After watching Paris is Burning we have to start saying that the movie-documentary* is about a specific predominantly black (light skinned), gay (feminine), low class, community in New York. It focuses on a specific time and specific event: ball. NOT about a gay community in general, or “gay” as a sociological or psychological phenomenon. The movie* mixes sexual identity, with race and social class (between others). It also suggests an opposition between this ‘80’s ball newyorkinian black gay community, and a very specific white-American community. In other words, we are presented with two minorities inside the minorities, and two extreme poles in the American society. Paris being used as a symbol follows a very interesting process of interpretation or fictionalization. First, we have the ‘lecture’ of this specific hegemonic white-American, rich, eurocentristic community that selects only some exaggerated elements of the capitalistic, classist elite of Paris. And on the other hand, we have a second lecture of this (already fictionalized, selected or distortionated) symbolic Paris by the ‘ball community’ whom are ‘performing’ a distortion of a distortion, and maybe that explains the theatricality (or even the grotesque-aestetic*) because the referent is twice far and is a double illusion.
If we start discussing race, class, fictions, minorities, etc., we must also discuss nationalities and languages. The idea of identity is so complex that we have to analyze how this construction changes depending on the ‘alterity’. For example, the ‘ball community’ and the white-rich hegemonic community shares at least two identitarian elements: nationality, because we assume that all of them are Americans (let’s point the fact that the movie* does not go any deeper into the Hispanic element of some people in the ball), and language: English is the only language in the movie and in a city like New York that is very diverse and multicultural, the exclusion of other languages seems to be deliberate decision on the parts of the filmmaker. But again nationality is something beyond the place of birth. It is a cultural construction that depends on the strongest and communal appropriations of the identitarian elements: race, class (socio-cultural and socioeconomic position), gender, sexual identity, etc. Language is another element where all the ideological construction reveals it self in the moment of the communication. Also we can notice that all these constructions are strongly related with the place and the language, USA and English. For example, we cannot talk about ‘whiteness’ in general because that would be a determinist pseudoscientific and pseudosociological position. “Whiteness’ in the way that it is planted in the movie* needs that ‘black community’, because it then only has a meaning in relation with the other. Alterity process is first that the identity process.
Moving on to the article “Is Paris burning” I would like to ask:
What exactly does the author mean with the concept of subculture?
What kind of ideology is the author consciously or unconsciously reflecting with this concept?
Is she homogenizing and over simplifying the racial controversy?