"Sodometries" stands out as a remarkable book,
characterized by its intellectual depth and stylistic elegance, yet also marked
by its confrontational critique of other scholars. Jonathan Goldberg's work
offers a profound reevaluation of sodomy as a relational term with multifaceted
political implications, challenging conventional understandings of social order
and deviance.
Building upon Michel Foucault's notion of sodomy as a
fluid and contested category, Goldberg argues that sodomy has been historically
mobilized to enforce social norms and discipline perceived threats to
established order. This central thesis forms the backbone of Goldberg's
intricate analysis, which spans sixteenth-century British texts and
foundational events in United States history, including the Bowers v. Hardwick
Supreme Court decision and narratives of the conquest of the Americas.
Goldberg's readings of diverse materials, from literary
texts to contemporary cultural artifacts, are guided by his overarching dictum:
"There always is penetration." Through this lens, Goldberg
illuminates the pervasive interpenetrations of boundaries—nationality, gender,
race, psyche—highlighting the complexities of self and Other in relation to
normative identity constructions. Particularly insightful is Goldberg's
exploration of the lethal energies directed against those who challenge the
hegemony of heterosexual male European subjectivity.
Central to Goldberg's argument is the visual imagery he
employs, notably Theodore de Bry's painting "Americae, Pars Quatra
(1594)," which depicts the violent encounter between European colonizers
and native inhabitants. By juxtaposing the original painting with an inverted
version, Goldberg underscores the projection of "sodomy" onto Others
as a means of deflecting recognition of potential deviance within oneself.
Goldberg's exploration of sodomy's variability and
historical context represents a significant advancement over simplistic
equations of sodomy with male homosexuality. By grounding sodomy's indeterminacy
within historical realities and considering its "worldly effects,"
Goldberg integrates deconstructive, materialist, and psychoanalytic modes of
analysis. For example, his examination of Renaissance social norms reveals how
ordinary practices, such as male friendships and bed-sharing, blurred the lines
between licit and illicit behaviors, challenging binary categorizations.
However, while Goldberg's inclusive approach sheds light
on sodomy's diverse manifestations, it risks obscuring its specific deployments
within various discourses, such as legal, medical, religious, and popular
contexts. For instance, while female-female eroticism is referenced in medical
texts of the period, it often receives less condemnation in legal and religious
spheres. Goldberg's analysis of female characters and Queen Elizabeth touches
on the sodomitical effect but overlooks the gender-specific signification of
sodomy for Renaissance women, thereby neglecting gender asymmetries.
Moreover, Goldberg's aggressive critiques of other
scholars, including gay, feminist, and New Historical critics, for their
alleged failure to achieve a non-normalizing analysis, may hinder constructive
dialogue. While there are indeed issues in these critics' work, such as the
conflation of sodomy with male homosexuality and the collapse of sexuality and
gender, labeling them as homophobic or misogynistic may oversimplify the
complexities at hand. Instead, a historicized understanding of the relationship
between male homoeroticism, effeminacy, and misogyny is needed, acknowledging
the nuances and historical contingencies involved.
In conclusion, while Goldberg's insights into the
complexities of sodomy and gender dynamics are valuable, a more nuanced and
constructive approach to engaging with differing scholarly perspectives would
enhance the discourse. By avoiding accusations of homophobia and misogyny and
fostering open dialogue, scholars can collectively deepen their understanding
of the intricate intersections between sexuality, gender, and power in
historical contexts.
No comments:
Post a Comment