I'm by no means the first to make this argument, I'm sure, but I just had an analytical reaction to this article, which comments on the legal hullabaloo surrounding this artist's work. Go head and click the links and read them. I'll wait.
Okay, here's the thing. The trouble is that very few people know about the concept of the 'homosocial,' as opposed to the 'homoerotic.' Sure, there are homoerotic moments in comics, if you want there to be (it's art, it's about interpretation), but they're not as universal as some people would have you believe.
Homoerotic relationships are, as the name implies, when dudes are doin' dudes. In imagery, when men are eroticised we tend to call it homoerotic. We also tend to assume that women don't like to look at men with little or no closes on (which is not true, believe me). Basically, masculine sexuality is made into a taboo so as to ward off homosexuality. How many times have you heard a guy emphatically claim that he has no idea what a handsome man might even look like?
Acceptably-heterosexual imagery of men must show off abstract sexuality, such as clothing that indicates how much money they make (the suit and tie), how physically difficult their jobs are (the worn-out jeans of the labourer), their incredible self-reliance and rugged individualism (anything that implies the cowboy, for example), the ability to cause physical harm (the warrior), or their connection to solid, 'rule-of-the-father' institutions (the soldier, the cop, etc.). Male sexuality can never be about the body, 'cause as far as homophobes are concerned, that's just gay.
The homosocial, on the other hand, is the space to which the relationships that are barred to men have moved. When male relationships aren't necessarily erotic or sexual, they are homosocial instead. The homosocial space is where you can love a man without the implications of butt-fucking. The homosocial space is where Booster Gold and Blue Beatle can be 'life partners' without any snickering. As you no doubt already realise, this space barely exists in our culture. The moment two men are affectionate towards one another outside of very specific circumstances, they're HUGE HOMOS OH MY GOD!
In conclusion, Batman and Robin, as well as Booster and Beatle, have homosocial relationships. They care deeply for each other, they have a bond that no one else can replace, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "doin' it."
The interesting thing, though, is that because men have so few acceptable forms of affection that they can direct at one another, the only other alternative is eroticised language and behaviour. My theory of the homoerotic language in WWI poetry and prose is that these writers simply didn't have any other way to express the deep, emotional bonds they had with their fellow soldiers. I'm sure many of them were actually gay (about 10%, right?), but that's beside the point. The vast majority of the time that men get nervous about the homoerotic implications of imagery of men in action/adventure comics, and film and TV for that matter, it's because male sexuality has been ham-strung by enforced homophobia. We simply have no words to use to express our love and affection for one another that don't sound queer. Notice how queer it sounds for me to even refer to men feeling "love and affection" for one another at all? That's what I'm talking about!
Posted by orion at August 21, 2005 2:25 PM | TrackBack