Let me begin by saying that exclusion is a form of censorship, and that censorship is most definitely a tool of oppression. That said, in all the hoopla over issues of sexuality and inclusiveness that surround this inauguration, something very important is being missed, and that is way the the discourse about GLBT inclusion in the inauguration is part of a larger discourse about sexuality that is designed to define our understanding of freedom in a particular way.
Let me borrow and idea from a very important, and openly gay, theorist Michel Foucault: What can be talked about determines what can be known, what can be known determines what you can think. What you think becomes the bases of your understanding of everything -- from your concept of self, to your concept of things like nationality, religion, and freedoms. Thus, who controls what is talked -- who directs the discourse about something, also carries immense power to control what can be known about that thing.
You can think of this way -- information is the brick and mortar of knowledge. Your brain is a tool which creates knowledge out of information. Thus, if your information supply is limited, so too are the thoughts and knowledge that you are able to construct.
Information is not indigenous to one's mind -- it must be get there somehow, most commonly through Media, books, or life experiences. Thus censorship, the exclusion of information, is a favorite tool of Oppression. Control the flow of information, and you can control what people know, and therefor their ability to formulate resistance.
But as a tool of oppression, censorship is a blunt instrument. Far more subtle and insidious than simple exclusion of information, is inclusion of information designed to construct knowledge in a particular way.
One cannot say that GLBT issues are not being talked about at this inauguration -- in fact, they are being talked about all over the place. What is not being talked about, is the way in which the issue of sexuality is being talked about.
Are we talking about whether we are more or less free to practice sexuality in a way in which we are we find necessary and satisfying in our lives? Are we talking about whether we are more or less free to form bonds and partnerships in a way in which we find necessary and satisfying? The answer is no. What we are talking about is whether or not we are given tokenized participation in a pageant of political theater.
By thinking about oppression in this way we are more likely to think of freedom not as the ability to love and practice sexuality the way in which we choose, but whether or not we are are given equal television time.
I don't know about you, but I don't find Will and Grace, gay ads for Budwieser, or Logo particularly liberating.
And that is the problem. Am I saying not to talk about issues of inclusion? Absolutely not. This is not a shut-up-and-take-it diary. What I am saying is that we need more discourse, and more varied discourse that extends beyond issues of inclusion in political theater and cultural institutions, and we need to be aware of the fact that how we talk about things will ultimately effect, and potentially limit, what we think and what we can know.