Wounds and reinscriptions: schools, sexualities and performative subjects

context. As such, chains of prior constitutions of un-masculinity, whose performative
force and endurance is reflected in their citation in the scene, are suggested.

Ohan’s physical exclusion of Ian from the group and Ian’s silent acquiescence to this
suggest the citational chains through which valorised hetero-masculinities and disavowed
(un)masculinities are repeatedly inscribed. The bodily nature of Ohan’s practices inscribe
his own masculinity and the physicality of this. Ian’s acquiesces further inscribe this not-
hetero-masculine. And as hetero-masculinity is the legitimate maleness in this context,
this is a not-hetero-masculinity which constitutes an impossible (not)male subject. At this
moment Ian has no place at the table and no place in discourse (Butler 1997a).

Ohan’s bodily practices do not simply exclude Ian, they also refuse proximity to him. The
spectre of contagion by and/or threat of the not-hetero-masculine (and therefore homo-
(un)masculine/feminine) is evident here, citing enduring homophobic discourses.

The implicit possibility of contagion and threat to hetero-masculinity, however, also
suggests (un)masculine/feminine weakness, thereby exposing as at risk the essential,
valorised hetero-masculine body that Ohan’s practices constitute and defend. This is a
risk that is fundamentally at odds with the hetero-masculinity that prevails in this context.

Mark’s intervetion ‘Yeah, sit next to your boyfriend’ arguably blunts the performative
constitution of ‘no place’ discussed above. It does this by ascribing Ian a subject position,
albeit one that is denigrated - the wounded homosexual is an intelligible, if subjugated,
subject (Foucault 1990, Butler 1997a & 1997b). This wound allows/demands the

18

<<   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   >>

More intriguing information