Karalynn Schneck: On Fragmentation

Well, I was eager to read McKee’s solution or resolution on the subject of fragmentation, but I came out a little disappointed. Upon examining my reactions I decided that one of the main reasons I struggled with the chapter was because of my attitudinal differences with the examples from the Queer Sphere. Hey, I am just being honest here, so don’t automatically label me a prejudiced bigot (remember, I said it was an attitudinal difference).

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with McKee that Habermas’ vision of the public sphere was extremely limited and that whether or not he would like to admit it, “the public sphere has always been fragmented” (McKee 142). Habermas realizes that white propertied men were the only official public sphere and thinks this was a good thing—he “doesn’t want [other] citizens to bring their distinct cultures and identities with them, for he thinks this works against equality” (McKee 145). What Habermas fails to understand is that plurality is inevitable and withholding from people the right to express their voice is ultimately wrong. A ruling class of educated white men know nothing of other spheres but their own.

If I were to pinpoint a couple of things about the Queer Sphere that turned me off, I would probably focus on the representation of their culture—if it is in fact an accurate representation. I was firstly offended that queers try to label all others for our “‘heteronormativity’—the impulse of the ‘straight’ culture to try to make everybody fit into the same norms of behaviour—not just sexually, but culturally” (McKee 148). If this is a staple of queer philosophy, then I find they are a lost culture—they think that boundaries are constrictive, when they could in fact be set down for seriously important reasons—i.e. criminal prevention, unity, etc. McKee also cited a couple of times that queer folk think that straight culture is boring. Well, yee-hah—what a reason to be gay, to be exciting and creative. I find these philosophies extremely shortsighted and immature, and I am entitled to my attitudes.

What I found interesting about this article is McKee’s return to the power of persuasion over reason and rationality. I think McKee’s insistence on the use and worth of the one and disregard of the other is at best closed-minded, however empirically proven methods of persuasion are. Should we all just resort to being emotional beings with little or no thought to logical and long-term decision making, flowing with the tides of the best and most appealing leaders and persuasive figureheads? Oh, I forgot—that’s what we Americans are: mindless drones of a very manipulative media…or at least that’s what we’re becoming and I think McKee is leading us there by the hand.