Perez Hilton and the Politics of Privacy

I was just watching Perez Hilton's appearance on "The View," (a pop cultural text I can't seem to stay away from -- always simultaneously problematic and ridiculously informative about who we are, where we're at, and what kind of questions we're asking and not asking) and thinking about the complicated politics and ethics of celebrity and privacy.

The women were challenging him on his invasiveness, on all the *eek!* mean things he says about famous people, questioning whether he'll be able to take what he dishes the higher his own star ascends.

And he's putting forth what I (with some assistance from Michael Warner) would call a Queer ethic of shame, a kind of "Bitch please," dirty laundry-airing, we're all in the same pit of filth, lemme drag you down and let's roll around together, don't pretend you're any better-than-me sort of position that I would love to see identified as a kind of ethics, but which is unfortunately usually labeled as an "amoral" (though not necessarily IMmoral) position.

There was something almost innocent, almost naive about him, as though he hasn't fully considered the full range of potential consequences of what he does, and that at some point, something unexpected may still befall him. And indeed, he may do things I find ethically questionable -- I haven't seen enough of his site to have a fully developed position.

But that's less interesting to me than the questions that "The View" women weren't asking and probably won't ever think to ask--

About what exactly privacy means. Whether privacy can or should be understood as an inalienable right. Who has had and has the right to privacy, both historically and currently. How privacy manifests as a component of privilege. What relationship might exist between "privacy" and the questionable/problematic constitutional "right" to property?

The fact is -- and I suspect Perez Hilton gets this, even if he doesn't articulate it quite so intellectually -- Queers in America have had a rather vexed relationship with the concept of privacy. As Eve Sedgwick elaborates in "The Epistemology of the Closet," we've been paradoxically told to "keep our private lives private" (as in, "I don't care who you sleep with as long as you aren't doing it in front of me"), while simultaneously having our private spaces more thoroughly monitored and policed, being penalized for our lack of full disclosure when our "deviance" is discovered. This hypocrisy, this inconsistency operates to keep us vulnerable.

Women, poor people and/or people of color, both Queer and heteronormatively-privileged, have also and relatedly not been afforded the same right to privacy as folks possessing class, race, gender and sexuality-related privileges. The supposed sexual "deviance" of women of color has been open to public inspection since the 19th century Khoikhoi woman Saartjie Baartman was displayed in public spaces as "The Hottentot Venus."

Although the "outing" of gay celebrities may be ethically questionable, I also kind of get being a little bit frustrated with the Neil Patrick Harrises and TR Knights of the world, who make it look so easy to keep one's difference behind closed doors, or to think of Queerness as an insignificant aspect of one's self that doesn't negate one's general social acceptability.

I don't think this an option that everyone has.

"Privacy" is far from straight-forward. It's a concept in need of further interrogation and elaboration.

...and a message to Perez, re: his new hair, with help from Lady Sov-

"Hey bitch -- did you know you're ORANGE!?"