Queer Theory: A Space of Inclusion
In her revolutionary work “Epistemology of the closet”, Eve Sedgwick takes a deconstructionist approach to the study of queer theory, emerging most prominently in the 1980s and 1990’s, suggesting that gender and sexuality today are both constructed and enforced by culture and dominant ideologies. “Introduction: Axiomatic” is foundational to her work in queer theory as her examination of the historical construction of gender and the reductive binary fixations employed by cultures shows how free and genuine expression of gender can be hindered. Social binaries force homosexuality to navigate a culture in favour of heterosexuality, thus denying it of its own proper ‘category’; this, I argue, is problematic. Sedgwick uses a gay-affirmative motivation to challenge mainstream assumptions about gender and sexuality, aiming to break down the strong metaphorical divide between homo/heterosexuality (3). Queer theory, as discussed by Sedgwick, attempts to challenge the ways in which heterosexuality has been socially constructed as ‘normal’ and actively regarded as a comparative term for all else which is ‘devious’ or falls outside these confines; as subordinate and as part of, but not its own separate category of identification.
Throughout this course, I have come to understand the quintessential importance of language and its capacity to express and qualify not only knowledge, but also the representation and identities of social subjects. Thus, I argue that there is importance, especially in Sedgwick’s body of theory, in analyzing more critically the title of this work: “Epistemology of the Closet”, and how it directs readers to understand the correlation between the history of knowledge concerning homosexuality and queer theory and the social construction of gender. The term “closet”, in my opinion, is used to connote an experience that places homosexual or queer identity in a space that limits its freedom, reducing it to a universal way for the world to classify and understand sexual identity. In the context of queer theory, imagery associated with the term “closet” delineates a confined, hidden experience; a dark and isolated space in which whomever is placed inside longs only to escape or ‘see the light’. Sedgwick explains that “modern western culture has placed sexuality in a more and more distinctively privileged relation to our most prized constructs of individual identity, truth, and knowledge…”(3), here, I would agree that the use of the term “closest” suggests a sort of hierarchization of power and gender in that fear and guilt is associated with homosexuality solely because it does not comply with mainstream heteronormativity. Sedgwick builds upon Foucault’s writings on sexuality and his theory that knowledge and meaning is bi-product of social discourses that fix gender into rigid binary categories. Sedgwick argues that political and social discourses and “…major nodes of thought and knowledge in the twentieth-century Western culture as a whole are structured…by a chronic crisis of homo/heterosexual definition.” (1). Although classifications such as male/female, gay/straight merge into dominant societal ideologies and discourses, gender identity should be fluid — queer theory then, aims to see gender as a continuum rather than a rigid categorization. Thus, “world-mapping” and “institutionalized taxonomic discourses” that assign individuals a homo or heterosexuality in addition to an assigned a male/female gender, is in fact problematic (Sedgwick 2).
Sedgwick explores seven axioms which support her queer theory and provide a starting point to a better understanding of the cultural construction of gender identity in mainstream society. In this section, I will expand upon two axioms I found particularly interesting in order to closely examine how personal identity is hindered when binaries are systematically institutionalized as common-sense principles and used reductively to group individuals. I will focus on axioms one and two and provide contemporary examples to elevate my analysis.
In addition to the ideas highlighted above, Sedgwick lists numerous ways in which individuals are different — not just biologically, but also in the ways they choose to identify and express themselves (23). She proposes that although identity markers — race, class, gender, nationality — may suggest that people partake in similar roles, they do not accurately represent, nor fully encompass uniqueness and individuality(24). For example, I am a student, but I am not only a student, nor do I consider myself the exact same type of student as all other students in my class. Similarly, Sedgwick lists that in terms of sexuality, genital acts mean different things to different people, also, just as some people may spend a lot of time having or thinking about having sex others may not (25). From this, it is apparent that deconstruction by means of difference is a good starting point at recognizing individual potential beyond the confines of universal binary assumptions. Earlier this year Mattel toys came out with a new set of gender neutral dolls with their tagline reading “Lets Toys Be Toys, So Kids Can Just Be Kids”. Mattel recognizes the importance of inclusion despite differences in gender expression and sexuality, and attempts to lessen the divide between traditional male/female roles, showing kids that it is okay to be or feel ‘different’, because there is a toy for that too!
Mattel Gender Neutral Dolls:
https://time.com/5684822/mattel-gender-neutral-doll/
Moreover, Sedgwick looks at the differences between gender, sex and sexuality, defining them as separate terms that are not telling of one another. Sedgwick makes three definitional distinctions: gender refers to cultural meanings that influence personal identities and self perception — seen as variable and highly relational (27), sex refers to the innate, immanent and biologically based composition of chromosomes in correspondence with physical genitalia (28), sexuality refers to sexual attraction, practices and pleasures independent of biological sex and gender (29). This distinction, in my opinion, is of immense importance because the lack of clarity prompted by the overlapping of these terms is what strengthens societal construction of mainstream identities. A better understanding of these divisions will allow for a more informed society that veers from offensive terminology and assumptive language. The YouTube Channel “Queer Kids Stuff” is a platform that features LGBTQ+ educational videos for people of all ages. This is a great way to inform individuals of differences in terminologies, expressions, sexualities as well as intersectional oppressions, so that societies can work against restrictive binaries. Furthermore, Sedgwick notes that not only gender, but “a variety of forms of oppression intertwine systematically with each other…the person who is disabled through one set of oppressions may by the same positioning be enabled through others ” (32). She provides the example of a married woman noting how her use of a married name shows her subordination as a woman while also showing her privilege as presumptive heterosexual.
Queer Kids Stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCecsVoeJcsXbAra7Sl4mOPw/videos
Overall, I believe that effort should be taken in working towards minimizing stereotypes, grouped classifications and binary extremities of gender in society. In order to create a more gender fluid spectrum better care must be taken in choosing constructive terminology that address queerness and homosexuality in an inclusive and positive manner.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Epistomology Of the Closet. Berkley, California, University of California Press, 2008.
