Queer

Queer Theory Chapter

            Queer theory is a great deal more complex than just pro-homosexuality. So if you believe that that is what “queer theory” means, please suspend your judgment for a moment. (Push the pause on that idea, so that you can better understand what queer theory is completely). Queer theory, similar to ecocriticism, is a very new theory, starting in the 1980’s and becoming popular in the 1990’s.

Background of “Queer” Theory:

            To understand queer theory, we must first start with the word ‘queer’. In English, the word “queer” used to only mean something unordinary or bizarre (likewise, the word ‘gay’ used to only refer to someone or somethingwhich was happy; now, however, the word now more often refers to a homosexual.) The older definition of queer has become archaic (fallen out of use); in fact now many younger Americans (middle school through college age, and beyond) in the US only know ‘queer’ to mean homosexual. The word is frequently used in a derogatory or negative way. (Sadly, an all-too-common insult among teenage boys is in calling each other ‘queer’, or ‘fag’.)  (Halley in What’s Left of Theory)

            So, you may wonder why the word ‘queer’ is used for this theory, because queer theory is not anti-homosexual. The reason is because within the past fifteen years, homosexuals and bisexuals, as well as academics, sought to ‘reclaim’ the word ‘queer’. Many people who were derogatorily called ‘queer’ decided to take back the word and transform it. A similar phenomenon has occurred with the word ‘nigger’ in reference to blacks. Historically, this word has been used in a very condescending and patronizing way by whites. To this day, the ‘n’ word (as many Americans know it as) is considered an even less polite and crasser word than the f-word. However, while it is still considered taboo for whites to use the ‘n’ word, African-Americans have reclaimed the word and some refer to each other as ‘nigga’. (If you listen to or watch some songs, movies, and television shows, you may see African-Americans refer to one another using this word.) So for both ‘nigga’ and ‘queer’, the words have been used against the marginalized communities. Consequently, the othered individuals sought to empower the word and take agency of the word (or reclaim it) again.

Queer theory recognizes its Feminist Roots

            Queer theory draws from feminism, by understanding there to be a difference between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’. However, rather than just understanding the two categories of sex and gender to be fixed or concretely defined, queer theory complicates or problematizes this idea.

            Like post-structuralism (another criticism of literature, and other art forms), queer theory sets to break down binary opposition. As you have learned through previous literature classes, binary oppositions refer to the ways in which humankind sees and defines the world in exact opposites. We do this as a way of making the world understandable and graspable to us (For example: how do we know what night is? We know it by understanding its opposite, daytime). However, just because we choose binary opposites as a way of comprehending the world does NOT mean that the matter is always that simple. (Because as we learn through literature, there is often the gray matter in life that is abstract, figurative and difficult to define, even when we try desperately to make everything fit into either black or white categories.)

Breaking down the Gender Binary:

            Before we begin discussing sexuality as a fluid notion (meaning that it can flow and change), let us consider the idea that gender is not a constant category. When we are born, the doctors will tell our parents, “congratulations! You have a daughter” or “you have a son!” They will say “it’s a boy” or “it’s a girl!” So from the very minute we are born (and now with the technology of sonograms, even before we are born), the first question or way of defining us is by our ‘sex’. However, this category is defined for us, only by outward appearances of genitalia. Though consider: what really makes up our gender? Is it really only the presence of a vagina and ovaries OR a penis and testes? Or is it more than that?

            Recently, some argue no, that our gender is much more complex and multi-layered. When I was in college for my gender studies certificate, I took a class called “the Naked Person.” (No, we did not look at pictures of naked people!) But we did consider what the ‘naked truth’ is, or what constitutes /makes up a person’s gender? Besides our genitalia, our chromosomes are a significant aspect of our gender (most commonly, XX for females and XY for males). Likewise, there is a part of our brain that essentially tells our bodies whether we are boy or girl. And as we grow older, and advance into puberty, our bodies start producing hormones (like testosterone or estrogen and progesterone) which also play a part of our gender makeup. 

            However, what happens if/when there is a contradiction within these different layers or levels of an individuals’ gender? For example, what happens if I am born with a vagina but my chromosomes, brains and later my hormones my body develops, all are telling me that I am a male? I appear to the outside world as a female, but inwardly, I am (also? Or more so? A male. All too frequently society judges these individuals, thinkingthem immoral or sinful. However, when this situation happens, contradictions within one’s gender, environmental factors may not even play a role in the body’s confusion. Rather, the conflict may be internal or physiological (based on biological factors).

            Perhaps if we lived in a world that allowed for more variety or differentiating from “the norm,” these individuals’ deviant gender would be okay. However, much of our life is dictated by whether we are male or female. (Consider: which bathroom do you go into, who you will be attracted to, date, or marry, what kinds of clothes will you wear, what toys are yousupposed to like—we consider these and many others to be largely determined by a person’s gender.)

            We think in binaries so much that when someone does not fit neatly into our gender categories then we get nervous or confused. For example: if you see a person walking down the street but cannot tell if that individual is a man or a woman, we may feel bothered. Although if we think about it, we may ask: what business is it of ours? Perhaps we will never talk to this person or interact with him/her in any way. However, because we cannot know something about him/her that we have been socially conditioned to think is critical (we must know the gender) it may make us feel a bit uneasy. In short, it is hard for us not to think of gender as “this one” or “that one,” because to think of a person is man OR woman is all we’ve ever known. We may have been taught that folks who do not fit into male or female categories are wrong or unnatural. However, some are simply born this way, feeling an inner conflict or war within him/herself. (For a good perspective on this, read: Middlesex, by Jeggrey Eugenides)

**Please note: It is important to remember that lesbian studies and queer theory are distinct categories, but the two have some overlap between them. Lesbian feminism and lesbian studies emerged first, to distinguish themselves from mainstream or classic feminism. However, mostly here, we will focus on queer theory. However, we will also discuss about gender, because to discuss sexuality is to discuss gender, and vice versa and to try to expand our understanding about both categories (Hans Bertren, 232).

Intersexed people:

            Perhaps you have heard of the word ‘hermaphrodite’. It refers to a person who is born with both sets of genitalia. This happens more commonly then we may realize. When I was in college, I learned that 1 out of every 25,000 births results in an intersexed baby. You may wonder: why don’t we know about this or hear about this more? Probablybecause deviations in gender make society uneasy. Although we nowadays admit that there is more to someone’s gender than just their sex organs, some doctors and parents still “choose” or “assign” a gender for their newborn baby if he/she falls outside of the clear cut, black and white categories or ‘male’ or ‘female’. For example, if a child is born with both external testes and a vagina, sometimes an operation will be performed to “make the child” into a specific gender (historically they were more often “made” into a girl, see cases with Dr. Money). However, this “assignment surgery” can often times present problems later on in life; for example, if a child enters puberty and his/her body produces more testosterone, essentially the female does not “feel” like a woman but more like a man.

            To avoid this problem of inner conflict, some western parents prefer to allow their child to choose his/her own gender when he/she reaches a certain age. However, this situation is not without problems. Society’s judgment and prejudice can be especially harsh, for those who fall outside of the established “normal binaries.”

Transgender:

            Transgender refers to someone who has changed their gender. This can refer to several different things. A transgender person may wish to ‘perform’ in their daily life as a man, even though anatomically she is a female. Maybe this means that ‘he’ dresses as a man or plays sports like a man. Or, perhaps a transgender person chooses to take hormones, or even so far as to undergo an operation to appear as another gender. These transgender people are often referred to as male-to-female or female-to-male transgender.

Michel Foucault:

            Foucault, like Derrida and Lacan, is regarded as one of the most difficult writers of theory and criticism. However, his ideas are fundamental in discussing sexuality and in understanding queer theory (among other theories too). Foucault, in his book, the History of Sexuality, analyzed how society’s regard for homosexuals has changed over the years. Foucault argued that nineteenth century discourse produced the terms and categories we now know to define heterosexuals and homosexuals; however, the way we understand sexual orientation is not stagnant. In other words, it has changed over the years (Hans Bertrens, 224). In focusing on these category distinctions (of heterosexual versus homosexual), Foucault believed that society has helped homosexuals to remain at the center of attention, rather than if they were just ignored. (This may seem strange or unclear, but consider this: remember when we talked about how some feminist theorists critique how some feminists criticize men so much that they actually end up giving them more power, because their focus is always on them? This is why some feminist critics argue that feminists should focus more of their attention on women? Foucault’s idea is similar but with homosexuals. In focusing on the homosexuals, the heterosexuals give them power, make them the focus by being center stage.)  Foucault also believed that society’s fixation or over-focusing on these categories (of homosexuals versus heterosexual) end up making the issue of sexuality intertwined (or connected) with relationships of power.

By proclaiming oneself to be of non-heterosexual sexual origin, some queer theorists (Dollimore and Sinfield) believe that queers can undermine hegemonic power (or fight against ideology, remove oneself from the fish tank, if we think back to Althusser in the fish tank) (Hans Bertren, 225).Dollimore also sees queerness, or being a non-hetero, as a political act. In other words, by declaring oneself/ones sexuality to be a minority, then s/he is taking a political stance and fighting against ideology and power structures of the time.

Judith Butler:

            In considering ‘the gray area’, we need to consider Judith Butler’s ideas. The first critique of Butler’s is that the ideas of ‘gay’ or ‘straight’ that we commonly use are actually repressive. These names of identity categories are used in order to regulate or control people’s behavior. However, in actuality, she believes sexuality to be much more complicated than the overly simplistic way we try to think of it as.

Butler also believes that a person’s gender is not something stagnant, constant, or easily defined. Rather, she has stated that one’s identity (here read as: sexual orientation and gender) can “become a constant state of revision” (as qtd in Barry, 98).This means that we can change or alter our identity. If we can revise our identity, then we can revise our gender and our sexuality, as both are elements of our identity.

Now, this may sound very bizarre for many of us. You may adamantly disagree with this idea. However, pause for a moment and consider, before you reject this. We are very used to only seeing these parts of life (gender and sexual orientation) in set or fixed categories. (For example: a person is heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Likewise, a person is either man OR woman.) But we rarely consider that a person changes his/her identity. If he/she does change, then we believe the change to be permanent. We do not think of a person’s gender or their sexual orientation as being something that can be changed depending on a person’s desire, the specific day or depending on the person they are currently dating. (ie—today I perform as a woman, tomorrow as a man. Or: with this person I am heterosexual; however, I may meet someone else who I can be attracted to or love who is the same sex as me, complicating my sexuality.) Essentially, we are trapped in our mindsets about sexuality because of our limited binary thinking. Butler believes that we “perform” our gender. If we perform it, then it is not a fixed identity. Rather, it may change depending on our performance.

Sexuality on a Continuum?

            In proceeding from Butler’s premises, one of the aspects explored by queer theorists and lesbian critics is the idea of sexuality existing on a continuum. This premise asks the question: what happens if rather than thinking of ourselves as being 100% hetero or homo, we instead considered sexuality as existing on a range? Therefore, perhaps we could break down our ideas of defined categories of sexuality. Could we state that someone is 75% hetero but 25% homo? Or 60% and 40%? This idea is very hard to understand and/or to accept because it challenges our normal and comfortable ideas of sexuality.

            However, it stands to reason: so many aspects of our identity are not constant or fixed, even though we try to make them that way (or we try to force them to be). For example, I self-identify as an extroverted person, but does that mean that I feel like a social person 100% of the time? Probably not. Rather, I probably have moments where I need to have some alone time. Another example is this: maybe I consider myself a faithful person who follows religious teachings. However, in a low or desperate moment maybe I cheat or lie or steal or have premarital sex. Does my identity cease to be religious completely? No, but because I am a complex individual; therefore, parts of my identity are not always constant. Likewise, queer theorists see sexuality (and gender) as being fluid, demonstrative, and performative as well.

Adrienne Rich

            You may know of Adrienne Rich through Poetry class. While she is an esteemed poet, Adrienne also wrote essays of criticism. One of her concepts is ‘compulsory heterosexuality’. Compulsory means something is required or“a must.” Rich believed that ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ is how society approaches the issue of sexuality with children. Essentially, society gives children no choice or freedom given to develop as they would naturally choose to develop. Instead, it is ‘required’ and an assumption made by most of society that the child is raised to become heterosexual. (This is shown to be the case in Indonesian culture too, as you do not usually use terms of ‘hetero’ and ‘homo’. Rather, heterosexuals are merely referred to as ‘normal’.  The implication here is that homosexuals are “not normal.”) Therefore, Rich critiques society for how this happens in society, labeling it “compulsory heterosexuality.”

            Think back to when we discussed feminist theory and Simone de Beauvior’s ideas in the Second Sex. Beauvior, you may remember, stated that women begin defining themselves and understanding their identity by comparing themselves to men. Girls start by saying or thinking, “I am not a boy,” whereas boys do not usually start with saying “I am not a girl.” This is because, as Beauvior pointed out, men are the subjects, the main ones, the superiors; whereas women are the objects.

            We can draw a parallel from Beauvior’s idea of defining oneself to queer theory. Homosexuals must first define by saying “I am not hetero.” However, heteros do not first begin by claiming, “I am not homo.” In this way we can see how society’s expectations and assumptions shape us. Also, we can better understand just what Rich means when she says that we live in a society that demands and expects ‘compulsory heterosexuality’.

Eve KosofskySedgwick

            In her piece, Epistemology of the Closet, Sedgwick deconstructs or breaks down the common American expression of “coming out of the closet.” When an individual “comes out of the closet” Americans understand that the person is declaring him/herself as homosexual. However, the term is over-simplified, argues Sedgwick.

If a person says that he/she has “come out of the closet,” then others think of them as entirely open about their sexual orientation. However, what does that statement really mean? Could s/he be “out,” or openly gay, to friends, but not to parents? Could she be “out” to everyone else in her life except her grandmother? If so, is she still partially ‘in the closet’? If at least one person doesn’t know about the person’s sexuality, then there is still part of him/her undisclosed to certain people in his/herlife? Therefore, the expression, “coming out of the closet,” while it is colloquially common in the US, is not as clear as it originally appears to be. Sedgwick points out how we seek to over-simplify parts of our sexuality, but actually they are more complicated in how they appear in our lives.

Exploring and Questioning the Essentialist Argument:

            As with feminists who consider whether one is ‘born a woman’ or whether one ‘becomes a woman’ through socially conditioning and teachings, likewise, queer theorists ask similar questions about queers, homosexuals, or sexual deviants. In asking whether someone is ‘essentially’ homosexual, they are asking whether an individual was born this way (and therefore, is “essentially” this way) or whether he/she became queer? Perhaps he/she chose this or perhaps he/she felt that this was chosen for them? Some critics believe in essentialism; others reject it. Like all theories, not all writers or critics agree.

Critiquing rigidly traditional or stereotypical roles:

            Just as feminism challenges traditional gender roles, so too does queer theory contest (what many believe are stereotypical) roles between partners. For example: some believe that homosexual couples usually consist of one more masculine figure and one more feminine figure (whether the couple isboth male or both female). While this sometimes happens to be true, it is not always the case. Some homosexual couples have two very masculine-seeming men or two very effeminate women. Other queer couples may have both partners appear as more androgynous. (This word refers to when a person’s gender is more ambiguous.)  Queer theorists may argue that heterosexuals are the ones who say that homosexual couples are “usually like this,” because that is how society understands the world, in binaries, where one partner is more masculine and one is more effeminate. But that is not always true in every example.

Challenging Homophobia:

            Homophobia is a word that means the irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals. Perhaps you may feel that you are not irrational in your beliefs, but you simply disagree with homosexuality and think it goes “against nature” or that it is a sin. I am not going to argue with beliefs, especially religious convictions. However, one important part in understanding homophobia is to understand that even though some people think homosexuality is a sin, culture and certain individuals tend to regard it as worse than some other types of sin, even when this notion is unfounded religiously.

            In the Christian religion in America, many Christians harshly judge homosexuals. However, there are homosexuals who profess the Christian religion. Nevertheless, these queer individuals are often times driven outside of church communities because culture or individuals see the sin of homosexuality as being worse than other sins. We may not say this openly, but it is shown from actions or (mis)treatment of homosexuals by mainstream society. For example: in church communities, there is often support (groups, information, etc) for individuals who suffer from alcoholism, drug abuse, or even pornography.  However, the gay community is often silenced, othered, and marginalized. Some are not even welcome within churches.

Though interestingly, there is nothing in the Bible that teaches that homosexuality is a worse sin than other types of sin or that it is unforgiveable. (On the contrary, Christian religion teaches all sin is wrong and no one is above others because we all sin and all fall short of God’s glory. Additionally, the only sin that is unforgiveable, biblically, is cursing the Holy Spirit.) Nevertheless, certain cultures, churches and individuals attach certain values or degrees of sinning. In both America and Indonesia, homosexuality is judged or thought of as a worse sin.

            Consequently, seeing homosexuality as a more deplorable sin than others is a form of homophobia. Another example of homophobia is the false belief or fear that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles. However, statistically in the US, heterosexual men are most likely to be pedophiles. Another example is when some males fear being around other homosexual men because they worry they will be hit on (or flirted with). However, the false logic here is that a gay man would be interested in any other man, rather than having a certain type of male he was interested in. If we consider this scenario from the opposite side, we may gain a new perspective. Most of us, as heterosexuals, are normally not attracted to any and all other persons of the opposite sex; we find that unrealistic. On the contrary we have certain types of people that we find more attractive and others not appealing to us at all. However, if we apply illogical or less rational thought processes about homosexuals, this too can function as a form of homophobia.

What do queer theorists and lesbian/gay critics do?

1.      Identify and establish a canon of 'classic' lesbian/gay writers whose work constitutes a distinct tradition. (Some example: Virginia Woolf, Vita Sackville-West, Dorothy Richardson, Rosamund Lehmann, and Radclyffe Hall.)

2.      Identify lesbian/gay episodes in mainstream work and discuss them as such (for example, therelationship between Jane and Helen in Jane Eyre), rather than reading same-sex pairings in non-specific ways, for instance, as symbolizing two aspects of the same character (Zimmerman).

a.       Another way to think about this is homoerotic relationships, moments, or episodes between friends or characters.

3.      Set up a metaphorical sense of 'lesbian/gay' so that it connotes a moment of crossing aboundary, or blurring a set of categories.

a.       Remember the word liminal from post-colonialism? This word can also be used for queer theory. Individuals or characters may have 'liminal' moments, or points where he/she self identifies as lesbian or gay, but perhaps in other ways or in the past has been heterosexual. Perhaps by doing this, a character is consciously or intentionally resisting established norms and boundaries of society.

4.      Expose 'homophobia' in mainstream literature and criticism. In exposing homophobia, critics may show how homosexuals are ignored or put down in literaryworks.

5.      Focus on homosexual aspects of mainstream literature which have previously been forgotten, ignored or minimized. For example: the strongly homo-erotic tenderness seen in a good deal of First World War poetry.

6.      Focus on literary genres that have been previously neglected, but whose themes have significantly influenced ideals of masculinityor femininity. For example, the nineteenth-century adventure stories with a British 'Empire' setting (for examplethose by Rudyard Kipling and Rider Haggard) discussed by Joseph Bristow in Empire Boys (Routledge, 1991).

Works Cited

Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Cultural and Literary Theory. 2^nd ed. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. 2002.

Butler, Judith, John Guillory, and Kendall Thomas.Ed.What’s Left of Theory? New Work on the Politics of Literary Theory. London, UK: Routledge, 2000.

-This literature is dedicated for my friend and beloved lecturer Danielle E. living in United States, and now pursuing her PhD program. This literature is part of the introduction of literature study when I was in a college. Written by my beloved lecturer. The reason I post this because I would like people to read this literature so that they will get more knowledge and be more critical toward perspectives and any literature texts. Thank you :)-