Although I will first discuss my impression of the ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archives and the Ladder, I will also reflect a little bit on the Corona Virus, since I’ve spent a large amount of my spring break being preoccupied by the virus. I’m sorry if this blog is jumbled and disjointed. To be honest that reflects my own thoughts at the moment: disconnected and confused.
Personally, I was not expecting a presentation from the speaker at the archives. For some reason, I was under the impression that we would be arriving at the archives and exploring the texts and resources available to us there for inspiration. As a result, I was really excited when we walked in and I saw the stacks of books and the alluring second floor imagery, and so I was disappointed by the length of the presentation and the limitations of looking at the complete extent of texts. However, I did find the creative ways in which the LGBTQ communities supported one another in clandestine ways intriguing and I certainly will refer to my notes from the presentation when beginning my case study.
While reading The Ladder, I was quite moved by the statement “In order to achieve the future that they sought, they seem to have felt the need for a tradition and a history that would legitimate their presence and validate their hopes” (Valentine 146). I know I’m going on a tangent with this thought, but here goes. During these challenging times of self-quarantine, I’ve pondered the concept of our desire to keep up with a familiar routine and try to behave as normally as possible even in such a novel, bizarre experience. Why do we have such a desire to return to the familiar in situations that are completely new? It is fascinating to examine the differences between familiarizing foreign concepts through a recognizable framework, versus attacking the nuances of the unfamiliar without the ease of a common comfort. On one hand, I absolutely understand the comfort and validity that comes through familiar routines, references, and formatting, but I find it curious that as humans we have such a strong desire to understand foreign concepts and situations through the lens of previous and common experiences. Certainly that makes us more comfortable when dealing with them, but if we are always trying to appropriate new experiences as familiar ones, don’t we limit our ability to fully experience, understand, and explore the new? If I try to liken lesbian relationships to straight relationships, I’m sure while there are certainly many similarities that would be highlighted, I’d miss some important distinctions if I just tried to understand them in an easy, comfortable, heterosexual lens. I am certainly guilty of relying on familiar frameworks and universal experiences to understand uncommon concepts, but I like to think there is some merit in recognizing that all these distinct experiences are not the same, and to draw comparisons is actually limiting their validity and diminishing their value as independent concepts of their own. I suppose I’m just captivated by the idea of breaking these traditional forms of legitimacy, and whether the outcome would be successful in invoking more open mindedness towards new ideas or not. I think introducing the first person into scientific texts is a fantastic example of this. On one hand, it introduces these new, distant concepts as a distinct individual’s experience, but on the other hand, people may be more inclined to dismiss the science since it was not framed in the expected, “respectable” form of publication.
Sadly, I concede that much of this discussion does not lend itself directly to the quote I sourced from. In this case, I think the value of integrating an iconic lesbian historical figure into a contemporary format consumed by the media has great value in integrating the lesbian experience into “normal” society and consumption. Absolutely, framing the DOB’s controversial text in a respected, familiar way makes the content accessible to a broader range of readers, and in some sense legitimizes their publication in many ways. So, the familiarity had tremendous value in legitimizing their movement. However, in general, while I think it is challenging, I believe society would benefit from taking the care to treat unique situations as distinct, legitimate experiences of their own.
Sofia Devin 