The other day, I learnt that Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) has come to my city. It is a capitol city, but a modest one.
Aside from the overt, in-your-face spectacle of a male drag-queen dressed as a female caricature reading stories often about drag queens or LGBT issues to very young children in a public library, there is also the churning cognitive dissonance.
For some reason we are expected to believe: a) that we live in an over-sexualised culture, and b) that there is nothing sexual about Drag Queen Story Hour.
We are told: DQSH is innocent. It is performative art. It is no different than having clowns.
The natural response is: OK, so why not have clowns?
The reply is: because children are encouraged to have positive queer role-models in their lives.
So, this isn't like clowns, at all. Clowns are merely for entertainment, not role-modelling; and certainly not for the formation of personal identity (sexual, gender or otherwise). Additionally, if there is any sexuality, at all, involved in these events, those who promote should be forced to reckon with that and choke on any defense they utter.
Such defenses of DQSH result in cognitive dissonance and often there is ad homimem that falls upon those who criticise it. When opponents point out the obvious sexualised nature of these events, they are told that there is nothing sexual about it, and that, in fact, it is the opponent of DQSH who is sexualising DQSH. None of these are healthy reactions, and both are the consequence of a desperate attempt to maintain ideological stability.
There is the visceral concern people have towards child sexual abuse - and there have been some cases of known and convicted abusers finding their way into DQSH events. These pose practical issues that have to be brought to the forefront of any DQSH proposal.
There is also another concern, and perhaps one that is more amenable to DQSH's supporters: by celebrating queerness/transgenderism/non-binary as valid gender/sexual identities, libraries, schools and the parents involved are promoting a body/mind disconnect which may very well bring about the dysphoric states that they should be trying to prevent.
In early February, Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) posted the video ad, below:
It asks at the outset: 'What it Truly Scandinavian?' The answer: 'Absolutely nothing'.
What follows is a montage of stereotypically Scandinavian-looking people being told by a disembodied woman's voice as well as various people of colour that numerous stereotypical Scandinavian things aren't 'Scandinavian' at all. From Swedish meatballs and windmills, to bicycles and democracy: none of these are 'truly Scandinavian', but what is are the people from around the world who immigrate to Scandinavia.
There is a lot more than could be said about this video as it is chock-full of all sorts of interesting choices that betray its purpose, but that is another set of issues.
What is interesting is the logic of this message.
To my mind, it is asking the viewer to hold two conflicting notions in your mind at the same time.
1) The things that come to Scandinavia from other countries are not Scandinavian, but also:
2) The people who come to Scandinavia from other countries are Scandinavian.
In fact, there is a bit more to (2): not only are those who come to Scandinavia from other countries just as Scandinavian as native-born Scandinavians, these foreigners, in fact, are what make Scandinavia 'Scandinavian'. As the video states, 'In a way, Scandinavia was brought 'here''.
I smell a double-standard, perhaps a provocation, and such things introduce all sorts of problems.
What are we to say about India or Nigeria, Morocco or Turkey? They were colonised (several times in some cases), and have been stamped with that past.
How does this standard work for left-wing causes? For instance, what claim do the indigenous peoples of North America have to their traditional lands and lifeways under this rubric? What right to they have to conserve their identity and traditions? They're just behind the times, and need to get with the program. Finally: is any country truly itself?
No. This is only meant to be applied uni-directionally: towards Western nations.
This isn't even the first video of this kind this year: just after the UK withdrew from the EU via the Brexit withdrawal agreement, the BBC had a video in its children's TV series, 'Horrible Histories', that argued that 'British Things' aren't really British. It used the same logic as the SAS ad.
What is the purpose of such videos?
I suppose one is supposed to take solace in the ad’s message: we are all one human family that has exchanged artifacts and practices that, indeed, demonstrate our interconnected and shared humanity.
But is one really to buy into this when, in fact, one’s own heritage is being diminished? I see this ad as an example of gas-lighting: its a psychological manipulation that is meant to sow the seeds of doubt in a targeted group, making its members question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes such as low self-esteem. (We even see evidence of this in some of the portrayals of folks in the ad.)
What the message really is, is that there is no national identity outside of the country’s immigration policy. Nothing to separate one from an other, and no conflicts outside of the competitive networks of brand loyalties.
I think that we should reject this wholeheartedly. National identity and its meaning shouldn't be left, or even given to the dictates and whims of capital or government. It is retained via old and inherited sentiments of belonging and tradition, and cultivated through consideration and practice with others who share in it. It is not imported, bought, or signed into existence on a piece of paper. It is isn't universal or borderless. There are particularities, there are sides. It is personal, rooted, and deeply normative.
We are attached to particular things because we need to belong to something… We can’t belong to something abstract. We do not keep the cathedrals just because they’re beautiful, but also because they are part of our past. We want the past to be present among us. We don’t want to be cut off from it. We rejoice in our contact with the culture of our past. We value our particular past in the respectful way that we value any past culture, but [also] in a more personal way. We want to be part of [the] 'partnership…between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born'. (G.A Cohen, A Truth in conservatism: Rescuing conservatism from the Conservatives)
We ought to celebrate and cultivate our national identities, and repudiate the frauds.
