“Not a man and not ever able to be a woman, suspended nameless in the limbo state between existence and nonexistence…The reason Miss Ramchandin paid me no attention was that, to her mind, the outfit was not something to either congratulate or scorn—it simply was” (Mootoo 77).
This quote about Tyler from Cereus Blooms at Night explores how his identity does not yet have a name or label in his society. He exists in a liminal space, unable to properly fit into the definition of man nor woman, and therefore people don’t know what to make of him. We are conditioned to see gender as binary, and stepping outside of this binary is often seen as negative. In Tyler’s case, he is not physically harmed but he is mocked for his femininity. His coworkers make passing comments, laugh, and stare. He stands out, which is an inherently bad thing to them. On the contrary, Mr. Hector views Tyler’s gender as celebratory. Tyler’s queerness reminds him of his beloved brother. He even asks Tyler and Otoh if they know his brother just because they are queer. For Mr. Hector open queerness is something to be celebrated, as he knows the harm his brother suffered in their childhood for being too feminine so he empathizes. However, Mala does not take on either of these lenses, but a neutrality to Tyler’s queerness. She views it as natural, nothing to gawk at, something that simply exists, neither congratulating or scorning it. Queerness to her is neither good nor bad as society categorizes it as. It just is.
Mala’s lens reminded me of something I read in my philosophy class, excerpts from Martin Heidegger’s book “The Question Concerning Technology.” While Heidegger’s politics were disgusting, his claim about technology surprisingly relates directly to Mala. Heidegger wrote that while technology itself is neither inherently good nor bad, humans think of all of their surroundings as either technology or on its way to becoming technology (looking at it for how it can become useful rather than what it currently is). Everything is seen as materials for technological advancement, even the earth is seen as materials for oil and the cutting down of trees to build factories.
Like the characters’ need to label Tyler’s gender as good or bad, there is a human need (perhaps a result of socialization) to label things, to understand their purpose in the world. To believe that everything must have a purpose, one that’s either good or bad. In his book Heidegger wrote “When we once open ourselves expressly to the essence of technology, we find ourselves unexpectedly taken into a freeing claim,” meaning that when we begin to look at technology as something that simply exists rather than the way to view the entire world, we can be free. This freedom would allow us the understanding that there is not one correct way of thinking, that multiple lines of thought can coexist not necessarily in relation to the others. Adopting this neutrality like Mala does in regard to gender, we can look at queerness (which is either celebrated or scorned), as simply existing alongside heterosexuality, rather than the antithesis of it. Queerness is queerness, not directly opposing the dominant framework, not as something that is good or bad, but something that just is.
Your analysis of binaries is really interesting, and I think it could be expanded if you were to discuss the many other ways in which Mala sort of lives outside of tradition. A major way she does this is with her rejection of language. I think for her, this isn’t necessarily a good or bad thing, it is simply something she has to do. By living in solitude, while surrounding herself with all kinds of nature, she is existing in a state completely outside of normal society. She has no use for binaries of gender, sexuality, etc. since she doesn’t even use words. I think this is why she is so understanding of Tyler, since to her there is nothing surprising about what he is, it’s purely natural. I don’t know if this made sense but it’s kind of hard to put into words. The point is I guess that Mala lives entirely outside of binaries, beyond just in queerness.
I think this is a really interesting perspective. I really liked how you tied in the reading to something you have learned in a class outside of ours. The connection you have drawn to Martin Heidegger reminds me of how Aristotle describes potentially and actuality. Aristotle uses these terms to describe a thing that the potential exist. Just because it can be does not mean it will. The point I am trying to make here is that your idea of “something that just is” is really cool and ties into other really interesting philosophical schools of thought.