(As an aside, here's what I had written out, so feel free to reflect on these questions on your own time and bring your thoughtfulness about them to class on Wednesday: After completing the reading for Wednesday, September 2, take some time to share with us what you’re thinking about, or what you’re confused about, as well as any questions you have about the reading that you think would help foster a meaningful class discussion. In addition, I think it would be good to have us all reflect on what the limitations of identity are as described by Jagose and the various activists and scholars she highlights. Then, turn to the next chapter and share with us how you see queer offering an alternative to identity politics. What do you find compelling, problematic, or confusing about these possibilities?)
But for Wednesday's class, what I'd like you to do is focus on what you find confusing or difficult to understand about post-structuralism or performativity (or anything thing else that you really didn't get from the reading). To that end, please share a very specific question about a very specific part of the reading from last week. If you're able, please respond to this post by some time on Tuesday evening. Then, I can review your questions before class and be prepared to respond. Thank you!
(And to help you with your own understanding, I encourage you to peruse other online sources that might provide some additional context or help in breaking down these concepts. Here are two possible places to go to: Post-Structuralism and Introduction to Judith Butler.)
The information presented in our assigned reading was rather difficult to digest; when discussing post-structuralism and gender performativity, Jagose creates a cacophony of conflicting discourses that utilize highly advanced and obscure language. Consequently, I have many questions regarding the reading:
ReplyDelete1. I agree with Butler when she argues that gender performativity is not synonymous with gender expression and notes that performativity is not acted out by what we wear (Jagose 86-9). However, I am still a bit confused.
a. Do the clothes that we wear reflect our gender expression rather than our performance of gender? Or would that assumption be problematized by the fact that many closeted transgender people choose to appear as the gender that they were assigned at birth in order to avoid transphobic violence (thus complicating the definition of gender expression)?
b. On page 88, Butler states that “…gender [is] performative insofar as it is the effect of a regulatory regime of gender differences in which genders are divided and hierarchized under constraint” (Jagose). With the concept of post-structuralism in mind, do we perform gender when we—individuals who are trapped in a web of hierarchical (gendered) power structures—create a social body for ourselves by adopting the manmade identities of male, female, nonbinary, genderqueer, etc.? Or is Butler referring more to the ways in which gender is performed in terms of social, emotional, and physical labor (e.g., women being expected to perform feminized labor (which is more emotional) while men are expected to perform masculinized labor (which is more physical); the traditional family unit being used as a tool to allow men to gain more monetary and social capital than their female spouses by expecting the men to enter the workforce while the wives are expected to stay at home and care for their children (which creates no monetary capital))?
2. On page 101, Jagose states that “…queer…[does not] ground [itself] in a fixed and necessarily exclusionist identity. However, throughout Queer Theory, Jagose describes opposing arguments that mention how queer identity has been used as a whitewashed and masculinized tool while becoming a reductionist lifestyle of “vougeishness” (102, 109, 119). Which discourse is the most accurate and correct?
3. Could “cultural reclamation” be harmful (Jagose 104)? Although “queer” may be a fitting title for some individuals who do not identify as straight, cultural reclamation of the word may solidify and reinforce the trauma that others have faced over the word. With that being said, does the reclamation of “queer” have a sense of privilege (e.g., having the privilege of never getting beaten or violated over not identifying as straight) attached to it?
4. How is queerness subversive and deconstructive if it uses inaccessible language, is “…heavily interreferential and overwhelmingly white…[and] often resembles a social club open only to residents of a neighbourhood most of us can’t afford to live in” (Jagose 110)?
5. On page 111, Jeffrey Escoffier proclaims that “…lesbian and gay studies must remain in dialogue with the communities that gave rise to the political and social conditions for its existence.” Since access to academia is a privilege, how should gay and lesbian scholars use their academic privilege to serve their community?
6. What is a “straight queer” (Jagose 114)? Should straight people even have the ability to reclaim the word “queer?”
ReplyDeleteReading this book is changing my perspective on a lot of things that I see occurring every day. Just last night, I walked into my work to drop off some food for my sister and the monthly ‘Gay vs. Straight’ comedy show was happening; they were pulling gay and straight people from the crowd and having them do improv. I was just walking by, but it really made me think about the way people cling to identities and become dismayed or defensive if someone doesn’t identify, or plays between the normalized lines that came about with the mainstreaming of gay and lesbian identities. Thinking about people I know that refer to themselves as gay or lesbian are very close-minded when it comes to words like, ‘queer,’ or, ‘bisexual,’ and I find that very confusing since the gay liberation movement actually started out as fighting for an ideal world where gender identities don’t exist, performativity clouds no one’s judgment, and everyone is, essentially, bisexual regardless of their personal preference. (My first instinct is to scream things like, “Liberate sexuality!” and, “Destroy gender roles!” whenever gender identities or the like comes up in conversation amongst my friends; it’s really a fun time).
I glanced over Foucalt’s ideas that were represented in this text, and I saw that he likes to talk about power. A lot. He says that gender identities were produced by power, and they are ‘victims’ of power. He doesn’t like to use words like ‘oppressed,’ but I feel that’s what he means. The identities that we were fighting so vigilantly to have acknowledged (such as “gay” and “lesbian”) are now what hold us back even further.
Sedgwick’s ideas—to me—seemed to be about the non-inclusion of people of color and of various identities including religion and social standing as a result the acceptance of “gay” and “lesbian” identities in society.
While re-reading Judith Butler’s section, I tried to get a better hold on the idea of performativity. From what I understand, Butler sees performativity not as a choice, or a conscious thing, but more of an ideology in which we all exist. Our constraints are expected, normalized ideas of what is right (naturalized heterosexuality, etc.), and performativity is us prescribing to the conventional ways of speech, relationships, and actions. All gender is performative, and by performing within our traditional constraints, we enforce gender. *** I didn’t gather much insight from Jeffrey’s mentioning of the denaturalizing about sex; can we summarize her ideas in class?
As for the effect of queer on identity politics, I feel like it may cause initial confusion with the way queer has been used negatively in the past, and there may be hesitancy to accept it as a definitive term because of this. While I actually like this word enough now so that I could be comfortable enough to use it to describe myself, I would be worried about using it to describe another who might not have the same understanding of the real meaning of queer. However, we will grow to accept and use it as a more flexible term, and it will allow us to discuss all kinds of sexuality in a way of that is denaturalizing normalized concepts of identity, portraying identity as an evolving and fluid concept, one that we could ultimately shake off. I think the acceptance and understanding of the word queer in identity politics would be a positive and important move. I know these are less of a question format, but they're all ideas that are full of holes and things that I'd love to discuss in class.
Throughout the entire book “Queer Theory” has been rather confusing, insightful, wickedly smart and very confusing. I have a few questions about the reading.
ReplyDelete1.) On pages 108-109 America is discussed and its relation to the word ‘queer’ and its relation to queer nation. On page 109 it reads, “…Queer Nation remains bound to the genericizing logic of American citizenship and to the horizon of an official formalism- one that equates sexual object choice with individual self-identify.” Is this saying that sexual object choice should be ones individual self-identity? Are we trying to move away from individual identity coming from ones sexual preferences? Or toward it? What does genericizing logic of American citizenship mean?
2.) I personally agree with Simon Watney on page 106 when he says, “Its use only serves to fuel existing prejudice.” However I would also agree that this must be changed and the word ‘queer’ should be used politically correct. My question is how can one word have so much power? Should it be used at all? How does one change the minds of people who have been using this word since they were small children in a negative way?
3.) On page 112 David Phillips says, “The inclusionist of queer-the attempt to represent not only gays and lesbians, transgenderist, and even heterosexuals as ‘straight-identified queers’…” What is a straight-identified queer?
4.) Also on page 112 and page 113 it says, “Concedes that part of queer’s appeal is an ambiguity about what the term “queer” refers to’, some of the things it might refer to make it a risky political category.” Is the word queer supposed to be ambiguous? Or is it meant to have a specific meaning? How can something be argued over or decided upon when the very meaning is a question to many?
On page 86 Jagose explains that critics literally bring performativity down to performance; which to me is oversimplifying sex, desire, gender, and identity. She cites Butler’s own explanation to these critics, “Performativity cannot be understood outside of a process of iterability, a regularized and constrained repetition of norms (p87).” So is Butler saying that performativity is basically the cultures learned behavior to a specific gender? How does desire and sexual preferences fit in?
ReplyDelete“For as post-structuralism also demonstrates, identity politics are eviscerated not only by the differences between subjects but the irresolvable differences within subjects (p83).” Is post-structuralism saying that identity cannot be simplified into boxes? That sexuality and gender further complicate the identity boxes?
Overall from the book I feel that I learned that identity, gender, and sexual desire get lumped into categories together to make sense of varying identities, but that over the years as definitions/understandings of all three have grown and expanded that theorists and activists struggle with the social contexts. At the start of the class the use of “queer” seemed more inclusive to me, but after reading the “Contestations of Queer” chapter I can now better understand the hesitation to use the term. Overall learning the history of the three movements helped to see the evolution of the term for theory, but I can see the limits it poses, such as being too broad when someone identifies with specific gender or sexual preferences. But can it really explain all the variations of identification between?
This whole chapter is discussing if queer will become a respectable self-identifying term. For me, I become very confused by this not only because I wasn’t around when queer was a disrespectful word or because where I am from it is not used often, but because if this word becomes more universal, people may start to use it out of context. On top of page 104, there is a quote that includes, “my younger gay friends are now using faggot. Ugh!” In my experience, when gay men use this, they are calling their other gay friends this word and that is acceptable. However, something that really upsets me is when “straight” people throw these terms around and use them out of context. When someone says, “that’s so gay” or “don’t be such a faggot”, I have always been offended because they are using these words offensively in my mind. So when I am reading about this, I understand that they want queer to be a descriptive word for their sexuality, but if this word starts to become a universal word, will it also become a way of homophobic bullying? On page 106, Simon Watney quotes, “Its use only serves to fuel existing prejudice”, and I wonder if it would since homophobic bullying is the second most common type of bullying. If this is the case, I can understand why people are so hesitant to attempt to make the word less offensive.
ReplyDeleteIn last week’s chapters, my one question was on page 65 when he is talking about bisexual women and lesbian feminism. It quotes, “bisexual women are thus lesbians who maintain their heterosexual privilege instead of identifying fully with a devalued social identity: ‘[they are] pre-genderized, polymorphously perverse, or simply sexually undecided, uncommitted, and hence untrustworthy’”. This quote completely shocked me. I understand that the lesbian feminists would look at it that way because they are completely against men and believe that women should not be sexual with them because that gives them power. However, reading this in the time period I live caught me off guard and I think it is because they used the word untrustworthy. Does anyone else get an uneasy feeling about this quote and if so why?
Since beginning this book, I have been thinking a lot more on the idea of identity. Never before had I realized that the whole notion was sooooo complex. I see things we learn in this book playing out all around me now. Little things make me think about class and our discussions. I’ve had to hold my tongue a few times when friends say something borderline disrespectful or ignorant about gender and identity, something that just a few weeks ago that would have just blown right over my head. Maybe this is just my own ignorance, maybe this is how most people think (or, don’t think?).
ReplyDeleteThroughout the last part of Queer Theory, the main topic being “Contestations of Queer”, I found myself confused a few times (or maybe just in need of clarification). Though able to research and answer some on my own, I am still left with these for class on Wednesday....
At first, I thought using queer as an umbrella term was a great idea, it made me understand the word so much more than I ever had before. However, around 111-112, Jagose beings to explain how some do not feel as though the umbrella term is a good one, “Queer’s totalising gesture is seen as having the potential to work against lesbian and gay specificity, and to devalue those analyses of homophobia and heterocentrism developed largely by lesbian and gay critics” (112). Does this make y’all question the word “queer”, or is this just Jagose playing devil’s advocate and making sure we know the word is not an end-all to “putting a label on sexuality” (for lack of a better term)? She goes on to list “other anxieties”, which I still don’t really understand, i.e. when she quotes Grosz in writing “‘lebian and gay have the advantage of......” (113).
The word still confuses me a tad. Hope to hear more about this from y’all tomorrow!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reflecting on the reading my main question is in regards to Butler as I still am not fully grasping the idea of perfomativity and I want to make sure that I understand it as much as possible.
ReplyDeleteOn page 86 Jagose writes, "For gender is performative, not because it is something that the subject deliberately and playfully assumes, but because, through reiteration, it consolidates the subject. In this respect, performativity is the precondition of the subject." As far as this quote goes I do understand the first part of Butler's argument and that she is making the distinction that gender is not performative because it is something willingly taken on for the sake of acting or playing a role. However, as the quote continues I get more confused. If gender is reiterated, or is a part of society that is constantly placed upon us every day rather than an inherent piece of our identity, does that ultimately damage our identity? Is that what is meant through consolidation, or does she simply mean rather that reiteration of gender roles, norms, and definitions, is what shapes us to fulfill these roles in society that we are destined to play? Then, what is she referring to preconditioning of the subject? Is she interpreting Butler's idea of performativity that gender is a result of what we have performing or that we perform our gender based on the ways that we have been conditioned throughout our lives to understand gender as a part of our identity?
I guess the root of my question and what I want to understand is if gender and identifying with gender, as a part of our current binary system, detrimental to ourselves and our sexuality? If it is, is it just because gender is a fragmented idea and not a true reality? Considering this then with the conclusion of the reading and how is unpacks the word queer gender then may be detrimental to everyone especially since it is often grouped with sex. But if this is true and gender and sexuality are separated into undefinable roles that truly do not reveal identities does that then destroy the definition of the word queer? I feel like this coincides with the question that Trish raised in her comment on this post in which she asks about the term "straight-queer" (114) and whether straight individuals can idendify as queer or reclaim the term as their own.
Hopefully my questions make sense. I believe I struggle with this because separating pieces of identity that I for so long been structured to work and identify in the confines of, and have been placed on me for my whole life is all exciting, confusing, and new to me.
Hey guys just finished the week's readings. I'm honestly confused about "queer politics" and my best guess is to refer to the movements mentioned throughout the book. Anyway, I wrote a summary of this week's readings below so feel free to tell me what you think.
ReplyDeleteQueer Theory Pages 101-132
Queer has been a term that has either been regarded in negative or a positive manner. Author Annamarie Jagose in Queer Theory states that “Queer is always an identity under construction, a site of permanent becoming: ‘utopic in its negativity, queer theory curves endlessly toward the realization that its realization remains impossible’” (Jagose 131). This means that the term we have come to known really does not have something definite. It really comes down to the individual, whether or not they choose to identify this way. What is definite however is the fact that the term refers to historical events referring to the efforts of promoting equality amongst gay and lesbian people. The movements for equality have proven to be not all inclusive for all population demographics. For example, Jagose describes “’Queer aims to provide an arena where men and women work together to fight men’s battles’ (Parnaby, 1993:14). Arguing that ‘as long as [queer] continues to be a male-led movement there will never be any serious considerations of issues relating specifically to women’” (Jagose 117). The statement proves queer can be defined in two ways. It could be offensive when considering these movements for equality actually created inequality with gender in this case. In addition to the non-acceptance of homosexuality, the problem of patriarchy arises. It is also possible that facts can create a positive identity. Knowing that gay men and lesbian women were united, can give the impression that being queer is about both sexes of society fighting against the same oppression. Whatever the case may be, it all depends on the choice of the person. Either choice of identity though both represents the history of protests throughout time.
As I spoke about in my first blog post, it seems that Jagose’s objective is to present the complications in queer and LGBT theory in order to inspire further discussions. In the last few chapters we begin to see how some ideologies in the evolution in the queer movement have inevitably began to contradict each other, and these contradictions have created lively discussions within the community.
ReplyDeleteI found a lot of Butler’s theories hard to understand as she complicates the notions of gender and sexual identity. Butler states, “If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called ‘sex’ is as culturally constructed as gendered; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequences that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all” (90). On what basis does Butler continue her theory under? As Butler destabilizes identity, how does she continue to distinguish relationships that are considered to be “hetero-normative” and those who are not?
In chapter 8 it seems as if many of those in the lesbian and gay community who have chosen not to identify as queer have similar fears that relate with my first question. Lesbian activist and social critics are quoted as being against post-structuralism on the grounds that it creates an ideology where “the existence of real Lesbians has been denied, once again” (102). Does the post-structuralism and the dismantling of identity go so far as to deny the oppression that marginalized communities have faced?
Queer is described as a term that is by construct meant to be fluid and ambiguous, yet its ambiguity seems to also create room for further oppression and marginalization. Stephen Jones shares his experience with the term, “I’ve felt increasingly pressured for the last two years to describe myself as a queer. I do so self-consciously, not confident that we yet have a common understanding of queer politics and culture” (104). Could defining queerness allow for a consensus which strategically recognizes and validates the oppression that sexual minorities have faced while allowing for a more fluid concept of sexuality and identity or could LGBT already allow for fluidity?
Thanks to everyone who's posted comments here: These questions are all very good ones to focus our discussion today. I will plan to help frame and explicate both post-structuralism and performativity. As we get to certain points in the reading, I'll look to you when your question fits. By the end of class, I hope we'll come away with a much stronger understanding and you'll be prepared to post your first formal blog post! See you soon!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy main questions is by labeling are sexuality and gender are we limiting our selves? And by doing that are we stopping our full potential of what we can be as humans because we are putting everyone on the binary that society has made? (Sorry if that doesn't make sense).
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to queer as an identity I think that Jagose makes the prefect point, "Given the extent of its commitment to denaturalization, queer itself can have neither a foundational logic nor a consistent set of characteristics" (96). Therefore the notion of having queer as an identity is that you can be anything. There are no two people the same so why can't we have a term that has that same notion and I think that what is queer is as an identity. But in doing that and having a system where identity is so important have such a broad identity can feel very lonely since no two people are the same. In finding another person who identifies as queer could believe completely different things from you. It is possible that queer is too broad of an identifier?
Has the moment for queer identity passed?
I did not understand the concept of 'queer politics' at all and I really need help with this concept. I know that with identities politics always seems to get involved. That I understand but I not sure I understand the connection in this book.
Something I found particularly interesting in the reading for last week is what Jagose says about Judith Butler’s idea of performativity, “not something a subject does, but a process through which the subject is constituted” (87). It is peculiar, I think, that performativity is described as “process” because I typically think of processes as operations that have a beginning, middle steps, and definitive ends, like the process of photosynthesis or making a sandwich. Because of this, I wonder what it must mean that our performativity of gender is a process, and what that must mean for us, especially if it is in this very process that we are “constituted” and made. It is from this process that we are formed in the first place. But where are the components of this process? Where is the beginning, middle, and end? When does gender start and stop, and do we have any control over these movements? Because the idea of performativity confuses me a little, I am not sure how to answer those questions.
ReplyDeleteWhat I do know about Butler otherwise, is her idea of “I can’t.” Many contemporary philosophers, like Russon, talk about the politics of the body, and our phenomenological understanding of the world in terms of who we are as humans. Russon has an entire chapter in his book “Bearing Witness to Epiphany” filled with “I can” statements. I can touch the ball, I can kiss this boy, I can eat this cake. Judith Butler has a similar way of understanding, but in her feminist politics, she talks about things a woman can’t do, the many statements she will make that begin “I can not.” I wonder how this idea fits into her idea of performativity.
I honestly have to say that the word "Queer" is what I am most confused about. when I think about this word I cannot help but put my own experience behind this word. I have always associated Queer with a negative connotation. Growing up, this word was never a positive thing. In fact it was always used as an insult. As I was reading Jagose, at first I was under the impression that Queer was in fact a good word to describe people in the LGBT community. However, as i continued the reading, some thought that queer was negative. " Its use only serves to fuel existing prejudice"(106).Some people associate queer as being a negative word in describing the LGBT community. Because of this I am unsure what to think about queer.
ReplyDeleteWell my original comment was just deleted when I tried to submit it so this is my super shortened version. Is the Queer Nation group a political/ activist group within the Queer movement? I wonder this because from the reading alone, it does not appear that political activism plays a very important role in Queer Theory. It seems more limited to academia and therefor possibly less accessible to people who might identify as queer, but are not in the privileged group of highly educated people who use Queer Theory.
ReplyDelete