[-empyre-] Bromance

[Sérgio Tavares]

Hi everyone,

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to write a comment on this address, but here it
goes, it's about the work fowarded to the list by Christina.


I believe just a few things lack a name on this wave of Linguistics as a
fashionable thing (who would think of that? not even Barthes! Thank
Semiotics and all the hype it has created). Back to the topic, one of the
things that nowadays, I believe, do not have a name, are the boundaries of
heterosexuality, which are in many times/occasions, permeable and not so
clearly defined. My work is now on http://etherealand.blogspot.com , on a
Flash installation an with other works on an e-book.

Mainstream media is somewhat now gathering easy names for what is,
ultimately, hard to grasp, as the definition of any ethereal emotion. A
"bromance", as it is state on Wikipeia, is "a close but non-sexual
relationship between two men, a form of homosocial intimacy.Coined in the
1990s, the term has historically referred to a relationship between
heterosexuals, but the term has gained currency in describing such
relationships when one of the men is gay." However, from my point of view,
some experiences do have a sexual nature, or *almost sexual*, but then
again, if it is *almost*, isn't it already related to desire? Or would *
desire* be a too strong word? It is definitely related to sexuality, but on
a level that is hard to explain.

What I intended, was not to name it, but to construct an atmosphere to
report the feeling when identity, desire, fraternity and identification
happen all at once: different intensities, different causes, diverse effects
and a blend that when named, when mentioned or described usually fade, or
worse, is transformed by the mundane nature of words. Perhaps words are not
to blame: signifiers might find their alibi blaming signifieds --the
imprecise and preconceived ideas of common sense, especially regarding this
theme, I put an effort to depict what I believe happens when two strangers
meet and go apart when feeling they have something in common. It would
illustrate, also the moment when one "falls in love" with one's friends.
Body language, visual communication, touch, atmosphere: everything's
estactic, everythin'g lasts for a brief moment; isn't it funny the feeling
of seeing someone you haven't met, someone you could relate and can't relate
simply because you've never met this person before? *Oh, I wish I was your
friend.*

Although so silent --and this is truly amazing -- the "rules of bromance",
or better, the rules of this attraction are well defined and understandable,
always, without a word. I believe Jorge Luis Borges meant that on his tale
about the Phoenix followers: "who would believe our fathers would do the
same?". Herman Hesse breaks the immateriality of that on the end of Demian,
and Tyler Durden implicitly made it explicit: you do not talk about the
Fight Club. I believe the first rule on that is never leaving any shed of
prove. It is, yes, a matter of faith --and that would enhance even more the
discussion, or am I just hallucinating from the start? A man's intimacy is,
almost all the time, a closed terrain. That's the only way he can garantee
he's the only one that knows about that; sharing thoughts an intimacy is
sharing one's whole reputation. But there are occasions (often called magic
occasions, which are like an eclipse, as I've mentioned in the work) that
make the frontiers a little more blurry. I could go on...

So it's this whole set of procedures, conditions, slow-paced moves, baby
steps towards a very special moment. Sometimes, the journey, not the
destination, is the destination itself. Things are not the same since Kurt
Cobain, but are they changing now? Well, let's not even mention Bam Margera
and the *Jackasses* because they're so grosse, but there's something there
that's more than beating up and doing very stupid things.

If anyone has comments on that they would be very welcome. I believe this is
our tabu: it's so funny when friends timidly long for the touch of each
other. We're kind of in the 50's on that, I think. Question is: should
things stay this way? Is this really the nature of something sacred (the
sublime can't be mundane, no matter what?). Someone might pull the Greeks,
or Foucault, but the question remains on the practical purposes).


With best regards,

Sergio
neocronica.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20090704/f78c05ce/attachment.html