| August
2002
Malay responses to homosexuality
|
|
|
Beware: the title is grander than this essay really is. It sounds like a
disciplined academic survey, I know, but in truth, it's a small reflection
growing out of 30 minutes chatting with friends in a bar.
There were 4 Malay guys in the group, all of whom, I reckoned, were in their late twenties to mid thirties. All spoke fluent English and 2 of them were professionals in marketing and media – I don't know about the other 2 -- which would indicate to you their educational and socio-economic levels. One or two of them really knew their brands of beer, which would tell you how much heed they paid to Islam's injunction against alcohol [1] But I didn't ask them for their attitudes to gayness; I asked them what they thought their family's and community's attitudes were. Alas, as I was just making conversation, rather than doing a detailed study, I have nothing more than fragments of the conversation in memory. Thus, I've had to reconstruct some sentences from notable phrases that I recall. But I try to be faithful, to give you an idea what they said. Suhaimi [2] replied first. "I think it's a situation where they really don't want to know, they can't handle it. Just pretend everything's 'normal' ". "It's not as if they don't suspect, but they don't want to be confronted with it." "However," Suhaimi added quite quickly, "cross-dressers can get away with it. If you're a cross-dresser, then OK lah, if you're like that, you're like that. Not happy about it, but they can accept that you're somehow different." Farouk largely seconded Suhaimi's views. (He did say more, but I can't remember!) Ariff too agreed. He also reported that his father must know he was gay. "One evening he came into my room while I was making out with someone. We were both naked. I'm sure he saw. He closed the door immediately." Me: "Did he raise this issue the next day, or later?" "Never," said Ariff. "He's probably still in denial." Shah felt his family could no longer afford to be in denial. Not only was he out, but he wasn't the only gay person in the (extended) family. Moreover, there were transgenders too, one married to a cousin. His mother knew that almost all his friends were gay, especially the ones he often had long phone conversations with, late into the night. His sister would sometimes tease his friends who called by asking them directly, "Are you a homosexual too?" "And do you know, " Suhaimi interjected, "that at one time, Shah's boyfriend lived with him in the same room, and they had a queen-sized bed?" Clearly, denial was no longer an option. Shah also brought up his boxes of porn VCDs. Normally, they'd be kept above his cupboard [3]. One day, his mother noticed that one of the boxes was missing, so she asked him where it was. Shah said he had moved it into a certain locker. She said, "Good that you tell me now, so I know. I'm not going to open that locker." On another occasion, Shah left some porn in a large manila envelope, inside a drawer, before he went out. When he returned, he found the porn scattered in the drawer, sans envelope. He asked his brother. "Oh, I needed a huge envelope," was his matter-of-fact reply. Shah said he noted his brother used the word "huge" and went on to say there was some significance to that, but his explanation escaped me. However, what this anecdote registered in me was that there was no hysteria on the brother's part, and that the brother didn't think gay porn needed hiding and so was quite ready to tip the contents out. The others felt that Shah's family was not typical. At best, it represented the far limits of the possible. * * * * * What these guys -- well at least the first three – were reporting was that silence, pretence and denial predominated. You can't say this is acceptance. At best, it was a tightly circumscribed form of tolerance. If one abandoned silence, one would have to confront the issue, and traditionally in Malay culture, there is much avoidance of confrontation. There is a lot of concern for giving face to the other party; the culture is rich in ceremonial greetings and pleasantries for lubricating social relations. Confronting a difficult, contentious issue is seen as extremely disruptive of social goodwill and family harmony. Sometimes, it is best to leave certain things unsaid. But supposing someone's homosexual behaviour could no longer be denied, what might happen? Was Shah's case representative of the likely outcomes? Well, perhaps in some cases. First of all, how families deal with homosexuality hinges a lot on the personality of the subject. Shah was articulate, self-confident, almost forceful in demeanour. He struck me as the kind who was more likely to mould his surroundings to suit him than to adapt to his surroundings. I could see that from the way he wanted his favourite brand of beer, and the fact that once he started speaking, you could hardly get a word in edge-wise. Secondly, Shah's family was responding in a way that was not particularly Malay. It was responding like any family with a determinedly gay son: you eventually get used to it. * * * * * To me, the most interesting bit was what Suhaimi said about cross-dressers getting away with it. That was a big clue that we could place Malay cultural responses to homosexuality within the broader scope of indigenous Southeast Asian cultures. Much work on Thai cultural constructions of sex and sexuality has been done, notably by Peter Jackson. Other researchers have also reported on Filipino and Indonesian contexts. There are some interesting similarities among the Southeast Asian cultures, and some fundamental contrasts with contemporary Western ideas. It seems to me that we can place Malay cultural attitudes within the same Southeast Asian attitudinal set. At the risk of oversimplifying, the first big difference between Southeast Asian attitudes and modern Western constructions of homosexuality lies in the way Southeast Asians do not objectify homosexuality. In other words, they don't see homosexuality as a "thing" in itself, a stand-alone trait distinct from sex. In fact, as far as I know, no Southeast Asian language has an indigenous word that correlates to "homosexuality" or "homosexual". The Western concept today is to see sex and sexuality as two independent dimensions. You can be male and homo, male and bi, male and hetero, female and bi, etc. More importantly, it sees gay people as a class, defined by their sexual orientation, and distinguished from bisexuals, heterosexuals and transsexuals. I know it is very difficult for Westerners to grasp – I've tried till I was hoarse – that in many societies, such as in indigenous Southeast Asian societies, few people see homosexual identity. They are aware of homosexual behaviour, but that does not define the person, anymore than eating water-melons defines the person as a water-melon-eater, as distinct from, say, pineapple-eaters. To them, it's a crazy idea! Some people may prefer water-melons, others prefer pineapples, some both, but why see them as different subspecies of people? Southeast Asian societies generally have just one dimension – gender. On this continuum, there is "male" at one end and "female" at the other. Interestingly, there is a well-recognised middle gender, and here Southeast Asian languages have a rich vocabulary for them. [4]
|
||
|
Malay: bapok, pondan. Javanese: benchong, waria, banci. Tagalog: bakla, palorista. Bama: accault. Thai: kathoey. Generally, all these words connote cross-gender mannerisms and dressing. These societies recognise these as a different type of people, although the status given to them is still very much inferior to normative male and female. Thus Suhaimi's comment, "they get away with it." In this single-dimension continuum, males, whether homosexually or heterosexually inclined, are left with a single identity – that of male. With this identity goes a number of expected attributes and obligations. No doubt this will vary from one culture to another even in Southeast Asia, but generally, it would be along the lines of being husband, father, breadwinner, protector, and so on. Of being stoic, courageous, moderate and wise. Females might be expected to be dutiful wife, nurturing mother, home-maker, confidant, etc. How do these societies then accommodate variabilities in sexual habits and preference if all males must conform to a common standard? These cultures aren't blind to the fact that some men are promiscuous, some really prefer other guys, or some others, because they aren't compatible with their wives, find another lover. But it doesn't mean you can walk away from the social responsibilities to the first wife, or to the children. So, where's the safety valve? It seems to me, from what I have read, that the indigenous cultures make a distinction between one's public social role and one's private affairs. The cultures value discretion on the part of the individual if he should do something not quite in keeping with his expected social role (e.g. bed his neighbour's brother, or take a mistress). On the part of the others, it values silence, looking away and non-interference should they come to know of private peccadilloes. Others may not much approve of your dirty deeds, but the higher requirement of social politeness or family togetherness may prescribe feigned ignorance. This is provided you have more or less fulfilled your public social role. This may mean getting married, just for the sake of face, or being a good father, or being, outwardly at least, a pious Muslim. Then on balance, it is best not to make a big fuss about your side activities. * * * * * But westernisation proceeds apace. Unlike previous generations, these 4 guys
I met in the bar identify as gay and will not conform to traditional family
roles other than son. The silence of the older generation is stretched. How long
more before they cannot ignore the fact that these sons are never going to get
married? When the silence snaps, and they – perhaps not any of these families,
but the community and its cultural values -- have to confront the issue, what
stance will be taken? Will it get like the West, where when silence no longer
rules, there is free rein to vocalise homophobia too? © Yawning Bread
|
|
|
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|
