By Kohei Ishihara




     Balloons of every color of the rainbow are tied together 


on either end of a large plastic banner, proclaiming in bold 


colorful letters “PRIDE,” a word that means different things 


to different people.  Behind the two young men holding the 


banner as they march down Christopher Street, are a group of 


men and women, young and old, wearing colorful rainbow 


colored outfits and Pride paraphernalia.  The parade, however, 


is not the only event to watch.  The crowd is filled with a 


fascinating diverse group of people: young and old, effeminate 


and masculine, woman, man, and transgender.  But most of the 


people are fixing their gaze on a group of white gay men on 


the side of the street.  Half-naked and gorgeous, these men 


celebrate their Pride; dancing, hugging, and kissing each other.  


One man stands out from the rest of his Abercrombie-like model 


friends, all wearing khaki shorts.  He is wearing boxer-briefs 


the color of the American flag and the rest of his entire body 


is painted in those five colors: red, blue, yellow, green, and 


orange.  Colors which represent diversity.  Colors of which I 


am suspicious.  But nevertheless, I am glad that these 


Abercrombie-model men are able to celebrate their sexuality, 


to celebrate their Pride.   But sometimes I get suspicious, 


for I do not know if they know what they are proud of.  


Sometimes I do not know what I am proud of.  


     I look through the Pride Guide 2000, and look at the 


various events ranging from activism to sex parties.  The cover 


of the guide catches my attention.  A well-built white gay male 


in a farm-boy motif, naked except for a cowboy hat, has that 


word written across and over his penis....placed just right so 


that you can not quite grasp and take in all that it seems to 


offer, but nevertheless you feel its presence.  Those words 


written on his penis; his penis, HIS words.  I am confused.


	I am suddenly interrupted, and may I admit curious, when I 


see a poor black man approach me.  He seems displaced amongst the 


images, music, and words circulating the parade and reverberating 


through the crowds.  I am curious, I am a little shaken.  He 


comes to me and pulls out from his bag a sheet of cloth with 


Pride buttons layered and organized in rows.  I say ‘no thank 


you,’ but the man next to me decides to purchase one with a pink 


triangle and words that I can not make out.  The black man sells 


a Pride button to the white gay man.  The customer laughs and 


slips the button in his pocket.  Slips it away as if he just 


purchased it to support the black man.  After all, there is only 


so much community service one can perform during Pride day (1).  


     Through this constructed Pride scene, I am going to question 


what type of a subject is generated and created in Pride 


discourse.  Pride discourse, I am defining, is any symbolic 


representation or language that is associated with, influenced 


by, or relates to gay commercial culture.  Pride discourse then 


includes such discourses as Queer theory, gay health books, and 


gay fashion.  Implicit in this is the question, Who is not 


represented in Pride discourse?  Going into more detail I wish to 


examine the type of position this subject is constructed to have, 


and in relation to whom.  What type of agency does the subject of 


Pride discourse have?  And where/when/why/how does this agency 


manifest itself?  To explore these questions, I am going to use 


Jacques Lacan’s notion of gaining subjectivity through the Mirror 


Stage and Frantz Fanon’s concept of collective catharsis in Black 


Skin, White Masks.  


     The point in questioning Pride is not so much an attack on 


Pride as it is a question of the ways in which Pride discourse 


intersects with power, race, class, and gender, and to what 


extent do these intersections mingle in such ways as to obscure 


and thus legitimize white gay racism, white gay sexism, white 


gay  transphobia, and white gay classism.  Though it is 


impossible to separate race from class and gender-identity, I 


will focus and center on the way in which Pride discourse and 


sexuality intersects with race; and more specifically, I am 


focusing on men.  


	To understand the way in which Pride discourse generates a 


specific subject, it is useful to refer back to Lacan’s theory of 


the mirror phase and subjectivity.  To paraphrase Chris Weedon, 


Lacan develops and appropriates Freud’s theory of gender 


acquisition by stressing how a gendered subjectivity is produced 


through language.  As his first intelligent act, the child 


identifies himself with his image in the mirror.  Through 


watching his own movements, the child makes a correlation between 


himself and the image, and is able to watch and experience 


through action the relation between his reflected movements and 


the reflected environment.   The child’s ego is then split “into 


the I which is watching and the I which is watched.”(2) 


	A secondary split occurs after the castration and Oedipus 


complex, when the child has already entered into the symbolic 


world.  The secondary split occurs through language.  In this 


case, the child is split between the I which speaks and the I 


which is represented in his speech.  There is a gap between the I 


which signifies and the I which is represented in what is 


signified.  The child, however, mis-recognizes this split and 


sees himself as the author of meaning.  And meaning, Lacan 


argues, is fixed in relation to the phallus which is the primary, 


transcendental signifier of meaning.   The phallus controls 


meaning and upholds patriarchy.  Through a desire to control 


meaning and become “the source of language rather than an effect 


of it,”(3)  the child develops a purpose and drive for language.  


Though it is impossible to control meaning and become the 


phallus, only men, because of their anatomy, have the agency to 


aspire toward the phallus.


	It is this secondary split, which occurs and re-occurs after 


the castration and Oedipus complex, where I want to focus my 


attention.  Lacan argues, quite literally, that this split occurs 


through language.  Lacan argues that the individual enters as a 


speaking subject into the symbolic world of language.  But 


language, a system of symbols expressed through voice, is quite 


similar to, and cannot quite be isolated from, other signifying 


practices and discourses, such as sign language, art, and 


writing.  Individuals, thus, go through a constant process of 


engendering, building, and re-creating their subjectivity, 


through their relation to, participation in, and position within 


discourse, not just language.  


	Viewing subjectivity in this way, Pride discourse can be 


analyzed more effectively.  In gay pornography, for example, the 


men who are glorified and objectified are white.  In addition to 


being objectified, white gay men are also the subjects of gay 


pornography.  Aside from the fact that white gay men are the 


strongest and largest consumers of gay pornography, studies have 


also shown that desire is constructed and figured upon from a 


white male.  The Pride Guide 2000, in the Pride march scene, has 


a picture of a white gay male with the words “Pride” written over 


his penis.  This clearly shows how a gendered and racialized 


subject has been constructed in and through Pride discourse.  The 


subject, by virtue of his whiteness and his maleness and his 


penis, is the only one suitable to explore and gain access to gay 


pride.  He is the only one for whom the guide is written for.  


The conflation of “Pride” and penis represents the white man’s 


attempt to gain the phallus, the position of being male and of 


having power over meaning and desire.  


	It is also important not to neglect the relation to which the 


white gay male develops his subjectivity.  It is through his 


relationship to women, people of color, transgendered, and the 


poor, that the white man gains his subjectivity.  For example, 


Richard Fung illustrates in “Looking For My Penis: the Eroticized 


Asian in Gay Male Video Porn,” that even when East Asians are the 


objects in pornography, they are objects to be exoticized by the 


white male subject.  In any Pride Guide, you will find that among 


the perfected white male bodies, positioned as subjects and 


objects of desire, there will be the black drag queen, positioned 


as the entertainer; the exotic Asian positioned as a boy in 


servitude; and the Latino, known for his spicy flavor.   It is 


only through these relations, that the white man’s subjectivity 


is constructed.  At the bottom of this is the fact that Pride 


discourses have to be purchased.  One has to have a certain 


purchasing power to able to access Pride paraphernalia, Queer 


theory books, and gay clubs. 


	In a sense, Pride discourse can be viewed as a mirror.  The 


white gay man looks into the mirror (pornography, gay magazines, 


Queer Theory, gay health books) and sees his image.  He sees 


himself as the object of beauty and the subject of HIV/AIDS 


discourse.  The white gay man also sees his image in contrast to 


images of the dark “others.”  He then develops a split ego, where 


he becomes both the I which speaks and the I which is represented 


through his speech and through discourse.  He is split as the 


subject and the object of discourse.  The white gay man, mis-


recognizing himself as one, assumes that he is the author of 


meaning.  He mis-recognizes himself as what Lacan calls “the 


Other,” the position of control of desire.  This is all a 


fantasy; what Lacan calls “the imaginary.”   His lack of power to 


control meaning and his split ego create the white gay man’s need 


to symbolize control through Pride discourse.   This desire, this 


frustration compels him to crave the phallus.


	In Black Skin, White Masks, Fanon introduces the concept of a 


collective catharsis, from which he clearly illustrates the 


agency that comes with subjectivity.  Fanon maintains that in any 


collectivity or in any society there must be an outlet from which 


to release aggression.  Though each society has its own kind of 


catharsis, Fanon highlights illustrated children books and 


magazines: 


     The Tarzan stories, the sagas of twelve-year-old 

     explorers, the adventures of Mickey Mouse, and 

     all those ‘comic books’ serve actually as a 

     release for collective aggression.  The 

     magazines are put together by white men 

     for little white men…..In the magazines 

     the Wolf, the Devil, the Evil Spirit, 

     the Bad Man, the Savage are always 

     symbolized by Negroes or Indians; since 

     there is always an identification with 

     the victor, the little Negro, quite as 

     easily as the little white boy, becomes 

     an explorer, an adventurer, a missionary 

     ‘who faces the danger of being eaten by the 

     wicked Negroes.’(4) 


Initially, as Fanon articulates, both the white and black boy 


identify with the victor.  Through this identification, he is 


able to become an explorer, an adventurer.  For black boys in 


Antilles, Fanon says, there is no immediate problem.  But for 


black boys in France who are immersed in whiteness and white 


discourse, a sensitizing action takes place.  The black boy’s ego 


collapses.  The black boy notices the ways in which he is treated 


differently.  A time comes when he learns that these “wicked 


Negroes” in the magazines are actually him.  “He is made 


inferior.”(5) 


	As Fanon has shown, through discourse, a white man’s 


subjectivity also gives him a form of agency.  Through reading 


about explorers as heroes, he is able to become and assume the 


position of the explorer.  When the white gay man reads his Pride 


Guide 2000 and sees himself reflected through the language and 


recognizes his body as the subject and the symbol of Pride, he 


able to assume the position of the explorer.  It is he for whom 


the Pride Guide 2000 was written.  It is he who can travel and 


access the events, services, and discourses.


	But how much agency does a white gay man have?  Have white 


gay men not also been the victims of homophobia and 


genderphobia?  Are they not members of an oppressed group?  Don’t 


white gay men deserve to have pride?  The answer to this question 


is yes.  White gay men have been disempowered and de-


phallusized.  But it may to useful to take Foucault’s notion of 


power and oppression.  Power does not manifest from one group and 


power can oppress in a multitude of ways.  Just as white gay men 


can be both the victim in and the accomplice to homophobia and 


genderphobia, so can white gay men be the oppressors of people of 


color, women, and transgendered.  White gay men can both be 


oppressed and oppress others at the same time.


	Having being displaced from a position of privilege and now 


in subordination to the heterosexual white man, the white gay man 


may try to take pride in his self and self-image in an attempt to 


regain the phallus and free himself from oppression.   It is 


important to note that the white gay man is trying to reassert 


himself back into a position of privilege.  The concept of 


freedom in the United States has many different meanings.  For a 


black man during slavery, freedom may have meant the end of 


slavery and the right to become a citizen.  Angela Davis argues, 


that freedom for the white man meant quite the opposite: “The 


master’s notion of freedom, in fact, involved his capacity to 


control the lives of others.”(6) 


	In “Re-Placing Race in (White) Psychoanalytic Discourse,” 


Jean Walton analyzes Riviere’s patient, a masquerading white 


woman who confronts a black man.  Through their relation, Walton 


says, “As a white woman, her appearing to have the phallus is 


culturally sanctioned when it is a question of her relation to a 


black man.”(7)   This suggests that there is also a racial and 


racist component in one’s drive to attain the phallus.  Thus a 


white gay man not only can have motive to gain the phallus by 


virtue of his whiteness, but also by virtue of his whiteness in 


relation to people of color.  


	Shifting back to the scene of white gay Abercrombie-like men: 


I often question to what extent white gay men are oppressed and 


how their oppression relates to the oppression of people of 


color.  A bunch of well-built white gay men, surrounded by an 


event and discourse that reflects their image, are at an 


opportune time to re-claim Pride in their identity.  But this 


Pride must be questioned.  What is their identity?  Are they 


proud of being gay?  Or are they proud of being white gay men?  


And in a society that is institutionally and culturally 


homophobic, is it possible that they are using their status as 


white and male to regain the power that they have lost?  And to 


what extent does the gain of power mean another’s loss?  In a 


crowd of black, Asian, Latino/a, Native American, Transgendered, 


Working Class, and Lesbian people, Pride, also know as white gay 


man’s discourse, becomes a way of re-asserting a white racist 


capitalist patriarchy. 


Footnotes

Works Cited

Back