A new politics of sexuality in June Jordan's essays

¶ … perception gander.

There are several aspects of June Jordan's piece of literature, "A New Politics of Sexuality," which was delivered to a live audience at Stanford University in 1991, that challenge conventional views of gender. What was surprising about the address was the fact that the general motif revolved about comparisons between racism and sexism. Although there is a definite history of this sort of parallel in the United States (stemming from early supporters of women's rights embracing the abolitionist movement), it was a little surprising to see an African-American woman readily accepting and even calling for such a comparison. Most of the African-Americans I am aware of in contemporary times shun such a comparison, and do not believe that they should be likened to homosexuals simply because there are more Caucasians that African-Americans in the country.

However, Jordan was a homosexual, so that is perhaps why she found the comparison so insightful. Yet the notions she discussed regarding freedom and liberation (yet another concept that goes back to the times of chattel slavery in the U.S.) from sexual subjugation appeared more worthy of such a comparison than some of the other points she utilized this motif for. Her representation of freedom in the true sense of the autonomy it alludes to, in reference to circumscriptions on such autonomy, certainly challenges the common idea that the U.S. is a free country. The following quotation demonstrates the author's point regarding this matter.

"If you can finally go to the bathroom wherever you find one, if you can finally order a cup of coffee and drink it wherever it is available, but you cannot follow your heart -- you cannot respect the response of your own honest body in the world -- then how much of what kind of freedom does any one of us possess?

The author asks a number of fairly prudent questions in this quotation, which typifies her stance for the duration of the essay. She alludes to freedom as a group concept, which is something that is not typically done in terms of gender. Additionally, she asks a fairly difficult question -- if some people are restrained from expressing their innate desires and physical proclivities regarding sexuality, how much freedom does the rest of society actually have? The implied answer to that question is that they only have the freedom to conform to conventional roles of gender and sexuality -- which the author states are heterosexual, with heterosexual men exercising a degree of power over all others.

This sort of thought is not one commonly associated with gender. However, the author appears correct in the assumption that unless everyone can express their own sexual proclivities, none of us are actually truly free. This concept relates to gender because it explores the idea that there are inherent restrictions in the interactions between and within genders. Between genders, it alludes to the natural hierarchy that men dominate, and that women struggle to keep up with. Within genders, it relates to the concept of staying in the closet.