In a way, theory reminds me of the summer I spent with my friend’s French grandparents. I was taking my third semester of undergraduate French and I was so sure that I would be able to speak to them clearly and understand most of what they were saying. I quickly realized that learning a language requires an immense amount of dedication outside of class presentations and quizzes. After 3 months of constant exposure, I was able to understand native speakers! That being said, I truly believe that immersion is the best way to learn a new language and believe me, theory is a language of its own. In learning this language, I find that I get the most pleasure when I find myself thinking or “speaking” theoretically. I may not always get it but I’m enjoying flexing my intellectual muscles.  I actually read Bodies that Matter again….for fun!

1.       Sexual Behavior vs. Sexual Identity

This idea is basic enough; yet, it is undeniably profound and important in my understanding of everything else that we’ve read and discussed thus far. Why is this important? Many people, not unlike us, would incorrectly assume that there is no difference between the behavior and the identity. It is important to note that there is ambiguity in identity. Take for example, a young child who murders a parent who has molested them for their entire life. This child murdered someone-that much is undeniable; however, is this child a murderer? The latter part of the question is less clear. The more important question then, is are we in control of our identity, do we choose it OR is our identity determined by the language and labels that society imposes on us? Were people identified by their behavior before we had the language to box them in? I mean, did the first guy (see how gendered I am without even meaning it! We all know it would be unseemly for a “gal” to get drunk) who had too much to drink get called a drunk? If he was not called a drunk, due to the absence of the term, then he was just that guy who drank too much-not the drunk guy in town.  I think that this idea is extremely important to understanding queerness and queer theory because it brings to the forefront the idea the nature of identity and the effects that language has on identity. Even Jagose states that “queer is unaligned with any specific identity category.  Jagose does an amazing job of highlighting the enigma of identity by positing the question of homosexuality. What determines who is homosexual? Does one have to have a same sex (sexual) partner to be considered homosexual? She asks “is it possible to be homosexual without ever having had or intending to have sex” (Jagose 8). The questions and ambiguity surrounding identity parallel the ambiguity of queerness as a whole.  I’ll discuss this more shortly.

2.       Queerness as Resistance

I’m going back to Jagose for this one as well. I promise I’ll throw some Butler in my next points! We have discussed extensively the idea that queer resists definition. We have also discussed what happens if (BIG IF) we are able to nail down an exact definition of queer. In the introduction, Jagose states that “queer’s semantic clout, part of its political efficacy depends on its resistance to definition, and the way in which it refuses to stake its claim” (Jagose 1). That being said, the most important thing to understand about the “queer phenomenon” is that it is resistance. That which resists the hetero-imperative mode of thinking and being and believing and living is queer.

3.       Gender as a social construct?

I literally just popped my knuckles and stretched….here goes nothing!

I ended my thought with a question mark because of this I am unsure. I mean, I believe that gender is a social construct but (BIG BUT) I am sure that it is so much more than that. Butler’s readings teach me to question the answers and answer the questions, wash-rinse-repeat. This question is difficult for me. When we first began discussing it via Butler, I found myself questioning the idea of creation. I’m not pushing my beliefs on anyone; yet, I find it important to explain my thought process when trying to dissect this question of gender. I wondered what God had in mind when he created Adam and then said, “Welp, you need a helper so, here’s this cute little thing…she’s awesome as I made her from you.” Of course, we could argue the whole Adam and Eve as a metaphor for humanity but that is another class all together J. After much thought, I decided that creation (it doesn’t matter if we’re talking Darwinism or God) we have a difference in sex, not gender. I do believe that gender, much like race, was created. The biological difference of each sex is apparent; yet, the idea of GENDER is much more fluid.  Unlike race, I am unable to pin who stands to gain from the creation of gender. The obvious answer is the hetero-imperative, but I am still trying to understand what exactly this means.  Butler suggests that “gender is the social significance that sex assumes” (5). If this is the case, and I’m on the side of Butler here, then we need to understand what happens to sex after gender assumption. It seems to me that sex (in the biological sense) takes on limited importance in our society. We (and by we I mean the collective normative) are more focused on the presentation of the individual because it is visible. Conversely, the sex cannot always be determined by simply looking at someone.

4.       Essentialism vs. Constructionism

This point lacks the pizazz of the others but is important nonetheless. Jagose presents these opposing views in her text and I find myself thinking that sometimes they are two sides of the same coin; however, their differences are important to Queer Theory. Butler takes it a step further by introducing a variety of questions and then answering her own questions from both an essentialist and constructionist view.

5.       Language as a Conduit

I also got this idea from Butler’s Bodies that Matter and I find it absolutely fascinating. Language is the tool through which the normative agenda is perpetuated. Butler posits that there is no “I” who has not been subjected to gender. This idea, for me, is life changing. I won’t bore you with the entire quote (it’s on page 7) but this has literally changed the way that I think and more importantly the way that I speak and analyze the speech of others. If the I is “subjected to gender” AND “subjectivated by gender” then the I cannot (and this is important) stand apart from gender but is rather only present WITHIN gender. To that idea my grandmother would say, “close the piano and wipe down the bar” it’s a wrap folks!

Butler’s presentation of language and its significance is my favorite aha moment but I’m looking forward to many more in the coming weeks!