Some links:
http://www.yamasa.org/japan/english/destinations/mie/futamigaura.html
http://sonic-yoshi.blogspot.com/2007/08/mie-futamigaura-meoto-iwa-ise-jingu.html
http://anaba.blogspot.com/2005/05/spooky-futamigaura.html
http://www.britannica.com/eb/art-34963/Meotoiwa-at-Futamigaura-beach-Ise-Shima-National-Park-Japan
11 comments:
WMST 494
Professor King
Leyda Molina
Summary Overview
Jennifer Robertson historicizes Japanese sexuality from the Edo period, considered traditional Japan, and from the Meiji restoration, which is considered the beginning of modern Japan, to present. Her book the Takarazuka historicizes prescribed and proscribed sexualities in Japan by analyzing the Takarazuka as a phenomenon in sexual politics that has survived into popular culture. The Kabuki Theater an all male revue was the popular mode of entertainment until the Takarazuka became the favorite in gender performance.
George Chauncey in “Why Marriage? Also takes historicizes about proscribed and prescribed sexuality in the United States. According to Chauncey, “ the places of lesbian and gay men in America has dramatically changed in the last half century” (Chauncey, 5). According to Martha Gever, “ Until recently, however, lesbian personhood was valued negatively in just about every corner of popular culture….stil, because lesbianism was considered a perversion and generally regarded as synonomous with depravity; it was hardly something that someone triving for public recognition would want to aver” (Gever, 3).Proscribed sexuality in the United States is everything that is not considered the binary model of sexuality and to take it further it has not been considered as a form of entertainment for the mainstream public as the Takarazuka is in Japan.
The Takarzuka has played an important role politically in Japan. The Co-Prosperity Shere Doctrine set the agenda for imperialist Japan to invade Southeast Asia and China. The Takarazuka helped disseminate propaganda for Japanization and assimilation for non-Japanese. Although non Japanese were capable of becoming Japanese depending on their outward Japanization (Robertson, 92). Robertson also states “gender is constructed on the basis of contrastive physical and behavioral stereotypes about females and males; similarly the theatrical construction of ethnicity is based on reified images of “us” and “them”(Robertson, 97).
The contrast of this particular agenda can be seen in the American film Sayonara written by James A. Michener. In the Film there is a stylized Japan stereotypical of the American version of Japanization. It depicts Japanese women as docile and subservient. American nationalism is addressed when the Character of Marlon Brando, Major Gruver falls in love with a Mizubiyoshi gender performance artist. In the film the fact Hanogi was a gender performer was not highlighted. In the film the issue of marrying a Japanese took two of the characters to commit suicide. It is apparent that the Americans did not have any desire to assimilate Japanese women that were married to servicemen. On the contrary they had a law prohibiting the marriage between both ethnicities. It wasn’t until later that the law was changed.
The visibility of gender performance in Japan is a huge contrast to the Unites States. The Takarazuka has become so popular that female cross dressers are accepted in the entertainment culture in Japan, whereas, in the United States Ellen Degeneres barely paved the way a few years ago for lesbians on t.v. There isn’t a gender performance review in mainstream United States that is accepting of cross dressers or trained people specifically for gender specialties.
In the film marriage between both ethnicities is scene as contemptuous by the Americans, causing such discontent between the higher ups in the military and the Americans as well as the Japanese convey racism through the film Sayonara. Chauncey writes about the discriminatory history the U.S has had over marriage. This includes biracial marriages, biethnic marriages and same sex marriages. The approach has always been to reject the union of people who do not follow along with the prescribed characteristics of the patriarchal system. Therefore, visibility of diversity has been repressed throughout time.
Historically in the United States there has been more visibility and acceptance of diversity. Television have more African-American actors and shows. Not to mention, the gay and lesbian community has been portrayed in television in a slight more positive light from Martha Gever’s commentaries from the past.
I still think that its not positive enough since the stereotypes are still extremely highlighted in many negative ways. The African American attitude and the effeminate male are stereotypes being used to portray communities in one form. The gay male in Will and Grace is portrayed as a promiscuous sex fiend and the single woman as a desperate lonely aging chick desperate for a man. So, although we have come along way with visibility, we are at a stalemate with correct portrayals of all these individuals. This is what America is lead to believe about different minority groups.
Takarazuka on the other hand, fans accept the proscribed sexualities they portray in their performances. There aren't negative portrayals or stereotypes of peformers. Masculinization of imperialism has been the common ground for both American and Japanese. They both believed in feminizing the colonized or occupied. The feminization of Japan was included in their constitution by not allowing them to have a standing military. The military is about masculine domination.
In class we have discussed many of the topics that surround the Takarazuka and compared it to the U.S entertainment and social values system. The Takarazuka would not find an audience in the U.S it would be negatively labeled as homosexual propaganda. The United States culture is not one of diversity and inclusion and if it is it only applies to those who follow the heteronormative agenda. Binary models of sexuality and proscribed sexualities will not cease to exist until the political agenda becomes more inclusive of diversity.
In Bechdel’s book Dykes to Look Out for, is a satire of gender politics in the U.S. I believe it is a long road before we completely become a more accepting and egalitarian nation. As for Japan, the Takarazuka is proof that gender performance can last and withstand the prejudices of a culture.
Final Summary on Takarzuka, Sayonara and US Gay Marriage Discussion
Mary Lesch
A theme that runs throughout Takarazuka, Sayonara and the US Gay Marriage discussion is the idea of propaganda. There are many ways that a certain ideology or message can be disseminated to the general public, and often it can be veiled in entertainment. Propaganda takes a message a step further and tries to not only have people hear the message, but also believe it and then adopt the ideology as their own. The two entertainment mediums and the discussion all have different points where the creators of the medium are trying to convey a broader social message.
In the Takarazuka, the creators of the revue tried to approach the idea of one asian race that propagated the Japanization or colonialism of Japan in other countries in Asia. In Robertson’s book, Japanization is described as a sort of hybridity and hybrid formation, where the colonized countries and Japan simultaneously took on an identity of each other’s cultures. So Japan not only invaded other countries and tried to change their culture, but also assumed the culture of the country that was invaded and made it part of their own. The whole colonization idea was smoothed over by the message of the need for a pan asian identity, which the Takarazuka disseminated in their reviews. The revue wasn’t controlled by the state, but in a way was “amplifying” the actions that were present in modern times. The revues were set in colonies and were wartime dramas that showed what was happening in countries that were occupied by Japan.
The movie Sayonara was also a part of the amplification of the actions of it’s producers time, by showing the reality of the American occupation and colonization of Japan. The movie was an anti-racist movie, but it went a step further to promote the message that not only should American’s be racist towards the Japanese, but that it was ok to “conquer” Japanese women in a sense and bring them back to the US. It seemed like the not so subtle message in Sayonara was that Japan was an exotic place for American interest both for vacations, but also to find submissive wives for the lonely boys back home. America is doing Japan a favor (as are American men for Japanese women) by showing them American ways and emancipating them from the oppressive Japanese rules of dedication to family and obligations. It felt like the message in the movie was that everyone should be in things for their own benefit, and you shouldn’t sacrifice any of your personal happiness to be responsible to your family and obligations.
It seems like with US discussions of gay marriage that there is a fear that if gay people are allowed to get married, than a bunch of horrible things are going to follow. A debate in the community is if homosexuality is a sin. Some propaganda that is disseminated claims that it is. There is also propaganda in the media (like Will & Grace, etc.) that is trying to make the argument that LGBT people are just like straight people. The messages try to sell an idea of assimilation for gay people to be like straight people. It is kind of a cultural colonization.
The Takarazuka “provides viewers in Japan with glimpses and dreams of other, exotic worlds.” (Robertson, 84). This statement was made concerning gender, but could also be applied to colonization, storylines and marriage. Sayonara’s trailer could also be viewed in the same way, except from the perspective of the US looking to other exotic worlds (Japan). The trailer speaks about Japan like it is an exotic other world and a fun backdrop for the movie. The US gay marriage debate tends to lend an otherness to gay marriage, and make it seem like it is another exotic “lifestyle” that people choose to experiment and assimilate into. Often the argument is made that LGBT people recruit others into the lifestyle.
Gender metaphors are a unifying factor of the three mediums also. The takarazuka revue gives a gendered account of colonialization, entertainment and gender roles without the sex. Sayonara shows a metaphorical gender role exertion by showing the US army man (or the US) coming over to Japan and conquering a Japanese woman (or Japan). There is resistance at first, and an adherence to the cultures of each nation, then Japan eventually concedes to the US. While this is an antiracist film, it almost feels like to make a film for the masses, they needed to have the people of color become like Americans so that they aren’t as different and scary.
This can be seen with the current gay marriage debate in the US. To make gay marriages safe, gay people need to be like straight couples just with a same gender couple. Gay people used to be “othered” and exotic, but as they are sold by assimilation in the media, the uniqueness of homosexual couples is weeded out to make the idea less scary for the majority of Americans.
It is interesting how the Kabuki Theater paved the way for the Takarazuka and how that parallels to the movie Sayonara where the idea of Genghis Kahn before the second world war paved the way for the movie to exclude any Japanese men as main characters. This idea of exclusion could also relate to the idea that gay men are disgusting in some communities, but the idea of lesbians is eroticized.
The Takarazuka, Sayonara and US gay marriage are all connected through the idea of mixed race babies too. In Japan the idea of hybridization, which the Takarazuka was trying to promote, was full of anxiety when it came to “mixed race children”. This is also an issue in the movie Sayonara when Miko Taka’s character says, “but what about our children?” when talking to Marlon Brando. The takarazuka fought that with showing panasian identities, and Sayonara did when Brando says “They will be half you and half me, half yellow and half white.” There is also an allusion to children in same gender couples and how they will be affected by not having strong gender role models. A lot of arguments for gay marriage claim that you don’t need both parents to have good role models of each gender. The gay marriage debate also falls along the line of the anti miscegenation debate. Because the laws that prohibited interracial couples from getting married are similar to the ones that keep gay couples from getting married, the same arguments are being made.
The takarazuka, Sayonara and US Gay Marriage debates are all connected through colonialization, exotic locations, gender, and children. It is interesting how similar arguments are made in different countries and at different times.
Loren Jaeschke
11/29/07
WMST494
Katie King
Summary 4
This course, Jennifer Robertson’s analysis of the all-female Japanese revue Takarazuka, and the film Sayonara can be used to explain the relationships between nationalism and militarism, gender roles and performance, and how these influence marriage and control sexuality. Jennifer Robertson’s book Takarazuka discusses each one of these issues in specific chapters. The film Sayonara allows for a historicized view of these issues during a war-time occupation of Japan after World War II. The ties between the book Takarazuka and the film Sayonara allow for a new understandings and knowledges to be created about gender, sexuality, and nationalism.
The book Takarazuka by Jennifer Robertson is an in depth look and analysis of what lies behind the scenes of these all-female theatrical performances. Robertson gives an inside look at the practices and lives of these actors and actresses. The Takarazuka was first established in 1914 by Kobayashi Ichizo (Robertson 4). Since it’s creation it has become a huge success in Japan with a large fandom mainly consisting of women. The revue consists of about 700 members; about 350 to 400 are performers and 300 specialists (Robertson 5). Each performer must apply to the two year academy. Once accepted to this academy each student is under very strict rules. For example, these women are not allowed to date while being performers in the revue (Robertson 11). After acceptance each student is assigned a secondary gender which they will specialize in performing. The male gender specialists are the otokoyaki and the female gender specialists are the musumeyaku (Robertson 5).What gender they are assigned is based on socio-psychological criteria like height, physique, face shape, voice and personality. The otokoyaki are taught how to behave in ways that signify male gender such as: striding across stage, hand gestures are large and bold, when standing still her legs are apart with feet firmly planted, and her pelvis forward (Robertson 12). The musumeyaku similarly use gender ideologies to perform a stylized gender. These female gender specialists are taught to pivot their forearms from the elbow which are kept pinned to their sides which constrains her freedom of movement making her appearance more feminine (Robertson 12). These specialists are often encouraged to mimic Japanese celebrities’ behaviors. Robertson uses background knowledge to explain how gender is created and performed by these actors and actresses. The performances by Takarazuka display a stylized version of heterosexuality. Despite the fact that all of the members are female their sexuality remains heterosexual, and their female fan’s sexualities are never in question. In addition, the relationship between Japanese nationalism, militarism and imperialism is often reflected in the performances done by the troupes. They show the beliefs and ideologies of an imperialistic Japan, roles of men and women, and compulsory heterosexuality.
The film Sayonara was released in 1957 starring Marlon Brando. This film is set in 1951 during the Korean War, and only 6 years after World War II. Brando plays Major Gruver a pilot in the Air Force, and the son of a four star General. Major Gruver is the ideal “All American” man. He is young, attractive, white, heterosexual, and patriotic. Gruver is engaged to General Webster’s daughter, Eileen, despite his obvious lack of passion for her. In the beginning of this film Gruver has a distaste for Japanese culture and often finds their customs and traditions silly, constantly cracking jokes about them. He befriends Airman Joe Kelly who wants to marry a Japanese woman named Katsumi. Gruver from the beginning is morally opposed to Kelly marrying a “Slant Eye Runt” believing that Kelly should marry a nice American girl. Despite, his disapproval he agrees to be Kelly’s best man at their wedding and as the movie progresses becomes Kelly’s best friend. Major Gruver and Eileen’s relationship falls apart when she confronts him about his lack of passion for their relationship. She believes he does not want to marry her, but wants to marry her out of social obligation. During their separation, Gruver begins a love affair with a famous performer named Hana-Ogi who is a male gender specialist in a Takarazuka like revue. Likewise, Eileen begins a less discussed love affair with a famous Kabuki actor named Nakamura who sometimes plays a woman role. As the film continues it shows the issues faced by thousands of soldiers who were marrying Japanese women dealing with in an American occupied Japan. The film skillfully portrays and discusses these issues by showing Major Gruver’s character as a representation of Americans and Hana-Ogi as the war-torn Japanese people. By the end of the movie these characters end up married, and happy together metaphorically similar to the relationship made between the United States and Japan after World War II.
The Takarazuka and the film Sayonara both portray gender as an ideology, but also as a performance. In the Takarazuka the members of the revue take on either a male or female role. Each one of these roles is based on stylized gender in which the actors and actresses act out certain stereotyped gender behaviors. The gender specialists conform to a hegemonic ideal in the performance of their secondary genders. The male roles are to be dominant in their actions which means they are suppose to take up as much space as possible, and move rigidly. In addition, they are chosen to play these roles based on their physical traits. For example being tall or having a square face both considered to be “male” attributes. In contrast the female roles are supposed to be more submissive and fluid in their movements. They of course, are supposed to appear softer and gentler. The Takarazuka are conforming to a gender binary in the construction of their characters as a result they also conform to heterosexist ideals about relationships and sexuality. Despite the fact that the Takarazuka are conforming to particular gender stereotypes about what is to be male or female, they are also explicitly showing the performativity of gender. The ability for these female actors and actresses to “accurately” portray male and female roles and in many ways “pass” as the appropriate gender both conforms and disrupts the ideals created in the gender binary. Sayonara is similar to the Takarazuka in this way. While, the characters of this film a majority of the time conform to their expected gender roles there is a “queering” of gender done by Hana-Ogi and Nakamura’s characters because they play the roles of the opposite gender while maintaining an unquestionable stability of their biological gender. So like the Takarazuka the characters of the film Sayonara simultaneously conform to gender norms, but also are “queering” them.
Nationalism is another major issue discussed by both the film Sayonara and the book Takarazuka. Like many of the plays done by the Takarazuka, the film Sayonara is a war-time drama. Many of these plays done by the Takarazuka acted out the “Japanization” of colonized people by an Imperialist Japan (Robertson 92). This is similar to the theme portrayed in Sayonara instead of the “Japanization” of different colonized Asian peoples, it is the Americans who are trying to control and westernize the Japanese people. The relationship between Major Gruver’s character and Hana-Ogi is a definite metaphor for the “marriage” being made between the American and Japanese people after World War II. In the film, Gruver tries to pursue a reluctant and resistant Hana-Ogi who sees him as a savage and violent American. However much disgust she has for him she is intrigued by him and falls in love with him. Once Hana-Ogi becomes submissive to Gruver their relationship begins to thrive, and eventually (with much resistance from a majority of people) marry. This metaphorical relationship shows the newly submissive relationship between Japan and United States after World War II. Japan was forced to submit to the United States giving up its military, and become occupied. This new union between the United States and Japan allowed for many different economically beneficial arrangements to be made between them.
The control of marriage and sexuality is a theme discussed in both Sayonara and Takarazuka. Both of these works as mentioned before simultaneously conform and queer the gender binary and by doing so they are performing heterosexuality. However this could often be viewed as a “queer heterosexuality” because of the roles played by Hana-Ogi and Nakamura. The idea of a “queer heterosexuality” could be applied to the performances of the Takarazuka. These female actors playing the roles of men are portraying heterosexuality, however due to the performative nature it is often a queer one. In addition, the sexuality of their fans is often something that is considered largely heterosexual, and never questioned. This kind of sexuality could be considered a compulsory heterosexuality, meaning that despite its obvious queer undertones it is without question heterosexual.
The Takarazuka, Sayonara, and this course explain the relationship between nationalism and militarism, gender roles and performance and their influence on marriage and controlling sexuality. Each one of these elaborates on the issues at hand explaining them through different perspectives creating new knowledges about gender, sexuality, and nationalism. Each one of these issues parallels the other creating, defining, and controlling aspects of the subjects.
Summary 4: Final Overview of Takarazuka, Sayonara &
U.S. Contexts of Proscribed Sexualities
-Sophia Iem
Throughout the semester, we have read and discussed the issues of gay rights and queer identity in the United States by reading books such as Bechdel’s Invasion of the Dykes to Watch out For to Chuancey’s Why Marriage to Gever’s Entertaining Lesbians to Warner’s The Trouble with Normal. From there, we moved on into the phenomenon of Takarazuka in Japan, and read a book similarly entitled by Jennifer Robertson. The book helped me to further re-imagine gay issues, but also allowed me to place them in a global context, and see how other forces such as war, and politics, and national identities also act to affect what is the Takarazuka Revue. Meanwhile, Takarazuka itself, especially in the WWII era, played a large role in forming Japan’s national identity, and remains a powerful influence on popular culture even today. Finally, we watched the movie Sayonara, and historicized it according to the actual events going on in the U.S. at the time, and in context of the history of the U.S., as an occupier and re-structurer of other nations.
The movie Sayonara, originally a book by James Michener, is fascinating because, in several ways, it is an American interpretation of Japan’s interpretation of America. This occurs on two levels. First, in the novel, the Takarazuka Revue is explicitly mentioned, and the main female lead character, Hana-oge, is an otokoyaku (male role) performer. Because the Takarazuka can be called the Japanese interpretation of the West (the lavish stage productions are more often than not placed in Western settings), the book Sayonara, written by an American, is thus an American interpretation of that. Meanwhile, while the movie Sayonara is mostly an American interpretation of Japan, we also get and American interpretation of Japan’s view of America. This is done through the views professed by the so-called “Japanese” characters in the film, who may or may not be Japanese themselves. Among these characters are Hana-oge, played by Miiko Taka, Katsumi, played by Miyoshi Umeki, and Nakamura, played by Ricardo Montaban.
Hana-oge’s character is the one that most obviously represents the complexities between race, sexuality, and politics. In the film, her participation in the Takarazuka is completely removed, and replaced instead by involvement with another revue, one that is more feminized, and, by being more conventional, is more “heterosexual.” The erasing of Hana-oge’s character is not surprising, but speaks volumes as to what was considered acceptable and non-acceptable. Perhaps it was non-acceptable for Marlon Brando to love a woman who was more masculine than feminine, both on and off the stage, since otokoyaku’s often maintained their roles even in public. Perhaps doing so would have called into question issues of Brando’s own sexuality, or Hana-oge’s, and, by extension, Miiko Taka’s. This brings into mind the line between the performer’s identity and the performance itself. Where does one stop and the other begin? In the Takarazuka Revue, the boundary between the two lines blurred—is an androgynous woman, living as a man, a lesbian? In America, these issues also come into play, one might argue, in more open-minded ways but also much more narrow-minded ways as well.
Therefore, the image we receive of Hana-oge is feminine and heterosexual, but not quite submissive. At the start of the movie, she hates Americans as a result of her father dying from one of the U.S.-dropped nuclear bombs. As a result, a kind of U.S. self-consciousness, and perhaps even guilt, is filtered through the movie. Still, the predominating message is that Lloyd Gruver is an individual, and ultimately, not responsible. She comes to see, through Lloyd, that Americans are not “barbarian” after all. While the message is a positive one, it is still one that must be thought upon as a creation of American writers for the Japanese-American actress Miiko Taka. I thought it was interesting, that Miiko, who was American born and raised in Washington State, would play a role in which she is then cast as “other” and must come to “accept” the American identity, when, in fact, it is already her identity. That the writers and producers of the movie not seem to detect incongruence in this is also a particularly powerful statement on the attitudes of the time. Similarly, in the trailer, Taka introduces “her” country to the audience, and invites them to enjoy Sayonara, but also the nation of Japan. Watching it in class brought to mind issues of authenticity. Who has the right to speak for whom? And why?
The casting of Ricardo Montaban as Nakamura also brings into mind the fact that although the movie is a harsh critique of racism and anti-miscegenation, it is only a certain type of miscegenation that is truly acceptable, whereas others remain strictly off-limits, or at least, off-screen. The assumption is that a violation of racial boundaries can occur, as long as the gender boundaries remain intact—whites can marry Asians, as long as the man is white and the woman is Asian, thus preserving the idea of white superiority, since, in any case, the woman is assumed to be inferior. As we mentioned in class, a brief suggestion of romance between Eileen Webster and Nakamura is made, but it is never followed through, and at any rate, we know that Nakamura is not really Asian anyways. For me, it brought to mind the movie Brokeback Mountain, and while its anti-homophobic message is clear, the audience is still aware that Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger are not really gay.
When reading Takarazuka, I was surprised to read that Robertson pointed out the composite of Asian and Euro-American identities that is common in modern Japan, and argues that this has translated into androgyny in Japanese cultural identity. It seems to imply that prior to Euro-American influences on Japan, the Japanese had strict notions of male and female, which I do not believe is true. Perhaps I misunderstood the passage, but that remains a point of confusion for me. Overall, I believed that the book made a strong, yet nuanced point that gender and sexuality are understood differently in different nations and different contexts.
I also enjoyed reading about how the nationalist movement in Japan during WWII spread to the Takarazuka, and was in turn, fueled by the revue itself. Perhaps because the Takarazuka already had a global stage, it served as an extension of how Japan could use this particular media to expand and solidify its empire. One example of this was the revue Return to the East, which reinvented a New World Order with Japan as its center (Roberston 130). However, I’m still unclear about whether the rise of nationalism in Japan had any effect on the gender roles and flexibility of gender played in the Takarazuka. Did they become more strict because of increased government involvement in the revue? Or were they still seen as irrelevant? I think that the answer to this question may be helpful in that it can offer insight to our own gay civil rights movement in the U.S. As gays in the U.S. have gained more visibility in all areas of life, including especially, the entertainment section, did the increased visibility lead to more power, or more outside regulation? The book Entertaining Lesbians argues something in-between, but I’d like to understand more how this issue played out in the past century in Japan.
My analysis of the Takarazuka turns out to have been heavily focused on Sayonara, and has, once again, seemed to create more questions than answers. I found myself focusing on Sayonara because, for me, it served as a microcosm of the issues I wanted to think about, however, in broader terms, they relate to Takarazuka as well. I have to admit that while writing this paper, I was unable to incorporate all the things I’d wanted to talk about, especially the historical, political, and economic influences on U.S. gay civil rights, because I wanted to put more focus on Japan and international issues. However, I hope I can incorporate these things more thoroughly in my final learning analysis, and arrive at more integrative conclusions.
The movie Sayonara, along with previous books from the class, allow an analysis of proscribed sexualities throughout time and culture. The proscribed sexualities whose interpretations and meanings have been shown through different eras include homosexuality, inter-racial relationships and genderqueer relationships. These themes in books and the movie create a sense that marriage is crucial to oppression, yet it would be a great symbolic gain in equality if it were made open to homosexuals.
The movie Sayonara represents the proscription of inter-racial relationships, and by its omission, genderqueer and homosexual relationships in America and Japan in the 1940s and 50s. The movie represents the overt xenophobia of the U.S. and Japan. The American soldier Kelly was specifically prohibited, both through legal and social mechanisms, from marrying and returning to the U.S. with his Japanese bride. The inter-racial marriage is frowned upon and carries consequences ranging from hate and abuse to a loss of his wife. Thus the morals of the nations are imposed upon their citizens.
Secondly, by the omission of genderqueer and homosexual relationships, it is made clear that at this moment in time, society imposed norms of heterosexual, masculine male with feminine female relationships. It is made clear at multiple points in the film that Hana-Ogi is a straight, feminine woman and Eileen’s Japanese friend is a straight, masculine man. The producers thus create a sense that the theater is acceptable because it is not gender bending or endangering heterosexuality. First, it is made clear that while Eileen’s companion plays female roles, he is a he. When Lloyd says “she,” (referring to the friend) would be prettier without the makeup, Eileen’s response is to question “she?” Eileen then explains that he has been trained since birth to have the grace of a woman and strength of a man. She is implying that he is still a man, retaining all masculine traits and taking on only a few feminine traits. This purposeful implication denounces non-masculine men or transgendered people who would actually identify as the other sex or gender. By defending the masculinity of her friend, Eileen implies that she may think less of him if he did actually see himself as genderqueer or feminine. It is also evident that he is heterosexual and making advances towards Eileen. While this is awkward due to race, it is accepted since he is showing heterosexuality. The implication is that it is alright for the male friend to compliment Eileen’s figure, but for him to have complimented Lloyd’s would be unacceptable.
The physical and emotional traits of Hana-Ogi also support heteronormativity. While another soldier explains to Lloyd that Hana-Ogi plays men’s’ roles, he is then quick to point out she “play[s] women’s roles too” and these roles are shown in some of the theater clips. It is important to point out that these female roles would not have ordinarily been played by a male gender specialist, for they did not want to sink to the level of doing female parts (Robertson 78). This female role is included to maintain Hana-Ogi’s femininity and prove that she is not transgender, butch or in any other way deviant from typical femininity. It is this maintenance of femininity which makes it acceptable for Lloyd to love her, for it is clear that Lloyd is a strong “normal” American man, and would never consider loving another man. His love for women and only women is also emphasized by Hana-Ogi’s appearance. For the entire movie she has long hair, contradictory to the look sported by most male gender specialists, according to Takarazuka (Robertson 13). While she starts by wearing Western men’s clothes, it is alluded to that by meeting Lloyd, Hana-Ogi discovers her true self, and that self wants to wear feminine clothes. Again, it is made clear that it is appropriate for women to act and dress in a feminine manner and men can only really appreciate a woman in her natural, feminine ways.
These proscribed sexualities, while applied to Japanese culture in the movie, were written in a U.S context and can be shown to apply to America at that point in time. As George Chauncey points out in Why Marriage?, homosexuality, while not always condemned and policed, was a major concern in the 1940s and 50s when the movie was set and later filmed. He notes that prior to the depression, extramarital heterosexual sex was the main proscribed sexuality (Chauncey 17). Then the depression was blamed on poor morals, including a loss of appropriate genders (Chauncey 18). As a result “disciplinary authorities did not begin to focus significant attention on homosexuality until the 1930s…[and] hostility toward homosexuals only increased in the anxious years following the Second World War” (Chauncey 18). Chauncey makes it clear that the changing impression of homosexuality and gender hindered the freedom of women and gays. It is in this context that the women in Sayonara describe their heterosexual, feminine and submissive desires to “become a woman” (Hana-Ogi) or “live body and soul with the man she loves” (Eileen). The movie proves Chauncey’s point that the post WWII era was one in which traditional gender and sex roles were strengthened. The movement against genderqueer was a way to maintain the American nuclear family with a masculine, bread-winning man and a stay at home mom. This image is directly emphasized in the movie when Hana-Ogi says she wishes to teach dance, but only to her own children. The producers thus are able to show that women are supposed to be feminine and mothers and marry men who should be masculine supporters.
The movie’s view of forbidden inter-racial sex is also a form of control that has changed over time. One may try to argue that it is an issue that is not of concern today due to a removal of anti-miscegenation laws, yet the social proscription still exists.
According to “Struck by Lightening” by Rachel Moran and interpreted by Group 2, people are socialized by their surroundings and political histories to look for certain traits in a mate, including similarities and strengths, making white men and women end up together. Those who break the mold are subject to social segregation or stigmatization. Thus, while laws regarding proscribed sexualities have changed over time, the proscription itself has not.
The proscribed sexualities in the books and movie help audiences consider gay marriage as a tool for oppression and a stepping stone for equality. It is clear in the movie that those who cannot or do not marry the right person are lowered in status. Kelly is tortured for marrying the wrong woman while Lloyd would have been rewarded for marrying the right woman if he had married Eileen. Marriage is easily seen as a method of allocating respect and rewards as well as punishments. Marriage also acts as a prison for some. As Eileen’s father points out, some people regret having gotten married and seek ways out, but are trapped. Unlike the portrayal of trapped men wanting to escape Japanese brides that the Colonel provides, many authors write about marriage trapping poor and abused women. Claudia Card argues that marriage, aside from being a patriarchal institution, is also a trap for those who cannot escape it, like abused women who cannot unilaterally end the marriage. In addition, she notes how it is still an unequal way of distributing services which can determine life or death. Health care and monetary benefits are all limited to married people, harming gays and unmarried heterosexuals (Card).
While the prison of marriage is clear in the movie, it is also clear that marriage can be a stepping stone towards equality if granted to more people. The movie applies this message to Japanese women and American soldiers who can gain some forms of equality by finally being allowed to marry. It can then be taken a step further and applied to gay marriage. While the consequences of marriage are very clear and opening it to more people would mean more people possibly trapped, it would also mean more people having the same rights as others and being allowed to make a choice for themselves. The permission to marry may be mostly a symbolic right, but it would allow homosexuals to become one step closer to being fully equal. While Michael Warner may feel that being normal and equal with people who are unhappy and trapped is no prize, the symbolic gain from the marriages may be enough to counteract that problem.
Equality is not likely to come from waiting for marriage to disappear altogether, since this dissolution will not happen anytime soon. As expressed in the movie, marriage is a powerful tool in our society. People of both sexes wish to marry the person they love as a declaration of love and commitment (and a way to gain monetary and social benefits). Marriage will not fade while romanticized images of legal unions, leading to everlasting love, exist. Movies such as Sayonara work to not just reflect a culture that believes in everlasting, two-partner love, but to also create such a culture. As pointed out in Geever’s Entertaining Lesbians, movies and pop culture do not just reflect the dominant ideology, but they also help create it. Movies have helped create a culture unwilling to part with its notions of love and marriage, so the only way to create equality is to open up the idea of marriage to others, instead of closing it off.
Pieces of pop culture are good tools of analysis for taking the temperature of the nation. Pieces such as Sayonara are telling in that they show the American acceptance of the institution of marriage and the nuclear family. It is also telling, by its purposeful omissions and avoidances, that the acceptance of love does not extend to homosexual love or transgender confusion. While this rebuttal of homosexuality would not have always been the case, the movie makes clear that the 1940s and 50s was no time in which to come out. Sayonara works as a cultural artifact, showing the values of its time, but also showing ways in which equality can be incorporated in models meant for exclusion.
Amy W
Summary 4
Comparing Takarazuka and the United States’
Proscribed Sexualities
The book Takarazuka and the film Sayonara are two sources that share similarities and differences when comparing the proscribed sexualities of the Japanese culture and the United States. Takarazuka attempts to explore the historical and political contents of the Japanese culture through a very well known, popular play that still exists today. The Takarazuka Revue also sets the stage for the investigation of seeking to identify and analyze the politics of sexuality dealing with the relationships of sex and gender in the modern culture of Japan. It also raises many questions, especially to people who are unfamiliar with the Japanese culture. On the other hand the film Sayonara provides a short story line that occurred during the time of the Korean War when some of the American troops were stationed in Japan. The film attempts to use marriage as a metaphor in translation to the U.S having control over Japan. It is apparent that women in this film are treated derogatorily in an obvious manner. No less subtle is the negative attitude towards aspects of Japanese culture, even landscape, labeled feminine versus the “masculine” American. The representation of gender ambiguity defines Japanese culture in the film as well as in the colonial imagination. Even though the film captures only a certain time period it defines, and to some extent, sums up the ideology of the United States and their feelings towards proscribed sexualities.
Even though the film Sayonara supports interracial marriage, it raises some questions referring to the female role in the film. The seemingly obsequious roles of the Japanese women, Katsumi one of the main characters in particular, is recognized for her polite, self effacing manner. The film Sayonara presents the Japanese women as being submissive and obeying whatever their significant other says. It creates a picture of the Japanese women being weak and docile. One example that occurs in the film is when Kelly’s wife, Katsumi is viewed bathing and serving Kelly’s every needs. She is viewed as scratching and rubbing his back and waiting on him and his good friend Ace Gruver. This representation of the Japanese women in the film shows that women are inferior to men, but not just any men, American men in particular.
At the end of the film Hana-ogi delivers a speech in front of a large audience that is aimed at Ace Gruver and says, "With you I could become a woman, a wife, a mother and eventually grow old and teach dancing to my own children. " This holds a lot of meaning. She is basically stating that without him she is nothing more than just a girl, which refers back to the typical sex stereotypes that are imposed on society. She is more than willing to assimilate to the Western culture by giving up her own Japanese culture, making America her first priority.
Another example is Ricardo Montalban, who is the only Japanese male character in the film. The most interesting part and very obvious part is that Montalban is not even Japanese. Montalban is not seen as a threat to American masculine sexuality by the representation of being asexual by playing a Japanese man and a Kabuki actor with feminine roles. In comparison to the U.S culture it would be very rare to witness an American man playing feminine roles.
Another subtle example that is apart of the Japanese culture is Futamigaura, which are the wedded rocks. The two rocks are considered to be male and female and are named Izanagi and Izanami and represent the primal couple in Japanese traditional history. These two rocks are viewed in the movie Sayonara a couple of times because it is a special representation a “traditional” marriage. One reason, I believe this is true, is due to the fact that the rocks clearly define sex characteristics through the size of the rocks and the rice rope that connect them. The two rocks are different sizes, the small rock that is following the big rock most likely represents the female and the large rock is defined by the male. The rice rope that is connecting the two rocks resembles power and control. These two rock may be used as another subtle metaphor in the movie symbolizing the control the United States has over Japan.
The Takarazuka plays a significant part in the Sayonara film, however, the Takarazuka in the film is distinctly different from the real Takarazuka Revue. The actresses in the film, Hana-ogi in particular is suppose to be playing a male but seems to represent more feminine characteristics. I believe it has to do with the American men involved in the film. It would emasculate the men if they were to be attracted to masculine looking women. It would stir about many questions, such as the sexual orientation of the men and perhaps why old films were representing these sort of issues, because in the past discussing and viewing sexuality that was not considered to be “normal” was seen as a taboo.
The Takarazuka represented sexual freedom, especially for women since it they were allowed to transform themselves into the opposite sex. It was among the modern theaters that marked the return of women to a major public stage afteer being banned from public performances in 1629 by the Confucian leader. In the early years society deemed the play as abnormal. For instance a young women who once played a part in the Takarazuka was earased from the graduation list in the all girls school because administrators found out the she had pursued a career in theater. While the Japanese colonial policy was erasing and reinventing a cultural difference embodied by the colonial subjects, the Takarazuka actors were trying to reenact those differences through dramas that were designed to familiarze the public with the vast range of cultures contained within the Japanese Empire. I feel as though the Takarazuka Revue was trying to set a different example by displaying new ideas to the rest of the world. American people back then, I feel, would have had mixed feelings about the Takarazuka Revue because it questioned the sexual politics in the Japanese culture. Many believed that the androgyny of the females were showing and were becoming very problematic for female sexuality. This lead to the diagnosis to “abnormal sexual desire.” The play was being scrutinized for displaying such different issues. People were analyzing the women and cross-dressing, which many saw as unnatural. Women would were playing male roles and other modern girls were seen as abnormal women who appeared to masculine.
On the other hand the Takarazuka was free from the constraints of fix, binary, hierarchical gender roles that were once enforced. The Takarazuka was seen a dreamworld, a place where dreams are made and sold. This play opened many door for people and gave them the opportunity to express themselves in a different way in which they had never before. After all the Japanese culture valued assimilation.
In conclusion the Takarazuka seems to portray different political sexualities that from the United States. Even though America has become more open to “different” types of issues dealing with sexuality I believe that the Japanese culture is much more of an open minded country. If America had a Takarazuka version of the play back in the days it would have never been accepted, maybe not until recently. The Japanese culture just seems to embrace sexualities better than the United States.
Summary 4
Comparing Takarazuka and the United States’
Proscribed Sexualities
The book Takarazuka and the film Sayonara are two sources that share similarities and differences when comparing the proscribed sexualities of the Japanese culture and the United States. Takarazuka attempts to explore the historical and political contents of the Japanese culture through a very well known, popular play that still exists today. The Takarazuka Revue also sets the stage for the investigation of seeking to identify and analyze the politics of sexuality dealing with the relationships of sex and gender in the modern culture of Japan. It also raises many questions, especially to people who are unfamiliar with the Japanese culture. On the other hand the film Sayonara provides a short story line that occurred during the time of the Korean War when some of the American troops were stationed in Japan. The film attempts to use marriage as a metaphor in translation to the U.S having control over Japan. It is apparent that women in this film are treated derogatorily in an obvious manner. No less subtle is the negative attitude towards aspects of Japanese culture, even landscape, labeled feminine versus the “masculine” American. The representation of gender ambiguity defines Japanese culture in the film as well as in the colonial imagination. Even though the film captures only a certain time period it defines, and to some extent, sums up the ideology of the United States and their feelings towards proscribed sexualities.
Even though the film Sayonara supports interracial marriage, it raises some questions referring to the female role in the film. The seemingly obsequious roles of the Japanese women, Katsumi one of the main characters in particular, is recognized for her polite, self effacing manner. The film Sayonara presents the Japanese women as being submissive and obeying whatever their significant other says. It creates a picture of the Japanese women being weak and docile. One example that occurs in the film is when Kelly’s wife, Katsumi is viewed bathing and serving Kelly’s every needs. She is viewed as scratching and rubbing his back and waiting on him and his good friend Ace Gruver. This representation of the Japanese women in the film shows that women are inferior to men, but not just any men, American men in particular.
At the end of the film Hana-ogi delivers a speech in front of a large audience that is aimed at Ace Gruver and says, "With you I could become a woman, a wife, a mother and eventually grow old and teach dancing to my own children. " This holds a lot of meaning. She is basically stating that without him she is nothing more than just a girl, which refers back to the typical sex stereotypes that are imposed on society. She is more than willing to assimilate to the Western culture by giving up her own Japanese culture, making America her first priority.
Another example is Ricardo Montalban, who is the only Japanese male character in the film. The most interesting part and very obvious part is that Montalban is not even Japanese. Montalban is not seen as a threat to American masculine sexuality by the representation of being asexual by playing a Japanese man and a Kabuki actor with feminine roles. In comparison to the U.S culture it would be very rare to witness an American man playing feminine roles.
Another subtle example that is apart of the Japanese culture is Futamigaura, which are the wedded rocks. The two rocks are considered to be male and female and are named Izanagi and Izanami and represent the primal couple in Japanese traditional history. These two rocks are viewed in the movie Sayonara a couple of times because it is a special representation a “traditional” marriage. One reason, I believe this is true, is due to the fact that the rocks clearly define sex characteristics through the size of the rocks and the rice rope that connect them. The two rocks are different sizes, the small rock that is following the big rock most likely represents the female and the large rock is defined by the male. The rice rope that is connecting the two rocks resembles power and control. These two rock may be used as another subtle metaphor in the movie symbolizing the control the United States has over Japan.
The Takarazuka plays a significant part in the Sayonara film, however, the Takarazuka in the film is distinctly different from the real Takarazuka Revue. The actresses in the film, Hana-ogi in particular is suppose to be playing a male but seems to represent more feminine characteristics. I believe it has to do with the American men involved in the film. It would emasculate the men if they were to be attracted to masculine looking women. It would stir about many questions, such as the sexual orientation of the men and perhaps why old films were representing these sort of issues, because in the past discussing and viewing sexuality that was not considered to be “normal” was seen as a taboo.
The Takarazuka represented sexual freedom, especially for women since it they were allowed to transform themselves into the opposite sex. It was among the modern theaters that marked the return of women to a major public stage afteer being banned from public performances in 1629 by the Confucian leader. In the early years society deemed the play as abnormal. For instance a young women who once played a part in the Takarazuka was earased from the graduation list in the all girls school because administrators found out the she had pursued a career in theater. While the Japanese colonial policy was erasing and reinventing a cultural difference embodied by the colonial subjects, the Takarazuka actors were trying to reenact those differences through dramas that were designed to familiarze the public with the vast range of cultures contained within the Japanese Empire. I feel as though the Takarazuka Revue was trying to set a different example by displaying new ideas to the rest of the world. American people back then, I feel, would have had mixed feelings about the Takarazuka Revue because it questioned the sexual politics in the Japanese culture. Many believed that the androgyny of the females were showing and were becoming very problematic for female sexuality. This lead to the diagnosis to “abnormal sexual desire.” The play was being scrutinized for displaying such different issues. People were analyzing the women and cross-dressing, which many saw as unnatural. Women would were playing male roles and other modern girls were seen as abnormal women who appeared to masculine.
On the other hand the Takarazuka was free from the constraints of fix, binary, hierarchical gender roles that were once enforced. The Takarazuka was seen a dreamworld, a place where dreams are made and sold. This play opened many door for people and gave them the opportunity to express themselves in a different way in which they had never before. After all the Japanese culture valued assimilation.
In conclusion the Takarazuka seems to portray different political sexualities that from the United States. Even though America has become more open to “different” types of issues dealing with sexuality I believe that the Japanese culture is much more of an open minded country. If America had a Takarazuka version of the play back in the days it would have never been accepted, maybe not until recently. The Japanese culture just seems to embrace sexualities better than the United States.
Marriage is often contextualized as a quintessential aspect of American culture. It is no wonder, when marriage also is key in the reproduction of the subordination and subservience of women in a patriarchal society. Where do gender, sexuality, and the resulting inequalities arise more than in the discussion of marriage rights? From my existing knowledge on gay marriage in the United States and the knowledge I attained from watching the movie “Sayonara” and reading the book, Takarazuka, I will discuss how gender and sexuality enter the debate on gay marriage while at the same time addressing the arbitrary nature of gender and sexuality in the determination of who gets marriage rights.
To begin, I would like to delve in to the symbolism of marriage and how little sense it makes when it comes down to it. There are many arguments of queer theorists, of whom we have discussed in class, who think that marriage is not what LGBT people should be striving toward, but that instead the whole institution of marriage itself should be changed. The first question is why should some in society benefit over others? It seems that at the very root the idea of benefiting a small group of people must be with reason. What are the reasons behind and who benefits from allowing married people to have more benefits, and then moreover, why should gay people not be allowed to benefit from marrying their life partner?
In considering this question, I came up with one genuine reason that makes sense, and it is not one of the ones the government feeds us. We have had progressive governments before, but it seems that gay marriage hits a wrong chord with politicians. Politicians insist that gay people cannot marry because they do not have the ability to procreate, but this cannot be true because if it were then infertile men and women would not be allowed to marry. Politicians then say that it is to save the sanctity of marriage and the family, but with so many marriages ending in divorce or adultery, I don’t see the sanctity they are trying to protect. So what, then, are we dealing with? I believe, and am supported I am sure by many others, that marriage is historically and presently a key institution of the subordination of women, and that allowing same-sex couples to marry threatens this. It is the only plausible reason why gay people in the United States are the only people straight up banned from marriage. So, I would like to begin this paper by saying that I believe that the institutionalization of marriage based upon the subordination of a gender, one that I am a part of. This is my understanding of the institution. If we just think back we realize that the institution was created to ensure that men knew who their children were, so that they could pass on their assets to their male children. What makes us think that marriage is now for “love”? Love should not equal the protection of assets- that should be automatically given to each individual by the state. Love is experienced by each person differently, and should not come down to a piece of paper binding you for life? Marriage is an ideology, formed by hegemony, and it is hard to see it outside of this lens, but when you do the whole institution seems to fall apart. So there is my opinion. The funny thing is, I didn’t always see it this way. I only started to see it this way when I started to question the real reasons why it is so hard to push for gay marriage as a civil right.
The movie “Sayonara” significantly contributed to my views. In the movie, marriage between U.S. (white) male soldiers and Japanese women is under discussion, as it was illegal at one point but was legalized by the end of the movie, a little too late. The questions this legalization of marriage rose for me were first of all, what about Japanese men and U.S. (white) women, what the relationship between the white men and Japanese women entails, and what this means for national and gender subservience. All of these questions are deeply related and need further analysis. It is clear from the movie that Japanese women were portrayed as subservient to the U.S. men. There are two simultaneous themes existent in this statement: the context of gender differences between the men and women, as well as the context of nationality differences between the U.S. men and the Japanese women. It is clear that the relationships were unequal, with the one, U.S. and two, men, dominating. In the movie, it seems that marriage stands as a metaphor for the unequal treatment of two nationalities, while inadvertently (or purposefully, but I think not) showing the inequalities that are evident in marriage. Another question I asked was why this “questionable” marriage was allowed, when gay marriage is still not. What brought about the change? I think that the ability to have one be subordinate played a key role in the legalization of marriage- the movie certainly goes to great lengths to assure that gender roles are not threatened. There is little discussion of Japanese men and white women- it just doesn’t happen. The movie was instead about the ability of the Japanese women to play traditional roles in raising children and being traditional wives, thus it fits into the aims of marriage and was deemed acceptable by U.S. politicians. .
Gender today is a matter of social concern in many places and spaces, as is seen in Takarazuka. In Robertson’s text, the importance of gender identity is seen clearly in the gender differences between the Takarazuka and the Kabuki players. As Robertson discusses, “The asymmetrical relationship between the two same-sex theatres is evident in their respective nomenclature. The Kabuki players of women’s roles, or onnagata, is regarded as an exemplary model (kata) of ‘female’ (onna) gender, and actual women have been encouraged to emulate the feminine mannerisms of the male actor” (14). This is in stark contrast to the language describing the Takarazuka, which instead “connotes serviceability and dutifulness.” The male-gender specialist is not, however, a person to emulate. (14). The idea of the women’s revue as a service and a duty seems particularly poignant.
Further gender differences can be seen within the revue itself, as the female actors are referred to by Kobayashi, the male founder of the group, as daughters, “with its attendant connotations of filial piety, youthfulness, pedigree, virginity, and being unmarried” (16). It seems that even within something seemingly sexually liberating, gender plays an important role in a hidden status hierarchy. Gender seems to be the overarching theme of the hierarchy in this case, as male cross-dressing, although considered sexually deviant, is hailed, and even used as an example for female femininity. Not to mention the genders are acted out to the extreme of stereotypical gender differences, which again serves to reinforce gender norms and differences.
Sexuality also comes into play within this hidden hierarchy. As I generally understand it, sexuality acts as a way of maintaining gender, as heterosexual relationships call for different gender roles. When lesbian or gay people enter the mix, gender gets skewed as the relationship may mimic heterosexual gender norms. Thus, it was not surprising to read in Robertson’s text that the women of the Takarazuka, especially the male-gender specialists, come under fire for their sexuality. The Takarazuka has been subject to much scrutiny, as a place where sexuality is learned and gender is forgotten. As such, it can be seen that sexuality is incredibly important in the hierarchical mix. The arbitrary importance of sexuality can be seen in the differences of the interpretation of sexuality by scholars and the popular media. As Robertson discusses, “The complexities of sexual practices and the instability of their categories, together with a perceived and internalized stigma applied to lesbian subjects, jointly have induced Japan scholars to disregard even what had captivated the Japanese public and scholarly community at a given historical moment” (46). She refers to the fact that scholarly work evidences “sociosexual (in)difference”, a sort of don’t ask don’t tell policy to keep the image of the Takarazuka pristine. However, this same mum-ness is not seen in popular culture, which constantly questions sexuality of the members. Sexuality is important, but it is a taboo subject in some arenas, outside of the realm of discussion.
This brings us to the U.S., where there are very specific gender roles. We learn these from birth, where we are given a designated symbolic color. There are many who think that sexuality is genetic, and we are born with it so it cannot be learned. However, the marital system does seem bent on teaching gender differences through the husband wife relationship and their different parenting roles. It seems that sexuality and gender are both things that desirably can be taught, and that there are ideals that are achievable. The lines of gender division get blurred in homosexual relationships, and thus they are considered undesirable in a patriarchal system. And yet, homosexual relationships may mimic gender norms, as is seen in the butch/femme dichotomy. Sexuality is important within proscribed genders, and gender is significant within proscribed sexualities. There is a dual role, in which each creates the other, and each strengthen female subordination in society.
So, how does all of this relate to gay marriage? There are several key ideas that I have developed over the course of this knowledge building. First of all, I am realizing that the institution of marriage is flawed and is perhaps one of the most restraining institutions out there. Second, gender norms are procreated within individual marriages and marriage as an institution, and that is one reason why gay marriage is so hard to prove as a civil right. Marriage is a place where gender roles are most evident, both historically where the image of women in their brand new identical kitchens taking care of their kids while their husbands go to work, and today, with women doing a “second shift” once they get home, a sort of superwoman who has a job and then comes home to cook, clean, and take care of the kids. Another idea I developed is that gender has always been skewed when outside of the public eye, and that today’s idea of “out” politics is socially progressive, but the social institutions will still be hard to change. Because the institution of marriage is so flawed, it is perhaps more important to change the institution altogether than to try to enter a flawed institution. However, if it is to stay the same, we should send the message that we are all people who can love whoever we want, and gender should not be such a critical factor in marriage.
It is difficult to contextualize marriage in the context of gender and sexuality, as all three topics are so integral and intricate. At the end of this paper, I again leave with more questions than I arrived with, but I do know that the institution of marriage deserves more discussion that even a semester of class can provide.
Amy J. Greene
WMST 494
11/29/07
Summary Paper #4 – Final Overview
Both Jennifer Robertson’s in-depth analysis of the Japanese all-female theater phenomenon Takarazuka in her book Takarazuka: Sexual Politics and Popular Culture in Modern Japan and Joshua Logan’s 1958 film Sayonara can be understood as parallel in many ways to issues surrounding the controversy of same-sex marriage in the contemporary United States. By simultaneously substituting heterosexuality for homosexuality and vice versa, the Takarazuka phenomenon highlights complex issues of acceptance, normalization, and invisibility of same-sex relationships when presented as acceptable in a heteronormative context, which is very similar to some of the current debates concerning the potential effects of legalizing gay marriage in America. The film Sayonara, when understood in its historical context as an anti-racist statement promoting legal and social recognition and acceptance of interracial relationships and marriages, shows many similarities to the current struggle for same-sex marriage and acceptance of queer relationships by showing historical changes in legal and social attitudes towards certain proscribed sexualities over time.
The Takarazuka, as described by Jennifer Robertson, is a musical theater troupe in Japan consisting of about 350 – 400 female performers. The group is extremely popular in Japan and has a massive fan following; the performers are celebrities and they appear in the media frequently. Each of these performers is trained for years to perform in the Takarazuka before they become actual members of the troupe. From the very beginning of this training, a gender specialization is chosen for each individual: some become musumeyaku, who specialize in representing ideals of femininity and play only the roles of women, while others become otokoyaku, who specialize in representing ideals of masculinity and play only the roles of men. In these roles, they portray only heterosexual relationships.
Since the Takarazuka is widely known to be an all-female revue, their exclusive inclusion of heterosexual-only content creates an interesting dilemma, which is highly parallel in many ways to current U.S. debates over gay marriage. By using only female actors to portray heterosexual romances, they are not only using heterosexuality as a stand-in for homosexuality (by calling the female participants “men” and “women”), but also simultaneously using homosexuality as a stand-in for heterosexuality (by publicizing that the “male” roles are actually played by females). The pretense of heterosexuality in this case becomes in part a way of normalizing same-sex romances and gender variance as acceptable within a heteronormative framework. At the same time, however, the heterosexual pretense uses same-sex coupling and non-traditional gender performance as a vehicle for emphasizing the importance of heterosexuality and heteronormative gender roles. The Takarazuka, seemingly paradoxically, both publicizes and celebrates same-sex relationships while simultaneously ignoring their existence, thus effectively denying their validity. It explores the strange ground of inherent contradictions: while in certain ways the Takarazuka represents a more accepted and popular form of visibility of same-sex relationships and gender variance than anything we currently have in American media, in other ways it renders queerness absolutely invisible by relying on heteronormative gender presentations and roles, as well as focusing exclusively on heterosexuality without any acknowledgment of difference.
The Takarazuka Revue’s reliance on heterosexualizing homosexual interactions raises questions about the cost of mainstream acceptance of those outside the norm and the dangers of assimilation, which can be compared to some popular arguments against the effect legalizing gay marriage in the U.S. Many people believe that marriage is in itself a heteronormative construct, and that by conforming to that construct, gay couples would not only be sacrificing their claim to uniqueness from the mainstream, but also participating in an inherently discriminatory method of social segregation. Like Takarazuka, which grants homosexuality (at least a form of homosexuality) visibility only on the condition that it takes the form of heteronormative gender roles and sexualities, there is a fear that gay couples will be required to meet heteronormative standards in order to gain social acceptance and legal recognition. In this vein of thinking, gay marriage becomes problematic and self-defeating: to be respected for who you are, you may have to sacrifice who you are. If same-sex marriage were widely accepted, would it necessarily require gay couples to “fit in” with the rest of married society?
Joshua Logan’s 1958 film Sayonara, based on a book of the same title by James A. Michener, takes a more personal, individualistic view of marriage. This film tells the story of an American soldier named Major Lloyd “Ace” Gruver (Marlon Brando), who travels to Japan while fighting in the Korean War. He originally disregards Japanese culture and disapproves of interracial marriages, unsuccessfully trying to convince his military buddy Joe Kelly (Red Buttons) not to marry his Japanese lover, Katsumi (Miyoshi Umeki). However, over time he falls in love with a Japanese woman named Hana-ogi (Miiko Taka) who performs men’s roles in a Takarazuka-like troupe. Despite the military’s refusal to recognize interracial marriages, and American laws not permitting Japanese military brides to accompany their husbands to America (a situation which eventually becomes so difficult for Kelly and his pregnant Japanese wife Katsumi that they end up committing suicide together rather than be separated), Gruver’s love for Hana-ogi eventually overcomes his desire to fulfill the expectations of the “ideal” American man. He separates from his white fiancée, Eileen Webster (Patricia Owens), abandoning the expectations of the world to propose marriage to Hana-ogi. The movie, revolutionary for its time, acknowledged the inevitability of globalization and was created with the specific intent of challenging nationalist, racist norms of the era, including laws prohibiting the recognition of Japanese/American marriages, including those concerning immigration and citizenship of spouses and children.
Sayonara is particularly relevant in the context of contemporary gay marriage because it exposes some direct parallels between same-sex marriage and the historical situation of interracial marriage in the 1950s. It highlights the historical and current similarities between certain proscribed heterosexualities (in this case Japanese and American romances in the 50s) to current proscribed sexualities, such as same-sex relationships and various other forms of queerness. Many of the same arguments used today against same-sex marriage are incredibly similar to those used back then against interracial marriage: that allowing interracial marriage would undermine the institution of marriage, causing the eventual downfall of society; that interracial relationships were just wrong, and that allowing them legal and social recognition would be a compromise of American ethics; that such relationships, if granted equal marriage, would be harmful to children, and so on. By showing these heterosexual relationships as being rejected both legally and socially by both mainstream America and mainstream Japan, the similarities to the legal and social non-acceptance of American same-sex couples today are overwhelming. Sayonara unflinchingly shows the human consequences of not allowing a person to be with the one they love when Kelly and Katsumi commit double suicide rather than allow their newly made family to be divided. By doing so, the film takes a definite stand in favor of acceptance of interracial relationships and change in the legal recognition and treatment of Japanese/American couples, much as those involved in promoting equal marriage rights for same-sex couples have done in recent years.
In conclusion, a study of Jennifer Robertson’s book Takarazuka as well as Joshua Logan’s film Sayonara helps put the American conflict surrounding same-sex marriage in both an international and historical context. The Takarazuka Revue gives Americans considering gay marriage an international perspective as a phenomenon unique to the culture of Japan. The Takarazuka shows gender, sexuality, and heteronormativity in a way that compels a comparison to same-sex marriage in the U.S., because it exposes the difficult and near paradoxical relationship between uniqueness and assimilation, difference and acceptance. Sayonara historicizes the struggle over acceptance of difference in the context of marriage, not only by showing some of the similarities of past oppression in marriage to that against same-sex couples today, but also by capturing a moment of historical change in attitude towards marriage. By giving us a portrait of a man whose life is altered forever as his opinion about marriage changes, it is both a call for and a celebration of the acceptance of difference in relationships, which certainly puts contemporary same-sex marriage debates in an important historical context of the evolution of marriage and prescribed and proscribed sexualities. These things are important because they give us a context within which to better understand proscribed relationships and marriage on both the individual and (global and local) societal levels.
The relatively recent push within American gay and lesbian communities toward marriage rights is representative of a political and historical moment in the United States wherein the manifestation of control over many kinds of queer communities (both gay and straight) has become nearly invisible to what appears to be a majority of individuals who are members of those communities. Through the redirecting of queer goals away from economic restructuring, family re-organization, untraditional love relationships, and a commitment to innovative ways of knowing/being, the dominant center has kept many facets of gay and queer communities in its grasp and thus under its control. Where the center defines the political goals of a movement and has the power to meet these goals or deny them, the political movement can become little more than a puppet for the dominant culture. This kind of cultural and political control gets its power and meaning through the invisibility that is created when particular sets of behaviors are naturalized. Despite this naturalization and complexly controlled relationship between GLBT communities and oppressive heterocentric systems of power, there still exists transgressive space in the GLBT movement for marriage. It is this ambiguity and loss/taking of control (among many other political issues) that makes the marriage debate a particularly complex and important cultural site of both change and stasis.
An American audience may be more likely to see the ways in which this process of appropriating the language, dress, and culture of subversive communities into the dominant cultural narrative shifts and changes through the observation of what appear to be transgressive cultural acts in cultures outside of the United States. Thus, reading Takarazuka and viewing Sayonara presented the opportunity for this class to become world travelers so as to take a step back from that which feels familiar to find that which feels unfamiliar in other cultural times and locations. The rub is that, in this case, there are significant similarities between that which appears vastly foreign about Japan’s Takarazuka and that which appears deeply familiar (or is so familiar that it doesn’t “appear” at all) about the politics of gay marriage.
In Jennifer Robertson’s book, Takarazuka, the American reader is exposed to embodiments and performances of sexuality and gender that may appear at once familiar and incomprehensible in twentieth century life. It is through Robertson’s explanation of Japanese cultural and political climates as they shifted and changed over a period of nearly 80 years that the reader gains an understanding of the political power of ambiguity in gender and sexuality as it is manifested in the performances and development of the Takarazuka. Although these performances appear deeply transgressive to some American audiences, it is Robertson’s capable articulation of displays of state controlled culture and subversion that assist the American observer in better understanding the ways in which a literacy of US popular culture and an inability to see similar controlled transgressive spaces and performances in US culture, might impede a thorough analysis of the Takarazuka.
Similarly, Sayonara, as directed by Joshua Logan appears to disrupt United States centric proscriptions of transgressive sexualities (interracial war time relationships in particular) in favor of communicating a larger message of social normalization and control through heterosexual marriage. Both of these texts ultimately find that through what is largely a cooptation (and often creation) of that which appears to be subversive or radical and through the performance of ambiguous and ambivalent gendered and raced bodies, the dominant culture that seeks to forward positions of naturalized versions of heterosexualities finds a powerful and malleable set of tools. Combining the power of ambiguousness in gender, race, and sexuality with the power of celebrity and the agenda of promoting a particular flavor of nationalism can result in what is at once a striking mode of nationalist sentiment-creation and propaganda and yet remains, in part, subversive in its performance and possibility.
In looking to these cultural objects to inform an analysis of the current state of gay marriage in the United States I am struck as an American viewer/reader at the ways in which the issue of gay marriage in the United States, not entirely dissimilar from interracial marriage (both past and present) and trans gender performance, has been positioned politically as “normal” while homosexuality itself still remains, at this time, very much in the margins. It is the containment and ambiguity of these transgressive acts that keep them both safely within the margins and square in the middle of the dominant culture. Just as the cross dressing performances of the Hasty Pudding Club are at once surprising, emancipatory, and transgressive, they are also shielded in their ambivalence, ambiguity, and social power from the criticism that an impassioned transgressive gender performance might receive. Where the performance can be construed as satire or carnival, both the performers and audience are permitted to become tourists in alternative constructions of pleasure, performance, sexuality, and reality. Realities that are conveyed as constructed to the audience at once send the message that there is one reality that is not constructed and cannot be altered using the arguments of situated knowledges while also giving permission to actors and audience alike to engage in the fiction of performing a constructed reality. Given that all realities are constructed, and all embodiments are performed, the relationship between fiction and “reality” becomes even more unclear.
In Sayonara, the gender performance of the Matsubayashi might be difficult to discern in all of its arrangements for an American viewer with no familiarity with the troop. However, as in the Takarazuka itself, there are symbols and codes- some more heavy handed than others- that direct those audiences that have some familiarity with the Takarazuka to view the movie as deeply rooted in gender performance (this shares some similarities to the ways in which niche markets in the United States are created to play to queer audiences and heterosexual audiences alike in the funding and production of television shows such as The L Word). To the extent that gender performance is discernable to American viewers of the movie, it is likely that many viewers would not see the performance as transgressive but as simply permissively “other” in its “foreignness” whereas the intended argument of the movie- that interracial marriage between white American men and Japanese women should no longer be punished- would be seen as the predominantly transgressive theme/message.
Sayonara appears to be an anti-racist film in that it promotes the marriage of a Japanese woman and an American man at a time when interracial marriage was perceived as both unnatural and as a threat to the national security of the United States (sounds all too familiar doesn’t it?). Although the film looks anti-racist, sounds anti-racist, and even may be anti-racist to some extent, it fails to address the lived realities of individuals and groups who face and perpetrate racism in a meaningful way. This seems akin to me to the ways in which the promotion of gay marriage in popular culture is “anti-homophobic.” Although the rhetoric on its face is the language of equality and inclusion, it is also a language of assimilation, stasis, exclusion, and control. This language has tended to eschew discussions of sexuality in favor of some kind of unified “humanness” that entitles all Americans to the same civil rights. This has ultimately resulted in the gay community essentially repeating and thus recreating the rhetoric of homosexual shame and the normalcy and centrality of heterosexual desire. As Michael Warner writes in The Trouble with Normal, “[t]he new respectability of lesbian and gay politics is not the movement’s coming of age; it is, in effect, a takeover. The lower threshold of defiance required for entry into the movement now means that the balance of power within it has shifted from the stigmaphile to the stigmaphobe poles. And this does not mean a gain of integrity, but a loss” ( 76). Like the proffered anti-racist rhetoric of respectability in Sayonara that requires the Japanese bride to leave Japan and speak English (a paltry two amongst many other flavors of assimilation) but still results in the transgressive act of interracial marriage, the anti-homophobic rhetoric of gay marriage and respectability for homosexuality is both subversive in its message of change and acceptance and a tool for normative dominant cultures in its push for sameness.
Where Japan struggled to create, identify, and preserve a unified national narrative of hybridity and “co-prosperity”, the Takarazuka Revue performances became a site of visibility and control. Robertson explains that the literal visibility of Japanese culture- dress, language, architecture, food etc.- was foundational to the Japanization of Asian sites of Japanese colonial control. By using the highly visual, disjointed, montage effect of the Revue, Japanization could occur in an entertainment culture that, perhaps simply by virtue of being entertainment rather than labor, could reach large audiences with a lightness and frivolity that could be perceived as antithetical to the serious task of promoting a political agenda of pan-asian unity. This contradiction then becomes the place of ambivalence. Robertson further explains that in “the hybrid Takarasiennes have exemplified how ambiguity and ambivalence can be used strategically in multiple, intersecting discourses, from the sexual to the colonial, both to contain difference and to reveal the artifice of containment” (Robertson, 215). Like the literal power of visibility in Japanese propaganda culture and performance, Sayonara is a site of visual oppression and liberation—a revolutionary cinematic script, performance, location, and set of technologies meets the predictability of invisible, normalized, hegemonic systems of power and oppression.
Post a Comment