The other day I was slipped away into metro halls to transit from line to line. Empty walls were to be filled with commercials disguised in culture; which is rather considered sophisticate than product commercials like McDonald’s new vegetarian burger promotion. One commercial got my attention as it presented two men in an intimate pose, and it was just later I figured out looking over someone’s shoulder to read one of the metro’s handy newspaper where described its plot and its representation of diversity in Paris art spectacles.
I was astonished the level of tolerance and integration that this society proved. Such astonishment lasted until I saw a vandalism on this commercial. Just two men in a pose didn’t seem natural to someone until they were ‘tagged’, ‘named’, ‘categorised’ and ‘outed’ by marking the letters on their forehead. We have the history of such exercise: we practiced this in the era of slavery and in the literature called ‘The Scarlet Letter’. Even though this great writing provoked us enough the nature of lettering and taught us insight that the evilness comes from those who letter not from those who are lettered.
The vandalism and lettering made me think of what people think natural and where comes the need of indicating what is considered unnatural. So at last it became a lexical debate of the social psychology of unnaturality.
Especially in this case of two men lettered gay, I assume of social psychology that still orients to spread words that homosexuality is somewhat unnatural, as the natural of a man is to penetrate, to destroy and to dominate, and the natural of an opposite gender is to be penetrated, to be ruled and to be submissive. Well, as one reads the last line out loud, one might sees the absurdness of such dichotomy. Human identity and experiences are rather in unfold spectrum, as this dichotomy stands no where in it.
It still would be named unnatural, since the lexical definition is defined by its language users and if the majority uses it such, it might have legitimacy to name such. It might not be natural in social sense then, but there lays a beauty. It’s two different perspectives toward life and nature. It’s about western and eastern approches. It’s about male and female combination, as it always has been and will remain such (this separation was wisely dictated in the book Orientalism by Edward Said). But here comes the example of waterfall and fountain. Waterfall is natural and its beauty suffocates the viewers by its magnitude and volume (especially if you think of Iguazu fall). It’s beautiful as it is, and we cling to its naturality. The water pours from the altitude, not resisting gravity of nature. It just flows.
Men, especially from the West, made fountains to resist the very nature of gravity. They challenged the nature of gravity, and reached to make unnaturality beautiful. Water launches itself toward sky, representing the human power against the nature, and decorating every garden of ever-existed castle in the West.
The relationship between two individuals, of course including that of same sex, is the relationship between fountain and waterfall. One resists and the other flows, or vice versa. Unnaturality comes from not accepting a different form of energy, not from its own nature itself. Everything that exists in nature is natural as it exists. The form of such love or such sexual interaction rather exists, so it’s natural form of energy. What makes it unnatural is the narrow perspective that is psychological outcome of social formation.