The word “queer” holds a mostly negative connotation these days; it means weird, strange, things that are disturbingly different. Historically, it’s been used as a pejorative term for homosexuals. To be queer is not to be normal, and is not something to be proud of for most people looking to fit in. However, the academics surrounding the sexuality of those who lie outside the realm of “normal” have embraced the word, and take power in it. This subversion of power is what Queer Studies is focused on.
Queer Studies is concerned with the relationship between two halves of society: the dominant culture and the deviant culture. As the name suggests, the dominant culture is where the power traditionally lies: often perceived as not just the normal but the ideal of society, the white, suburban, nuclear family where the American dream is said to lead to. To fall short of this dream or to reject it outright puts one in the deviant culture, where Queer Studies is centered. Homosexuals, transsexuals, asexuals, pedophiles, drug addicts, the handicapped; all have been lumped into the deviant culture in the past by the dominant culture and were viewed as inferior and damaging to society. To view this relationship with a “Queer Lens” (from the perspective of someone interested in Queer Studies) would call for a focus on the boundaries between the dominant and deviant culture, how those boundaries came into existence and how they are enforced on a daily basis.
Another social aspect of Queer Studies is the art of Performance. Being part of the deviant culture often comes with an overbearing sense of isolation and Performance is one way that many have come to cope with that. They may stay “in the closet,” and perform as a member of the dominant culture or embrace the campy, flaming attitude of the stereotypical homosexual as a defiant push back against the dominant culture. A Queer Lens would focus on the psychological roots and effects of Performance as well as how it relates to cultural expectations.
Attempts to define the source of homosexuality are rooted in biology. The search for a gay gene or physical detriments that cause same-sex attraction have been hotly debated since for over 20 years. In the biological field, any discoveries in these directions were viewed as a step forward in understanding homosexuality, an assertion that proponents of Queer Studies reject. Homosexuality goes deeper than something that can be defined scientifically, it is the embodiment of a subjective nature. The emergence of psychoanalysis led to a different path to trace and define one’s sexuality, and more importantly, the reasons behind it. A Queer Lens on these ideas would focus on why the need to define homosexuality in such strict terms exists, and what the dominant culture serving as the control group for these experiments. Note that those who wish to start a family and settle down are not put under the microscope, it is those who reject that idea of normality who are studied.
Though Queer Studies is generally viewed as an offshoot of feminism and other sexual studies, the real advantage of it comes from its innate interdisciplinarity. It is a way of viewing subjects ranging from biology to sociology to history with a focus on power struggles, cultural boundaries and the enforcement or subversion of these concepts. It is far from just a focus on the role of homosexuality within culture, it is a lens from which to view minority groups who fall outside the range of normalcy and to give power to those most often at the mercy of the dominant culture.
I find the idea of performance, in this context, to be incredibly interesting. Part of that is probably because we get the chance to read people as texts. The performance as a “straight person” or as a “gay person” makes a lot of sense, but I’m not entirely sure if it’s something people would necessarily see in themselves. In some cases, it might be easier to apply this type of reading to characters in television or writing. Then we would be able to evaluate the ways that culture looks at these two different performances. Of course, there are always characters and people who are homosexual and don’t preform. However, a reader might just assume they’re part of the “normal” culture due to a “lack” of information/ performance.
I also wonder how performance can be applied to bisexual and pansexual individuals. Given that they have a preference toward people of the same gender and other genders, would the same types of performances work for them. Or instead would there be a bisexual or pansexual performance? And if so, would that performance be based on stereotypes? And are there enough physical stereotypes for those communities for people to perform as? (Especially in the pansexual community, which is a relatively new one).
That’s a good catch about questioning whether or not someone may realize that they are taking part in performance; I guess it can be compared to Tactics from the first presentation where people are making cultural commentary without realizing it.
As with most subjects in Queer Studies performance isn’t bound to only sexuality but many aspects of the dominant culture. Sherman’s March offers some very interesting views into things like marriage, physical appearance, religion. Charlene buys into it all and outright says that it’s a performance, something to get you through the day and keep from being alone. Ross obviously doesn’t buy into the performances of the dominant culture, but it can be asserted that he is partaking in a performance of his own. His large beard and, most prominently, his giant camera, point him out as someone different. His performance of one as someone who doesn’t fit in with the rest of the crowd, though whether or not it is intentional is up for debate.
What I wanted to establish with asking the class to define “normal” was that it’s an incredibly discursive word which can’t really be pinned down. In one way or another, everyone can be alleged to fall into the deviant culture to some degree. Performance is a way of compensating for that and can be seen in any individual seeking to either fit in, stand out or go unnoticed.