In
reading the Jagose book, I kept finding myself asking, “What is
Queer?” I could see that Queer “resisted definition” and that
it was a “zone of possibilities.” But I thought, “Well, that's
all fine and good, but
what is it?”
I feel that I am supposed to except that the only way Queer can be
meaningful is to allow it to resist definition, but I don't think
that is the case. Despite Jagoe's attempt to leave Queer as a “zone
of possibilities,” our discussion in class points to something
that is more concrete. The way Queer feels
to me today, is that Queer is
the disruption.
Anytime one of the points of the triangle (gender, desire, biology)
are disrupted in terms of power or privilege Queer emerges. If
anything becomes normative, it loses it's Queerness – this is why
assimilationists are not Queer. So along these lines, Jogose and I
can agree that Queer operates in a “zone of possibilities,” but I
cannot support the idea that Queer only has power when resisting
definition. The disruption of anything normative, the exploration of
that “zone” (which I have already over-quoted), and living in and
with the incoherence is the definition.
A
more theoretical idea I have about Queer, and admittedly a less
articulate one, drags Marshall McLuhan in to the mix. I want to know
if the body, the physical form, is for those who identify as Queer, a
medium. If so, what is the message. McLuhan offered us the idea that
any medium or technology is an extension of a human facility. Is the
body an extension of gender? Of desire? Is it more than the
chromosomal make up? If so, then the body is the medium. But does
that make Queer the message? I'm not sure; as I said this would not
be fully articulated. However, the conclusion I find myself coming to
is that Queer is an response that used the physical form to disrupt
power; if this is the case, the medium is the message and that
message is this: The power one is not given over their own life and
environment will manifest as power over one's own body. The body, in
this light, becomes an extension of the human faculty of autonomy. As
S. Bear Bergman explains, there is power in living in a body you had
a hand in creating.
You make some interesting points. I agree that Queerness can be partially defined by a revolt or rejection of the norm; however, I am slightly less clear on my stance of the loss of queerness should we be able to accurately define it. On the one hand, I feel that what is queer will consistently change based on the change of what is viewed as norm. Let's say, that eventually what is queer today, becomes the norm tomorrow. In that case, the "definition" of queer will change. That being said, what is queer, in my opinion, will always resist definition.
ReplyDeleteI also find your points about power interesting. It makes me think of the person with an eating disorder, who because they lack an element of control over their life, seeks control of their body. Of course, I'm not eliminating the societal body image issues that we have in this country; however, I can see the parallel. I'm not sure that I see queerness as a physical response to the normative mode of thinking but I suppose it would depend on how you “define” queerness in your argument. I like the way that you think! I hope that you will continue to explore! I know that I will. I have a feeling that both of our stances will develop more as the semester goes on. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for your comment. :)
DeleteI agree that if something that is Queer today becomes the norm tomorrow the definition of Queer would have to change. So what I want is for Queer to be the resistance. I think it is a pretty abstract argument, but Queer resisting boundaries or limits is different to me than Queer resisting definition. Maybe the easiest way to explain what I mean is to say this, Queer is a verb (something to be done to the society) not a noun (something that exists alone). Queering can be done to any norm I think... Now that I'm playing with this analogy, I wonder what the meaning of Queer as a gerund would be!? ;) Lol.
As for your other point, I think you have a point in that Queer isn't always physical - a point that I was neglecting all together. That being said I said by my idea that Queer could be about the body, but I shouldn't limit it simply to the body. Queering happens in identities, in the names we call ourselves, and in the ways we choose to enact our desires. I like the analogy you create with talking about body image (and the surrounding problems), but part of me recoils at it. The similarities are very evident, but to liken Queer to an eating disorder is dangerous (not the way you did it, but out of context). That being said, you raise an interesting point... the image of the body that our culture promotes causes problems. What does our gendered society cause? Maybe if we allow people of all sizes to fit in, we could do away with eating disorders... any maybe if we could allow folks of nonstandard genders to fit in maybe the Queering of the body wouldn't need to take place... I feel like I've gotten off on a tangent... forgive me... Lol.
My final thoughts on this are questions: Is it wrong to Queer the body? Can you be Queer and fit it? Is NOT having a place in society what makes Queerness? By becoming involved with an group that fights heternormitive behavior or assimilation, aren't you assimilating into another group? Humm... You have given me more to think about. Thank you.
I think re your initial post here--read some Butler. I'm not sure queer bodies are either medium nor message--but fall within the poststructuralist "crisis of representation." Except that queerness resists representation.
DeleteAnd re your last paragraph above, queer theorists would insist it is imperative to queer the body. To conceptualize queer, I do find Jagose's triangle of xy, gender, and desire--along with the 3D components of politics and power--very helpful to start.
And your last question, the dilemma of identity politics...
Humm... I see identity labels as as technology, in that they serve a purpose, but they also fragment. Homosexuality (and Heterosexuality for that matter) didn't exist before the terms, so those terms are technologies - they are a medium. To take on an identity label of any sort, is to say "I am THIS" which is a message. The medium therefore gives a message of consistency. It may be a stretch to say that the body can become medium, but I think it is possible with some. When I think about trans folks who choose hormones and operations I see their body as a message board, a medium, that screams "I have power over the flesh I live in." Does this make any more sense? Or am I just crazy? I'm willing to except crazy. ;)
DeleteThat's an interesting way of putting it - queer as a verb, rather than a noun. Queer as the disruption of power structures and the "queering" so to speak, of the triangle. I'm with Nykia in that I think that queer doesn't necessarily defy definition; its definition is simply fluid. For something to be queer, it must be marginalized in some way and when that thing (excuse my crude terminology) is no longer marginalized, is it no longer queer? Have we then "queered" the norm? Is there a new norm, and a new queer? All very interesting things to think about.
ReplyDeleteI like your concept of queer as a medium. It provides a type of visual to the idea that queerness can/should/ or does compel change.
ReplyDelete