| Revision as of 17:08, 23 April 2005 editLantog (talk | contribs)89 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:11, 23 April 2005 edit undoBurgundavia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,715 editsm Reverted edits by Lantog to last version by BurgundaviaNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Queer theory''' is a theory about ] and ] within the larger field of ]. It proposes that one's ] and one's ] are partly or wholly ], and therefore individuals cannot really be described using broad terms like "]," "]," "]," or "]". It challenges the common practice of ] the description of a person to fit into one particular category. | |||
| In particular, it questions the use of socially assigned categories based on the division between those who share some habit or lifestyle and those who do not. Instead, queer theorists suggest complicating all idenitity categories and groups. | In particular, it questions the use of socially assigned categories based on the division between those who share some habit or ] and those who do not. Instead, ] theorists suggest complicating all idenitity categories and groups. | ||
| ==History== | |||
| Historical influences on queer theory include (among others) ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ], but the primary voices in the development of |
Historical influences on queer theory include (among others) ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ], but the primary voices in the development of Queer theory are ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and several others. | ||
| The first known use of the phrase "queer theory" in print was by ]. In 1994, however, she criticized queer theory as a marketing ploy that had "quickly become a conceptually vacuous creature of the publishing industry." | The first known use of the phrase "queer theory" in print was by ]. In ], however, she criticized queer theory as a marketing ploy that had "quickly become a conceptually vacuous creature of the publishing industry." | ||
| ==The role of biology== | |||
| ⚫ | Other critics of queer theory hold that some, highly contested, physiological, genetic and sociological evidence show that sexual orientation and sexual classification can not be considered social constructs. In this view, various biological characteristics (some of which are ]) play an important role in shaping sexual behavior. As of present, there remains no conclusive evidence. | ||
| Other critics of queer theory hold that some, highly contested, physiological, genetic and sociological evidence show that sexual orientation and sexual classification can not be considered social constructs. In this view, various biological characteristics (some of which are ]) play an important role in shaping sexual behavior. As of present, there remains no conclusive evidence either way. | |||
| Many different commentators respond to these claims by noting that not all individuals are clearly classifiable as either "male" or "female |
Many different commentators respond to these claims by noting that not all individuals are clearly classifiable as either "male" or "female", even on a strictly biological basis. For example, the sex chromosomes (X and Y) may exist in atypical combinations (as in ] ). This complicates the use of genotype as a means to define exactly two distinct genders. ] individuals may for many different biological reasons have ambiguous genitalia. | ||
| Some people aligned with queer theory work from a ] point of view. This proposes that biological aspects are not relevant to those who view the process of construction as taking place within the confines of a language system. These critics find that language constructs an idea of self and gender/sex distinctions. For these theorists, some biological truths may exist, but our conception of them remains mediated by both culture and language. | |||
| ⚫ | Many queer theorists however do not rely on Lacanian psychoanalsis or its terms at all. | ||
| The way the question of the innateness of sexual identity and gender identity has played out in the work of one serious researcher can be investigated by following the many works on sexology of the ] researcher, Dr. ]. Early works indicate that he was much impressed by the argument that one's gender identity is a social construct, but in later works he develops a highly nuanced account of all the inputs that research implicates in the formation of any individual's gender identity. | |||
| ⚫ | Many queer theorists do not rely on Lacanian psychoanalsis or its terms at all. | ||
| The biological aspects are not as relevant to those who view the process of construction as taking place within ] and categories it forms by frequent reinforcement in minds - ] for instance that make gender or formality distinctions. In ]'s model of psychology, the ] (around age 3 where a child sees themselves in a mirror and believes that image to be their "self") and development of language occur at approximately the same time. Indeed, it may be language that constructs the entire idea of self, and gender/sex distinctions as well. ]'s ideas of sign-signifier relationships in language are used to demonstrate this concept as well. It is seen that although some biological truths may exist, our knowledge and conceptualization of them is always mediated by language and culture. | |||
| Hybrid theories combining the notions of innate characteristics (esstenialism) and social constructs also exist. | |||
| Hybrid theories which combine the notions of innate characteristics and social constructs also exist. For example, one might hypothesize that social customs, expections, identities, are shaped by certain "facts of life." This might include innate structures ranging from the obvious (like differences between reproductive organs) to the controversial (such as the existence of a ] which is fixed in early life with genetic, environmental, and other factors determining the outcome). Empirical (scientific) investigation might be used to separate truth from conjecture and explain how these "facts of life" interact with social norms. The role of Queer theory would be to examine the biological notions of sexual orientation and gender in the context of culture and history. | |||
| ==Prostitution, pornography, and BDSM== | |||
| ⚫ | Other critics of queer theory hold that some, highly contested, physiological, genetic and sociological evidence show that sexual orientation and sexual classification can not be considered social constructs. In this view, various biological characteristics (some of which are ]) play an important role in shaping sexual behavior. As of present, there remains no conclusive evidence. | ||
| Like those in some branches of ], many scholars in Queer theory view ], ] and ] as legitimate and valuable expressions of human sexuality. For example, ] in ''Feminism and Sadomasochism'' (ISBN 1573440965) writes about how sadomasochism encourages fluidity, and questions the naturalness of binary dichotomies in society: | |||
| :"The dynamic between a top and a bottom is quite different from the dynamic between men and women, blacks and whites, or upper- and working- class people. That system is unjust because it assigns privileges based on race, gender, and social class. During a S/M encounter, roles are acquired and used in very different ways. If you don't like being a top or bottom, you switch your keys. Try doing that to your biological sex or your race or your socioeconomic status." | |||
| This point of view places these scholars of Queer theory in conflict with some branches of feminism that view prostitution and pornography, for example, as mechanisms for the oppression of women. Other branches of feminism, tend to vocally disagree with this latter interpretation, and celebrate pornography as a mean of adult, sexual representation | |||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| *], ], ], ], ], ]. | *], ], ], ], ], ], ]. | ||
| ==Source== | ==Source== | ||
Revision as of 17:11, 23 April 2005
Queer theory is a theory about sex and gender within the larger field of Queer Studies. It proposes that one's sexual identity and one's gender identity are partly or wholly socially constructed, and therefore individuals cannot really be described using broad terms like "homosexual," "heterosexual," "man," or "woman". It challenges the common practice of compartmentalizing the description of a person to fit into one particular category.
In particular, it questions the use of socially assigned categories based on the division between those who share some habit or lifestyle and those who do not. Instead, queer theorists suggest complicating all idenitity categories and groups.
History
Historical influences on queer theory include (among others) Audre Lorde, Monique Witteg, Jonathan Katz, Ester Newton, Andy Warhol, Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan, Louis Althusser, and Jacques Derrida, but the primary voices in the development of Queer theory are Gayle Rubin, Kaja Silverman, D.A. Miller, Sue-Ellen Case, Douglas Crimp, John D'Emilio, Lee Edelman, Michel Foucault, Joan Scott, Simon Watney, Judith Butler, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Leo Bersani, David Halperin, Michael Moon, Michael Warner and several others.
The first known use of the phrase "queer theory" in print was by Teresa de Lauretis. In 1994, however, she criticized queer theory as a marketing ploy that had "quickly become a conceptually vacuous creature of the publishing industry."
The role of biology
Other critics of queer theory hold that some, highly contested, physiological, genetic and sociological evidence show that sexual orientation and sexual classification can not be considered social constructs. In this view, various biological characteristics (some of which are heritable) play an important role in shaping sexual behavior. As of present, there remains no conclusive evidence either way.
Many different commentators respond to these claims by noting that not all individuals are clearly classifiable as either "male" or "female", even on a strictly biological basis. For example, the sex chromosomes (X and Y) may exist in atypical combinations (as in Klinefelter's syndrome ). This complicates the use of genotype as a means to define exactly two distinct genders. Intersexed individuals may for many different biological reasons have ambiguous genitalia.
Some people aligned with queer theory work from a Lacanian point of view. This proposes that biological aspects are not relevant to those who view the process of construction as taking place within the confines of a language system. These critics find that language constructs an idea of self and gender/sex distinctions. For these theorists, some biological truths may exist, but our conception of them remains mediated by both culture and language. Many queer theorists however do not rely on Lacanian psychoanalsis or its terms at all.
The way the question of the innateness of sexual identity and gender identity has played out in the work of one serious researcher can be investigated by following the many works on sexology of the Johns Hopkins University researcher, Dr. John Money. Early works indicate that he was much impressed by the argument that one's gender identity is a social construct, but in later works he develops a highly nuanced account of all the inputs that research implicates in the formation of any individual's gender identity.
The biological aspects are not as relevant to those who view the process of construction as taking place within natural language and categories it forms by frequent reinforcement in minds - pronouns for instance that make gender or formality distinctions. In Jacques Lacan's model of psychology, the mirror stage (around age 3 where a child sees themselves in a mirror and believes that image to be their "self") and development of language occur at approximately the same time. Indeed, it may be language that constructs the entire idea of self, and gender/sex distinctions as well. Ferdinand de Saussure's ideas of sign-signifier relationships in language are used to demonstrate this concept as well. It is seen that although some biological truths may exist, our knowledge and conceptualization of them is always mediated by language and culture.
Hybrid theories which combine the notions of innate characteristics and social constructs also exist. For example, one might hypothesize that social customs, expections, identities, are shaped by certain "facts of life." This might include innate structures ranging from the obvious (like differences between reproductive organs) to the controversial (such as the existence of a sexual orientation which is fixed in early life with genetic, environmental, and other factors determining the outcome). Empirical (scientific) investigation might be used to separate truth from conjecture and explain how these "facts of life" interact with social norms. The role of Queer theory would be to examine the biological notions of sexual orientation and gender in the context of culture and history.
Prostitution, pornography, and BDSM
Other critics of queer theory hold that some, highly contested, physiological, genetic and sociological evidence show that sexual orientation and sexual classification can not be considered social constructs. In this view, various biological characteristics (some of which are heritable) play an important role in shaping sexual behavior. As of present, there remains no conclusive evidence.
Like those in some branches of feminism, many scholars in Queer theory view prostitution, pornography and BDSM as legitimate and valuable expressions of human sexuality. For example, Pat Califia in Feminism and Sadomasochism (ISBN 1573440965) writes about how sadomasochism encourages fluidity, and questions the naturalness of binary dichotomies in society:
- "The dynamic between a top and a bottom is quite different from the dynamic between men and women, blacks and whites, or upper- and working- class people. That system is unjust because it assigns privileges based on race, gender, and social class. During a S/M encounter, roles are acquired and used in very different ways. If you don't like being a top or bottom, you switch your keys. Try doing that to your biological sex or your race or your socioeconomic status."
This point of view places these scholars of Queer theory in conflict with some branches of feminism that view prostitution and pornography, for example, as mechanisms for the oppression of women. Other branches of feminism, tend to vocally disagree with this latter interpretation, and celebrate pornography as a mean of adult, sexual representation
See also
- Gender role, gender studies, post-structuralism, critical theory, classlessness, Heteronormativity, List of transgender-related topics.
Source
- de Lauretis, Teresa (1994). "Habit Changes", differences 6:2-3: 297.