гомофобия: Vladimir Putin Versus the Gay Emoji

Russia, December 1917: the newly established revolutionary government repudiates all Tsarist laws against homosexuality; the Bolshevik regime declares a policy of absolute non-interference into the love lives of its citizens (so long as no other party is injured or has their rights and freedoms encroached upon). 

Sodomy, announce the Soviets, will henceforth be treated as no different from other supposedly more natural forms of intercourse. Having stormed the Winter Palace, they would now liberate the anus as a site of pleasure and gateway to the future.  

However, fast-forward to Russia in the summer of 2015 and what do we find? 

President Putin announces his intention to outlaw the use of all emojis depicting aspects of contemporary gay lifestyle, which, he says, corrupt and confuse children, undermine the sanctity of marriage, and, in this way, threaten both the family and the state. 

The so-called Young Guard - the youth division of Putin's political party, United Russia - have been instructed to keep an eye out for the sinister spread of gay emoji on social media and to report such at once. Supporters of the move claim that the cartoon figures are in clear breach of the country's ban on gay propaganda that Putin signed into effect in 2013.    

Whilst ludicrous and laughable, this development is also both deeply disturbing and depressing; an indication of just how petty - as well as how widespread and violent - homophobia in Russia has now become (and been officially encouraged to become).    

Perhaps the only good thing is that it helps to dispel the myth of progress: human affairs neither move forward nor backwards; rather we are forever caught up in perpetual spirals of power and pleasure and obliged to fight the same battles against stupidity over and over again to no end whatsoever. There can be gains, but no victory; losses, but no defeat.   

Homophobia: Mixing Desire With Disgust

In their classic study, The Politics and Poetics of Transgression, Stallybrass and White argue that the bourgeois subject defines himself through an act of exclusion. In other words, his identity is not merely founded upon self-affirmation: I am X, but also negation of otherness: I am not Y. 

For example, I am male / I am not female; I am straight / I am not gay. In this manner he constructs an entire system of binary oppositions that are as tedious as they are restrictive. While one term is highly valued as the good and noble, the other is seen as a form of worthless evil; that which is base, dirty, repulsive, and corrupting.

But here's the thing: the latter, whilst excluded, is nonetheless internalized under the sign of negation and so disgust always retains the imprint of desire - just as, conversely, desire forever keeps an element of disgust. So it is, that whenever one reads the obscene rantings of the homophobe one is struck not only by the level of hate, but also the obsessive and perverse fascination for those practices and those people which are so despised. 

To be clear: I'm not simply saying there's always a secret longing on behalf of the homophobe for an experience of gay sex - although doubtless this is often the case - but that there is, to quote Jonathan Dollimore, "an additional structural interdependence of desire and disgust". 

And so: "even when homophobia is not obviously a projection of repressed desire, being more a hostile response to the intolerably different, even then, the homosexual, through condensed association, may be one on whom is projected the repressed disgust inherent in desire."

  

Notes

Jonathan Dollimore, Sexual Dissidence, (Oxford University Press, 1991). Lines quoted are on p. 247.

Peter Stallybrass and Allon White, The Politics and Poetics of Transgression, (Cornell University Press, 1986).