Queer Theory, Essay Example

Michel Foucault was a post-structuralist (in his later career) who said that our concepts of sexuality are changing according to his work “The History of Sexuality”. This change is based on a historical as well as a cultural structure. These structures are defined by the relationship between them and influenced through a contingent scope of societal expectations. In Foucault’s opinion the fluidity, or ability for sexuality to change (sexual liberation) can only be begotten through a political liberation. Thus sexual and political liberation are intertwined. This theory lays the groundwork for queer theory; a theory in which the interlocking of politics to sexuality and gender becomes necessary and apparent. In queer theory, the thought of a person’s identity being tied to their gender or their sexuality is antiquated and not endemic of the current times in which we live (or hope to live).

Foucault argues that these antiquated thoughts about sexuality are based purely on the repressive hypothesis. This in turn claims that sexuality, in the course of history, has been treated through repressive mannerisms (in Foucault’s opinion this had to do with middle French ideas of hedonism and the bourgeoise in which sex was confined strictly to marriage); “In actual fact. The manifold sexualities – those which appear with the different ages (sexualities of the infant or the child), those which become fixated on particular tastes or practices (the sexuality of the invert, the gerontophile, the fetishist), those which, in a diffuse manner, invest relationships (the sexuality of doctor and patient, teacher and student, psychiatrist and mental patient), those which haunt spaces (the sexuality of the home, the school, the prison)- all form the correlate of exact procedures of power.” (Foucault 47). This is all groundwork for queer theory in that it shows what this theory was up against and what this theory was trying to break away from in terms of historical context for sexuality (the confines of not just marriage but of gender).

Foucault’s curiosityisn’t limited to the confines of sexuality but to the reason why sexuality has been so taboo. Foucault claims that in 17^th century France the discourse of sexuality was not only taboo but society tried to prevent any type of speaking about it; thus, society’s attempt to control even talking about sex, just made talking about sex that much more appealing. The nature of that discourse, however, changed as it was considered a taboo thing and it went against societal rules. This firmly established sex as something to be talked about behind closed doors as it were; and thus, sex was associated with this clandestine environment, “…new rules of propriety screened out some words. There was a policing of statements. A control over enunciations as well: where and when it was not possible to talk about such things became much more strictly defined; in which circumstances, among which speakers, and within which social relationships” (Foucault 18). It is no wonder that after four hundred years of sexuality repression we’re finally able to talk about sex that the discourse about homosexuality is being discussed and treated like it’s 17^th century fornication.

The context of sexuality as taboo is thanks in large part to the church, as it was important to confess sins, and sex was a sin (i.e. even in different forms such as dreams or thoughts). The discourse about sex transferred to a discourse about secrets: thus, sex and secrets were one and the same thing and sex had to be talked about in secret (confessional) and done in secret (perhaps also in the confessional); “The question I would like to pose is not, Why are we repressed? but rather, Why do we say, with so much passion and so much resentment… that we are repressed? By what spiral did we come to affirm that sex is negated? What led us to show, ostentatiously, that sex is something we hide, to say it is something we silence?…I do not maintain that prohibition of sex is a ruse; but it is a ruse to make prohibition into the basic and constitutive element from which one would be able to write the history of what has been said concerning sex starting from the modern epoch.” (Foucault 16).Since sex was trying to be controlled during this time, people were also trying to make sure that others felt shameful about it (for instance, the shaming chairs in Scotland for the Calvinist religion). One way in which sexuality was trying to be controlled was the fact that sodomy was a criminal act up until the 19^th century.

Homosexuality, during this timeframe, wasn’t considered to be an act, but an identity (during this timeframe, a person’s identity was his soul—as defined by the church). Thus, a person’s sexuality was their identity, their personality, their acts/behavior. The entirety of a person, Foucault argues, isn’t comprised on their sexuality; a vegan isn’t known to have their personality transformed through their dietary habits. This association between sexuality and gender and personality is something that is focused on in “Queer and Present Danger” in which a Jewish boy becomes a scientologist, leaves the religion and then becomes a woman.

Throughout the course of the book the narrator claims to not associate their gender with their personality. They did not feel like a boy and in fact, felt like they were lying when they told people they were a boy, “I knew what a boy was—I could see them on television, but they weren’t me” (6).In order to fit into society’s configuration of proper sexuality Kate Bornstein had to lie. She had to lie about how she felt, who she was, and who she wanted to be. All of these lies fall into that 17^th century repression Foucault talked about; “[T]hus one should not think that desire is repressed, for the simple reason that the law is what constitutes both desire and the lack on which it is predicated. Where there is desire, the power relation is already present: an illusion, then, to denounce this relation for a repression exerted after the event” (Foucault). Bornstein had to lie because it was easier for her in regards to society’s judgment on her. If she wanted to fit into society she had to make sure that society accepted her as one of their own, and in order for society to accept her as one of their own they had to understand what she was. It’s simpler to label someone as a boy or as a girl; much harder to leave someone unlabeled. Thus, her book exemplifies how hard it is in society to not have a label—or to try and not have one’s sexuality or gender, define their personality.

Bornstein’s book in part talks about the queer movement, or queer theory. This is done when she discusses how she felt she had to lie to people about who she really was, or who she felt she should be. Many homosexuals feel as if they have to lie to their friends and family in order for them to continue to accept and love them. That’s why “coming out” is such a big deal for them; it allows them to affirm their identity to the people they care about most in the world. In some instances this “coming out” is accepted with love and understanding and in some instances the homosexual gets shunned. Serano states in her article “Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive,” “While many feminist and queer movements are designed to challenge sexism, they often simultaneously police gender and sexuality—sometimes just as fiercely as the straight, male-centric mainstream does” (para 1). Within this community of diversity, feminists may bash other feminists because of who they love or how they dress; actions and words that completely demote the entire movement. This type of exclusion is something that only propels Foucault’s theory of repression talked about many hundreds of years ago; “In each case, exclusion is based on the premise that certain ways of being gendered or sexual are more legitimate, natural, or righteous than others” (para 1). This further places a flimsy relationship between personality and sexuality (of sexual acts) together.

Society likes to marginalize. This type of opinioning is based on assumptions about gender and sexuality. The verisimilitude of these assumptions in turn propagates false theory, attitudes and communities. The dichotomy of sexuality and personality is important because it helps keep people from being falsely informed, maintaining ignorance and perpetuating stereotypes.

Since Queer Theory is a post-structuralist theoy, it is no wonder that Foucault is the spokesperson for its early envisioning despite the many years separating the two. Gender is not part of the essential self: that is what all of these texts are saying. There is something fundamentally separate between them. The socially constructed nature of sexuality does not walk hand-in-hand with how sexuality should be represented in society. Although the theory brings about the concept of normative and deviant behavior, it encompasses all sexual deviants, or at least, tries to. In essence, the theory tries to de-establish definitions; that gay means you have to have this personality; or that being sexually deviant means you’re going against some societal behavior.

Foucault states, “We must therefore abandon the hpothesis that modern industrial societies ushered in an age of increased sexual repression. We have not only witnessed a visible explosion of unorthodox sexualities; but-and this is the important point-a deployment quite different from the law, even if it is locally dependent on procedures of prohibition, has ensured, through a network of interconnecting mechanisms, the proliferation of specific pleasures and the multiplication of disparate sexualities” (49). This means that sexuality has become more revolutionary; that the way our politics dictates our sex, is no loner viable (as can be witnessed with the gay marriage allowances in certain states). Queer Theory encompasses many different sexualities and preferences; matching this with Foucault’s statement, this class has exemplified how exclusive some sections of diversity can be, but how inclusive the LGBT society is trying to be. This inclusion rests and relies upon the knowledge that there ought not to be any repression in sexuality, there ought to be a society or a community of supportive people so that the repression from previous centuries doesn’t have people going back to the confessional to rely their sexual “crimes” and thoughts. This type of society (the clandestine kind) suggests that people are their sexuality; the inclusive society that Queer Theory advocates, is something else entirely.

Works Cited

Bornstein, Kate. Queer and Present Danger. New York, New York; Beacon Press, 2012. Print.

Foucault, Michel. The History of Human Sexuality. New York, New York; Vintage Press, 1990 Print.

Serano, Julia. “Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive.” Seal Press. October 2013. Web. 9 December 2014.