Here is another reaction essay I have written for my LGBTQ/Queer Studies class I am taking this semester (Fall 2018). It has been a good exercise to tackle a larger issue in a succinct four pages. I hope to revisit the issue of Queer Theory and race in a larger format after much more research (I am certain that I am not the originator of the idea that Queer Theory has significant limitations when it comes to issues of race!).
Queer communities have the potential to be profoundly diverse. Unfortunately, this potential is often arrested as divisions along the lines of race and class emerge with relative frequency. I argue that these divisions stretch beyond the clubs, coffeehouses, and community centers patronized by LGBTQ folks and are reflected in the published works of queer studies. This is not to say that diverse scholarship is not being published; rather, it is to say that the methodologies with which this research is being done are not exempt from wider systems of inequality and I believe that the nature of Queer Theory[1] itself contributes to further disserve to subjects of queer studies research. The pursuit of High Theory has repeatedly been privileged over the anchoring scholarship in material realities and embodied knowledge. This does particular harm to representations of people of color within this research. If this is to improve, I advocate that research methodologies commit to an intersectional perspective in order to better reflect the lived experiences of LGBTQ people of color.
Queer Theory at its core is concerned with queer subjectivity and how it relates to larger structures of heterosexuality. Rooted in the poststructuralism of Foucault and Derrida, Queer Theory mirrors its manner of interpreting the self and the social breaking with established traditional epistemologies (Namaste 1994). Rather than seeing the self as an autonomous free-thinking subject (a la Cartesian philosophy), poststructuralism views the subjective self as embedded in a complex network of social relations. Queer Theory pushes the project of poststructuralism further and calls for radical deconstruction of social relations, leading to a rendering of the self that is unintelligible by rejecting a stable, knowable subject (Green 2007).
Tearing apart labels and social categories can be productive and, at times, even liberating. However, the rendering of the self as an entirely unknowable to the point of unintelligibility is where, I argue, that Queer Theory runs afoul of its most marginalized subjects, especially when it comes to the issue of race. Sociologically speaking, race is socially constructed, whereby racial and ethnic groups emerge from social interactions in which salient physical and cultural characteristics are used as identifiers to signify group membership (Wilson 2007). Differing social values have been assigned to different groups based on these identifiers, hence a resulting racial hierarchy emerges, and it is, as in the case of much of Western society, woven into the fabric of most social institutions. While the specifics about how one might be assigned to a racial category are socially constructed, the implications of the vast discrepancies in social value are formidable and cannot be (and should not be) reduced to a realm of unintelligibility which is precisely why Queer Theory so often fails to account for race in a reputable way, if at all.
Radical deconstruction of categories for the sake of deconstruction does not and cannot accurately capture and do justice for the lived experiences of queer people of color. Queer Theory stands in vigilant defiance of the search to discover the underlying “truth” of a sexualized self. It does so by deliberately emptying social categories of their context in order to interrupt their regulatory capacities (Green 2007). I argue that while this is productive for a host of reasons, this methodology simply does not translate to accurately understand the nuance of the racialized, embodied experiences of queer people of color. One cannot interrupt the regulatory capacities of racial and ethnic categories through deconstruction alone. In fact, deconstruction of these categories might not even truly be possible as the regulatory power of race and the resulting institutionalized racism is so resilient that dissolution would require much more than theory alone.
Tomás Almaguer’s (1991) exploration of Chicano men and homosexuality provides a prime example of a situation in which Queer Theory, in its most pure form, would absolutely fall short in capturing the complexity of the situation at hand. Almaguer addresses why only a small population of homosexually active Chicano men readily identify themselves as “gay.” Western (and white) society centers gay identity primarily on the object of desire, so in these terms, a man actively engaging in sexual activity should claim the identity of gay as his object of desire is another man. However, the rules that define and, more importantly, stigmatize homosexuality in Mexican culture function under a logic centered on the sexual role played by the man in question, not necessarily the object of his desire (Almaguer 1991). As long as a man is playing the active, penetrating role in the sexual encounter, he can socially evade the identity of gay and his masculinity remains intact.
This is related to the enduring strength of the role of the family unit within Mexican society as a central strategy for combating colonial racism and erasure of Mexican culture (Almaguer 1991). To maintain unity against colonial powers, the family must remain intact, thus traditional masculine roles must remain intact for the traditional family unit to endure. For a man to play the passive role and be penetrated sexually, he puts himself in the devalued position of woman, the ultimate failure of masculinity. So, for Chicano men who have sex with other men, the central issue is not the gender of the man’s object of desire, but instead the role played in the sexual behavior itself. Categories of sexual identity in Mexico are contingent upon much more nuance than those in the United States and other Western nations.
While the categories of “gay,” “homosexual,” or even “man” are certainly up for deconstruction and debate in a theoretical sense, transposing Western notions of these categories in question on to the lives of the men in Almaguer’s study does not translate. To empty these social categories of their context would completely miss the underlying logic behind the construction of (or lack thereof) gay identity for Chicano men, let alone the role that the Mexican family unit plays in bolstering this logic. There is a host of tangible consequences that simply deconstructing and emptying categories with the goal of mitigating their regulatory power that would go undocumented and misunderstood. Race and culture must be accounted for when examining both the sexual behavior of these men and their wider implications as seen from their own standpoints. The sexual self in question here has a more complicated story than a man having sexual relations with another man. The self must find itself known in this study and relegating it to unintelligibility would do it injustice.
Queer Theory’s race problem can move beyond lacking methodology to the point of alienation for some subjects. E. Patrick Johnson (2001) provides an excellent example of how the term “queer” does not always translate across racial lines. In examining the lives of black LGBTQ folks along with his own life, Johnson examines the ways in which Queer Theory so often fails to address the material realities of the lives of queer people of color. Or, as he succinctly states, “there is some race trouble here with queer theory,” (Johnson 2001: 5). Queer Theory has little utility on the front lines of where racialized bodies face violent consequences and become sights of trauma (Johnson 2001). This criticism is sharp and justified and I, even as a white scholar, wholly align myself with Johnson in this respect.
Similar to the plight of the men in Almaguer’s study, Johnson speaks to the fact that Queer Theory is unable to account for the communal ties that are often essential for a person of color’s survival. In addition to this erasure of community, much of Queer Theory also invalidates the use of deploying lived experience as evidence in analysis and writing (Johnson 2001). Johnson employs a poignant example of how white queer theorist John Champagne reacted to African American poet and activist Essex Hemphill’s criticism of Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographs of black men. The critique in question was delivered in a public address and in the delivery, Hemphill displayed emotions and began to cry. It was precisely this emotionality that Champagne misread, stating that he was suspicious of the apparent masochistic pleasure displayed by Hemphill in his public declaration of Mapplethorpe’s white culpability (Johnson 2001). The reading of Hemphill’s emotions as a lack of objectivity and credibility is particularly troubling as it diminishes an authentic moment rooted in a person of color’s lived experience. Queer Theory’s quest to move beyond the body, as well as to render the self unknowable, grounds critique in the discursive rather than the corporeal (Johnson 2001), as demonstrated by Champagne.
The question remains, what value does Queer Theory have for research populations of color? Can Queer Theory account for race in a manner that does not discount and disrespect the lived experiences and bodily knowledge of LGBTQ people of color? I think that it is through better methodology that social researchers and cultural critics can shift the paradigm of Queer Theory away from solely pursuing High Theory. This is not an easy task and I believe that it will take interdisciplinary cooperation and ongoing dialogue. Queer communities are diverse and often fragmented on the lines of race and class. I believe that future methods must and do so in a collaborative way. Intersectionality must be more than a buzzword or an idea within world of queer studies. It must be a methodological commitment if the discipline is to accurately represent and do justice for research populations of color and those on the margins of gender identity and social class. Postmodernist musing about whether or not there can really be “truth” underlying the sexual self genuinely pales in importance when confronting the material realities of race and racialized bodies.
_______________
[1] Queer Theory is capitalized intentionally to denote that I am referring to the wider paradigm of Queer Theory overall.
Works Cited
Almaguer, Tomás. 1991. “Chicano Men, A Cartography of Homosexual Identity and Behavior.” Differences. 3(2): 75-100.
Green, Adam Isaiah. 2005. “Queer Theory and Sociology: Locating the Subject and the Self in Sexuality Studies.” Sociological Theory. 25(1): 26-45.
Johnson, E. Patrick. 2001. “”Quare” Studies, or (Almost) Everything I Know About Queer Studies I Learned from My Grandmother.” Text and Performance Quarterly. 21(1): 1-25.
Namaste, Ki. 1994. “The Politics of Inside/Out: Queer Theory, Poststructuralism, and a Sociological Approach to Sexuality.” Sociological Theory. 12(2): 220-31.
Wilson, Frank Howard. 2007. “The Sociology of Racial and Ethnic Relations” in 21st Century Sociology, edited by Clifton D. Bryant and Dennis L. Peck.
_______________
All words © Jay Sorensen, 2018.
Jay Sorensen, Ph.D. Candidate 