I’m a lesbian (to those of you who believe I must establish my “right” to speak on queer issues), and I take issue with the Jack Halberstam piece about “Queer Gaming.” The only point I agree with in Halberstam’s piece is this: “Simply adding gay, lesbian, or trans characters” is futile. He doesn’t really develop this claim, but it’s an issue I’ve spent some time thinking about. I feel like many developers in recent years have realized if you slap a “non-straight, non-cis” label on a character, even if it adds nothing to the experience of the game, the game is going to receive publicity, and perhaps equally important, people will be less likely to accuse the game of “lacking representation” upon release or down the line. This reasoning makes enough sense on the developer’s part, but it’s really annoying to see developers using queer identity as a marketing tactic, and it comes across as pandering. (I must emphasize that this is only the case as long as the fact that the character is queer fails to add new meaning to the gaming experience. For example, Ellie in The Last of Us is an extremely well-written queer character, and I love the fact that they decided to develop her in that way— develop her further, I should say: The player doesn’t know she’s gay until they play the DLC, presumably after they’ve finished the base game and know who she is outside her sexuality.)
Besides this small point, though, I think the premise of the chapter really does a disservice to the LGBTelemenopee community and society in general. Here’s why: At the heart of this piece lies a definition of “queerness” that is on one hand defined as the opposite of “straight,” but as the reader soon realizes, the dichotomy between “queer” and “straight” goes way beyond the conventional understanding of said dichotomy (i.e. homosexual/bisexual/pansexual vs. straight, or perhaps a little less conventionally, trans vs. cis or nonbinary vs. binary). Essentially the chapter says, queerness = anti-normativity and straight = normativity. The chapter looks at games that are very clever, creative, or outright revolutionary compared to the run-of-the-mill shooter and labels these games “queer.” …What? These games are unique in their mechanics or the types of ideas they grapple with— not because they have anything to do with sexuality or gender. This idea that queerness can be extended to anti-normativity only makes sense in as far as it is statistically less common for people to have a queer identity. But think about it: Just because someone was born a little differently than most people doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re more likely to challenge commonly held beliefs or come up with revolutionary ideas. As far as I know, anyway, there is no solid evidence to prove such a theory. Yet this assumption is at the core of the article.
Not only do I think it’s unfounded and probably inaccurate to make such a generalization— I also believe this kind of thinking is potentially regressive if we strive to achieve a society founded on equal opportunity and inclusion. The first detrimental effect that the dichotomy of queer vs. straight as by defined by the chapter gives rise to is a sense of alienation. Read this quote from page 187:
“Queer subjects constantly recode and, within limits, rebuild the worlds they enter. Since the world as we know it was not designed for queer subjects, then queer subjects have to hack straight narratives and insert their own algorithms for time, space, life, and desire."
Hold the phone— I had no idea that I apparently experience space and time differently. If any other queer people in the class see this post, I’d be interested to hear whether you relate at all to this statement. (A little off topic but as a sidenote, I really don’t see why it’s inherently bad that most of the world we live in is “straight”… like it’s literally just reality that the majority of the population is straight. I’m not saying that queer perspectives should be unrepresented or neglected, but it seems unproductive, not to mention childish and self-centered, to complain that the world sometimes fails to cater to you. And just because a story includes a straight romance or the main character is male doesn't necessarily mean I can't relate to any of the emotions and/or situations the story presents.) Anyway, beyond being unable to relate to Halberstam’s perception of how queer people perceive their existence, the problem with pushing this claim, is that it suggests queer and straight people are completely different at a fundamental level.
First of all, this is yet another assertion that is totally unfounded— the least you could have done was provide a footnote, Jack! Secondly, if you take your experiences and common sense into account, it’s obviously not true that queer and straight people are fundamentally completely different. We’re all people. Gender and sexuality are just aspects of a person, and these attributes don’t typically constitute an entire person— humans tend to be more complex than that. Thirdly, the effect of asserting that queer people and straight people are alien from one another is division. “If I’m so different it’s unlikely I’ll ever be able to understand a straight person in any capacity, why should I try?” If we don’t try to understand each other, we simply won’t understand each other, and to me anyway, that seems like one of the most toxic attitudes we as members of society can have if we strive for a successful democracy that values diversity as well as equal opportunity and treatment.
It gets worse. This is the basic structure of the chapter: There are some unfounded claims; then there’s a short discussion of the “process of surrogation,” a process by which players change “not what they think but how they think” (188) which sounds really cool and I wish he expanded on it; and then there are a bunch of examples of movies and games that revolutionized its respective media in one way or another, or at the very least challenged the status quo. I think it’s awesome to point out these examples so that people will be inspired to innovate. What’s not so awesome, though, is equating creativity with “queerness,” and by the same token, unoriginality with “straightness.” 1) There is no evidence to suggest that queer people are any more creative than straight people. 2) Creativity is generally considered to be better than a lack of creativity. So are queer people better than straight people? I doubt this was the author’s intention when writing this piece, but it’s easy to see how many readers might draw this conclusion, even if it’s not a conscious conclusion. And it goes without saying that believing one group is inherently better than another leads to division and oftentimes more sinister consequences.
Overall, I think this article would have been better if it had focused on revolutionary games and the process of surrogation: Is the process of surrogation unique to gaming? If so, why? How have creators challenged norms and expanded the meanings video games can have for people? Have these creators been successful in changing how people people think through their games? If so, how? The whole use of the term “queerness” seems unnecessary, and personally I think the definition Halberstam uses is straight up (excuse the pun) inaccurate. Furthermore, redefining queerness causes the complications I have used most of this post outlining.
What do you guys think? Do you agree? Did I miss the point entirely? Am I officially banned from the gay community? Let me know!
