to sexuality has been changing according to time; it gives us a strong reason to question and be critical about the society’s accepted notion of normality. Why? Today in Nagalim when a section of male members deny reservations to females on the ground that it is abnormal and against their tradition and culture for females to be on par with male especially power sharing every reasonable and educated (educated here has nothing to do with degree) person opposes such mentality. That we are moving, albeit at frustrating pace, towards the removal of such patriarchal belief and practice but if those very same people assumes the role of patriarch when it comes to other issues and minorities then the whole purpose of fighting against this oppressive mentality becomes a mockery. To avoid such brutal mistakes of becoming a patriarch ourselves, or say becoming the monster that we sought to slay, we should always be reasonable, critical and updated.
Kuknalim.
