Around three years ago I wrote about homosexual double repression hypothesis HERE. After I read what I wrote before, I had the intention to write the further hypothesis, hence I actually had the aim to elaborate the writing into one big picture. So this is just another further note of what I wrote before. I read several books and journals, it helped me a lot to capture the bigger frame of what is actually going on. In my previous work I wrote about homosexuality paradox in the modern era.
This post is functioned as a self note. I’m actually a little confused in what language I should write it down, since I wrote my previous work in Bahasa Indonesia (since it was due to personal class project submission – which has been commented by my lecturer as “too philosophical”) but it won’t stop me to write what I want anyway. To me philosophy is the basic thought to everything. Actually I suddenly had the idea of saving each of my writing under the same theme (yes, this one) to be gathered into one book. Very slow work I must say, since I just got the idea popped in mind, but well, better late then never.
So here goes my next hypothesis: “Every stakeholder in social structure is entangled in a giant world web-like system. Each of them is structured in a hierarchal and stratified system, with the traditional stakeholder at the base.” Personally, this is because I am also influenced with my other previous work: HERE. in this paper I wrote about how the government was actually the culprit behind the homophobic issue in Southern Africa, while people was busy blaming the media. But to me, seems that the media is a stake holder under the government and other base traditional stakeholder such as the Church. Basicly, in my vision every single case is like an onion layer. The stratifying I was talking about was that the media was indeed an important stakeholder in the system, but it doesn’t really hold the main part. In the stratified system, the older and independent a stakeholder is, the more powerful it is. Thus, it makes a traditional power such as the government and the Church laying in the base of the system, above the media. It’s not that I am saying that every single problem happening is merely the fault of the government and the Church for example, but indeed, we must admit that both had a very big influence toward the whole system anyway.
First we must note that the more structured the system is, the less independence the stakeholders achieve, since the system is like a giant spider web. Imagine a giant and complicated form of a spider web, with the Church and the government laying in the center (well I must note here that the government and Church itself is not a single stakeholder but also a structurized system, I shall note this as my future findings later on). Touch one part of the core, the whole web will turn to chaos. But in the versa, if you touch only one part, the center will perhaps be the steadiest part of the whole thing.
The latter effect is, the entangling of each stakeholder in the whole system gets naturalized, thus the human’s mindset is unconsciously also synchronizing toward the current system: naturalizing the system within. It goes further to the daily habit and mindset, and that is one of the answer why a lot of mortals, especially those who were born under the current circumstances are usually less critical. Sorry to say, but to me that’s what I see. Oh of course the world will sound more peaceful with those un-cynical people, but building a steady system without a further maintenance is a big future breakdown, I must say.
Another good example of it is the sexual repression by Michel Foucault. Around the 18th century when the system is playing a major role toward repression of sexuality, appears one controversial figure: Don Juan. In my personal opinion this is a very good example, since Foucault clearly state that during the era that propagates a sexual freedom inside marriage barrier, Don Juan comes with an anomaly of the system. He dated someone’s wife, had sex with a virgin, and other “deviation” labeled since he crossed the line of the social and legal barrier made by the system, under the power: the Church and the government. In contrast, instead of someone breaking the system, he is labeled as a person with sexual disorder. This tendency is of course, because the naturalization of the system and human mindset, as mentioned above. According to Foucault, even the psychoanalysts regarded him as a narcissistic, homosexual or impotent (self note to this as homosexual is regarded as a repressed social label). On the other hand, I am also considering this phenomenon as a double repression as well. First degree is upon the repression of the social system itself, second of all is in the degree of repression of the system and stakeholder toward the certain individual/group level. Rather than working on a general psychoanalitical analysis I would rather do it a little different, giving more consideration toward layered and complex relations of the unconscious and subcosncious. I need to learn more about neurosis theory as well. Again I have to remind myself that I’m not even a student of psychology so I have to work my ass off from zero. Elaboration and more detail explanation coming later after I read more references I just printed down.