1984 and homoeroticism

Submitted by obrerk t3_zyj00x in books

Not sure if homoeroticism is the right word, I'm thinking of it more in the context of the Marilyn Frye quote, but I remember thinking that whenever Winston described O'Brien he had more words of admiration and care for him then when he described Julia,throught the entire book it's almost as if he feels he has more of a connection to him then her, he even addresses this when he's being tortured by O'Brien claiming he felt understood by him and that people care more about being understood then being loved.

"All or almost all of that which pertains to love, most straight men reserve exclusively for other men. The people whom they admire, respect, adore, revere, honor, whom they imitate, idolize, and form profound attachments to, whom they are willing to teach and from whom they are willing to learn, and whose respect, admiration, recognition, honor, reverence and love they desire… those are, overwhelmingly, other men. In their relations with women, what passes for respect is kindness, generosity or paternalism; what passes for honor is removal to the pedestal. From women they want devotion, service and sex.

Heterosexual male culture is homoerotic; it is man-loving" Marilyn Frye, The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Davidstarr86 t1_j2656ay wrote

A man admiring, caring about, appreciating, loving, etc. another man is not homosexual or homoerotic.

44

obrerk OP t1_j2677zi wrote

homoerotic in the sense of the marilyn frye quote where she states that men look to other men when it comes to respect power and recognition and proufound relationships while seeking care from women

−23

Davidstarr86 t1_j26a6qd wrote

That Marilyn Frye quote is very context dependent, and I would argue, intentionally provocative in order to make her broader point.

I think the more broadly accepted definition of homoeroticism is sexual attraction to members of the same sex.

22

obrerk OP t1_j26asq2 wrote

Yeah,very fair point,my bad for not including context initially

−5

Shitposting_Praxis t1_j28rykn wrote

you might consider the term “homosocial” which is a long-used literary trope.

2

AtraMikaDelia t1_j26bhbl wrote

Fellas, is it gay to like women?

15

IdleRhetoric t1_j26azzp wrote

By Frye's definition, I think you have a case. Winston has always struck me as misogynistic - he seems to see Julia as a sex-object, a child, and a lover, but not as a complete, equal human.
And he admires O'Brian on an intellectual level, even when being tortured. Almost as if the latter is his parent, the former his child.

I dislike Frye's definition though. While the book is a strong reinforcer of 1940's heteronormative attitudes and chauvinism, the term homoerotic has the connotation of objectification and sex, which I don't see in the book. Winston may "love" O'Brian as a strong male figure (admiration is the word I'd use), but he doesn't desire him.

So it's a parsing of definitions - I think your idea holds water, but it's much to nuanced an argument to make in a few, short paragraphs. The loaded term of homoeroticism is going to muddy that, as it carries too much baggage, as most commentators have shown.

13

Snoo-68185 t1_j28ip85 wrote

Considering Orwell told on LGBTQ people to the British government...maybe not

2

Rare-Lime2451 t1_j26bd8b wrote

Interesting take. I find it to be more paternalistic and echoes the idea of a BB as someone older and wiser who will guide [rule] you. Winston’s parents are dead too, no? I haven’t got the book in front of me. The intimacy between tortured and torturer also pushes the boundaries of what you’re suggesting … hmmm … and yes, the deep misogyny built into Winston’s view of Julia prior to their relationship (shooting her full of arrows? Paging Dr Freud …). I also hear echoes of critics of socialism and communism (as Orwell himself was) saying that every revolutionary basically wants a new master. Is O’Brien the “daddy” to Winston? He wants him to be, in the sense of a confidant and collaborator, and then ends up definitely as O’Brien’s slave (going all Hegelian here, yes). I dunno, it’s all interesting stuff. Love this book, change my mind about it every time I read it.

1

buff_bobby t1_j287f2j wrote

The way I see it is that O'Brien is a standin for the party in 1984 and when he is being praised by Winston it's Winston praising the party.

It's the same way many people under totalitarian regimes sincerely think. Even when the state is torturing and murdering people.

Julia is a standin for escape from that system and freedom. Winston knows he wants it, but beyond very basic feelings can't articulate why.

0

CaptnPotatato t1_j2a0rp7 wrote

Homosexual relationships used to be much more common, where men could have very close friends, admire them just like this. Only recently has this kind of close intimacy from a man to another man been classified as homoerotic or homosexual.

That being said, I do think you can make a case for this kind of reading, but you’ll need to provide a lot of textual evidence if you want to convince anyone.

0

[deleted] t1_j264u59 wrote

[deleted]

−7

HauntedReader t1_j266sn8 wrote

Explain please.

0

Old-Cat4126 t1_j268kuh wrote

Just playing to the professor's bias. I certainly wrote what the Prof wanted to hear in Sociology.

−2

HauntedReader t1_j268tmf wrote

See people say this stuff but I never favored any prof's ideologies and frequently wrote against their ideas and never had issues.

7

Comfortable-Fail-558 t1_j26j6v5 wrote

It can actually be harder to try to parrot your professors own views. Depending on the professor they may respect an alternate view more.

That being said I always used to read some of my profs work and make conversation. Understanding your professor can definitely make passing a class easier

1