Queers Theory Discrediting of Permanent Sexes, Genders - Coursework Example

I. Introduction In every epoch the ideas of the ruling are the ruling ideas, that is, the that is the ruling material power of societyis at the same time its ruling intellectual power. Karl Marx (Garber 2001: 41). Queer theory emerged as a line of investigation within the recent decades. From its meek early developments in the academic fields of literature and the social sciences, particularly in philosophy, recent works at present are specially intended for the social sciences and even for the doctrine of medicine as areas for the rereading of supposed concepts. The implication of these works for social theory as well as in social change remains to be effectively assessed. In the lure to be new, very essential in the academic community and in Western culture, the field of Queer theory has assumed on a new significance without particular purposes or goals. In the stream of interest to set up new scholarly and popular frontiers, the orientation of this theory has been heavily directed at demonstrating how and why long-standing disciplinary accounts have fallen short to defend and do justice to queer groups. However, quite a handful of thorough analyses have investigated the implications and effects of these queer perspectives on current academic disciplines, or possibly will more significantly, in the framework of contemporary social life. The concept of ‘queer,’ in that case, is the deconstruction of common ideas regarding gender and sexuality, from their embodiment in literature, movies and music to their assignment to the social as well as in the physical sciences. The movement of ‘queer’ is in fact the ‘queering’ of traditions, spanning from the rereading of characters in literatures and movies to the reviewing of historical analyses. As a movement, we have witnessed the declaration of identity of queers, particularly labelled as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual, as human behaviour variations that possess their individual rights. As a theory, the origin of queer from post structuralism and postmodernism results into the elimination of all classifications as restricting and branded by prevailing power structures. II. Understanding the Social Construction of Gay and Lesbian Identities Before the concept of ‘queer’ was, in its best notion, jargon for homosexual, in its worst, a notion of homophobic ill-treatment. In current years ‘queer’ has been used diversely, at times an umbrella concept for an association of culturally minor sexual self-identities and sometimes to illustrate an emerging theoretical framework which has emerged out of more long-established gay and lesbian studies. The abrupt development and reinforcement of gay and lesbian studies in universities almost two decades ago is matched by an increasing use of the concept of ‘queer’ (Gardiner 2002). While queer is incomparable with any particular identity group, it has the possibility to be appropriated productively to any sort of discussions. In the historical narrative of disciplinary developments, gay and lesbian studies are itself a comparatively current creation and queer theory can be viewed as its newest institutional change (Gardiner 2002). Generally speaking, queer illustrates those gestures or systematic frameworks which produce confusions in the supposedly established links between chromosomal sex, sexual orientation and sexual urge. Opposing that framework of permanence, this maintains heterosexuality as its root, when it is more appropriately its implication, queer puts emphasis on differences between sex, sexual orientation or gender, and urge. Traditionally, queer has been connected most importantly with gay and lesbian issues, but its systematic model as well involves such issues as gender uncertainty, gender-corrective surgical procedures, hermaphroditism and cross-dressing; whether as presentation of transvestite or academic re-interpretation, queer situates and develops the confusions in those three concepts which strengthen heterosexuality (Hammons 2007). Showing the impracticality of any inherent sexuality, it questions even such evidently uncomplicated names as ‘man’ and ‘woman.’ The current involvement of this challenging term ‘queer’ in altogether more respectful academic discussions indicates that long-established frameworks have been broken; though its emergence also signifies stability. Queer’s theory discrediting of permanent sexes, genders and sexual desires grows out of a particularly gay and lesbian reinterpreting of the post-structuralist identifying of identity as a collection of diverse and unbalanced standpoints. Queer is not constantly viewed, though, as an adequate explanation of or shorthand for ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian.’ Even though several scholars accept queer as “another discursive horizon, another way of thinking the sexual,” (Hammons 2007: 238) others doubt its usefulness. The most generally articulated concerns are aggravated by such concerns as whether a standard masculinity could be restored at the heart of the presumably gender-objective queer; whether queer’s inspirational disrespect for prevailing structures of gender falls short to take into account the physical and material circumstances of the west in the latter part of the twentieth century; whether queer basically reproduces, with a sort of historical amnesia, the perspectives and demands of a previous gay movement; and whether, since its constituency is nearly limitless, queer involves identity-related groupings whose politics are less radical than those of the gay and lesbian groups with which they are supported (Pinar 1998). Whatever ambiguities construct queer, there is no uncertainty that its current reuse is creating a considerable effect on gay and lesbian studies. Though, almost as immediately as queer instituted market prevalence as an accent mark concept, and definitely before securing itself in any plain vernacular logic, some thinkers are by now indicating that its time had passed and that queer theory as well a queer politics could, already, have outlasted its political value. Does queer turn out to be obsolete the time it is a logical and broadly dispersed term? In some points and in some articulations, undoubtedly, queer accomplishes little more than serve as shorthand for the ungainly gay and lesbian, or present itself as a new reinforcement of identity, through constructing more modishly an otherwise unreconstructed gender and sexual fundamentalism. Definitely, its immediate and frequently trusting acceptance has occasionally excluded what is possibly most important and needed about the concept. III. Conclusion We are aware that homosexuality is identified in the domain of prevailing ideological relations as an unusual kind of heterosexuality, whether those who would reinterpret heterosexuality as a notion would have it or otherwise. Heterosexuality, on the contrary, does not demand homosexuality for its personal description in mainstream thought. Since there is no investigation of this irregularity on the sphere in the postmodernist path, the manner in which heterosexuality is emphasised as the only accurate and leading social form is in no way followed. Queerness as an unusual type of heterosexuality leads into repression. When this reality is not faced, it can result into maladaptive reactions that involve the symptoms of entrenched homophobia: despair, obsession, submission and indifference. These are very much responses to the means in which we see ourselves, which consequently are, at least partly, because of the ways in which we are consistently instructed to see ourselves. At this point, the creation of consciousness assumes an exceptionally tangible form. Those tolerating this form of antagonism cannot, even in the academic community, simply choose to separate. We cannot easily decline to recognise these realities of social life in the present society, and anticipate that our conditions will change. Even though the lack of description is what has motivated the application of ‘queer’, it cannot, “overcome its constituent history of injury” (Kirsch 2000: 91) as Judith Butler argues. Be that as it perhaps will, ‘queer’ as claimed by Queer thinkers, has no innate historical or social perspective. Supporters of ‘queer’ do not recognise that queer is created by social relations, and hence includes the features of present social relations. However interesting the notion of situating the self through a deconstruction of the ‘I’ perhaps will be, it is misdirected as a political movement: it cannot create the collective power and organisation needed to defy present power structures. As stated by Michael Aglietta, “There is no magical road where the most abstract concepts magically command the movement of society” (Kirsch 2000: 92). The issue of politics, in this case, carries us back to where we started: what is the inherent character of the political and how do we deal with it? Is it advantageous to maintain agreements with traditional political parties? Can we accept our prevailing cultural values and still anticipate reforming the natures of those values? How do we establish associations with other exploited and repressed groups? Is there a structure-oriented economic foundation for such an association, or should we search elsewhere? May be most essentially: is it probable, provided with the enormous resources embodied by the prevailing and oppressive ideology of our current social relations, to sustain the energy needed to develop and prolong forms of resistance that contradict it? In the fullest sense, we should become aware that inequality will not be mitigated through capitalism. The incentives of labour and production will remain disproportionately allocated, compensating those who refuse to defy the roots of inequality while exploiting those with an assertion to improved privileges, rights and resources. This does not imply recoil into submission, though. Mechanisms of change are not twofold. Working towards transformation that can defy the dynamic principles of inequality establishes communities that can broaden the objectives of equal participation. Some social scientists inform us that the roots of class struggle, socialism, feminist movement, and gay and lesbian rights all possess their individual measures that make conformity difficult. Engels’ argument that “in all times of great agitation, the traditional bonds of sexual relations, like all other fetters, are shaken off,” (Talburt & Steinberg 2000: 58) is inadequately borne out in a time in which the confrontation is more between minorities than against points of exploitation and oppression. This confrontation is a decision also. And yet again, it follows a judgment that separates and overpowers rather than integrates. Queer theory, in that case, has to be reoriented to consider the realities of everyday life in a capitalistic social order. This implies an end to scholarly bearing, where obscurity is more appreciated than means for acknowledgement and community-building. In a genuine sense of the individual as well as the political, this involves a complete accounting of the position of perspective by those creating a new type of ‘meta-narrative.’ The actuality of class should be reintegrated into structures of resistance that involve a consciousness of inequality that is contributory rather than contradictory. Structures of resistance are not modes that can be altered like the flush of seasons; there are bases of economic and dynamic inequality that are present and have to be dealt with as such (Talburt & Steinberg 2000). We hope for a future where claims around variation and inequality are nonexistent and unnecessary. The ultimate objective of any movement of opposition to oppression should be an ultimate objective to that exploitation. The directions of strategy and awareness are not plain constructs: they rely on the construction of identity around concerns that can establish actual community. In a world where the danger of annihilation through warfare and bloodshed is a very genuine threat, the demand for the recognition with social movements that could function toward a society where everyone and everything is appreciated, both personally and collectively, is just a start, yet a necessary one. References Auslander, L. (1997), Do Womens + Feminist + Mens + Lesbian and Gay + Queer Studies Gender Studies? Differences , 1+. Bernstein, M. & Reimann, R. (2001), Queer Families, Queer Politics: Challenging Culture and the State, New York: Columbia University Press. Creekmur, C. K. & Doty, A. (1995), Out in Culture: Gay, Lesbian and Queer Essays on Popular Culture, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Erni, J. N. (1996), Eternal Excesses: Toward a Queer Mode of Articulation in Social Theory, American Literary History , 566. Garber, L. (2001), Identity Poetics: Race, Class and the Lesbian-Feminist Roots of Queer Theory, New York: Columbia University Press. Gardiner, J. K. (2002), Masculinity Studies & Feminist Theory: New Directions, New York: Columbia University Press. Hammons, P. (2007), Queer Theory Reassessing History, CLIO , 237+. Kirsch, M. H. (2000), Queer Theory and Social Change, London: Routledge. Pinar, W. F. (1998), Queer Theory in Education, New York: Peter Lang. Talburt, S. & Steinberg, S.R. (2000), Thinking Queer: Sexuality, Culture and Education, New York: Peter lang. Read More