-By Rudrangshi Saha
Why does the sight of certain things like bugs crawling on food make us feel an overwhelming sense of repulsion? Disgust is a powerful emotion, and its influence stretches far beyond physical reactions. It's more potent than joy, anger, or sadness. But what if this emotion is also at the heart of the deep-seated biases we hold as a society, especially towards the LGBTQIA+ community?
Disgust isn't just a gut reaction; it's a survival mechanism. Originally, it evolved to protect us from disease and danger, which is why rotten food or dirt triggers that primal urge to recoil. Researchers refer to this as "distaste"- a subset of disgust. But disgust goes deeper. Beyond its physical roots, it evolves culturally, shaping our moral compass. This is why we can feel disgusted towards behaviours or people we perceive as "impure" or "wrong" as well.
Here's where it gets interesting: fear and disgust, though both survival emotions, operate differently. Fear resides in the amygdala, while disgust is rooted in the insula, a more complex brain region. Fear, no matter the source, feels the same. Disgust, however, has layers—distaste, aversion, moral repulsion and so on. According to researcher Paul Rozin, disgust started as a protector of the body but morphed into a guardian of the soul.
Then, why does seeing a woman with facial hair or a man in a saree spark such intense reactions in some people? It’s not fear. It’s disgust- an aversion to what they see as a violation of social norms, a transgression against "purity." This leads to the conclusion that what we often call "homophobia" is a misnomer. It’s not fear that drives this prejudice; it’s sheer disgust.
The same-sex marriage debate in India has reignited these conversations, but instead of changing minds, it often polarizes them further. One side demands rights, while the other parrots "It's not in our culture." But perhaps the root of the issue lies not in culture but in psychology. We’re not dealing with a phobia; we’re confronting a deeply ingrained sense of disgust. By addressing that, we might finally have the conversation that leads to change.
So, why do some people feel the need to "be" queer? If you're already rolling your eyes and thinking, "Here goes the liberal brainwashing," hold on- let’s break it down from a purely academic perspective. To understand the debate around LGBTQIA+ identities, we first need to explore the relationship between gender and sexuality.
Biologically, there are two sexes—male (XY chromosomes) and female (XX chromosomes); with rare exceptions like intersex individuals who may have chromosomal variations such as XXY or XYY. Gender, on the other hand, isn’t so rigid; it's a spectrum, an interplay of masculine and feminine energies. Society teaches us that males are masculine, females are feminine; but is that really true?
Consider this: when an ovum is fertilized, it has the blueprint to become either sex. So what happens to the unused part of this blueprint? According to Carl Jung, this latent blueprint doesn’t vanish but retreats into our unconscious mind, where it manifests as "Anima" in men (feminine energy) and "Animus" in women (masculine energy). Sometimes, these energies surface, allowing individuals to access traits traditionally assigned to the opposite gender. Jung argued that true wholeness comes not from suppressing these traits, but from integrating them.
Take literature, for instance- when a male author writes a deeply nuanced female character, he’s channelling his Anima. One quintessential example is Kabiguru Rabindranath Tagore, whose understanding of female characters was highly intricate, as seen in his portrayal of characters like Chitrangada.
And speaking of culture, even the great epics touch on gender fluidity. During the Pandavas' exile, Arjuna lived as Brihannala for the last year, a character embodying traits of both genders, existing beyond traditional male-female boundaries. This idea of gender complexity has always been part of our rich cultural heritage, yet today, we struggle to accept it.
Hence, why for some is it so seamless and natural to blend masculinity and femininity while others find it unnatural, rather, disgusting?
To answer this question, we need to explore how gender varies across populations and cultures. The common belief is that men are 100% masculine and women are 100% feminine. But reality tells a different story. Women can often be more masculine than some men, and vice-versa. If we were to graph gender traits, we wouldn’t see a clean division but rather overlapping curves—most men lean masculine, most women lean feminine, but the real differences lie in the tail-ends where fluidity exists.
Cultural differences play a major role in shaping these curves. In rigid societies with strict gender roles, the overlap between masculinity and femininity is minimal; in more flexible, open societies, this overlap expands. According to researcher Michelle Gelfand, cultures under constant threat or survival stress tend to enforce stricter gender roles as a form of social glue. These strict norms offer stability and order in chaotic environments. So, to a desert tribe, any deviation from these norms, whether gender fluidity or homosexuality- feels like a betrayal, a threat to their very survival.
In contrast, a culture near a water source, less threatened by survival, focuses on higher-order needs like love, esteem, and self-expression, as outlined in Maslow’s hierarchy. Here, gender roles are more fluid, and same-sex love is less taboo.
Moreover, if gender fluidity and homosexuality were truly "defects," why do we see them in every corner of the world and across every period? Why haven’t they been erased by natural selection? The truth is that they’re not flaws- they’re natural expressions of the diverse human experience.
Several theories attempt to explain why queerness exists at all. One is the Population Control Theory, suggesting that homosexuality occurs in nature to help regulate the population. While plausible, critics argue that if this were true, why does homosexuality persist in species with declining populations?
The Gay Uncle Theory offers another explanation. This theory, also called the helper-in-the-nest hypothesis, suggests that homosexuality contributes to social cohesion. Homosexual individuals may help their siblings raise children, thus promoting the survival of shared genes without necessarily reproducing themselves.
Then there's the idea that homosexuality is a natural byproduct of evolution. According to this view, not all aspects of evolution are about procreation. Homosexuality, much like art or literature, may enhance human diversity and promote creativity, empathy and cooperation. It enriches society by offering unique perspectives. Just look at fields like fashion, dance, or visual arts- queer people often seem to outnumber straight people. But of course, not every queer person is creative, nor is every creative person queer, but the correlation cannot be overlooked.
As Virginia Woolf insightfully said in A Room of One’s Own, "the most creative minds are androgynous"—capable of harnessing both masculine and feminine energies. Woolf, herself queer, likely spoke from experience. Think of legends like Rituparno Ghosh, who revolutionized Bengali cinema, or even artists like Frida Kahlo.
Despite the achievements of this community, queer people in India still face public disgust. It’s almost as if disgust clouds logic, making it hard to accept that queerness has been part of Indian culture long before our colonial past. In fact, ancient texts like the Kama Sutra have entire chapters dedicated to queer acts. Lesbians, known as "Swarinis," were accepted and even married other women, raising children together.
Even in the ancient temples, queerness finds its place. All across our country, there have been various instances where homosexuality and gender fluidity (concepts now deemed "impure" by some) have been portrayed in the carved surfaces of the temples (places considered to be the purest).
Thus, queerness is not foreign to Indian culture; it's been part of our heritage for centuries. It wasn't until the Mughal invasions and the subsequent British colonization that this narrative was stunted. The Mughals imposed brutal laws: 50 lashes for slaves, 100 for non-believers, and death by stoning for homosexuality. The British further criminalized it under Victorian law, cementing centuries of repression.
This long history of making love a crime has left us where we are today- viewing queerness as something "against" our values. The so-called modern "torchbearers of Hinduism" often forget that ancient Hinduism accepted queerness as normal. Instead, today, many fear it weakens society and some even see it as a gateway to moral collapse. But how is love and identity a threat to society? Why do we still persist in associating it with chaos, when in fact, it's been part of us since time immemorial?
In conclusion, queerness is and has been an inherent aspect of diversity- nothing to be reviled or shunned. Though change is often slow, the journey toward acceptance is inevitable. As we progress, we must envision a future where queer individuals are celebrated for their authentic selves, no longer perceived as outliers in society. Let us strive for a world where the richness of identity is not merely tolerated but embraced, for it is in our differences that we find our true humanity.
Mahabharata (Shikhandi’s Story, Adi Parva):
यथा परशुरामो ब्राह्मणः क्षत्रियत्वमावाप तथा अहं स्त्रीत्वान्नपुंसकमापन्ना। Just as Parashurama, though born a Brahmin, took on the nature of a Kshatriya, I too, though born a woman, have assumed a different form, neither male nor female.
Comments