Wednesday, September 26, 2007

"We don't have Martians in Iran"

Hello fellow Kabobs and Kabobettes,

At the gracious invitation of huggable Will and mesmerizing Maytha, I am the latest piece of lahma to be skewered and added to the already delicious roster. The name's Mehammed Mack, see, Mack Daddy to May, which gets translated into Arablish as Abu Mack. All the salacious details of my biography are to be added soon...

As a first post, I wanted to address a lingering issue still simmering long after Ahmadinejad left Columbia, my university...

After all the sardonic laughter, there's a certain sense in which President Ahmadinejad just may be right. Perhaps for all the wrong reasons, but nevertheless, right. And I say this as someone who supports and participates in a sexually diverse conception of the Middle East.

What might not exist is the category of the "homosexual": that figure who self-identifies as exclusively gay, establishes a public culture based on that identity, and was born in special Victorian conditions of the late 19th century (described by Michel Foucault in his must-read THE HISTORY OF SEXUALITY).

This is to be differentiated from the more free-form practitioner of individual sexual acts that we've all heard the Kalam-el-nas about: the covertly bisexual arab male who, while married, dabbles in casual sex with other men, or, dare we say it, boys, usually in a very role-differentiated manner. We have also heard of the strictly passive male-- on the outside indistinguishable from the most virile shabab-- who may exclusively prefer contact with men but would never claim a gay identity as such.

These are two 'common' personality types that have often been mentioned in anecdotes we share, books we've read (The Yacoubian Building), and 'shady' uncles or cousins we might have; they complicate the correlation many want to make between homosexuals here and 'homosexuals' there. But even writing these last sentences is problematic to me, because they still attempt to tell that strip-tease story about unlocking the Gordian knot and unveiling, through a haze of genie smoke, the secret truth of Oriental sex.

I have a professor here at Columbia, you may have heard of him before :) who has thoroughly dissected these thorny issues in a recently released book: DESIRING ARABS, by Joseph Massad. If you want to talk about sex in the Arab World, it's a great primer for all issues you should be sensitive to when making any kind of claim. In class discussion, he frequently used the following philosophical dialogue scheme to highlight the 'absurdity' of searching for homosexuals in the Middle East, as certain human rights groups are wont to do. Here it is, very loosely: "1) Martians don't exist on Earth although they do on Mars 2) Why aren't there Martians on Earth?"

Make of that what you will.

But I want to end on a sweeter, more compromising note...

As you can see in the picture here, even if in Ahmadinejad's mind homosexuals (like the Holocaust) possibly don't exist, something else definitely does. A level of affection between males that you'd never see in our most-unMediterranean society, an affection that holds hands, kisses, and embraces to the very limits of 'decency', because both men know it won't be consummated sexually, and are therefore comfortable around one another. It's a kind of affection scholars like Malek Chebel would call "homo-sensualité", that often gets confused with rampant homosexuality, in the observer's eyes. There was once a great American feminist who said (someone remind me of her name), that the only outlet here in America, for men to show each other affection is violence: boxing, football, and sometimes just plain fighting (i.e, Fight Club).

PS: Now that we're on the subject of homos-- and this is something I discussed with May-- isn't there something a little bit homo-erotic about the name "KABOBfest", that is, if we are to think about it like a "sausagefest"? For those who don't know, that means a lame party (if you're straight that is) where men outnumber women. As far as imagery goes, should we visualize a group of circumcised zobs roasting in their own sweat or something? Oops I didn't say that...

10 comments:

QuiQui said...

Mabrouk on your 1st, and very wonderful post Abu Mack! It reminded me of a friend of mine's comment he sent my way on the last post on the gays in Iran:

"I refer to folks interested in this issue to an interesting article in "Atlantic Monthly" from earlier in the year titles "Kingdom in the Closet." Foucault makes an appearance, and I'm tempted to believe Ahmedi when he says there are no gays like here... Depends on how we understand the "identity.""

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705/gay-saudi-arabia

...from a Western perspective, is that some of the men having sex with other men don’t consider themselves gay. For many Saudis, the fact that a man has sex with another man has little to do with “gayness.” The act may fulfill a desire or a need, but it doesn’t constitute an identity. Nor does it strip a man of his masculinity, as long as he is in the “top,” or active, role. This attitude gives Saudi men who engage in homosexual behavior a degree of freedom.

BTW... I think if there was ever any allusion to this place as a sausage fest (which there may have been as KF began with Fadi, Will and Nabeel who all have penises, who all love each other very much, and who all partake in acts with each other to fullfull a particular desire and show affection that some Westerners would consider gay but they don't all consider themselves "gay", I think... I don't know. Not that there's anything wrong...) anyway "Sausauge Fest" no longer applies. It was May, in fact, who broke the gender barrier.

Will said...

Abu Mack,

Welcome, and thanks for the first post!

QuiQui is merely speculating. KABOBfest is clearly linked to "skewing the absurd." But, that is a creative interpretation.

You mention that Ahmedinejad denies the Holocaust. I have not actually seen direct evidence of that, other than a lot of accusations about him doing that. If you are anyone can post direct evidence, I would appreciate that.

In his Columbia speech, he actually said it did happen. While he did say that it should be researched from "new perspectives," which could refer to deniers and revisionists. To say that deniers should be free to deny publicly, and revisioners should be free to revise, is not quite the same as denying. If this is the meat of the accusation against him, than any modern day Voltaire would be vilified as a Holocaust denier.

In his Columbia speech, he focused on whether the Holocaust was something the Palestinians should be punished for. This is not an offensive inquiry.

Still, I'd like to see the evidence.

Will

Mehammed "Abou" Mack said...

Quiqui, very funny! and very glad to meet you :)
I remember that Kingdom closet article. In rich Saudi Arabia, we all know how big the closets can get... There have often been attempts, by nationalists and so on, to link up the upper-classes with homosexuality, and I think that article was slightly guilty of that. It was better than most articles though. Also, I should say that I am definitely not of the opinion that self-identified homosexuals don't exist in the Arab World, I know many who identify that way. They will often be dismissed by critics as "native informants", a "minority", and "globalized", and "upper-class", and therefore NOT part of the authentic fabric of Arab sexuality. But just look at the nightclubs in Paris and NY where working-class Maghrebians and Yemenis abound! The self-identification happens, it's true, in immigration, but it's not like they had no consciousness of this when they were back in their home country. And we have to address the fact: why does it seem impossible for those who self-identify as queer to announce themselves, beyond the obvious religious and cultural reasons. There have been other third-world gay movements that have had to deal with similar obstacles.


Will, I agree with you on that one... what he said at Columbia is "I'm not saying it didn't happen" and used phrasings like "if it indeed happened", which is why I used the hypothetical "possibly did not happen". I am really against the 'shutting off' of Holocaust studies-- not because I would ever think of denying it happened (my Austrian father can confirm it from a first-hand perspective)-- but as an academic freedom issue. Therefore I don't like it when Norman Finkelstein appearances cause such turmoil at the academic level or when as in Europe people are fired or jailed for touching this topic. It's like the ACLU says "I hate what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it". And you know, there was a conference here in Columbia about History and Memory which was discussing laws in Europe that seek to criminalize historical revisionism (Armenian genocide in France, Holocaust in many countries), and to my surprise, many of the people who spoke against such laws were Jews activist on the freedom of speech issue.

Saladin said...

As an aisde, I prefer "Englabic" to "Arablish". Much more elegant.

Maytha said...

Mabrouk habibi on your first post!I would say that Massad would be so proud-but I wouldn't know since he won't let me in his class to observe "Massadisms" in action!

But one thing i know for sure is that squash players around the world would be proud! ;) Lil' inside NYC joke for all you non-in-know morningside heights folks!

And lastly, I would like to make my endorsement of "Arabish" and not "Arablish" or "Englabic." There's just a lil too much of equal representation for my taste in those words. Cause like DJ Khaled said, "we taking over!!!"-even in compound fusion words!

HrairSS said...

Who's Your Abou, Mack?
Ya Mehammed, look, if someone is having sex with a person of the same sex, there is a very simple and appropriate term for this “phenomenon”. It's “HOMOSEXUAL”.
Now, whether or not individuals self-identify as such is a separate issue and does not, in any way, affect the fact that the (hot) guy who just got done having sex with the (hotter) guy is gay. Actually, they both are.
The self identifying (or not) part – the second part of the equation – is the “choice” part people often mistakenly debate when talking about the first part of the equation – whether this person desires/enjoys/does have sex with a person of the same sex.

Good job, You-hammed.

bin j said...

perhaps the only thing that stiffens my hunger for kabobs more than the partial view of an arab man through the steam of a hamam--crystals of water clinging to a topiary of short black hairs like angels above a forbidden city--is our delicate dance of rhetoric. thank you ambassador. now i must excuse myself, for i have fesenjan all in my beard.

Mehammed "Abou" Mack said...

hello my friend hrairss, i somewhat agree. And I also always wonder how many times must one commit an act before it becomes an identity? In a weird way, it reminds me of parallel linguistic structure: how many times can the Israeli army accidentally kill innocent bystanders before it is no longer an accident and has to be filed under criminal negligence?
Conversely, how many times must a man stick X in Y's Z or vice versa before they are actually gay? There is also this danger: if a woman has sex with another woman a hundred times and man once she is heterosexual, yet if a man has sex with a woman a hundred times and a man once he is homosexual. Phallocentrism?

Archie said...

Great writing. Glad you showed up

S said...

Massad has some very fascinating ideas in Desiring Arabs, and the main idea you've used here from it is, I think, well-argued, but I have to record my overall disappointment with the work, which summarized more than it argued in most areas and dealt only with a very elite section of Arab society.