What Is Queer Theory - Essay Example

?Queer Theory Introduction It is undoubtedly true that our society has become more accepting of homosexuals over the years. Part of this may be attributed to the fact that there has been an ever evolving studies that has focused upon gay and lesbian issues, which has been evolving since the 1970s, which is when gay and lesbian issues began to take their place in the fore of societal consciousness. Still, gay and lesbian studies has not taken over sociology to where it has become a major part of study. Rather, it has been compartmentalized and put into a small part of sociology. Mainly, it has been studied in the context of other studies, such as culture, gender and sexuality. Queer theory is different, however. It is different in that it does not look at gay and lesbianism as being compartmentalized. It recognizes that sexuality is fluid, and that people who are gay and lesbian may not necessarily have rigid sexuality. More importantly, queer theory is not focused strictly upon gay and lesbian issues per se. Rather, it brings a queer sensibility to many areas of modern life, even areas that are not traditionally thought to be associated with gay and lesbian issues – such as economics, for instance. Queer theory also is interested in looking at heterosexual literature with a queer lens, so that, for instance, a certain piece of literature or art could be interpreted in a way that would encompass queer theory. In other words, queer theory is much more of a sweeping theory than gay and lesbian theory, therefore it potentially has a much larger reach. Moreover, it has the possibility of transforming sociological studies in a greater way than gay and lesbian theory has. This essay will examine queer theory, what it is, and how it is different than gay and lesbian theory. It will also examine some examples of queer theory, and how queer theory recognizes the fluidity of gender constructions, and how gender is, in general, a construct of culture, which is opposed to sex, which is innate. Just like a person is born male or female, but is not necessarily would be considered to be the gender of his or her birth, so do gays and lesbians blur the cultural construct of the genders. Discussion According to Turner (2000), queer theory addresses how lesbians, gays and transsexuals raise questions about how we understand sex, the sexes and gender. Sullivan (2003) states that sexuality is not natural, but, rather is discursively constructed, and is understood in ways that are culturally and historically specific. Therefore, the very definitions of homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality are culturally specific. And the labels of heterosexual and homosexual mean something very different today than they have in the past, and these labels have been culturally constructed. As Sullivan (2003) notes, there are cultures where same-sex relations have been integral and socially acceptable, but these relations have taken different forms. For instance, in New Guinea, it is culturally acceptable for older boys to orally inseminate younger boys, and these younger boys do the same when they grow older. Then, when the younger boys become adults, they get married and have children of their own. However, during the same period that these actions were culturally accepted in New Guinea, different countries, such as Great Britain and most of Northern Europe, were taking different tacts towards homosexual behavior – Great Britain had the death penalty for buggery, which is what sodomy was known as. As Stein and Plummer (1994) note, Michel Foucault states that sexuality in general has always been something that has been constructed through institutional discourses, such as the Victorian Era when sex meant something very different than what it means today, particularly for women. Along that same vein, homosexuality as we know it today is defined by discursive discourse, and that is why the conception of homosexuality is so different than what it was in the past, and what it is, even now, in different cultures. Because of this, Foucault states that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to define the essence of homosexuality. Kirsch (2006) states that queer theory has risen up because there has increasingly been the recognition that gay and lesbian studies have been inadequate, because these studies tend to categorize, while queer theory does not. Moreover, the difference between gay and lesbian studies and queer theory has been generational. Gay and lesbian theory rose to prominence during the 1960s and 1970s, which is when the oppressed gays and lesbians were just starting to rise up and take their rightful place in society. In contrast, according to Kirsch (2006), queer theory has been trumpeted by those who were not a part of the social movement. Moreover, as gay and lesbian studies tended to put their subjects into a box of being a gay or a lesbian, with queer theory, there is more of a belief that identity is impossible and fluid, and that we have visions of ourselves that change regularly. Therefore, queer theory is based upon a resistance identity, or a resistance to being pinpointed as having a sexual identity. The core of the queer theory is that it is inclusive. It acts as a deconstruction to gay and lesbian theory and the categories that gay and lesbian theory engenders. Berlant & Warner (1995) see queer theory as being broadly sweeping, and should not be reduced to a specialty or a metatheory. They state that queer theory is not the theory of anything in particular. They see that queer theory examines such broad topics as whether there is a relationship between official public policy and the media public sphere. Queer commentary can be a juxtaposition to the normal, which has been, in history, fetishized. They trace the beginning of the queer theory to the early 1990s, with AIDS activism, which forced queer theory into the mainstream. Stein and Plummer (1994) state that gays and lesbians have not fundamentally transformed sociology, much like feminists have not fundamentally transformed sociology. In other words, gays and lesbians, while a major part of sociology, are still subsets, and are studied in the margins. The studies of gays and lesbians are grouped in with the studies of deviance, gender, and sexuality. Other times, sociologists have deemed the study of gays and lesbians to be particularistic, so they are not necessarily interested in them. Because of this, the gays and lesbians are marginalized as being merely sexual minorities, and the sociological explanation for them is lacking or missing. That said, Stein and Plummer (1994) state that queer studies is different, with regards to the impact that it has had to other disciplines, such as sociology, anthropology, literature, film studies, and cultural history. This is because, according to Stein and Plummer (1994), queers have become much more involved in politics and our everyday life than are the gays and lesbians in their strict categories. In the essays of queer theorists, such as Judith Butler, who is discussed below, queer theory is described as a theory that sees that sexuality is something that is front in center in daily life, and that sexuality is expressed discursively, and is subject to binary boundaries. Moreover, queer theory recognizes that sexual and gender categories are problematic and often blurred, and, as discussed above, fluid. Moreover, queer theory is contrasted to gay and lesbian theory, in that it rejects straight-up civil rights strategies, instead choosing to make its points through parody, carnival and transgression. This leads to deconstruction, revisionist readings, decentering, and the politics of anti-assimilation. Moreover, queer theory is open to reading traditionally heterosexual texts in a new way, and is willing to delve into areas which are not necessarily associated with gays and lesbians. For instance, they might read the texts by Holland et al. (2002), which regards stories of the first time having heterosexual sex, and interpret this text in a way that would encompass gays and lesbians. The same with Duncombe and Marsden’s (2002) essay regarding why women are unhappy in the bedroom, and don’t want sex, and why they are labeled as frigid, when the problem is with their partner – this, too, could be extrapolated towards homosexuals in queer theory. As another example, Newton’s (2002) essay on drag and camp -drag queens are simply men who wear women’s clothes, thus are stigmatized; while camp is another level, in that it usually involves some type of entertainment, thus is more socially acceptable – would be more broadly interpreted so that it has sociological import. As still another example, the essay by Seidman (2002), about the sexualisation of love, would be used to specifically explain the sexualisation of homosexual love, especially since most states do not allow gay persons to be married, therefore their love must be outside of marriage. So, in queer theory, this essay could be interpreted as another reason why gay marriage should be legalized, because it would make gay sex more acceptable, in that it would be within confines of a marriage. Stein and Plummer (1994) further take issue with gay and lesbian studies because these studies necessarily group gays and lesbians as “other.” This creates binary oppositions, with an intact center. In contrast, the queer theory eschews the notion that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders are other, and the theory is also interested in how gays and lesbians are impacted by aspects of daily life that is not traditionally thought to be a part of gay and lesbian studies. For instance, they might examine the economy, and how the economy impacts gays and lesbians. Queer theory also fights the notion that gays and lesbians are “other,” as it fights the notion that gays and lesbians are deviant, or that they are merely living an alternative lifestyle. Queer theorists look at the world through queer eyes - as noted above, they look at the economy through a queer lens, and they view all other aspects of daily life through this same lens – personal life, politics, everything. So, queer theory explores different aspects of fluidity in gender, and not everybody is in a neat little box, like they are in gay and lesbian studies (Newton, 2002). Butler (1990) has written essays which are related to queer theory, and, in one of her essays, she explores how gender is a cultural construct, and how gays and lesbians often subvert the culturally “acceptable” meaning of the terms “man” and “woman.” For instance, she notes that the feminine pronoun “she” may or may not belong to an actual woman. The term “masculinity” may be used in a lesbian context to denote a woman, even though that is a term that, culturally, at least within the dominant culture, would belong to a man. This means that the term “masculine” is used to describe a female body, which brings the term into juxtaposition, and opposition, to how our dominant culture traditionally looks at the term “masculine.” In this way, Butler demonstrates how the sign and the signifier are often subverted within the lesbian world. This is the same with the gay world, as men may dress as women and take feminine names. Indeed, “butch” females, and “femme” men call into question that there is a natural gendered identity with which we identify. This notion that gender is cultural, not innate, is also discussed within the context of gender studies, which is related to queer theory and studies, as both study gender and how gender is culturally constructed. Ingraham (2002) states that sex, in general, is something that is culturally constructed. Technically, the notion that sex is culturally constructed is termed gender, as the gender is what is culturally defined, as opposed to sex. One is born male or female, so that is one's sex. One's gender, however, is what is defined by culture. Gender is what is defined by socialization. Gender is composed of masculine or feminine achieved characteristics. Therefore, this theory is what grounds Butler's theory regarding butch females and femme males – their gender is not their sex, and their gender is what is defined by the culture, or, in this case, their sub-culture of other lesbians and gays. As such, their gender is not set, but fluid. Conclusion Queer theory recognizes that gays and lesbians cannot be put into compartments. To put theory regarding gays and lesbians into compartments marginalizes the theory, so that it cannot become a large part of sociological studies. Queer theory provides a solution to this problem, as queer theory understands that gay and lesbian theory needs to be expanded into areas that are not traditionally thought of as homosexually oriented. In this way, queer theory has the potential to be more relevant to general discourse and sociological theory than gay and lesbian theory might be. And queer theory proves that gender and homosexuality are both cultural constructs. In gender theory, a person is born female or male, in that they have the right amount of chromosomes and the right genitals. However, whether one has the gender of a man or a woman depends on other factors. Not only that, but what It means to be a man or a woman depends upon culture and society. Likewise, queer theory recognizes that the meaning of homosexuality depends upon culture, as well as how homosexuality is accepted is also cultural. In some cultures, it is an accepted, even normal, practice. In other societies, it is literally at capital offense. And gender's fluidity is even more pronounced in queer theory. Queer theory therefore encompasses all of these issues and more. Bibliography Berlant, L. & Warner, M. (1995) What does queer theory teach us about X? Journal of Modern Language Association of America, 110: 343-350. Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge. Duncombe, J. & Marsden, D. (2002) Whose orgasm is this anyway? In Jackson, S. & Scott, S. (2002) Gender: A Sociological Reader. London: Routledge. Holland, H., Ramazanglu, C. & Thomson, R. (2002) In the same boat? In Jackson, S. & Scott, S. (2002) Gender: A Sociological Reader. London: Routledge. Ingraham, C. (2002) The heterosexual imaginary. In Jackson, S. & Scott, S. (2002) Gender: A Sociological Reader. London: Routledge. Kirsch, M. (2006) Queer theory, late capitalism, and internalized homophobia. In Lovaas, K., Elia, J. & Yep, G. (2006) LBT Studies and Queer Theory: New Conflicts, Collaborations, and Contested Terrain. New York: Harrington Park Press. Newton, E. (2002) Drag and camp. In Jackson, S. & Scott, S. (2002) Gender: A Sociological Reader. London: Routledge. Seidman, S. (2002) The sexualisation of love. In Jackson, S. & Scott, S. (2002) Gender: A Sociological Reader. London: Routledge. Stein, A. & Plummer, K. (1994) “I can't even think straight!” “Queer” theory and the missing sexual revolution in sociology. Sociological Theory, 12.2: 178-187. Sullivan, N. (2003) A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory. New York: New York `University Press. Turner, W. (2000) A Genealogy of Queer Theory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Read More