Sedgwick, Eve.
Epistemology of the Closet (1990)
Chapter 3 "Some Binarisms (II): Wilde, Nietzche, and the Sentimental Relations of the Male Body" pp.131-181.
［とりいそぎCather論に関連しうるところだけ］
☆Homosexualityと代理性の連結
●キリストの図像のeroticizationおよびsentimentalization→代理的な贖罪と男の身体の性愛化の結びつき（センチメンタリティ自体に代理機構が備わっている。センチメンタリティとはvicariousな受難者に自己を投影することだから。）
☆Homosexualityのhomoを「同一性」に還元する言説：ドリアングレイにおけるナルシシズムとホモセクシュアリティの横滑り
●It is startling to realize that the aspect of "homosexuality" that now seems in many ways most immutably to fix it--its dependence on a defining sameness between partners--is of so recent crystalization (158).
●The homo- in the emerging concept of the homosexual seems to have the potential to perform a definitive de-differentiation--setting up a permanent avenue of potential slippage--between two sets of relations that had previously been seen as relatively distinct: identification and desire (159).
●Let me make it clear what I am and am not saying here. I do not, myself, believe same-sex relationships are much more likely to be based on similarity that are cross-sex relationships. That is, I do not believe that identification and desire are necessarily more closely linked in same-sex than in cross-sex relationships, or in gay than in nongay persons (159).
●How does a man's love of other men become a love of the same? The process is graphic in Dorian Gray, in the way the plot of the novel facilitates the translation back and forth between "men's desire for men" and something that looks a lot like what a tradition will soon call "narcissism" (160).
●For Wilde, in 1891 a young man with a very great deal to lose who was trying to embody his own talents and desires in a self-contradictory male-homosocial terrain where too much was not enough but, at the same time, anything at all might always too much, the collapse of homo/hetero with self/other must also have been attractive for the protective/expressive camouflage it offered to distinctively gay content Not everyone has a lover of their own sex, but everyone, after all, has a self of their own sex (160-61).
●For Wilde, the progression from homo to same to self resulted at least briefly, as we shall see, in a newly articulated modernist "self"-reflectiveness . . . (161).
●Freudの"I (a man) love him (a man)" というセンテンスの否認とeroto-grammatical transformation ("I do not love him--I hate him," "I do not love him, I love her," "I do not love him; she lives him," "I do not love him; I do not love anyone")に足りない最後の可能性としての"I do not love him; I am him" (161-162). ここでSはメランコリーについては言及していないが、"I do not love him, I am him" というのは明らかにメランコリック・アイデンティフィケーションの作用である。
★homosexualityをsamenessに対する欲望とする言説に抵抗するSの議論は正しい。Cather論でもnarcissismに言及する際には必ず註にこれに対する断り書きをしなければならないだろう。ドリアングレイがhomosexualityの主題を隠蔽するためにナルシシズムの主題（modernist "self"-reflectivenessとSが呼ぶもの）を導入したという解釈は説得力があるように見えるが…
☆ドリアングレイとモダニズムの「空虚な秘密」の戦略
●What makes Dorian gray so distinctively modern(ist) a book, however, is not the degree to which it partakes of the paranoid-associated homophobic alibi "I do not love him; I am him." It is a different though intimately related alibi that the modernism of Dorian Gray performs: the alibi of abstraction (164).
●Across the turn of the century, as we know, through a process that became most visible in, but antedated and extended far beyond, the trials of Oscar Wilde, the discourse related to male homosexuality itself became for the first time extremely public and highly ramified through medical, psychiatric, penal, literary, and other social institutions. With a new public discourse concerning male homosexuality that was at the same time increasingly discriminant, increasingly punitive, and increasingly trivializing or marginalizing, the recuperative rhetoric that emerged had an oddly oblique shape. I would describe it as the occluded intersection between a minority rhetoric of the "open secret" or glass closet and a subsumptive public rhetoric of the "empty secret" (164).
●The term "open secret" designates here a very particular secret, a homosexual secret. As I explain in Chapter 1, I use it as a condensed way of describing the phenomenon of the "glass closet,"the swirls of totalizing knowledge-power that circulate so violently around any but the most openly acknowledged gay male identity (164).
●The public rhetoric of the "empty secret," on the other hand, the cluster of apercus and institutions that seems distinctively to signify "modernism" (at least, male high modernism), delineates a space bounded by hollowness, a self-reference that refers back to--though it differs from--nineteenth-century paranoid solipticism, and a split between content or thematics on the one hand and structure on the other that is stressed in favor of structure and at the expense of thematics. I will argue in the next chapter that this rhetoric of male modernism serves a purpose of universalizing, naturalizing, and thus substantively voiding--depriving of content--elements of a specifically and historically male homosexual rhetoric (165).
●this novel can be read doubly or equivocally, can be read either as having a thematically empty "modernist" meaning or as having a thematically full "homosexual" meaning (165-66).
★モダニズムのフォームに対する重点はテーマへの焦点化を防ぎ、それによってホモセクシュアルな秘密という内容をカムフラージュする、ということ。これは4章のJames批評に対する批判に繋がっていく。"The Beast in the Jungle"をホモセクシュアルな作品として読まず、「中身がない秘密—空虚な秘密—秘密を持っているという秘密」に関する物語だと主張するJames批評への批判。
