Discussing ‘SEX IN PUBLIC’ in Academia?

This is my second paper where we were asked to write a brief response to Berlant and Warner’s dissertation on Sex In Public. Realized HCP is the perfect place to post these essays. Enjoy.

Perspective(s) On “Sex In Public”

In Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner’s piece entitled “Sex In Public” make a questionable argument for how “..sex is mediated in public..” (Berlant & Warner 1998). They do this by discussing heterosexuality as hegemonic, the effect of banality on institutions and the existence of counterpublics. Though expressed “..radical aspirations of queer culture building.” (Berlant & Warner 1998) brings up a question of function. What is it that we actually want to achieve with “..Queer Counterpublics” (Berlant & Warner 1998)? As discussed in class, Queer World Making begs a better question..who is this world for? Why is their an absence regarding differentiating Generational Perspective(s) in “Sex In Public”?

Hegemony, a word seemingly used on countless occasions in SDS readings.. could be defined as how leadership influences social categories. Berlant and Warner highlight sex or Material Practices as “..not explicitly sexual..” (Berlant & Warner 1998) but as “..hierarchies of property and propriety” (Berlant & Warner 1998). Furthermore, Berlant and Warner expand on “..hegemonic optimism about citizenship and the national future” (Berlant & Warner 1998). Examples of this future would be the Nuclear Family coined by George P. Murdock in 1949 (New York Times 2001). Yes. The issue of domesticity and the pressures of social reproduction solidify into discourse but who is accountable? Accountability.

One could question evidence of Queer Radicalism to express “..links intimacy only to institution of personal life” (Berlant & Warner 1998). For any concept of life capable of “..culture building..” (Berlant & Warner 1998) has the definability of institutional? Segues us into “Banality” as spoken in the reading “..the fantasy banalized by the image is one that reverberates in the law..” (Berlant & Warner 1998) suddenly jumps to “Racial mirage generated by white-dominated society..” (Berlant & Warner 1998) discovers some dichotomies. There is possibly an essentialized consensus that many aspects of “..political public discourse.” (Berlant & Warner 1998) are ‘tacit’ as in implied without the need of explanation. How can one escape this already historically situated “..mass aversion..” (Berlant & Warner 1998)? Historicity. Unfortunately, there is no escaping a law dominated by whites. Furthermore, where is the mention of Generational Privilege in congruent with “..heterosexual privilege..” (Berlant & Warner 1998)?

The thought of escaping a “..hegemonic public..” (Berlant & Warner 1998) seems like a challenge. Escaping a “..prepolitical humanity..” (Berlant & Warner 1998) almost brings to foreground a Post-Human or Post-Humanism alternative to Queer Theory. Arguments that Berlin and Warner propose seem deeply rooted in “..property of subjectivity” (Berlant & Warner 1998). Objectively speaking Queer “..Counterpublics” (Berlant & Warner 1998) exist whether we like it or not. It “..necessarily includes more people than can be identified.” (Berlant & Warner 1998). Those people exist in new forms of “..social acts..” (Berlant & Warner 1998). As discussed in class, certain members of a ‘public’ may not be aware of current culture of sex in public bathrooms. Members of that ‘counterpublic’ a part of that culture may not identify as queer still show evidence of “..elaborating a public world of belonging and transformation.” (Berlant & Warner 1998) In other worlds, people are going to determine a solution for fornicating on school grounds whether people or “..hierarchies of property..” (Berlant & Warner 1998) like it or not.

Regardless, Berlant and Warner make an eloquent theoretical performance in “Sex In Public”. There is evidence that “..sex is mediated in public..” (Berlant & Warner 1998) as demonstrated through this condensed essay on hegemony, banality, and counterpublics. Though my question still stands, where is the discussion on Generational Perspective(s) in “Sex In Public” or “Queer Theory”? Does it take into account Millennial or Generation Z perspectives? These questions stem from personal curiosity subsequent to current academic understandings of sexuality and gender. If evidence shows an exponential growth in Queer World Making and abruptly “Queer” isn’t “Queer” anymore. Instantly it becomes just world making, World Designing. Maybe then, we’ve finally escaped a “..prepolitical humanity..” (Berlant & Warner 1998), finally escaped humanity. Possibly that is what we are trying to achieve.