Hello all! I am sorry for my lack of blogging lately, but I fully intend to catch up by the end of this week. So going all the way back to Sedgwick and the excerpts we read from her book Tendencies....
Overall, I thought Sedgwick made a lot of good points and brought up some interesting ideas about the use of the first person in queer theory, but I want to draw your attention to the way she defines "queer." She defines "queer" several times throughout this excerpt and the first time she defines it as such:
Queer is a continuing moment, movement, motive-recurrent, eddying, troublant. The word "queer" itself means across- it comes from the Indo-European root -twerkw, which also yields the German quer (transverse), Latin torquere (to twist), English athwert...across genders, across sexualities, across genres, across perversions. (xii)
"Queer," as Sedgwick defines it here, is a motion across boundaries it is that which does not lie in one particular category. (Perhaps this is the reason people feel uneasy with things that are "queer"-because they are not easily defined and mess with societal boundaries). However, by having "queer" mean across boundaries or, in other words, something that is not strictly within the a social norm, doesn't the term "queer" become a catch-all phrase, simply meaning "not of the norm?" Indeed this all inclusive definitions of "queer" seems to be what Sedgwick is pointing to. Later in the essay, Sedgwick creates a list of ways to define one's sexuality to exemplify how many factors go into determining one's sexuality (7). This shows how there are several opportunities for one to define their sexuality across boundaries, thereby occupying a position that is not purely heterosexual. As Sedgwick claims herself:
With or without that heterosexist assumption , though, what's striking is the number and difference of the dimensions that "sexual identity" is supposed to organize into a seamless univocal whole. And if it doesn't? That's one of the things that "queer" can refer to: the open mesh of possibilities, gaps, overlaps, dissonances and resonances, lapses and excesses of meaning when the constituent elements of any one's gender, of any one's sexuality aren't made (or can't be made) to signify monolithically. (8)
Now, to me this just seems to be saying that "queer" pretty much encompasses anything that is not strictly defined within the boundaries of the norm. But what advantage does she gain from this? Almost no one is strictly within the norm of sexual identity. Sedgwick points out this fact later on in the paragraph when she goes on and on with examples of people that would not be considered "normal"(8). But if almost everyone is "queer" where is the force behind this word? Does it still allow specific groups of queer people (for example, homosexuals) to use its agency?
In the forward she discusses the political movements that have gone on for queers and in particular a rally she participated in. By making "queer" a catch-all term she allows several groups of people to identify with that word and join the cause; however, there is also a downside to this. Allowing the term "queer" to be employed by any one of atypical sexuality diversifies and muddles the meaning of the word making it simply t a word to be used to push for a general acceptance of abnormal sexuality rather than allowing it to be employed by a specific group, such as homosexuals, to fight for issues that are effecting them in particular. By not defining the term a little more precisely Sedgwick steals a specific groups identity (specifically the homosexuals) and lumps all atypical sexualities, with various different agendas, into one group-the group "queer."
Another issue with defining "queer" so broadly is that you can then create several divisions among the group. It is not one universal sexuality with one universal agenda; Sedgwick has created a very diverse group. Does a straight female who really loves being the sadistic one in S&M role playing really have the same political agenda as a homosexual male? Would this not lead to a factioning of the category "queer" and thereby weaken the only power that was gained from having it be a catch all phrase? Would it not eventually create a "queer" within the "queer?" While I understand she was trying to make a point that society too narrowly defines what is considered a "normal" sexual identity, what she ends up doing is encompassing almost everyone under a slightly restricted heading of "queer." In an idealistic world maybe the group "queer" could accomplish all the goals of all the groups of people it encompasses, but realistically this is a group of diverse individuals with different (and possibly opposing) political agendas and the group "queer" would be used to define them all which weakens the term's agency. For example, "American" is a term used to define a large group of people with diverse political views and agendas. Now this term can be applied to gain some sort of agency when it is used in context with other countries, but it cannot be used within America for its agency. Say you have someone who is pro-choice and someone else that is pro-life. They can not both rally under the name "Americans" for both those causes, it wouldn't make sense. Since "queer" as Sedgwick defines encompasses such a large group of diverse individuals they have the potential of running into that problem. The title people gather under needs to clearly define their political agenda in order for it to have its maximum agency as a title, and to steal the word "queer" from the homosexuals as a rallying point by making it a catch-all phrase could be highly detrimental to their political agenda.
ASIDE: If you want to watch some funny and well done videos about gay rights check out http://fckh8.com/BornThisWay/ !
No comments:
Post a Comment