In Joël Barraquiel Tan’s piece Homothugdragsterism, he exposes the complexities of what it means to be queer, a minority, a young man, a hip-hop fan, and how the intersectionality of these components come together to shape identities in urban Los Angeles. Navigating the stratums of what it means to be homosexual proves to be no easy task for both Tan and the various characters he mentions.

One of the characters that presents in a “socially acceptable” manner in regards to a “gangsta” or “hip-hop” aesthetic is one of Tan’s former lovers named “Spooky.” Spooky’s whole modus operandi is to appear outwardly as a stereotypical Los Angeles gangbanger, but we quickly find out there is more to him than meets the eye. “Vladimir a.k.a. Spooky, was born to a Cuban mother and a Russian father, but identified as Chicano, and was raised in the middle-class suburbs of West Covina.” (Tan, 211) Vladimir uses this precisely crafted performance of heteronormativity in order to blend in within Los Angeles’s urban landscape while simultaneously making himself more appealing to other same sex suitors. The fact that Vladimir had to become Spooky shows that there is some cognitive dissonance on his part or does it? Is Vladimir simply constructing his own version of masculinity that holds space for same sex loving while simultaneously embracing a hip-hop aesthetic or is he simply incognito from disapproving eyes?

I don’t think we can definitely say one way or the other if Vladimir is putting on airs, but what we can ascertain from Tan’s depiction of Vladimir is that there was more to him than just his gangsta persona. Tan describes Vladimir’s aspirations to go to college to become an ornithologist. This would seem to be in stark contrast to the perceived life goals of an urban Chicano hip-hoper.

The central theme that seems to be present in Homothugdragsterism is the notion of identity. The ability to define oneself appears to be directly correlated to how you feel you will be perceived in the spaces you navigate. Vladimir possibly choose to preform his version of masculinity to camouflage his homosexual desires, where others like “Q-Dogg” (another “homothug” who Tan encounters) presumably chose not to blend in opting instead to wear his hip-hop aesthetic without being so preoccupied with his sexuality. I wonder what life experiences allow a Tan or a Q-Dogg to not let their sexuality dictate and define when and where they can be themselves, where a Vladimir can only reveal more of his self only to his partners in intimate spaces?

As human beings and hip-hop lovers, we need to make acceptance normative and stop trying to pass off separatism as “tolerance.” The lovers we choose for ourselves are for ourselves. Who anyone chooses to accept and love in and out of the bedroom should not affect those who are not in that relationship. Too often in hip-hop we toss around terms like “faggot” or “bitch” to marginalize and emasculate heterosexual identifying men with little attention to whether or not these men are in fact queer identifying. This needs to stop! What is the obsession with and the deeper psychosis that compels those within hip-hop to publicly out those who they deem “other” regardless if it is true or not? More importantly, why does it matter? Why are “faggots” and “bitches” considered less manly? Would James Baldwin not be considered a “faggot” were he around today? If so, what little if any difference would it make if he was a same-gender loving man? Were his contributions to the pantheon of great Black authors less meaningful because of his sexuality? If there is a resounding sentiment that his life and literary works were substantive and poignant, then any same-gender loving persons life is too. If we can recognize the beauty and humanity in a queer identifying Baldwin, then we can value and appreciate all queer identifying folk!

 

 Reference

 

Chang, J. (2006). Homothugdragsterism. Total chaos: the art and aesthetics of hip-hop (pp. 209-218). New York: BasicCivitas Books.