Addressing queer theory, a term born in the 1990s, Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner hope to “cultivate a rigorous and intellectually generous critical culture without narrowing [queer theory’s] field.” Queer theory (though the authors believe queer commentary to be a more appropriate term) can’t be reduced in order to reach a clearer, more profound understanding; as stated in the article, the authors provide what they consider an “anti-encyclopedia entry.” By describing it as such, queer commentary raises more questions than it answers, challenging the pseudo-gravitational force created by heteronormativity; queer commentary freely floats in space, defying categorizations and driving into visibility “both the cultural production of sexuality and the social context of feeling.”
To begin with, the authors recognize the problems involved in labeling their discourse as queer theory because it implies queer “has a stable referential content and pragmatic force.” Identities can find a home in queer, but this is not what queer theory wants to do. Instead, queer theory calls on identity in general to challenge and critique it, attempting to “sustain awareness of diverse context boundaries.” Because of this sustained awareness, people have the opportunity to explore “power-ridden normativities of sex,” to approach and re-contextualize the “perverse” and “normal:” actions needed to challenge “major conditions of privacy.” No longer would the closet be considered a room where things typically wanted kept unseen would be stored, but a room of equal visibility and familiarity as the rest of the house, a common culture.
No expectation of utility, queer theory nonetheless reveals that there are many things at stake, particularly how people approach language, performance, subjectivity etc. However, it is precisely because queer theory does not place emphasis on utility that it succeeds in not creating “normal states, administrative problems, and minor constituencies.” To be queer is to be well aware of the multitude of boundaries that can be pushed culturally, politically, psychologically, to not adhere to the heteronormative beliefs that continue to pervade contemporary societies, creating complexities and tension. No longer will heterosexuality be praised as natural, normal, authoritative; queers (an expression that could potentially comprise everyone) want to dethrone this notion and provide a renewed sense of hope when approaching “x.” Through the enhancement and foregrounding of differences, queer commentary embraces the marginalized and wipes away the film of “normalcy” that distorts our true vision.
This is an excellent and thoughtful synthesis of Berlant and Warner's essay. I am especially intrigued by this idea: how "queer commentary freely floats in space..." The fascinating thing is that this sounds about as 'natural' or even as 'universal' as one can get: like a planet, freely floating in space (or the universe). But then, a planet *is* held in a certain (if wobbly) place/motion by gravity, isn't it? So maybe this is where queer commentary detaches from the 'natural' or 'universal' and slips into another way of being, is always open to new visions, or "true vision," as you say.
ReplyDeleteWhen you suggest that 'queers' functions as "(an expression that could potentially comprise everyone)"—can you (or anyone else) explain a little more how this might be the case? I think this is absolutely right, but we need to unpack this a little so that 'queers' doesn't lose its philosophical and political import by becoming a potentially encompassing term.
As Michael points out, queer theory is an “emerging culture” one that is not fully-formed and cannot be reduced to an encyclopedia-type definition. In the text, Berlant and Warner point out that queer is not an “umbrella for gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transgendered.” Instead, “queer publics make available different understandings of memberships at different times.” Queer theory as “all-encompassing” could refer to this state of development, one that includes changing ideas, histories, and identities at different times.
ReplyDeleteQueer theory could also be all-encompassing in its relation to x. For example, heterosexuality is defined by the existence of other sexualities in the same way that heterosexuality helps to define queer theory as a separate emerging culture. In this way, queer theory and heterosexual culture collide in a way that each might encompass the other. I think this article seeks to point out that because queer cannot be labeled, reduced, or “shut away in a closet” that its relationship to the invisible norm of heterosexuality becomes a part of the culture of queer commentary. Therefore, the relation of queer to x (in my example, x =heterosexuality) is part of what makes it all-encompassing.
So based off the conclusions of Michael and Elissa, is it safe to safe that "Queerness" is similar to that of "blackness", in that they are relative to what the norm/majority is? If Blackness is defined by what it is not, then queer theory derives from everything that is not normal. Correct?
ReplyDeleteMaria: Not only does queer theory 'derive' from what which is not normal, but it rigorously places the category itself—'normal'—up for question. Who decides what (or who) is normal? By what standards? Through what history? Determined by what power structures? The more seriously we think about it, what is 'normal' becomes splintered, tied to definitive interests, and suspect—not that 'normal' at all, but complexly regulated and regimented. One of queer theory's roles might be to reveal how something as seemingly simple as 'normal' is anything but.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting facet of the idea of queer theory as "normal" or "not normal" or "redefining normal" to me is (for obvious reasons) the perspective given to the kids who grow up with queer theory ingrained because of their parents. It is and isn't normal throughout our lives, as we are told by support groups that our families our healthy, and by the Church that our parents are going to hell. That argument, too, is the main battle, and the one with the most emotional mess attached, but even the existence of queer theory creates all sort of questions. As a queer person/a daughter of a queer person, though, it's not theory, it's life. The question immidiately becomes: is life "normal"?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if I'm articulating this as clearly as I'd like to. I'm running on little sleep. I think my point is basically not to discourage queer theorists by any means at all, (I'd like to say I am one, in some capacity) but just to say that it's odd to hear of anything that I grew up embracing/battling almost since I can remember as an "emerging culture." It puts a odd tone to...my life, I guess.
I wonder if that's specifically because I fought it so long, in defense of the church and other elements. I wonder if a person who has always been okay with their standing in the queer community (is there such a person? I've never met one) would not experience that twinge of bizarre in seeing their life allotted textbook pages. It's different from The Fact of Blackness, though, that I know for sure. Blackness can be seen/Queerness has to be discovered--both to the outside world and in oneself. One cannot doubt the fact of blackness, but the idea of queerness seems almost always to carry with it development, questions, a path that one must travel, however short, before reaching self-conclusion.