On Puppy Politics: A Discursive Analysis of 红中的 95 THESES
Authored by 红中, a queer member of the Chinese-Indonesian western diaspora, 95 THESES is a visual novel that aims to deconstruct whiteness, its associated privilege, exclusionism, and the fetishisation of ‘the orient’ (defined, in its satirical context, as referring to the countries of [east] Asia) that continues to be relevant to contemporary leftist socio-political climate and sheds light on an under-discussed anthropological perspective. Specifically, the author’s criticism is directed at a phenomenon that has exploded within the LGBTQ+ community and has gained popularity both online and offline: puppygirls. Although the feminine suffix carries its own connotations, puppygirls are simply a facet of a wider school of thought that is not necessarily exclusive to the MtF transgender community. Thus, going forward in this essay, I will be using the self-coined term ‘puppy politics’ as the point of discussion, defined briefly here as an ideology that pushes innocence by virtue of ignorance.
In 95 THESES, the dog is intentionally purported as a symbol of purity. This can be seen throughout the entirety of the text, with additions of howling and clicker noises showcased in each appearance of the dog-eared nuns. The nuns themselves affirm—perhaps most blatantly of all—the dog’s status as a monument of unequivocal purity with their appearance (each nun drawn with dog ears and a tail) and their behaviours; the latter of which consists of inhuman speech such as “I’m ouppy… weh…” and dog-like movement such as “crawling on the ground of the cathedral”. The dog as a symbol of purity is significant to the text in the way it sets up the orientation of Mary Luther’s development of racial sentience and in how it transcends its fictional context. It is a parallel to how dogs have cemented themselves as an icon of goodness in western society, and thus incapable of sin. To be incapable of sin also means to be incapable of comprehending sin and the traditional ideas of good and evil; the dog’s ignorance of human atrocities means it can never be convicted of such, for to do so means for it to be tried as a human, which is absurd. A dog is absolved of sin simply by virtue of its existence. This is the very essence of puppy politics: ignorance is innocence. The tree that has fallen unwitnessed in the forest did not fall at all. As spoken by Mary Luther, “They do not recognise their own sins.” All following topics of discussion will be encircled by this maxim, and deliberately so.
So why is the white-queer-focused desire to abandon one’s own humanity and undergo metaphysical transformation from human to animal such a prevalent occurrence in our modern context? To answer and further expound on this, we must first acknowledge, succinctly, the historical and current role of white people, globally, as oppressors. Skin is currency; to be white is to wield socio-political capital—to wield power. For power to exist at all there must also be those to exert power against: the marginalised; those without power. With the push for racial equality in recent decades, a unique feeling emerged: white guilt. Unique in the sense that it is exclusive to one race, but not unique in that it, too, is a self-centred manner of thinking, rooted in the same Anglo-centrism and colonial mindset that enabled racial oppression to begin with. A white person’s first encounter with being other’ed—having power stripped from them—is oftentimes because of queerness and/or disability, different from socioeconomic status in the sense that these are inborn, unchanging traits. It is through these personal experiences that a white person will learn what it means to be different, to not be accommodated to. However, being marginalised in other ways does not erase whiteness or the inherent power that comes with it. No matter how queer or disabled a white person is, they are not included in racialised suffering. With the aforementioned Anglo-centrism and colonial mindset yet to be unlearned, to be excluded from racialised suffering is a deeply distressing thing. To also be told that you, as a white person, hold power despite being queer and/or disabled, despite the hardships life has dealt you, compounds this. It is an unacceptable truth in the story of humanity. To ease this discomfort, one seeks absolution from their own whiteness—the guilt over the power they inherited—through the abandonment of humanity and the subsequent transformation into dogkind. “You see,” they say, “I, too, am a victim of others. I, too, am helpless in the face of this oppressive system. I, too, am like you, the marginalised. I, too, cannot change the circumstances of my birth. I, too, am destined to live a life slighted by society. I know neither the privileges of whiteness, nor the power, for I am not a man, but a lower creature, the one chained to humanity only by cultural proximity.” To once more quote Mary Luther: “I didn’t want to exist as a person. I thought it would be better to be a dog.” It is the culmination of one’s own inability to admit to the power they wield, the inability to uphold the responsibility of using said power, and the inability to confront the consequences of said power. The rule bricked on the foundation of puppy politics: A dog cannot be criticised as if it were a human.
With whiteness and its centrism comes prejudice and bias—and in turn, exclusionism and fetishisation of those perceived as different. In the text, Mary Luther encounters The Outsider, an unnamed Chinese transgender woman portrayed—through the white, racist lens of Mary Luther—as an exotic, otherworldly creature. This is done through the use of sound effects (the Oriental riff playing frequently during their interactions) and generic Chinese-related background imagery. The manner of which Mary Luther describes her—“not as pale as the others”, “nor are her eyes as wide”, “fox eyes that make her look exotic”—is explicitly racist and fetishistic; textbook orientalism meant to mock the real-life parallels of which it was inspired. The Church, too, engages in fetishisation—members of the Church dye their hair black and bark “Wan wan!”, the Japanese onomatopoeia of canine sounds, but their sisterhood remain all-white. The Outsider openly states “the Church is exclusionary”, and there is no hidden meaning or nuance to be interpreted from this statement. It is simply the plain truth. It is a criticism from the perspective of a racialised Asian author—that queer spaces often exclude people of colour, even when they don’t intend to. It is the side effect of whiteness—when you hold the power, you become the default, and when you become the default, all conversations become centred upon you, leaving no room for you to question your own biases or others to challenge them. This is the power of the status quo. White stories and white experiences take centre stage—there is no place for those who wish to study humankind from a different perspective. Hence—an under discussed anthropological perspective. A perspective that struggles to exist. Mary Luther spends the story condemning the ignorance of her fellow nuns and admits to lacking knowledge of the world outside the Church—a metaphor for the white queer spaces she has only ever existed in—but she, too, is guilty of the malicious ignorance she decries as shown in her interactions with The Outsider and the Alt-girl at the end. This is the hypocrisy of Mary Luther—a white transgender woman—and the acceptance she preaches.
As previously mentioned, queerness and disability does not preclude one from whiteness. The text itself is a dissertation of how puppy politics has become entrenched in LGBTQ+ spaces. It should go without saying there is a significant overlap with queer and disabled spaces—meaning that if they are not one or the other, they are both. Being either queer or disabled automatically makes one part of a marginalised population, more vulnerable to systemic violence and abuse. The author and this essay acknowledge that. That being said, one is white before they are queer and/or disabled. Thus, regardless of queerness or disability, a white person cannot be subject to the same systemic racism racialised populations face. That is both a power and a privilege they hold. As also previously discussed, the ethos of puppy politics lies in innocence by virtue of ignorance—and for that, one must rid themselves of the inherited power being white gives them. The deliberate softening and whitewashing of oneself using other marginalised identities—such as queerness and disability—is also an extension of his mindset. How can one put forth evil into the world—how can they exert their power—if they are part of a community systemically subjected to violence by society? A dog is not capable of the forethought required to abuse. A dog subjected to abuse less so. So says puppy politics.
In consideration of the author’s main point being criticism of whiteness and puppy politics, this essay will be extended to include meta commentary. More specifically, this is referring to public observable reactions to the media made on the game’s itch.io page in the first 3-4 months of its publication. The reactions are overall positive, but there is little meaningful appraisal of what I regard as a modern, relevant, and (most importantly) straightforward examination of how whiteness intersects with marginalised (with a heavy emphasis on queer and racial) identities. There is plenty to dissect—this piece being proof of that—and yet only general, surface-level appreciation of its themes are seen, with the most frankly stated being its exploration of orientalism. The orientalism in 95 THESES is a natural extension of the barrier of white ignorance criticised by 红中, merely a narrow facet of the bigger picture. It is, to say, a ‘safe’ topic to discuss in the same way it is the sane, popular opinion to decry the actions of Adolf Hitler or Donald Trump. The handling of orientalism, by nature of it being the obvious outcome of what 红中 is criticising, is nothing exceptional. At most, it is worthy of a footnote. The irony in the observable audience—seemingly lacking racial sentience and/or cognitive dissonance—cherry-picking a sanitised, debated to death symptom of the larger issue rather than engaging in any sort of self-reflection and critical thinking, does not escape me. “They do not recognise their own sins.”
To surmise, 95 THESES by 红中 is a fanged condemnation of whiteness, lack of racial sentience, and the consequences of such (exclusionism and orientalism particularly) in leftist spaces. Its very existence is wrapped in a thick layer of irony from its lukewarm reception, and the purpose of this essay is not only a letter of appreciation to 红中 but a call for the audience to consider the weight of their own contributions to the communities they are a part of. Because if you think this has nothing to do with you, you have already become the dog.