COVERING

By Diane FRANK

I’d like to introduce my gentle and not-so-gentle readers to a new term and use it to broaden a few horizons. Everyone knows the term “passing.” The term started, to my knowledge with light-skinned Negroes “passing” as white. The term has been taken up in the various gender communities to mean being taken as the opposite sex of what’s between (or was originally between) your legs. There are levels of passing of course. For some people passing is simply taking a walk and not having someone yell, “It’s a guy in a dress.” At the opposite extreme, you have “stealth” transsexuals who may well enter committed relationships with partners who have no clue about their past life. This goes in both directions, by the way as I’ve heard of this happening with both FTM and MTF.

The new term I’d like to introduce is “covering.” This showed up in an article in the New York Times by the gay Asian-American lawyer Kenji Yoshino back in January, although the term has origins dating back to the 60’s:

 

Then I found my word, in the sociologist Erving Goffman's book “Stigma.” Written in 1963, the book describes how various groups -- including the disabled, the elderly and the obese -- manage their “spoiled” identities. After discussing passing, Goffman observes “persons who are ready to admit possession of a stigma...may nonetheless make a great effort to keep the stigma from looming large.” He calls this behavior covering. He distinguishes passing from covering by noting that passing pertains to the visibility of a characteristic, while covering pertains to its obtrusiveness. He relates how F.D.R. stationed himself behind a desk before his advisers came in for meetings. Roosevelt was not passing, since everyone knew he used a wheelchair. He was covering, playing down his disability so people would focus on his more conventionally presidential qualities.

As is often the case when learning a new idea, I began to perceive covering everywhere. Leafing through a magazine, I read that Helen Keller replaced her natural eyes (one of which protruded) with brilliant blue glass ones. On the radio, I heard that Margaret Thatcher went to a voice coach to lower the pitch of her voice. Friends began to send me e-mail. Did I know that Martin Sheen was Ramon Estevez on his birth certificate, that Ben Kingsley was Krishna Bhanji, that Kirk Douglas was Issur Danielovitch Demsky and that Jon Stewart was Jonathan Leibowitz?

In those days, spotting instances of covering felt like a parlor game. It's hard to get worked up about how celebrities and politicians have to manage their public images. Jon Stewart joked that he changed his name because Leibowitz was "too Hollywood,” and that seemed to get it exactly right. My own experience with covering was also not particularly difficult -- once I had the courage to write from my passions, I was immediately embraced.

It was only when I looked for instances of covering in the law that I saw how lucky I had been. Civil rights case law is peopled with plaintiffs who were severely punished for daring to be openly different. Workers were fired for lapsing into Spanish in English-only workplaces, women were fired for behaving in stereotypically “feminine” ways and gay parents lost custody of their children for engaging in displays of same-sex affection. These cases revealed that far from being a parlor game, covering was the civil rights issue of our time.

I find myself covering or not covering and experiencing the reactions in all kinds of things, knowing too much about women’s fashions and makeup for example. I was at a party once, and joined a conversation of a group of women about the local dance scene, something I’m well versed in. They were clearly taken aback that I was participating. And then knowing clothing lines, stores, sizes oh my. Not covering, pretending I don’t know causes amusing situations. I’m sure we can all think of times when we covered or didn’t cover and how it provided amusing or uncomfortable situations.

But that’s not what I really wanted to write about. Having just got back from India, I’m doting on my new saris and did some research about them. I discovered that there are hundreds of ways to wrap a sari, but the predominant style in India now is called the “Nevi.” What is fascinating about this, is that village, regional and caste styles of wearing sarees are being abandoned as being identifying. Wearing a sari wrapped Nevi style is a great social equalizer. It is, in other words, covering with a covering.

Thinking about what else I’m writing for the newsletter, there is a great lesson in the article that we should bear in mind as we consider people’s reaction to us:

 

The new civil rights begin with the observation that everyone covers. When I lecture on covering, I often encounter what I think of as the “angry straight white man'' reaction. A member of the audience, almost invariably a white man, almost invariably angry, denies that covering is a civil rights issue. Why shouldn't racial minorities or women or gays have to cover? These groups should receive legal protection against discrimination for things they cannot help. But why should they receive protection for behaviors within their control -- wearing cornrows, acting “feminine” or flaunting their sexuality? After all, the questioner says, I have to cover all the time. I have to mute my depression, or my obesity, or my alcoholism, or my shyness, or my working-class background or my nameless anomie. I, too, am one of the mass of men leading lives of quiet desperation. Why should legally protected groups have a right to self-expression I do not? Why should my struggle for an authentic self matter less?

I surprise these individuals when I agree. Contemporary civil rights has erred in focusing solely on traditional civil rights groups -- racial minorities, women, gays, religious minorities and people with disabilities. This assumes those in the so-called mainstream -- those straight white men -- do not also cover. They are understood only as obstacles, as people who prevent others from expressing themselves, rather than as individuals who are themselves struggling for self-definition. No wonder they often respond to civil rights advocates with hostility. They experience us as asking for an entitlement they themselves have been refused -- an expression of their full humanity.

I’d like to think that in India someday, those modes of wrapping sarees will be reclaimed in a society that won’t stigmatize a woman for the association a particular style suggests. And I’d recommend keeping the idea of “expression of their full humanity” in mind when we try to educate others about our lives.