you should read Edward Saids stuff on Orientalism, not sure how relevant it is but he makes a nice summary of that form of labelling which almost creates a stereotype.

Awesome. x

I think someone like Adam Lambert represents progress, though in the context of SA it is important to remember that “white gay males” make up a small percentage of the population, and the spaces they occupy and are accepted in is limited. I did an episode on homophobia last year and the stories of shocking hate crimes against many gays and lesbians - particularly in peri-urban communities and townships - is shocking. Laws that protect equality don’t protect people in communities that reject homosexuality.

That said, you are still like his biggest groupie ever :p

Thanks for commenting Stace. You’re right, labeling in any sense is problematic. However, in order to progress in any society labels need to be challenged. In a media studies and Queer Theory context, the questioning of labels alongside a context of transnationalisation and interactivity is crucial. The representation of Adam Lambert - whether it be from the subjective interpretation perspective of the audience or the construction aspect of the institution - is fundamentally linked to the nature of society, as Adam stems from such a society and such a context. It is necessary to apply labels to understand, but at the same time we should avoid labeling in a way that fabricates a new set of stereotypes that just serve to reinforce ideologies or dominant discourses. So with regard to the whole idea of “pomosexual”, you can’t place it in the same…category…as “gay” or “homo” or even “metro”, because the set of assumptions that stick to such existing labels cannot exist in the same capacity alongside pomosexuality.

And that’s quite simply due to the nature of postmodernity. Of course this term in itself is problematic. But if you place it in context of media studies: the moment you try and describe and limit it it ceases to exist. So the “postmodern sexuality” is thus one that, fundamentally by definition, cannot be confined by further stereotypes and generalisations. There is no expected way of life, no expected way of thinking. It is not the same as “metrosexual” or “ubersexual”, as these have a set of criteria attached to them. The only qualification of pomosexuality is that it is unstable — that identity cannot be pinned down.

And so like “queer” it is a label that, academically speaking, rejects all other categorization. However, unlike “queer” it is not rooted in political consciousness. Rather, it is rooted in a deeper concern for the lived cultural experience on a daily level.

So labeling Adam Lambert as pomosexual from a subjective perspective places no assumptions on him, no stereotypes on him - all it does is say exactly what you’re saying: look at the whole package, not just who he sleeps with.

The thing is, we can’t compare this aspect of the cycle of identity politics to any trend that may resemble the past. MY argument comes from a very South African perspective - that to my generation of young white gay guys labels don’t matter. At least not to them. Of course they matter to some people, and these people may even identify themselves as gay. But ‘gay’ isn’t a homogenous identity.

From this side of the world there is no such thing as a gay culture. My demographic reads about it in magazines, sees the idea in films, is told about it by their families and schools. But outside a superficial cosmopolitanism inherent in these discourses, there is NO sense of connection, community or common identity. Put this in a context of gay identity in (for example) America - where a gay rights struggle and a struggle against Aids helped defined a very real sense of community. In SA, we HAVE legal protection - we offer gay marriage, we offer equal protection before the law. Of course this is only in theory. Of course society is not perfect. But the point is that many gay men within my age group don’t see the significance of this, it’s taken for granted to a certain degree. So what is there to stand behind in terms of a gay identity? In a society where ‘gay’ means different in terms of stereotypes, of course people are going to shy away from it. It’s not a big deal to so many young people here because the nature of privileged life is, in many respects, based on a model of equality. If you want to get married, you can. Subjective ideological pressures set aside of course.

So no, I don’t think that “pomo” is an idea that will SAVE us to any degree. But you need to remember that Adam is interpreted differently according to the society. From this perspective, he forms a model for the pomosexual mode of existence. People here can relate to him because he has that “I don’t care” attitude. And that’s because people who get labeled gay here often DON’T care for a gay identity, purely because it is a shallow and superficial concept — an empty idea of community based on a superficial connection to international magazines.

SA and America are in many ways on completely different roads of exploration in relation to identity politics. So whilst pomosexuality may seem idealist from an American perspective, related to a SA context it is a very viable model for explaining the nature of identity pressures faced on a day to day level.

Let me begin by saying that Adam Lambert is a highly talented musician. You would have to be deaf not to agree. The fact that he may or may not be ‘gay’ is irrelavent with regard to his talent. I use the term ‘gay’ with an understanding that it, like many other terms, has its own unique set of issues in terms of definition, inferences, stereotypes, problems etc etc. With regard to it being suggested that he has incresaed ‘gay visibility’ this is problematic for a number of reasons. The fact of the matter is, rightly or wrongly, Adam Lambert or, for many people, the concept of Adam Lambert now exists in the public eye. With exposure on American Idol he has become public property and, like any other person who exists in the public eye, all aspects of him are up for scrutiny including his sexuality. Sadly this is the price that one pays for exposure in this day and age. However, there is a clear distinction between who a person actually is and their projected image in the public eye. So to discuss his sexuality is problematic unless you are intimately acquanted with him as we don’t know who he actually is. Of course this begs the question do we really ever know who someone else is? Do they ever really know who they are? And this is where the issue of identity raises its head.

Basic psychological theory suggests that we, as humans, instinctively label and categorise the world around us. It is how we make sense and create coherence of the world we live in, the people, things places and experiences we come across. With regard to identity, labelling and categories assist us in understanding other people. Of course, such labelling is a double edged sword. On one hand it provides the brain a mechanism with which to cope in that it is able to understand what it comes into contact with. On the other hand, it is a highly dnagerous and powerful mechanism in that it has the capacity to stereotype, infer, generalise which can breed prejudice, intolerance etc. The blindingly obvious issue is how then do we exist without categories, labels? The truth is that we can’t. In terms of identity, intersectional theory looks at the way in which categories of identity work together and the effect that this has on discrimination. The categories included here are sexuality, gender, race and class. The theory suggets that identity is formed at the intersection of these categories. So then these categories become PART of one’s identiy whether these choose to acknowledge that or not. The idea of being labelled, rightly or very wrongly, is inescapable. To give a highly crude example I think particularly of the idea of a ‘gaydar’ in which it is suggested that one is able to determine the sexuality of another by studying them etc. Bear with me please. For women this is particularly useful in terms of searching for a partner. Her selction pool is made smaller when she realises that a certain amount of the pool is off limits so to speak because that certain amount of the pool does not identify with what she identifies in terms of a significant other. Bear in mind that this is not necessarily right but it is accurate. She can then modify her search accordingly. So what am I trying to get at with all this? Labels exist. Being labelled in terms of your identity and sexuality I.e. ’straight’, ‘gay’, ‘homo’ exists for better or worse. In terms of a person constructing their own identity it is much the same. You identify with parts or a category in its wholeness. So for example one who identifies themselves as ‘homosexual’ (I use this term with the same awareness that I have for the term ‘gay’) possibly identifies with particular aspects that this label suggests. So what then is identity really? Is it an idenfication with certain aspects of various concepts? Whatever it is, it is undeniable that you can seperate yourself from labels and categories entirely. Please bear in mind that I really am not attempting to generalise or make inferences here. With regard to ‘pomosexuality’ it seems that it, like any other term, is another label in that is has specific characteristics in which people can or cannot identify with. So by suggesting that Adam Lambert is the pomosexual man, we place him into a category. This isn’t wrong nor is it necessarily right. It is what we do as human beings.

I also think that you speak to a much larger issue here. If one is to accept that sexuality, gender, race etc is a part of our identity then we invite the idea that identity is multi-faceted and complex. There are many layers. We are onions if i’m allowed to borrow an analogy from Shrek:) The massive issue and problem is when people understand others in terms of only a part of who they are as opposed to looking at the bigger onion and by that I mean the whole person. In terms of sexuality it is only a part of a person’s identity, it is not who that person is entirely. I think specifically of the election of Barack Obama. Much was made of the fact that he was the first African American to be elected to the highest office in America. However, this misses the point. That fact is not all who he is. Just the same with Adam Lambert. Whether he is or is not ‘gay’ is not all who he is. And like any person with regard to their sexuality, it is merely part of the onion rather than being the entire vegetable.

So what am I trying to say really? The simplest way I can put it? People need to look at the bigger vegetable in understanding someone else.

P.S. Thanks Matty, as always interesting and thought provoking and sorry if I got off topic x

This is not a new debate; the “I don’t care about labels” or “what does gay mean anyway” discussions come around and around, come and go, and spin back again. Of course sexuality is but one part of who we are… and increased openness about sexuality and sex (to say nothing of gender) has revealed a wide swath of… possibilities. “Gay” means different things because there are, well, so many ways to be gay.

And yet… and yet. The labeling does matter. Being gay, like it or not, is still distinctive, separating, even somewhat isolating. We are not a huge contingent of people. We still face enormous amounts of prejudice, violence, and fear. It’s easy to say “gay is no big deal”… yet, if it wasn’t, wouldn’t we have more - more public people, more, well, marriage rights - to show for it?

Lambert’s somewhat coy, somewhat obvious public presentation isn’t striking because he’s doing it; lots of celebrities, after all, resort to similar, vague stances. What’s remarkable is that… it’s working. Lambert will likely win American Idol - or so I understand - with an androgynous look and an ambiguous sexuality that we’re told, repeatedly, America “can’t handle”. And in that, he’s shown how far Idol, and its audience, have taken the culture. How we can move, in such a short time, beyond Clay Aiken (remember?). I’d argue that Lambert, really, shows how Idol has strung a thread of image-busting ways for men to be on the show - he’s drawing as much from Daughtry and Constantine Maroulis as he is from Sanjaya and Clay. And the public is showing, really, that they can go with it, that such a distinctive presentation, and an androgynous, ambiguous persona, can seem fresh, and interesting (especially when married to a talent as impressive as his).

As a gay man I kind of wish “coy” wasn’t an option, still. I don’t think “pomo” will save us all. I don’t think we can break down the cultural stereotypes and limitations we have in America until saying, loudly, “I’m gay” is accepted and treated, really, as just another piece of a broader puzzle of figuring out who people are. We’re getting there… sort of, and slowly. And Adam Lambert winning Idol is a great sign of cultural progress, to be sure… but I think it’s because, as Pet Shop Boys say, “It Must Be Obvious”… not because it’s unclear.