Andrew Sullivan (and some others) have been criticizing the late Susan Sontag for not being forthcoming about her same-sex relationships. Today, Sullivan posts a couple of letters from readers who disagree with him. I’m excerpting one of them here, because I think it’s terrific.
Perhaps the best explanation actually is the one she provided (and not — imagine that! — the fervid projections of someone with a political agenda) — that she didn’t think it was interesting or relevant to her job as a writer who she happened to be sleeping with at the moment (and, remember, this reticence applied to her male as well as female lovers). That her “identity” might not have been first and foremost “lesbian.” That perhaps she felt she was beyond being labeled as “gay” or “straight” and had no desire to be pigeonholed as such. Perhaps, as a public figure, she wanted to protect the privacy of some part of her life. Who really knows? Honestly — and maybe this is because I’m a straight man who admired her for her mind, as a human being, and not as a member of some sexual-political group, I don’t really care. I don’t really understand why, even though she never denied having relationships with woman and certainly did her part for the gay community, you consider her a coward — presumably because she didn’t discuss her sexual life in confessional detail?
But then, I never understood how you could name a vile “award” after her for saying something (that the terrorists were demonstrably not cowards; that they had motivations beyond being “evil” and that we, as a nation, deserved better than the baby-talk the Bush administration put out after the attacks) that, while tough for many people — including you — to hear at the time, had the virtue of being absolutely, clarifyingly right, and is now conventional wisdom (well, except to the people responsible for our disastrous policies). Which isn’t to say she was right all the time — or never mis-spoke. But then again, who is? Certainly — as I’m sure, as a relatively intellectually honest pundit would be forced to agree, not even you.
That perhaps she felt she was beyond being labeled as “gay†or “straight†and had no desire to be pigeonholed as such.
I disagree with Mr Sullivan alot.
But I just cannot buy the above rhetoric. I believe that it is plainly bogus to equate the gay and straight “labels”. In real life, if a public figure is either silent or cagey as regards their sexuality, the message is that they are “straight”. That is the “default position” in everyone’s mind. They fully have the right to do so, sure–but that is what they are putting forward. Let them be that honest at least.
And, at the risk of being excessively dramatic, any public figure who wishes to claim that sexuality is not relevant in America should have a discussion with Matthew Shepard’s mother.
Would that it were that simple. While I abhor the closet, I don’t think famous people’s failure to wear a rainbow flag pashmina wherever they go is always a pit-of-despair sin. Context is everything, and I think we all know Susan Sontag did more to advance understanding of queer culture and politics than most of us anonymous folks who walk hand-in-hand once a year to our town’s Pridefest. We all give what we can, and she gave big.
Sullivan wouldn’t have cared if he hadn’t already spent so much time condemning her for non-gay-related issues in the last couple of years. Quel schmuck.
Michael Bronski has a much more nuanced take on Sontag here
As usual, The Creature From the Blog Lagoon’s opposition to Sontag stems from the fact that she was a liberal.
She was an interesting writer — especially in the 60’s. But she was also a relentless self-mythologizer.
And Annie Liebowitz was scarely the only woman in her life. The very long list includes Nicole Stephane, Marguerite Duras (another closet case), Maria Irene Fornes, Lucinda Childs, and Marilyn Goldin.
Why is it the resposibility of celebrity to advocate for any purpose? Who are we to brazenly condem their privacy? If any group wishes to speak out on their agenda, why do they feel it necessary for others to follow? It is this narrow-mindedness that creats prejudice.
IMHO Colleen’s argument would hold for the average celebrity perhaps. Kevin Spacey is never gonna change the world I reckon. ;)
But Sontag was a very public intellectual.
That type of silence is what permits prejudice to fester. Prejudice cannot exist without silence or inertia.
Even Bronski’s piece, although “nuanced” as heck, in the end found such a stance “regrettable… perplexing… unnerving….”
Unlike say gay-marriage or gay-adoption &c, defending gays from extinction is not an “agenda” in my view.
I’m in agreement with your thoughts on Sontags intellect. I would love to have someone with her dynamics on my side. Unfortunately it is not my decision to make. Prejudice is deadly. Since the beginning of time, not a revelation, just ignorance passed on at the dinner table. I myself will not condemn anyone for their need to live their lives for themselves. Perhaps in her silence she made her point. Hey, I’m gay, so what! The more opinions are pushed upon people the more they may resist. Ignorance will prevail. We need to bite prejudice in the ass where it begins. In kindergarten. Big Bird needs gay neighbors. Subtle, but so effective.
But colleen, Sontag didn’t live her life for herself. By dutifully cordoning off her sexuality– even while proclaiming the importance of the personal in every other aspect of life — she was living for the status quo.
People always speak of the closet as “their decision.” No one “decides” to collaborate — the surrender.