We Weren’t “Born This Way”:
A Critique of “Born This Way” by Lady GaGa
by Liam O’Ceallaigh
Last Sunday (13 February 2011) at the 2011 Grammy Awards, Lady GaGa (Stefani Germanotta) began promoting her new album and single Born This Way. Early Thursday morning I wrote a short article “You Weren’t “Born This Way”” critiquing the song and its message, as well as how Lady GaGa arrived at the Grammys (i.e. carried in an egg by horned slaves/servants).
My criticisms were straightforward: (1) rather than being “born this way”, our differences are largely the result of socialisation and choice, and (2) how it is unacceptable for someone who claims to support social justice to arrive at the awards carried by horned slaves/servants.
The article has been passed around a bunch and I’ve received a lot of interesting feedback which has prompted me to pen this followup piece. Hopefully this answers or clarifies some of the questions, concerns, and criticisms people have raised. If after reading this piece you have other comments that weren’t answered or addressed, then please, by all means, e-mail me (butterflywalking (at) gmail (dot) com) or write a comment below.
.
Ideas and Theory Matter
In my first article I didn’t mention that Lady GaGa is a supporter of LGBT equality. I thought the song made that clear and I didn’t feel the need to reaffirm it. Anyone who knows her work (which is who most of the criticism of my article came from) knows this. Its obviously good when an artist or public figure has fairly progressive politics and is vocal about them. That wasn’t what my article was criticising.
Rather I was criticising the primary theme of the song: that people are born a particular way “cause god makes no mistakes”. While intentions matter (I’m sure Lady GaGa had good intentions in making the song if we ignore the intention of trying to make a ton of money), the primary issue we should always focus on is the message that is being conveyed as well as any resulting implications. My article was focusing mostly on the central claim, which is now being blasted through millions of speakers around the world, that people are born a given way and that’s just how it is.
The majority of the comments I got were related to sexuality – but Born This Way is about a lot more than sexuality. It also talks about class, race, and gender, and it implies that we are a particular way in relation to a bunch of different human attributes.
But why does this matter? Am I making too big a deal out of this?
I think the opposite is true: that this is very important, that we should care about truth, and that we should take a principled stance against the claim that people are simply just “born this way”.
If we are really interested in social justice, then truth and the pursue of knowledge are things that matter. Ideas matter. Theory matters. Incorrect ideas matter too. Ideas aren’t neutral – ideas have implications for how we organise ourselves and if we think changing society is even possible in the first place. Songs and culture aren’t neutral either – its not “just a song” - especially when they are heard and memorised and repeated by millions of an artists fans (and those who aren’t fans too). Ideas and culture are a weapon in the struggle for freedom and self-determination and we should treat them as such.
.
We Weren’t “Born This Way”
“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” – Karl Marx, Preface of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
Although I understand the comfort in thinking you were “born this way” – especially in a society which condemns our choices and makes the idea that you were “born this way” seem a defiant and righteous defense – we should reject the politics of biological determinism.
“Biological determinism”, quite simply, is the notion that our biology is the primary factor determining differences between individual human beings. In short, we were “born this way” – racial, gender, sexual, and religious differences are innate and immutable. This is in contrast to the view that our consciousness is socially determined and constructed by our environments and the systems of power in which we are raised.
Biology definitely determines the “outer limits” of how our (unaltered) bodies can work; there is definitely a “human nature” in the broadest sense of the word. Humans aren’t rocks nor are we pigeons. Theres a “human nature” just like there is a “pigeon nature” as a good friend of mine likes to say. But most often the term “human nature” is used in an extremely narrow fashion to justify the most horrific and reactionary forms of exploitative, oppressive, and hierarchal systems of power. Similarly the biology of an individual is most often abstracted from the social-ecology in which it dwells. You can’t have biological beings like humans without their social and ecological environments and ignoring the interrelation between the “individual” and the “social” or “ecological” is almost never useful. To consider even human biology immutable is to profoundly misunderstand biological entities and systems. Using biology either as a reactionary excuse to limit freedom or as a liberal defense against reactionary moralism are what I mean by “biological determinism”.
Some people commented defending biologically determined sexuality. Though it is true that feelings of attraction have physiological pathways (obviously) it is simply ridiculous to then make the logical jump that sexuality then is wholly naturally one way or another. Take the high rates of same-race sexual and romantic relationships. Is this “natural”? Were we just “born that way”? Or were we born to be attracted to people wearing pants rather than dresses, or vice versa? With these examples it isn’t that Lady GaGa is saying any of these things but rather that her song will be used as to apologise for all these pre-existing notions by millions of people. “Cause baby I was born this way” will be used as an excuse for all manner of backwards and reactionary ideas and will only serve to reinforce oppression and dominantion.
Which way were we born exactly? Are people born gay, bi, or straight, but not homophobic? Are they born male or female, but not sexist or anti-sexist? What norm exactly are we to agree is determined by biologically and what are we to agree is determined socially? Why are former things (sexuality and gender) inherent while the latter things (homophobia and sexism) molded through upbringing and environment?
Moreover it just isn’t true that we are born “male” or “female” - we are socialised into those gender roles (babies aren’t born wearing pink rather than blue or pants rather than dresses). Those labels change historically, geographically, and culturally. As gender is an important part of how people define sexual attraction (and whether they believe that attraction is fixed by birth or fluid by choice and circumstance), resulting sexuality isn’t fixed or biologically determined either. They are both forged by the material conditions in which we are raised and the choices we make, and both change over time. Even “sex” which is often defined in more biological terms isn’t a binary or fixed category nor can it be limited to merely genital, hormonal, etc., differences. Intersex individuals who are born with the “physical” features of more than one sex defy such categories, as do transgender individuals. Anyone who knows the history of race relations in the United States knows how racial categories were artificially created to divide the working class and to put down cross-ethnic working class rebellions. All of the supposed determined-at-birth attributes mentioned in Born This Way aren’t actually determined-at-birth or fixed at all.
While some argued that claiming people are born gay, etc., is more defensible than saying people are born into other identities (specifically in the context of rightwing moralistic attacks) as attraction most certainly has a physiological component to it (though I disagree that this claim is defensible either), Lady GaGa’s song isn’t just talking about sexuality. For example, the line in her song which says “whether you’re broke or evergreen” is followed a few lines later by “rejoice and love yourself today ’cause baby you were born this way” is a profoundly backwards apology for class inequality. Yes some people are born poor while others are born rich, but to say thats ‘just how it is’ “cause god makes no mistakes” is only serves to re-enforce the hegemony of the ruling class. Anti-racist educator Tim Wise criticised the bumper sticker “shit happens” in his talk The Pathology of White Privilege, pointing out that “shit doesn’t just happen” – “shit gets done. By people, to people”. Things happen for a reason. Some people are rich because others are poor. Some people are “underprivileged” because others are overprivileged.
We weren’t “born this way”. We should reject claims that we are.
.
The Dangers Inherent in Biological Determinism
The idea that we were all born “this way” isn’t a neutral idea in a society that is infected with bourgeois and oppressive ideology: nationalism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, heterosexism, rigid notions of gender, false class consciousness, Islamophobia, anti-Arab racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, sexism, and so on, all run rampant. To say that people were just born how they are operates as a blanket justification for ideas that righteous people just can’t support.
Were racists “born [that] way”?
Were misogynists “born [that] way”?
Were homophobes “born [that] way”?
It doesn’t take much thought to see the extreme danger in this line of thinking.
One person commented that Lady GaGa wouldn’t defend the notion that misogynists, homophobes, racists, and the like were “born this way”. That’s great. I would hope not. But that isn’t what I’m saying here. Lady GaGa isn’t present for the millions of conversations that happen every day to explain what she “really means”. That’s the job of people interested in social justice through the process of education, consciousness raising, etc. – and that’s why I think this issue is important.
It is also important to point out that while someone might not explicitly support oppressive or exploitative ideas, that doesn’t mean their actions don’t serve to uphold them, which is why pointing out where oppression comes from (i.e. from the rise of class society) and rejecting biological determinism are important tasks. For example, whatever Lady GaGa’s intention, the imagery she used at the Grammy Awards is identical to popular imagery of servants and slaves carrying rulers, monarchs, and popes. Theres nothing progressive about this sort of imagery.
.
Defending Choice and Self-Determination
“We need a sexual politics that defends the freedom to choose [...] not a sexual politics that defines us as powerless and without the freedom to explore and choose.” – Lonnie
My good friend Joshua pointed out that he was brought to tears when he heard Lady GaGa’s song being blasted in his hometown. Others have made similar comments. Hearing gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people being positively affirmed on the airwaves and through music in a widespread way for once is definitely something that should be celebrated. None of the above is meant to diminish that nor is it meant to say people can’t use “I was born this way” as a defense. People have the right to defend themselves in any way they seem fit so long as they don’t do other immoral things in the process. The right of self-defense is a fundamental right which we must all defend. Everything from people denying their sexuality to people violently defending themselves against bigots are all permissible and morally justified options in an oppressive and exploitative society. We don’t get to define the rules of the game and under the currently acceptable standards of right and wrong these are all acceptable options. On another note we should point out who opened up the space for Lady GaGa to be able to get such a song on the airwaves: namely the multi-million person LGBTI and women’s equality and liberation movement.
But if we are interested in a long-haul struggle to eventually end the systems of oppression which cause our suffering – if we are interested in overthrowing the capitalist order – then we need large numbers of people coming to unity around where oppression comes from and how to stop it. Rejecting biological determinism and the notion that we are just “born this way” “cause god makes no mistakes” is one step in that process.
.
Recommended Resources:
- Eleanor Burke Leacock, Myths of Male Dominance: Collected Articles on Women Cross-Culturally, (Haymarket Books 2008, original 1981).
- Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State: In the Light of the Researches of Lewis H. Morgan (1884).
- Sherry Wolf, Sexuality and Socialism: History, Politics, and Theory of LGBT Liberation (Haymarket Books, 2009), especially Chapter 7 “Biology, Environment, Gender, and Sexual Orientation”, and Chapter 6 “In Defense of Materialism: Postmodernism, Identity Politics, and Queer Theory in Perspective”
- Kirstin Roberts, “Before Classes: Our Egalitarian Past” (audio, 2010).
- John D’Emilio, “Capitalism and Gay Identity” (pdf) from Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality (1983) edited by Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharan Thompson.
- David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality (UChicago Press, 1988).
- Jonathan Ned Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality (UChicago Press, 1995).
- Lewis H. Morgan, Ancient Society, or, Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization (1877).
Was Lady GaGa “born” to think its socially acceptable to be carried to the Grammys by horned slaves in an egg atop a crucifix?
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
20 Responses to We Weren’t “Born This Way”: A Critique of Lady GaGa
Leave a Reply
Socialist Politics:
Recommended Readings
(Reposting my comment from FB…)
Word. The one other problematic part of biological determinism that you didn’t touch on is how easily that can lend itself to being equated with some kind of disease or “abnormality.” People say, oh, so there’s a gay gene? There’s an alcoholic gene, too. The bottom line is that biological arguments are *not* going to do anything to sway anyone who’s hell-bent on being oppositional to LGBT rights. Crazy evangelicals haven’t seemed to have any difficulty adapting to a “it might not be your fault you have these dirty urges, but we can still help you overcome them” stance.
The “born this way” argument has also always struck me as excessively apologetic. The “it’s not my fault” line of defense just reinforces the idea that being gay is something for anyone to be at “fault” for in the first place.
I understand a lot of the impulse behind it. But I think we need to find a way to talk about sexuality as an authentic, valid part of who we are without relying on this kind of determinist thinking. I didn’t *choose* to be polyamorous, at least not in the kind of casual way I decided what shirt to put on today or what to eat for breakfast. It’s very much authentically part of who I am. But that doesn’t mean I’m interested in reducing it to biology, either.
Excellent article. Those that take the time and energy to think critically with all of their faculties should be heralded.
Brilliant!
Also, I find that LGBTIQ proponents of biological determinism frequently argue that “if we can convince the moralists that we were ‘born this way’ they will tolerate us and grant us more equality/rights/whatever.”
Besides the fact that equality and rights =/= liberation and social transformation, I always found this line of reasoning also troubling because it’s just not true. People with genetically-rooted disabilities still live in the same ableist society that people with acquired disabilities do. Nazis and Social Darwinists were perfectly happy to kill and oppress people they viewed as having biologically-determined “defects.”
The “Born This Way Defense” does not at all protect us. The real bigots will always hate us, whether they think we’re making a choice or just genetically inferior. Struggling for the right to self-determination (of sexuality, gender, or any community) is a much more powerful tool for liberation than laboratory experiments to measure the shape of our brains or whatever.
I don’t remember anyone saying they were servants/slaves lol. They could be volunteers.
you know, i had been a fan of your blog for a long time know, but with this one, you lost me. i actually find it offensive, to be honest.
once i finally came out at 19 years old, i was able to trace my same-sex feelings and attractions all the way back to about 4 years old. some people can trace theirs back to all the way back to 3 or even younger.
so how does your argument explain that? and how does your argument explain this same scenario for people who were born into extremely homophobic households, who were STILL having same-sex attractions despite their entire upbringing telling them it is wrong? and how do you explain choice to queer youth who have been abandoned by their families because their same-sex attractions and feelings and love is so condoned by their family?!! do you think they would choose that?!!!
you have too much time on your hands.
why don’t YOU put out a song that appeals to the mainstream, and that advocates for LGBTQ folks in the way that lady gaga is attempting to do so with this song of hers. the last time i checked, there aren’t many songs that have been put out in the last 5 plus years that contain the lyrics “No matter gay, straight or bi, lesbian, transgendered life, I’m on the right track, baby, I was born to survive”.
change happens slowly, especially when it comes to the dumbed-down minds of the american populace. at least she’s doing something positive. speaking of positive, why don’t you try looking at the positive side of things? you might find yourself lighten up….even just a little.
Dear deeply offended,
I’m sorry you didn’t like the piece. Even if you completely disagreed with me on this piece, I don’t see why, if you have been a fan of the blog for a while now, one disagreement would be so profound that I’d have “lost” you. That’s unfortunate. People should be able to have dialogue around important issues, even if that means disagreeing in the end.
I said people should have the right to make conscious decisions about what they want to do with their lives, bodies, and sexual preferences. That’s different from saying I can look at someone and instantly decide I want to be attracted to them or not. Defending choice means defending people’s right to do whatever they want with their own bodies so long as their choices don’t harm others in the process.
Sexuality comes from biology, choice, and social/environmental factors. I don’t deny that. Biological determinism on the other hand says we are born one way, and that’s just how it is, that’s the main source of our differences. Theres a big difference between the two concepts. By “choice” I don’t just mean superconscious choices, but also subconscious choices. By environment I don’t just mean family, but also school, church, media, etc. Just because something is telling you a particular behaviour is wrong doesn’t mean we listen to it at all levels of our consciousness. No one agrees with everything they are told. People naturally want freedom. Since the rise of systems of oppression and exploitation people have resisted those systems and the ideas they tried to unleash upon them and their consciousnesses.
Its important to reiterate though: Lady GaGa’s song is not just about sexuality. It is about race, gender, sexuality, and class – among other things. Even if someone completely disagreed with my claims about sexuality, the other claims would have to be dealt with as well.
Though for sexuality too I claim there is a serious danger in just saying “I was born this way”. I used a few examples: the extremely high levels of same-race relationships. Another example is the extremely high levels of very similar strata class relationships. There are also countless issues of gendered clothing, makeup, mannerisms, grooming, colors, language, jobs, roles, etc… To say that attraction based on these things is “natural” just isn’t true.
I’m not a singer, I write. I try to make contributions in this way. A singer is free to respond to my claims in song if they want. I’ll respond in writing, or in speech, or in something else I’m decent at. I don’t just write though, I organise and talk to a lot of people in an attempt to build popular movements, educate, and raise people’s consciousness. I try to do a bunch of things.
Indeed, change does happen slowly sometimes. But other times it happens in leaps and bounds. The former are reforms and evolutionary cultural shifts. The latter are revolutions and revolutionary cultural shifts. I don’t agree with the notion that all people in the U.S. are just dumb. People don’t engage in politics for very good reasons: they think there are no alternatives, they don’t think change is possible, they don’t know how to change things, they don’t have hope, they work long hours, they are scared of repression, etc. These aren’t “dumb” reasons. They are very good reasons. We should try to understand why people do the things they do.
I look on the positive side of things all the time. I am currently extremely excited about the rebellions going on in North Africa, the Middle East, Ohio, and Wisconsin. But looking for positive developments doesn’t mean we don’t also have to critique what’s wrong around us. We shouldn’t counterpoise the two.
Hopefully you’ll continue to follow the blog. If you have any more questions please feel free to post them.
Solidarity,
Liam
Deeply Offended,
I hope I’m not stepping on any toes here, I do not want to usurp the author’s original argument from him, but I think I can comment in a way which may help you better understand the original piece, because your comment is based on a broad misconception of the article.
In a macro sense, the debate remains nature vs. nurture. Surely, there is a biological component to sexual orientation. You and I both know that neither of us “chose” to be gay any more than I “chose” to be Asian, or “chose” to be 5’7″ tall. But on the other hand, almost all of how we, as humans, interact, is socialized. The little details of every day life, of human interaction, are largely socialized behaviors, that is, things that we learn from society at large.
Consider a stereotypical gay mannerism, the “limp wrist.” There is no “gay gene” which causes an LGBT individual to physically manifest that type of body language. You certainly aren’t born with that body language, even if you are gay.
Maybe that wasn’t a helpful analogy, but I at least had to try.
Also, I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that the song “Born This Way” is nearly the latest in a long history of music as an act of social commentary. Five years is too small, too arbitrary a time frame to judge the contributions of others to the LGBT rights movement. In 1978, the Tom Robinson Band wrote and released “(Sing if you’re) Glad to be Gay,” a song which has long been revered as a British gay anthem. Billy Bragg had a #2 hit on the US charts in 1991 with “Sexuality” (“just because you’re gay, I won’t turn you away. If you stick around, I’m sure that we can find some common ground…sexuality, strong and warm, and wild and free, sexuality, your laws do not apply to me”). In 1999, Joe Strummer & The Mescaleros released “Diggin’ the New,” which had a repeating line in the chorus of “you gotta live in this world, boy, trans, or girl.” Green Day had “American Idiot” in 2004 (“maybe I’m the faggot America, I’m not a part of the redneck agenda”) which was a pretty strong statement of the disenfranchisement of LGBT people in the US, and it was certainly not an obscure song (and oh, singer Billie Joe Armstrong is bisexual).
Of course it’s admirable that Gaga is standing up for LGBT equality, but I think we as the LGBT community need to recognize that her stance and her approach are far from revolutionary. She stands firmly on the shoulders of activists and artists which have paved the way for her to do what she does.
Deeply offended, I agree with you mostly.
Of course, there is wrong stuff about this song, the ” God make you perfect” (or sth like that) part and who knows if its biological or not, not even scientist do?
But well the point is, if it makes people feel good about being gay, and it should, and if this positive message goes arond the world, I agree with you, overall its a positive thing
no other singer dare to stand for gay rights like she does, and say its ok to be gay, we are on the right track no matter straight or gay
at least she’s doing what she can to help the gay community and that is better than any problem this song contains.
I can understand some people worry about what impact this song can have on people but well it says ”love yourself and you’re set”, how can it be wrong to say that?
Dear Vince,
Here’s one song, among many that exist out there, that definitely says its “okay to be gay” that doesn’t include biological determinist myths: http://www.walkingbutterfly.com/2010/12/22/lilly-allen-fuck-you/
Yours respectfully,
Liam
i super agree with your comments on biological determinism being bullshit, (and i also thing being religiously fated or spiritually destined to be something is bullshit). i also agree that people are a product of their material surroundings ie the historical moment that they were in etc, which i think you were saying with that marx quote.
just want to point out that your article is kind of pointless, because lady gaga explained the song as meaning you can self determine who you were born to be. so that’s not really a philosophical argument you need to have with the artist lady gaga but rather a platitude musical artists repeat ad nauseum.
this kind of trite expression in a pop song, done a thousand times, isn’t really a useful ground for bandstanding you know? just par for the course. or i guess if it is you should survey the musical literature a little more for some history on the cultural context of this utterance
to clarify the comment above, see jay leno interview post grammies
I agree with bosh. My thoughts are on the optimistic side. I understand that this is supposed to be an LGBT anthem, but why can’t it be an anthem for anyone celebrating who they are–any aspect of their life inherent to their birth?
For me, I celebrate being a native cheesehead (Wisconsinite); I was born that way. I celebrate being a part of the LGBT community because I feel, though some might disagree, I was born that way. It’s a song about being proud of who you are, and Gaga decides to tie that to birth. As Liam brings up, that does open the door for people who are racist/bigoted to celebrate those characteristics because they feel they were born that way. I say that you have to take the good with the bad, and I feel the good clearly outweighs the bad in this case.
Dear Matt,
You bring up a perfect example. Contrary to your claim, no, you weren’t born a Wisconsinite. You were born cultureless, and were then socialised into a culture, made choices relating to culture, were forced into certain patterns of behaviour due to circumstance, situation, economics, and so on.
In terms of taking the good with the bad, the bad in this case definitely outweighs the good. We live in a white supremacist, patriarchal, homophobic, authoritarian, capitalist society. To say that the apparent benefit of being able to call one’s self a Wisconsinite outweighs the deleterious effects that these systems of oppression and exploitation have on the human spirit doesn’t speak to the morbid rottenness of the social circumstances we find ourselves in as a society.
Yours sincerely,
Liam
[...] are more than welcome to think that my article “We Weren’t Born This Way” criticism of Lady GaGa’s new single Born This Way is one of “worst” [...]
[...] with seemingly endless divisions, its easy to just give into the belief that we were all just born prone to these type of [...]
Ahoy, there be monsters in these seas.
The point I want to lay out is that she focuses on self-love. If everyone on earth believed that they were born perfect (‘cuz he made ya perfect, babe’) and that therefore, everyone else around them was also perfect… there would be no justification to impose one’s will on anyone else. I think the most extreme version of the song would be “live and let live”
Also, this song is a hell of a lot better then most other music, which perpetuate much more blatantly inequitable systems of thought, or worse, violence, self hatred, or oppression. Can’t we just be happy that she wants people to love themselves? If more people held their own self-worth as immutable, maybe the world would be a better place.
there not slaves… they get payed to do a job, like most people… good article. but i still like lady gaga.
Hey Liam,
First off I wanted to say I found your two articles on this subject very fascinating (sent here thanks to the Feminist Frequency Twitter), while I had heard, or suppose seen the term “biological determinism” thrown around in online social justice circles before, I never really looked into it before and after this I did my fair share of googling. So, in a way, this was enlightening in regards to that.
I would like to push back on some of the leaps you made, though, which I feel seemed a little far-fetched. In particular, the notion that after hearing the song people can make the jump from “we are born this way [as a certain social group]” to “racists are born [that] way”. Within the greater sense of the concept of biological determinism, I suppose that makes perfect sense, but within the context of the song it’d be a little unsettling for anybody to be able to make that connection.
Perhaps it’s just because the idea of biological determinism being such an expansive issue hasn’t bought me yet because in my own personal experiences I’ve seen people lean towards the “it’s a combination of environment and biology” side of the argument regarding the source of human behavior.
With that said, I really appreciated your outlook on the “slaves” carrying her on the red carpet — I had never put much thought into that idea, and I feel that you are spot on. While I don’t think I won’t be renouncing Lady GaGa as a whole because of that anytime soon because I don’t feel ready to be radical as a junior in high school quite yet, it really did open my eyes.
Cheers,
Jake
This is really good. I think biological determinism needs to be combatted whether it is employed with progressive or reactionary intent. But I think this article is missing an important angle, which is the relationship between “born this way” and the specific political viewpoint of the mainstream (liberal) LGBT civil rights movement (as opposed to the more radical queer movements). I have an article on it here: http://automaticwriting1.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/born-this-way/
[...] more on this issue, check out my post here and this post by another blog on the same topic. And also Significant Othering, which is pretty great and [...]