The University of Chicago Press

From Here to Queer: Radical Feminism, Postmodernism, and the Lesbian Menace (Or, Why
Can't a Woman Be More like a Fag?)

Author(s): Suzanna Danuta Walters
Source: Signs, Vol. 21, No. 4, Feminist Theory and Practice (Summer, 1996), pp. 830-869
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3175026 .
Accessed: 03/10/2013 23:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Signs.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:59:24 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FromHere to Queer:
Radical Feminism,Postmodernism,
and theLesbian Menace
(Or, WhyCan't a Woman
Be More Like a Fag?)
Suzanna Danuta Walters
Queer defined (NOT!)

A LREADY, IN THIS OPENING, I am treadingon thin
ice: how to definethat which exclaims-with postmodern
We maybe here(and we may
cool-its absoluteundefinability?
be queer and not going shopping),but we are certainlynot
transparentor easily available to anyone outside the realm of homo
even of the tentativesort,are importantif
cognoscenti.Yet definitions,
we are to push forwardthisnew discourseand debate meaningfully its
parameters.
Queer is, in truepostmodernfashion,a ratheramorphoustermand
stillemergentenough as to be vague and ill defined.Perhapsit makes
sense to open, then,with my laundrylist of the queer contemporary,
a list admittedlymore aware of the female manifestationsof this
"queerness"and in no particularorder:
Eve Sedgwick Teresade Lauretis ball culture

JudithButler Queer Nation kiss-ins
Madonna lipsticklesbians lesbianstrippers
I would liketo thankDavid Bergmanand AmyRobinsonfortheirhelpfulcomments

on earlierdraftsof thisarticle.Bothhavecontributedmeaningfullyto thedevelopmentof
thispiece. ErstwhilecomradeAra Wilsongavedetailedand substantive criticism,improv-
ingthisessayin numerousways.In addition,I would liketo thanktheanonymousreview-
ers at Signs.Theirthoughtful and thorough(ifat timesrathercontentious!)readings
forcedme to engagein thisprocessof revisionwithequal thoroughness.
[Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1996, vol. 21, no. 4]
? 1996 byThe University
ofChicago.Allrights
reserved.
0097-9740/96/2104-0002$01.00
830 SIGNS Summer 1996

FROM HERE TO QUEER Walters
conferencesat Santa drag butch/femme

Cruz, Rutgers, piercing Michelangelo
Iowa, etc. Ru Paul Signorile
"in yourface tattoos Sue-EllenCase
activism" passing dildos
CamillePaglia queer zines S/M
go-gogirls outing backrooms(for
men in skirts cross-dressing lesbians)
Riot Grrrls male lesbians Sandra Bernhard
Foucault AnnieSprinkle camp
On Our Backs lesbianswho sleep bisexuality
Susie Bright withmen genderfuck
?* * *
These signifiers(and others,of course) constitutewhat many have

called the "new queer sensibility."Thereis no doubt thata new tide of
gayvisibility is sweepingthecountry-fromTimemagazinecoverstories
on the new chic lesbians, to k.d. lang's VanityFair dress up with
supermodelCindy Crawford,to gays in the military,drag queens on
Donahue, outing,and our littlehypothalamusesand aberrantgenes. As
usual in our media-saturated/structured culture,these (largelyhetero)
glampieces intersectwith unique developments, bothintellectualand po-
litical, within various gay communities. So these shiftingsignifiersof
"queer" are neversimplyour own products,located solelyin some sub-
culturalnetherworld(if theyeverwere-rememberdisco?), but instead
theymove uneasilyin and out of the "mainstream"as it recodes and
cannibalizesthesenew images,icons,activisms.
It is not only "queer" theoryand politicsthatare typifiedby shifting
icons and activisms;feminism and feminist theoryare themselves thesub-
ject of much critical
revisionand rethinking, in
particularly lightof both
structuralshifts(changesin familylife,increasingnumbersof women in
theworkforce)and ideologicaldevelopments(renewedmedia attackson
feminism,the backlash phenomenon,the rise of right-wingChristian
antifeminism and "familyvalues"). In addition,thedevelopmentof queer
theoryand politics(relatedbut not identicalphenomena)emergesin the
contextofchangingdefinitions offeminist theoryand politics.Fromchal-
lengesby womenof color,working-classfeminists, lesbians,and others,
feminismhas been undergoingprofoundchanges. These changes are
markedbyincreasingly frequentcriticismsof feminist theory'srefusalto
reckonwiththewaysin which"other"differences (such as race or class)
markthemselveson the bodyand insertthemselvesintoconstructions of
oppositional identity.In other words, queer developmentstake place
Summer 1996 SIGNS 831

Walters FROM HERE TO QUEER
withina changingfieldof theoryand practice;feminism (and genderthe-

ory and politicsgenerally) is no longer youngupstartbut,rather,has
the
achieveda certain"stature"thatnow has produceda deeperand more
thoroughgoing levelof criticalanalysisand revision.
Keeping this in mind,I wantto examinetherelationshipbetweennew
queer developments and feminism and feminist theory, witha specificfo-
cus on thedisplacementsof radicaland lesbianfeminism bya queerthe-
ory thatoften posits itselfas theantidote to a "retrograde"feminist theo-
rizing.Let me beginby layingmy cards on the table: I am wary this
of
phenomenon.1 These new developments are not wholly propitiousforthe
(shared,I hope) goals of endinghomophobia,confronting compulsory
heterosexuality, liberatingsexuality.Nevertheless(and I would hope this
goes withoutsaying,but I will say it anyway),this critiqueshould be
takenas an immanentone, fromsomeonewho liveswithinthegay and
lesbianmovementand who believesthenew queer politicsand theoryto
be largelywellintentioned, howevermisguidedand theoretically suspect.2
While mycriticismsstand,I am also aware of the real strengths and
possibilitiesembodiedin thenewqueerdesignations.The fullexploration
of sexual desirein all itscomplexityis of coursean importantmove,par-
ticularlyas a neglectedaspect of progressivediscourse.And the queer
challengeto the notion of sexual identityas monolithic,obvious, and
dichotomousis a healthycorrective to our vexinginabilityto see beyond
the limitationsof thehomo/hetero opposition.In addition,theopenness
of thetermqueer seemsto manyto providethepossibilityof theorizing
"beyond the hyphen,"beyondthe additivemodels (race, class, gender,
1 Let me note here,too, thatI am mostassuredlynot alone in mycritiqueof "queer."
Indeed,feminists have alreadyinitiateda substantialbody of workthattakesissuewith
theconstruction of "queer theory"as the "replacement"forfeminist and lesbianand gay
studies.Often,but not always,thesecritiquesof "queer" dovetailwithcritiquesof post-
modernism,as will be broughtout in thecourseof thisarticle.See particularly Modleski
1991; and Bordo 1990. BiddyMartin'swork(1993, 1994) has been particularly helpful.
Wilson's1992 critiqueof bisexualityand de Lauretis's1991 thoughtful introductionto
thedifferences issue on queer theoryhavealso added to thegrowingdiscourse.
2 I should note herethat
queer theoryand queerpoliticsare not,of course,identical.
The movementsof theoryand themovementsof politicalactionneverfollowone from
theother,nor does one simplyexpresstheotherin different form.Nevertheless, thetwo
are, as are mosttheoriesand practices,intimately connected,albeitoftenin an implicit
manner.For example,thenew queer politicsis markedby a wide embraceof all nonnorm-
ativesexualities(witnessthenamingof recentmarches"lesbian,gay,bisexual,and trans-
gendered")and muchof thetheoreticalenterprise thatgoes underthename "queer the-
ory" is also concernedwithwideningthenetbeyondwhat is typicallythoughtof as "gay
and lesbian" studies.WhileI do not mean to conflatethetwo,I am interested in dis-
cussingtheconnectionsbetweenthemand theimplicationsfora radicalpoliticsgiven
thesenewerdevelopments. Moreover,thisarticleworksto addressa generaltrend,a direc-
tion,a set of discourses,ratherthanthetotalityof an individualtheorist'soeuvre.I thus
see thisas a piece of politicalculturalcriticismas muchas specifictheorycritique,to ana-
lyze "thatcertainsomethingin theair,"in whichthetheoristsfigureas inspiration, expres-
sion, arbiters,and legitimation.

sexual orientation= oppressedidentity)that have so oftenseemed to

set up new hierarchiesor retreatedinsteadinto an emptyrecitationof
"difference."Indeed,racecritiqueshaveconsistently insistedon challeng-
ingbinary models of identityin thedevelopment conceptsof position-
of
ality and intersectionality.Queer discourse is clearlynot "the enemy,"3
butneitheris it unambiguouslythenew hope fora theoryand/orpolitics
to lead us intothenextcentury. But enoughof thoseprovisos,let us con-
tinuewithdefinitions.
Thereare many,oftenconflicting, waysof usingthistermqueer.It can,
of course,be used in the old-fashionedway,as nastyepithet.This raises
a notinsignificantquestionaroundthevalue of "reclaiming"thenegative
languagethathas been used to oppressus. I cannot help wonderingifI
would evermarchwitha groupcallingitself"Kike Nation." Perhapsthe
analogy does not hold, but "reclaiming"(or "resignifying") is nevera
simpleand straightforward matter,and the use of the termqueer needs
to reckonwith the arguments(made, forexample,by older civil rights
activistsover the currenttrendinessamong African-American youthof
thetermnigger)againstrecirculating a languageconstructedin hate and
bigotry.Indeed,evenJudithButler,one of the theoristsmost associated
withthe new queer theory,questionsthe "reappropriation"of the term
queer,wonderingif the termcan "overcomeits constitutive historyof
injury"(1993a, 223).
That aside, the termqueer can be used, loosely,as a synonymfor
(trendy)gayand lesbianstudiesand evenforgay/lesbian identity.So queer
can, on manyoccasions,be a ratherundeliberateway of referencing gay
or lesbian.But thisis not the usage I will be examining,as it is merelya
replacementtermforhomosexualor gay or lesbian.
Rather,more importantforus here,queer is used as a signifier of a
new kind of "in yourface" confrontational gay/lesbian politics (Queer
Nation,etc.),particularly a politicsaroundAIDS thatbringstogethergay
men and lesbiansin a directand powerfulattemptto changepolicies. So
queer in thisusage would signifya politicsand theorywitha difference,
typicallya generationaldifference butalso a (asserted)difference ofstyle,
of strategy,of tactics,of ideology.As RosemaryHennessyputs it, "By
embracingthecategoryused to shameand cast out sexual deviants,queer
theorydefiantlyrefusesthe termsof the dominantdiscourse.Touting
queernessis a gestureof rebellionagainstthepressureto be invisibleor
apologeticallyabnormal.It is an in-your-face rejectionof the properre-
sponse to heteronormativity, a versionof actingup" (1993, 967).
Queer discourseis oftenunderstoodas nonreformist, in oppositionto
3
Indeed,one of mychiefconcernshereis the dangerof "queer" beingused to con-
structan enemyof feminism.

the "mainstream"gay/lesbian movement, or,as Michael Warnerargues,

"no longercontentto carveout a bufferzone fora minoritized and pro-
tectedsubculture[that]has begunto challengethe pervasiveand often
invisibleheteronormativity of modernsocieties" (1991, 3). So, in this
is
reading,queer reallyradicallygay,moving"againstbothassimilationist
politicsand separatistidentitydefinitions" (Sedgwick1993, 28).
Warneralso argues forthe difference of queer people vis-a-visother
social groups,otheridentities(race, gender):"It is partlyto avoid this
reductionof theissuesthatso manypeople in thelast two or threeyears
have shiftedtheirself-identification from'gay' to 'queer.' The preference
for'queer' represents, amongotherthings,an aggressive impulseofgener-
alization; it rejectsa minoritizing logic of tolerationor simplepolitical
interest-representation in favorof a morethoroughresistanceto regimes
of the normal" (1991, 16). This is a commonthemeof queer theory, the
move againstthe idea of gaysand lesbiansas an interestgroup,an op-
pressedminority, and towarda moreuniversalizing (and dispersed)con-
ceptionof queer as anti-or nonnormal.While I applaud the radicalism
here-and the explicit admonitionagainst a desire for mere "tolera-
tion"-I fearthatthisdefinition of queer,as muchas itwantsto leap the
bounds of binarism,findsitselfdefinedagainstwhat it is not, "normal."
JeffNunokawa wonderswhether"queer meanstheoppositeofnotqueer,
just as homosexualmeanttheoppositeof heterosexual.Queer is suppos-
edlytheagentfordestabilizingthatkindof binarism-but when,and for
whom,and whatexactlydo we mean?Do we meansomething morethan
a kindof academiceffort?"(1992, 28; emphasisin original).I will come
back to thisconcernlater.
Many haveembracedthetermqueeras a conceptthattraverses gender
as it steersaway fromit as definitional: queer as a termof sexuality,not
a termof genderidentity. Warnerherestatesclearlyboththeuniversaliz-
ing move of queer and its insistenceon a separationof sexualityfrom
gender:
The insistenceon "queer"-a termdefinedagainst"normal" and

generatedpreciselyin thecontextofterror-has theeffectof point-
ingout a wide fieldofnormalization, ratherthansimpleintolerance,
as thesiteofviolence.Its brillianceas a namingstrategy liesin com-
biningresistanceon the broad social terrainof the normal with
more specificresistanceon the terrainsof phobia and queer-
bashing,on one hand, or of pleasureon the other."Queer" there-
forealso suggeststhe difficulty in definingthe populationwhose
interestsare at stakein queer politics.And as a partialreplacement
for"lesbian and gay" it attemptspartiallyto separatequestionsof
sexualityfromthoseof gender.(1991, 16)

For queer theory,in particular,thishas been a centraltenet,exemplified

in the work of Eve Sedgwickand, in a different and morecautious way,
Butler(Butler1990, 1993b; Sedgwick1989, 1990, 1991). Queer theory
in thissensepositionsitselfas challengeto the "obvious categories(man,
woman,latina,jew,butch,femme),oppositions(man vs. woman,hetero-
sexual vs. homosexual),or equations(gender= sex) upon whichconven-
tional notionsof sexualityand identityrely" (Hennessy1993, 964). As
Sedgwickwrites:
Partof what is interesting

about queer . . . is thatit suggestspossi-
bilitiesfor organizingaround a fracturing of identity.... What I
hear whenI hear theword queer is ... thecallinginto questionof
certainassumptions:thatonce you knowsomebody'schromosomal
sex, you are supposed to know a whole list of otherthingsabout
them-including theirgender,theirself-perceived gender,the gen-
der people perceivethemto be, the genderof the people theyare
attractedto, whetherthey definethemselvesas heterosexualor
homosexual, their fantasy life-which is supposed to be the
same thingbut a littlemoreintense-whom theyidentify withand
learnfrom,whattheircommunitiesare. What I hear in queer is the
question: What thingsin that list don't line up monolithically?
(1993, 27)
Here, Sedgwickarticulatesa definition of queer thatlocates its powerin

a particularlypostmodern(and deliberatelynonessentialist)contextof
fracturedidentitiesand incommensurableness. Queer, for her and for
manyothers, tearsapart the seemingly obvious relationshipsbetweensex
and gender,sexual desireand objectchoice,sexual practicesand political
identities,and renderssubjectivitiesinfinitely indeterminant. We might
say thatthis a as
presents paradox queers in thisreading(say,Sedgwick)
are not definedby theirsexual choice but,rather,by what? Some vague
identificationwithperversion?Some feelingof nonnormalcy? A political
affiliation?A desireto listento/be/watch Ru Paul?
The termcan also be used in a moregenericsense: queer as perverse
difference(everything thatis not vanillaheterosexuality or vanillahomo-
sexuality).Queer in thissense is a sort of postmodernsexual pluralism
or a radical constructionist challengeto identitypolitics.As Alexander
Doty argues in his book on queer culture,"Queerness ... is a quality
relatedto any expressionthat can be markedas contra-,non-, or anti-
straight" (1993, xv). Doty's purpose, like so many promoters of
queerness,is "to question the culturaldemarcationbetweenthe queer
and thestraight... bypointingout thequeernessof and in straightsand
straightcultures,as well as thatof individualsand groupswho have been

toldtheyinhabittheboundariesbetweenthebinariesofgenderand sexu-
ality: transsexuals,bisexuals,transvestites, and other binaryoutlaws"
(1993, xv-xvi).
Like the separationof sexualityand gender,the criticismof identity
politics(and thedualismsthatidentity politicsare seento impose)seems
to be at the heartof queer theory,particularlyin its more postmodern
manifestations. In thisvein,thereis theworkthatlabels itselfexplicitly
as "queer theory"or is labeled so bythearbitersof culturaltrends.This
is generallyacademicwriting, typicallywithindepartments ofEnglishand
literature,butit is not alwaysrootedin theacademy.It can sometimesbe
foundin the new (and fleeting)spaces of gay journalismand gay film-
making.
Nevertheless,queer theory,like mosttheoreticalenterprises, is by no
means a monolithicand unifiedfieldof ideas and practices.The writersI
discussin thisarticledo not,ofcourse,all hold thesame beliefsor adhere
to thesame politicaltraditionsand commitments. Indeed,manyhaveen-
gaged in substantivecritiquesof each other.For example,Warner(1992)
has been quitecriticalof whathe sees as Butler'sundertheorization of the
politicalramifications of a postidentity queerness.Thereis no intention
here to lump theoriststogether.Nevertheless,while theoristssuch as
Sedgwick,Butler,Warner,and GayleRubinnot onlyemergefromdiffer-
entintellectualtraditionsbutpositionthemselves in quitedeliberatelydif-
ferentsocial spaces (and I should note hereparticularlyRubin's[1993]
admirableattentionto social and historicalspecificity), I would argue
thattheyall, to a certainextent,share a problematicperspective on femi-
nismand the women'smovementand have engaged,in different waysof
course, with gay male identityas the site of privilegedsubjectivity. By
speakingof a varietyof theorists, I do not mean to implytheirsameness,
only that,in certainmatters(and not in others,manyof whichI point
out), theysharecertainspecificpositions,ideas, argument,tendencies.
One such sharedformulation is offeredby Diana Fuss in the opening
of her edited book on gay and lesbian theory(1991b). She arguesthat
"many of the currenteffortsin lesbian and gay theory . . . have begun the
buturgenttextualworknecessaryto call intoquestionthestabil-
difficult
ityand ineradicability of thehetero/homo hierarchy,
suggestingthatnew
(and old) sexual possibilitiesare no longerthinkablein termsof a simple
inside/outside dialectic" (1991a, 1). This seemscrucialto thenew queer
thinking-a rejection(followingpoststructuralism) oftherigidbinarisms
of a dualistmodel of sexual desireand an argumentforthepluralityand
irreducibility(irreducibleto gender,to the body,to social construction)
of sexual desireand sexual play.The modelof "inside/out," whilecentral
to "helpingus to understandthecomplicatedworkings ofsemiosis" (Fuss
1991a, 1), also confinesus and becomespartof thepolicingapparatusof

hegemonicsexuality:"Whereexactly,in thisborderlinesexual economy,

does theone identity leaveoffand theotherbegin?And whatgetsleftout
oftheinside/outside, heterosexual/homosexual opposition,an opposition
which could at least plausiblybe said to secureits seeminglyinviolable
dialecticalstructure onlybyassimilatingand internalizing othersexuali-
ties (bisexuality,transvestism,transsexualism...) to its own rigidpolar
logic?" (2).
Of mostconcernto me hereare theselastdefinitions, thewaysin which
the termqueer is thoughtto signifya new kind of politicsas well as a
new kind of theorizing,a theorizingmarkedby the veryopennessthat
allows so manydefinitionalpossibilities.Now, manywould argue that
this indeterminacy-thisinabilityto ascertaina precise definitionand
framework forthetermqueer-is preciselywhat givesit itspower:queer
is manythingsto manypeople,irreducible, undefinable, enigmatic,wink-
ingat us as it floutsconvention:theperfectpostmoderntrope,a termfor
thetimes,theepitomeof knowingambiguity. Good-byesimulacra,adios
panopticon,arrivedercilack, adieu jouissance: hello queer! But what is
lost in this fundeconstructionof the cohesion of identity?If queer be-
comes the new reigningsubjectivityfor hip activistsand intellectuals
alike, what kinds of politics and theoriesthen become "transcended,"
movedthroughand overin theconstruction of thequeer hegemony?It is
preciselymy concernoverthe implicitand explicitmarginalizationand
demonizationof feminismand lesbian-feminism embeddedin this"tran-
scendence"thatprovokedthisarticle.
Homo politicus,homo academicus

The growthof queer theoryand queer politicsmust be placed in a
social and political context.The most importantpieces of this are, of
course,theAIDS crisis,theriseof postmodern/poststructural theory,the
of
politics academia, the sex and
debates,4 recentcritiquesof feminism.I
wantto go througheach of thesebriefly to contextualizeboth thedevel-
opmentof thetermqueer and myown criticismsof it as well.
As manywritershave noted,the AIDS crisisnot onlyprompteda re-
newedand reinvigorated gayand lesbianmovementbut radicallyopened
up (or re-created)newwaysofdoingpolitics.Althoughthiswas surelynot
the firsttimegay men and women had workedtogether, AIDS activism
4 thetermsex debatesis shorthandfora reinvigorated
Briefly, discussionof sexuality,
power,pornography, and fantasythatwas, to a largeextent,sparkedby theeventssur-
roundingthe 1982 BarnardConference"The Scholarand theFeminist."At thisconfer-
ence, "sex radical" feminists
came intooftenangryconfrontation withantipornography
activistswho attemptedto censorthespeech of conferenceparticipants.Thus began a
long and complicatedseriesof debatesabout feminismand sexualitythathas produced
both acrimonyand meaningfulscholarship.See particularly Vance 1984.

broughtus togetherin a timeof crisisboth fromthe disease itselfand

fromthe increasingattacks on gay and lesbian life fromthe religious
Rightand the Republicanadministrations. It encourageda rethinking of
gay politics in the lightof this crisis but also in the lightof the way in
whichgaymenand womenhavelearnedmoreabout each otherand their
variouscommunities.So, we would want to recognizethe specificity of
as
queer politics emerging with the crisisof AIDS and the development
of groupssuch as ACT-UP and Queer Nation: "Many of thesenew gay
militantsrejectthe liberalvalue of privacyand the appeal to tolerance
whichdominatethe agendas of moremainstreamgay organizations.In-
stead,theyemphasizepublicityand self-assertion; confrontation and di-
rectaction top theirlistof tacticaloptions;the rhetoricof difference re-
places the moreassimilationist liberalemphasison similarity withother
groups" (Duggan 1992, 15). In addition,queer has developedas a way
to broadenthe definitions, so thatthe movementcan be more inclusive
(e.g., bisexual, transgendered,etc.): "Queer culture... in its openness
and itsnon-specificity,potentially suggeststhetrulypolymorphous nature
of our difference, of difference withinthe gay and lesbian community.
The minuteyou say 'queer' you are necessarilycallinginto questionex-
actlywhatyoumeanwhenyousayit.Thereis alwaysan implicitquestion
about what constitutes'queerness'that attendsthe minuteyou say the
word.So, itseemsto me thatqueerincludeswithinita necessarily expan-
sive impulsethat allows us to thinkabout potentialdifferences within
thatrubric"(Harper,White,and Cerullo 1993, 30).
This has promptedno smallamountof debate,as one mightimagine.
On what basis are thesedifferent "identities"(practices?)joinedtogether
undertheheadingqueer?Are queer politicssimplya politicsof thenon-
normative,as thiswriterseemsto suggest?"Anemergentlesbianpolitics
acknowledgedtherelativeautonomyof genderand sexuality, sexismand
heterosexism.It suggestedthatlesbianssharedwithgay men a sense of
'queerness,'a nonnormativesexualitywhich transcendsthe binarydis-
tinctionhomosexual/heterosexual to includeall who feeldisenfranchised
by dominant sexual norms-lesbians and gay men,as well as bisexuals
and transsexuals"(Stein 1992, 50). Giventhislogic,could not thecate-
gory queer include pedophiles,incestperpetrators, heteroS/Mers,dis-
satisfiedstraights,and so forth?5In otherwords,if all thatwe share is
a nonnormativesexualityand a disenfranchisement, then why not be
totallyinclusive?This reducesqueer politicsto a banal (and potentially
5 I do not mean to be facetioushere;indeed,theverypublic debatesoverthe "place"
of organizationslikeNAMBLA (NorthAmericanMan-BoyLove Association)in thegay

and lesbianmovementillustratestheverypressingpoliticalconcernsraisedby a simple
politicsof nonnormativity. voicesagainst
It is no accidentthatsome of thestrongest
NAMBLA's inclusionin marches,organizations,and so forthhavebeen lesbian-feminist.

dangerous)politics of simpleopposition,potentiallyaffiliating groups,

identities,and practicesthat are explicitlyand implicitlyin opposition
to each other.To linkpoliticallyand theoretically around a "difference"
fromnormativeheterosexuality a
imposes (false)unityaround disparate
practices and communities. Politically,of course,thesedifferent groups/
practices do not necessarilyshare a progressive politicalagenda on sexu-
ality; nonnormativity is hardlya banner around which to rally.How-
ever,formanywritersand activistsalike (inspired,perhaps,by Michel
Foucault'swork)regulationitselfis theproblem;thecreationof normsis
the fundamentalact of repression.With this logic, any unifyingof the
nonnormativeraises the political stakes around regulationand thus
opens thedoor to liberatorymoves.
If,as bisexualwriterElisabethDaumer writes,thesenew movesliber-
ate "thequeer in all of us" (1992, 92), thenwhathappensto anyconcep-
tionof oppositionalidentity? Does thismoveof inclusivity (and thechal-
lengeto notionsof authenticidentity thatit entails)runtheriskof setting
up another(albeit grander)opposition?And does it end up in a sort of
meaninglesspluralismmotivatedonlybya vague senseof dissent,as Lisa
Duggan suggests:"The notionof a 'queer community'... is oftenused
to constructa collectivityno longerdefinedsolelyby the genderof its
members'sexual partners.This new communityis unifiedonly by a
shared dissent from the dominant organizationof sex and gender"
(1992, 20).
The eightiesand earlyninetieshavealso witnessedtheriseof postmod-
ernismand poststructuralism in social theory:the demiseof the "grand
narratives,"a new of
suspicion "identitypolitics"as constructing a poten-
tialhegemonyaroundtheidentity"gay" or "lesbian" as ifthatnecessarily
supposed a unifiedand coherentsubjectivity: gay person.Identityis cri-
tiqued here as a
supposing unity,squeezing out difference,perpetuating
binarismsand dichotomousformations, and borderingon (ifnotinstanti-
ating)essentialism.So postmoderntheorychallengestheidea ofgayiden-
tityas expressing"true"-not constructed-gaysexuality.
Many feminists haveproducedtrenchant critiquesof postmodernism,6
and even more findthemselves(ourselves)in an admittedlyambiguous
relationto thechallengesofferedbypostmoderntheorizing.Whilethisis
not the place to delve into thatwhole debate,sufficeit to say thatmany
feministshave been wary of the quick dismissalof "the subject" and
politicalagencyjust when it seemedthatwomenweregettingaround to
acquiringsome.The critiqueof identity so centralto postmoderntheoriz-
ing seems to manyto place feministactivismin a political straitjacket,
unable to move (because movingrequiresrelianceon identityconcepts
6
Seeparticularly
Hartsock1983;Bordo1990;Nicholson1990;andModleski1991.

thatare themselvessuspect),yetneedingdesperatelyto organizewomen

preciselyaroundthosenewlysuspectcategories.
Postmoderntheory,in addition,has been markedby its fetishof the
margins.If postmoderntheoryfindsresistancein the interstices of the
body politic, in the marginalspaces, then queer theory takes up on that,
dispersingresistanceaway fromthe locatable and specificbody of the
lesbianor thegayman and onto thismoreamorphoussiteof the "queer
body" (whichmay or may not be gay). Postmoderntheoryoftentends
towarda fetishof inconsistency, contradictions, and theever-present"dif-
ference."This can degenerateintoan assertionof thehipnessor sexiness
of contradiction.But progressives havelong arguedthatsome contradic-
tionsare not onlynot sexybut are actuallyreactionaryand thatthereis
indeeda relationshipbetweenhow one livesone's lifeand thepoliticsone
espouses, so that livingin a segregatedneighborhoodor replicatingthe
sexual divisionof labor in thehome would not be "sexy" contradictions
foravowedantiracistsand feminists butwould insteadbe suspectto chal-
lenge. So thisemphasison the delightin inconsistency forits own sake
seemsto me foolhardyat best.
Queer theoryin the academyis curiouslyplaced. Clearly,mostqueer
theorytakes place in the contextof women'sstudiesand/orlesbian and
gay studies,even as it attemptsto move outsidethose parameters.And
mostqueer theorists,I haveno doubt,themselvesembrace(albeituneas-
ily)the identity"gay." Nevertheless, thereis a disturbing trendin which
queertheoryhas becomedisassociatedfromgayidentity. Indeed,thisdis-
associationis oftencelebratedas thenecessaryadjunctto thedisassocia-
tion of genderand sexuality.One of the interesting aspectsof thisphe-
in
nomenonof queer theory the academy is thatyou do not have to be
gay to do it, in factit is much betterif you are not.7Queer (as opposed
to gay or lesbian)letsyou offtheidentity hook thewaythatgenderstud-
ies has vis-a-viswomen'sstudies,while cashingin on the trendinessof
postmodernism. What are the implicationsof a queer theorydisassoci-
ated froma gayand lesbianidentity? This is not easyto answer,and I do
notwantto be claiminga sortofessentialist(god forbid!)idea thatinsists
one mustbe somethingin orderto teachit.8Clearly,nongayscholarsmust
Isay thisonlyhalf-jokingly. Althoughclearlymostqueer theoristsare gay,theredoes
7
seem to be a proliferation of the "Sedgwick"phenomenonin whichmarried,heterosexual

collegeprofessorsthrowofftheirmarriedheterosexuality (but staymarriedand heterosex-
ual) and claim "queerness."AlthoughSedgwickis certainlythemostnotorious,she is not
the sole representativeof thistrend.
8 This is a
verytouchyissue and one, I mustadmit,I am verytornover.For,on the
one hand, an essentialistposition(one mustbe somethingto teachit,and that"being"
represents the truthof theexperience)is unacceptableon anynumberof levels.On the
otherhand, ifwe believethatknowledgeis alwayssituated-that we alwaysspeak and
thinkfromsomewhere-thento say it does not matterat all is equallyunacceptable.
Indeed,we do not arguefora morediversefacultyjustto be morerepresentative in our

teachgay"subjects," as maleprofessors mustteachaboutwomenand

whitesmustteachaboutpeopleofcolor.Butthethorny issuesofauthen-
ticity, and
experience, co-optation are not resolved by assertion
an that
no identity is real.Arewe reallyto evacuatethecentrality ofexperience
forthevacuousness ofpositionality (positionalityas indicating thealways
and
provisional temporal nature ofpoliticallocation and action)?While
and
compelling suggestive, I fear thatthe of
concept positionality tends
towarda voluntarism thatignores themultiple, structural
felt, determina-
tionsonpeople'severyday existence. Ifyouare"gayloving"(as Sedgwick
oftenrefers to it),is thatsynonymous withbeinggay?Does thatdiffer-
encenotmatter anymore?Aregayandlesbianstudiessimply to become
another academiccommodity thatanyonecanbuyinon,giventheproper
allegiances andfashionstatements?
The straight whitemarried manat myuniversity who sayshe "does"
queertheory inhisEnglishclassesis ina structurally different placethan
I am.Does thisperhapshavesomerelevance? Shouldhenotspeakto this
insomeway?Itis notto saythatI (as a lesbian)can speakthe"truth"of
lesbianlifemorethanhe can; itis to saythatthisdifference needsto be
acknowledged and reckonedwithin thecourseof academiclife.This
meansnot onlybeingexplicitaboutthedifferent risksimpliedin our
positions butalsoacknowledging thedifferent waysweknowandpresent
thisknowledge and theeffects thatmayhaveon ourstudents. I knowit
is hopelessly retroto speakofstructure thesedays,to insistthatmaterial
conditions actuallydo imposereal,felt,and experienced limitson our
livesinradically different ways.Mystraight colleaguemayormaynotbe
wellintentioned. But,whilethisdoesmatter, itis notat all clearthathis
good intentions alter his to
power speak and myrelative powerlessness.
I suspectthattheseconcerns aboutthepoliticsofexperience getlost
in theradicaldisassociation ofidentity fromembodiedpractices. Thisis
notto saythatoppression is themarkoftruthor authenticity butthat,
giventhehierarchies ofpowerinacademia,wecannotafford tolosesight
of "fromwherewe speak."The deconstruction of identity politics(the
recognition thatidentity categories can be regulatory regimes) mayhave
somemerit,butit can also, in theworldof academiaas wellin other
socialspaces,becomethevehicleforco-optation: theradicalqueertheo-
ristas married heterosexual. It becomesa convenient wayto avoidthose
questionsof privilege. Whatare theimplications involvedin claiming
"queerness" whenoneis notgayor lesbian?And,wouldwe tolerate this
passing(indeed,it is evenbeingcelebrated!) in anothercontext, saythe
contextofraceor ethnicity? Ifit is clearlyco-optive and colonizing for
facultystatistics;we also do so because we feeldiversity

is not simplyan intellectualac-
quisitionbut is embodiedas well.

the whitepersonto claim blacknessif she or he "feels" black (or even

feelsalignedpoliticallywiththe strugglesagainstracism),thenwhyis it
so strangely legitimatefora heterosexualto claim queernessbecause she
or he feelsa disaffection fromtraditionaldefinitions of heterosexuality?
The whiteacademic says she is workingon antiracismand on issues of
race and ethnicity; the straight(mostoftenwhite)academicsaysshe (or
he, more often) queer.Thereis a hugejump beingmade fromstudying/
is
teachinggay and lesbianworkto pronouncingoneselfqueer.That jump
is, I believe,bothintellectually and politicallydangerous.Straightfaculty
can and mustanalyze and teach about the logics of compulsoryhetero-
sexuality,but theymustexplicitlyrecognizethat,forexample,theyare
more likelyto be takenseriouslyand deemedlegitimatebecause of that
verysystemtheyare critiquing.In addition,theymustacknowledgethat
the "will to know" is different; "knowing"lesbian and gay studiescan
neverbe simplyor only an academic commodityforthe gay or lesbian
facultymemberor student.It is not justa trope.
Queer theory, particularly in itsmoreacademicmanifestations, is often
posed as a responseto a certainkind of feministand lesbiantheorizing
that is now deemed hopelesslyretro,boring,realist,modernist,about
shoringup identityratherthanits deconstruction. I will discussthisfur-
therbelow,but therehas been a kind of reigningdogma in progressive
and postmodernacademic circles these days that constructsan "old-
time" feminismin orderto pointout how the sex debates,postmodern-
ism,and queer theoryhave nicelysupersededthisoutmoded,reformist,
prudish,banal feminism ofold. Is itpossiblethatqueertheory'sunspoken
is
Other feminism, or even lesbianism,or lesbian-feminism?
Queer theory's relationto thepoliticsand theorizing ofracializediden-
titiesis no less fraughtthan its relationto feminism and feminist identi-
ties. It seems to me-in the littlethathas been publishedexplicitlyad-
dressingthisrelationship(and thisitselfis a problem,because although
thereis a growingbody of critiquefromwhitefeminists, I have found
littlespecificallyaddressingquestions of race and queernessperse)-that
lesbian and gay writersof color are expressingboth optimismwiththe
new queer designationsas well as trepidation. The optimismis locatedin
thequeerdethroning ofgenderand the(possible)openingup ofqueerness
to articulationsof "otherness"beyondthegenderdivide.In otherwords,
ifqueercan be seento challengesuccessfully genderhegemony, thenitcan
make both theoreticaland politicalspace formore substantivenotions
of multiplicity and intersectionality. However,queer can "de-race" the
homosexualof color in muchthesame way "old-time"gaystudiesoften
has, effectively erasingthe specificity of "raced" gay existenceundera
queer rubricin whichwhitenessis not problematized.Sagri Dhairyam,
in "Racing the Lesbian, Dodging White Critics,"critiquesthe implicit

whitenessof queernesswhile stillattempting to instantiatethe category

"queer women of color." "'Queer theory' comes increasingly to be reck-
oned withas criticaldiscourse,but concomitantly writesa queer white-
nessoverracedqueerness;it domesticatesrace in itselaborationof sexual
difference"(1994, 26). Gloria Anzaldfuamakes a somewhat different
point;she feelsmoreaffinity withqueer as a termof moreworking-class
and "deviant"etymology thanwhat she sees as thehistorically whiteand
middle-classoriginsof thedesignationslesbianand gay. CherrieMoraga
and AmberHollibaugh havemade a similarargumentin theiruse of the
phrasequeer lesbian,stressing theirembraceof thetermforitsdifference
frommiddle-classlesbian feministidentities(1983). Yet Anzalduiaalso
accuses whiteacademicsof co-optingthetermqueer and usingit to con-
struct"a falseunifying umbrellawhichall 'queers' of all races,ethnicities
and classes are shovedunder" (1991, 250).
In addition,I would also suspectthattheinattention to materialsocial
relations (commodification,the fluctuationsof internationalcapital,
shiftingformsof familiallife,rise in antigayactivism,regressivesocial
legislation,increasingdisenfranchisement ofpeople ofcolor,etc.) and the
academicismof muchof queer writingwould be problemsfora lesbian/
gay praxisthatis bothclass and race conscious.Marlon Riggshintedat
thiswhenhe deconstructed his own situationas "black queer diva": "Le
Butch-Girl wonders,forinstance,ifher/his permissionto saygender-fuck
is contingent upon knowingand articulating Fanon,Foucault,Gates,Gil-
roy,hooks,Hall, West,and therestas well" (1992, 102). To what extent
does queernessembraceRu Paul and The CryingGame's JayeDavidson
as queer icons but effectively ignorethe specificrealitiesof lesbiansand
gaysof color?
The case of the disappearing lesbian (or, where the boys are)
My main critiqueof the new popularityof "queer" (theoryand, less
so, politics)is thatit often(and once again) eraseslesbianspecificityand
theenormousdifference thatgendermakes,evacuatestheimportanceof
feminism, and rewritesthehistoryof lesbianfeminism and feminism gen-
erally.Now this is not to say that stronglyidentifiedlesbians have not
embracedqueertheoryand politics,or thatthosewho do so are somehow
actingin bad faithor are "antifeminist." Indeed,whatmakesqueertheory
so excitingin partis thewayin whichso manydifferent kindsof theorists
have been attractedto itspromise.Many lesbians(includingmyself)have
been attractedto queer theoryout of frustration witha feminismthat,
they believe, either subsumes lesbianism under the generic category
woman or poses genderas the transcendent categoryof difference,thus
makingcross-gender gayalliancesproblematic.To a certainextent,I, too,

share this excitementand embracethe queer move thatcan complicate

an oftentoo-easyfeministtake on sexual identitythat linkslesbianism
(in theworst-casescenario)to an almostprimordialand timelessmother-
bond or a hazy woman-identification. At the same time,however,I fear
thatmanylesbians'engagementwithqueer theoryis informed itselfbya
rudimentary and circumscribed (revisionist)history of feminism and
gender-basedtheory that paints an unfairpicture of feminism as rigid,
homophobic,and sexless.As BiddyMartinnotes,"The workof compli-
catingour theorieshas too oftenproceeded,however,bywayofpolemical
and ultimatelyreductionistaccounts of the varietiesof feministap-
proachesto just one feminism, guiltyof the humanisttrapof makinga
self-same,universalcategoryof "women"-defined as otherthanmen-
the subject of feminism.At its worst,feminismhas been seen as more
punitively policingthanmainstreamculture"(1994, 105).
The story,alludedto above,goes somethinglikethis:once upon a time
therewas this group of reallyboringuglywomen who neverhad sex,
walkeda lot in thewoods, read bad poetryabout goddesses,woreflannel
shirts,and hated men (even theirgay brothers).They called themselves
lesbians.Then, thankfully, along came theseguysnamed Foucault,Der-
rida, and Lacan dressedin girls' clothesridingsome verylarge white
horses. They told these sillywomen that theywere politicallycorrect,
rigid,frigid,sex-hatingprudeswho justdid notGET IT-it was all a game
anyway,all about wordsand images,all about mimicry and imitation,all
of
a cacophony signsleading back to nowhere. To have a politicsaround
gender was silly,they were told, because gender was just a performance
anyway, a costume one on in
put and, dragperformance, worebackward.
And everyoneknew boyswerebetterat dressup.
So, queernessis theorizedas somehow beyondgender,a vision of a
sort of transcendent polymorphousperversity deconstructing as it slips
fromone desiring/desired object to the other.But thisforgets veryreal
the
and feltexperienceof genderthat women,particularly, live with quite
explicitly.Indeed, one could argue that this is really the dividingline
arounddifferent notionsofqueer;to whatextentdo theoristsarguequeer
as a termbeyond(or through)gender?"Where de Lauretisretainsthe
categories'gay' and 'lesbian'and some notionof genderdivisionas parts
of her discussionof what 'queerness'is (or mightbe), JudithButlerand
Sue-EllenCase havearguedthatqueernessis somethingthatis ultimately
beyondgender-it is an attitude,a way of responding,that beginsin a
place not concernedwith,or limitedby,notionsof a binaryopposition
of male and femaleor the homo versusheteroparadigmusuallyarticu-
lated as an extensionof this genderbinarism"(Doty 1993, xv). But,
again, this seems to assume that feminists(or gays and lesbians) have
somehowcreatedthesebinarisms.

Unliketheterms gayandlesbian,queeris notgenderspecific, andthis

ofcoursehas beenoneofitssellingpoints,as itpurports to speakto the
diversity ofthegayandlesbiancommunity andto dethrone genderas the
significant marker of sexual identity and sexual expression.PhillipBrian
in a
Harper, pieceadapted from a talk at the second OUTWrite Confer-
encein 1992,arguesthatit is precisely thisattention to thediversity of
gay and lesbian culture thatmarks offqueer from lesbianand gay: "What
I meanisthatthedichotomous formulation ofgayandlesbian,thatwe've
beentaughtsincethe1970sto useinpolitically correctcontexts, is useful
and has beena veryeffective educational tool,buthas at thesametime
suggested initsdichotomy thatthere's onlyonerelevant typeofdifference
withinourculture, i.e.,genderdifference" (Harper, White, and Cerullo
1993,29-30).
The pointthatgenderis nottheonlysignificant marker ofdifference
is an important one and onethatdeserves development and reiteration.9
Thispoint,of course,has beenforcefully madein regardto bothrace
and class.Butin a culturein whichmaleis thedefaultgender, in which
homosexual(a termthatalso does notspecify gender)is all too often
imagedas male,andgayas both,to seequeeras somehow genderneutral
is ludicrous and willfully naive.Feminism has taughtus thattheidea of
genderneutrality is notonlyfictitious buta moveofgenderdomination.
I applaudqueertheory's expansionoftheconceptofdifference butam
concerned that,too often, genderis notcomplicated butmerely ignored,
dismissed, or "transcended." In contradistinction, I wouldarguethatthe
critiqueof gendertheoryfromtheperspective of womenof colorhas
doneprecisely whatthequeercritique ofgenderis onlypartially andin-
completely to do. In otherwords,genderinblackfeminist
able writing is
not"transcended" orsomehowdeemedan "enemy"concept.Rather, the
conceptofgender-andfeminist theory moregenerally-iscomplicated,
expanded,deepened both to its
challenge "privileged" statusand to ren-
der it susceptible to theoriesof intersectionality and multiplicity. The
queercritique of the feminist mantra of the separationof sex and gender
(sex beingthe biological"rawmaterial"and genderthe sociallycon-
structed edificethatcreatesmasculinity andfemininity) is helpful incom-
9I wouldnote,however, indisagreement withHarper,thatthesimpleconstruction of
a "dichotomy" doesnot,inmymind,necessarily meanthatthosewhousethatdichot-
omyarenegating otheridentitiesandmeanings. Forexample, thefactthatthisarticlecri-
tiquesqueertheoryprimarily arounditserasureoflesbianspecificity
anddemonization of
feminism doesnotmeanthatothercritiques ofqueerarenotimportant andvalid(say,a
critiqueofqueerarounditserasure ofcolorintheuniversalizingmoveofnationhood). Be-
causeI amprimarilyspeaking ofthequeerocclusionoffeminism andgenderdoesnotim-
plythatI ammyself "privileging" genderas themostimportant marker ofdifference;it
simplyimpliesthatthisis thecoresubjectofthisparticular In discussing
article.
(limited)
otherdifferences
throughout thisarticle, aroundraceandethnicity,
particularly I tryto
makethispointmoreforcefully.

plicatingwhat has becomea somewhatroterecitationof social construc-

tionistargument,an argumentthat too oftenleaves the body and its
variousconstructions unexamined.But in the lightof recently resurgent
theoriesof biologicaldeterminism (see particularly thefirestorm of con-
troversy generatedby the determinist tract The Bell Curve by Herrnstein
and Murray[1994]), theinsistenceon a righteoussocial constructionism
(womenare made,not born;we are not simplyan expressionof our bio-
logicalmakeup,etc.) mightbe importantstrategically and politically. Too
oftenin thesequeer challengesto thisdichotomy, sex becomesthegrand
forceof excessthatcan offermorepossibilitiesforliberatory culture,and
gender the constraint on that which would (naturally?) flow freelyand
polymorphously if leftto its own devices. Biddy Martin has made the
argumentthat,forSedgwickand others,race and genderoftenassumea
fixity,a stability,a ground,whereas sexuality(typicallythematizedas
male) becomesthe "means of crossing"and thefigureof mobility. In the
processof makingthefemalebodythe"drag" on the(male) playof sexu-
ality,"the femalebody appears to become its own trap,and the opera-
tionsof misogynydisappearfromview" (Martin1994, 104, 109-10).
But it is also notclearto me thatthisvisionof a genderlessnonnorma-
tivityis a worthwhilegoal. Is a degenderedidea of sexual identity/sexual
desirewhat we strivefor?Is thisjust a postmodernversionof a liberal
pluralist"if it feelsgood, do it" ethos?Also, theimages/signifiers forthis
transcendence(of gender) are suspiciously male (why can't a woman be
more like a fag?). If the phallus has been replacedby the dildo as the
primesignifierof sexual transgression, of queerness,how far have we
reallycome, so to speak?
Queer discoursesetsup a universal(male) subject,or at leasta univer-
sal gay male subject,as its implicitreferent. (It is interesting to note in
this regardthat the 1993 summerspecial "Queer Issue" of the Village
Voicewas called "FaithHope & Sodomy.")We cannotdenythecentrality
of gay malenessto this reconstruction of queer as radical practice.For
example, Sue-Ellen Case discussesher engagementwiththe word queer
bysaying that "I became queerthroughmyreaderlyidentification witha
male homosexualauthor" (1991, 1). This is not to saythatit is not per-
fectlyfineto "identify"withgaymen,butwhatthispassage illustrates is
a trendtowarda giddymergerwithgaymenthatis leftrelatively unprob-
lematized.No one goes further withthisidentification than Sedgwick.I
am reluctantto focus on her in this way,yet she herselfhas so fore-
grounded her own personal predilectionsthat she seems ratherfair
game.10In a piece called "A Poem Is BeingWritten," Sedgwickbemoans
critiquesof Sedgwickand heroeuvre(1991,

trenchant
0ODavid Bergmanhas written
1993).

her "failure... to make the obvious swervethatwould have connected

my homosexual desire and identification with my need and love, as a
woman, of women" (1993, 209). Indeed, she goes on to note that her
"identification as a gay person is a firmlymale one, identification'as' a
gay man" (209). In manyways, this does not even havethe naivehonesty
of thefag-hagwho simplygrooveson thepanache of gaymen. Sedgwick,
thepostmodernintellectualsubject,mustnot onlyidentify or sympathize
or politicallyally,she must be. And lesbianismhere,in this "tortured"
self-study,simplybecomestheunfortunate absence,not reallythestuffof
identitiesand identifications, merely the detritusof the grandnarratives
of male homosocialityand homosexuality.
Althoughlesbiansare occasionallymentioned(usuallywhenspeaking
of S/M),gaymenmostassuredlyhavebecomethemodel forlesbianradi-
cal sex (e.g., the celebrationof pornography, the "reappropriation"of
the phallus in the fascinationwiththe dildo, the "daddy" fantasies,and
reverenceforpublicsex of Pat Califia,etc.).11This has entaileda denigra-
tionof lesbianattemptsto rethinksexualitywithina feminist framework.
Granted(and we do not need to go throughthisone moretime),lesbian
sexualityhas sufferedfromboth a discursiveneglectand an idealization
on the part of lesbians themselves.The image of hand-holding,eye-
gazing,woodsyeroticism,however,is not whollythecreationof lesbians
but partof the devaluationand stereotyping of all women'ssexualityby
male-dominantculture.Even in thathavenof supposedlyuptight,sepa-
ratistnonsex (Northampton,Massachusetts,in the late 1970s and early
1980s), I seem to rememberwe wereall doingthe nastyfairlywell,and,
forall thetalkof the "lesbian sex police,"12no girleverbangeddown my
door and stymiedmy sexual expression.The straightgaybashers,how-
ever,did. We should neverforgetthisdifference as we gliblyuse words
likepolice.
Indeed,Vera Whismancriticizesthose feminists who "policed" other
lesbianswithchargesof male identification and saysthat "such charges
of male-identification were rootednot onlyin anti-sexattitudes... but
also in essentialistunderstandings of womanhood" (1993, 55). Do we
' See particularly

Creet1991; Reich 1992; Hall 1993; and Roy 1993.
12
I recognize,of course,thatoppositionalcultures(includinglesbianculture)do tyran-
nize theirown members.Indeed,the brutalhistoryof theSovietUnion and the sad and
dogmatichierarchiesof theAmericanLeftprovidevividexamplesof thisprocess.To
some extent,I thinkit feelsevenmorebrutishwhenthe "clampingdown" comes from
withinone's own ranks,e.g., fromotherlesbians.However,in recognizingthisand ar-
guingagainstit,we shouldnot constructa monolithicnew "other" who can now serveas
a historicalreminderof thetediouspast we have sincetranscended.And we need to make
carefuldistinctionsabout this"policing,"based on questionsof intentionality,
power,
structurallocation,etc. It seemsto me thatthe "policing" of lesbiansby thehomophobic
statethat,say,takesaway our childrenis not of thesame typeor orderas the "policing"
thatcomes fromlesbiansthemselvesaroundissues of sexuality,sexual practices,style,etc.

reallywant to relinquisha critiqueof male identification? Afterall, the

feminist insight thata central impediment to women's liberation(yes,lib-
eration) is an identificationwith and dependence on males and male ap-
proval,desire,status,and so on is so obvious as to be banal. Chargesof
male identification mayhavebeenspuriouslymadeat times,buttheanaly-
sis of male identification is centraland important.
The constructionof an old, bad, exclusive,policinglesbianfeminism
is necessaryforthe "bad girl" (dildo in tow) to emergeas theknightin
leatherarmor,readyto make the world safe for sexual democracy,as
TerraleeBensingerargues:"Anythreatto the'unity'of theideal feminist
community(as well as to the more 'general' lesbian community)is
branded'outlaw' activityand purgedfromthenetworksof inclusion.In
thiscase, pro-sexlesbianpornographers functionas theexpurgedexcess
againstwhich the illusionof communityunityis maintained(in reified
form).Lesbian feminismhas a historyof exclusionas muchas anything
else" (1992, 71).
In her historyof this exclusion,Bensingercites the political event
known as the "lavendermenace" (the action to challengethe purgeof
lesbians in the National OrganizationforWomen) to "indicatehow it
stuntedthe historical'writing'of lesbiansexual identityand subsequent
practicefor years.The resultof this group'sstrategicmaneuverwas a
discursive/historical repressionof the specificitiesof lesbian sexuality
whichwas subsumedunderthereifiedsignof Woman" (1992, 73). Gee,
and I thoughthomophobiaand antifeminism weretheproblem!
In an articleon the "decentering of lesbianfeminism," Steintracesthe
history of the lesbian movement, from its earlyattemptsto shiftaway
fromthe medical models of sexual devianceto the constructionof the
"woman-identified woman" and thedevelopmentof a lesbiansubculture
and "women'sculture"in general.She takesus to theperiodof rupture-
the 1980s-where "a seriesof structural and ideologicalshiftsconspired
to decenterthe lesbian-feminist model of identity.First,the predomi-
nantly white and middle-classwomen who comprised the base of
the movementaged, underwentvarious life-cyclechanges,and settled
into careers and familiesof various stripes-often even heterosexual
ones. Second, a growingrevoltemergedfromwithin:women of color,
working-classwomen, and sexual minorities,threeseparate but over-
lappinggroups,assertedtheirclaims on lesbian identitypolitics" (Stein
1992, 47).
But, in an otherwiseastuteand fairchronology, Steinengagesin the
kind of reductionist readingthathas marredothersimilarnarratives.In
discussingthe challengesof the "sex debates" and theAIDS crisisas re-
introducingsexualityand desireinto lesbian discourseand identity, she

engagesin a simplisticsubstitution:"As thewitheredbody of theperson

with AIDS replacedthe once-pervasiveimage of the all-powerfulmale
oppressor,the sense of male threatwhichunderlaylesbian-feminist poli-
tics diminishedfurther"(Stein 1992, 49). But, of course, "male threat"
(or even patriarchy)has hardly withered,although it has certainly
changed. Curiouslyabsent fromthis historyis the rise of the religious
Right,which broughtwith it an unprecedentedbacklash against femi-
nism,women'srights,and poor people-along withits attackson gays
and lesbians. It is not thatthe image of the AIDS sufferer (and we will
leave aside thaticonographyforthe moment)has replacedthe image of
male oppressor; indeed, the images (and policies) of Reagan, Bush,
Quayle, Helms, Robertson,Falwell, Terry(and now the new terror-
Newt Gingrich),and othersare vividand imposing.
Even further, not only are those repressedand repressivelesbians re-
sponsibleforputtinga major damperon our nascentsexuality,but femi-
nism itselfis responsiblefor that horrorof all horrors:THE BINARY.
Bensingerindicts"the binariesgeneratedwithinfeminist movement:fem-
inism/patriarchy, inside/outside,and porn/erotica"(1992, 88). Certain
strandsof feminism mightindeedhaveperpetuatedsome oftheseopposi-
tions (and is feminismnot opposed to patriarchy?), but, alas, theylong
predatesecond-wavefeminism. Seventiesfeminism herebecomestheogre
thathauntsqueer kids of today."By theseventiesfeminism had sanitized
lesbianism.Lesbophobia forcedlesbians to cling to feminismin an at-
temptto retainrespectability. However,in theeighties,discussionsof sa-
domasochism permanentlyaltered the relationshipof many lesbians
to feminism"(Morgan 1993, 39). I would have hoped most politically
astute lesbians (and gay men, for that matter)were/arefeminists;this
should be a theorywe embrace(not "clingto") and, of course,transform
and challengein thatembrace.
Many queer activistsand theoristsseem to believethe media fiction
thatfeminismis either(a) dead because we lost or (b) dead because we
won: "1988. So feminism is dead, or ithas changed,or itis stillmeaning-
fulto some of us butitspoliticalcurrency in theworldis weak, itsradical
heartexcised, its ploddingmiddle-classmoderationnow an acceptable
way of life.Feminismhas been absorbedbythe same generationthatso
proudlyclaimsto rejectit,and insteadofwomen'sliberationI hear,'Long
live the Queer nation!"' (Maggenti 1993, 250). As Whisman notes,
"Today's 'bad girls'rebelas much againsttheirfeministpredecessorsas
againstmale power" (1993, 48). In herreviewof thedifferences issue on
queer theory,Hennessychallengesthose writerswho set up feminism
as theenemy,"substitut[ing] feminism (theSymbolicMother)forpatriar-
chyas the mostnotable oppressiveforcethatlesbian sexual politicsand

eroticismmustcontendwith.For feminists thisshould seem a verydis-

turbingperspectiveshift,especially when feminism, amongyoungpeople
in particular,is morethanevera bad word" (1993, 969).
This is not to denythe importanceof the "sex debates" and thenew
discussionsaround lesbian sexualitythat,I agree,are long overdue.The
open and volatile discussionof sexualitypermanently alteredfeminist
praxis and allowed fora complex debate around the politicsof passion
and desirethatrecognizedthatthesimplisticrendering of women'ssexu-
alitywas in need of majorrevision.And thisis notto saythatsome lesbi-
ans, and some feminists,do not "judge" and indeed condemnsexual
practicesthattheyhavedeemedantithetical to theprojectofconstructing
a postpatriarchalworld. This censuringis to be heartilycontested,as it
has fromnumerouswritersand activists.But I simplysuggestthat we
apply our own theoriesconsistently:the narrativeof "sexless uptight
dykesofthe 1970s" is, afterall, a narrative, and as we havebeenso adept
at deconstructing narrativeforthe relationsof powerthatinherein the
tellingof history,we should be equally able to "read" this storywith,
well,a grainof salt at theveryleast.
Now gay male sex and its historiesbecometheverymodel of radical
chic: the backroomreplacesthe consciousness-raising session as site of
transformation. of
Feministcritiques objectification, concern withabuse
of women, and desire to construct nonpatriarchal forms of intimacy
become belittledand denigratedas so muchpruderyand "politicalcor-
rectness,"creatingan ahistoricalnarrativethatfurthers theseparationof
feminismfromqueer politicsand theory.
In an articleon her adventuresin the new lesbian backroomsof the
Village,Donna Minkowitzsees sexual and politicalliberationin thecon-
structionof spaces foranonymoussex, neveronce questioningthemale
model or her own location. She clearlyenviesthe gay men of the pre-
AIDS daysand bemoansherown teenagefate:"I havea girlfriend, not a
transgressive erotic world where I can do it with fivestrangers in an eve-
ning, or suck off girlupon girlin the darkness of themeat district"(1992,
34). But whyis thispracticedeemedtransgressive (and, consequently, a
"girlfriend"deemeddreadfully banal and prudish)?The modelof libera-
torysex beingconstructed hereis one where"sex ... is separatefromthe
world outside-it doesn'tviolatevows of monogamyor enterthe part-
nersintoa 'relationship"'(34). This mayor maynot be a liberatory prac-
tice (or it mayjust be fun),but its transgressiveness is not self-evidently
radical unless one sees transgression itselfas the supremeact of radical
identitymaking.I fear,here,we have a real failureof imagination.Are
lesbians unable to construct,envision,imagine,enact radicalsexualities
withoutrelyingso fundamentally on male paradigms?Must we look to

the boys in the backroomas our Sapphic saviors?Why are "gay male
sluts" (as Minkowitzputs it) themodel?
And whythis(theoretical)obsessionwiththe questionof whetherto
call oneselfa lesbian? In an articlefor the gay and lesbian anthology
Inside/Out,Butler(1991) spends severalpages ponderingthis puzzle,
an analogous puzzle to that posed recentlyby feministsabout whether
there really are "women" and whether our use of that category
reinscribes itsabilityto constructus in powerrelations.Sure,to a certain
extent,all categoriesare, as Butlerand othershave put it, "regulatory
regimes,"butso what?How can resisting theseregimesbe anything other
than an intellectualexercise, a game that can be reduced to that
old canard "don'tcategorizeme" (as liberalsand collegestudentswould
put it)? Is thisjust an emptygestureor, rather,a gesturefullwith self-
importance,postmodernhubris,rebelliousnose thumbing?It is not to
say thereisn'tmuchtruthto theclaim thathomosexualidentity, like all
categoricalidentities,is a "fiction"to a certainextent,is a collection
of regulationsand positions that can, perhaps,constrainas much as
enable, impose as much as liberate,police as much as free.But I think
that,in fact,the queer framework remainswithinthe binarismit so des-
peratelywants to explode, in that the assumptionis that gay identities
necessarily-in a structuralsense-act like all other identities.13 All
categorieshave rules,to be sure,but not all followthe same rules.The
historicalconditionsof growingup "gay" or "lesbian" in a homophobic
culturemay,in fact,produce categoriesof identitythat are more fluid,
more flexiblethan the categoriesof other identities,such as hetero-
sexuality.Why must we assume that all identitiesform around the
same structuralbinarismsand withthe same inherentrigidities?Is that
not essentialist?
And does thisdifference notmakea difference in how we "think"iden-
tity?When Butler saysthat she is "not at ease with 'lesbian theories,gay
theories,'"referring to thetitleof theanthology,because "identitycate-
goriestendto be instruments of regulatoryregimes,whetheras the nor-
of
malizingcategories oppressivestructures or as therallyingpointsfora
liberatory contestation of thatveryoppression"(1991, 13-14), does she
not want to stressthe difference betweenthesetwo moments-the mo-
mentof oppressionand the momentof liberation?Are those different
uses of identity categoriesjustthesurfacethatbeliesthe "deep meaning"
of identity as "really"about "oppressivestructures"? Or can we see these
different uses and meaningsof identityas radicallydifferent, not just
13
It is also interesting
to notethatthesecriticsof identityshyaway fromthe obvious
analogies of racial and ethnicidentity.

somehowsuperficially different? Indeed,does it not actuallysound a bit

to
strange speak of heterosexual identity(or WASP identity, etc.) and
shouldthatnot indicatesomethingabout thedifferences in thesetwo us-
ages/meanings? This is not simplyto argue that we need to adopt the
termswoman or lesbianas a sortof "strategicessentialism"as has been
argued elsewhere,but ratherto say let us thinkthis concept lesbian
throughthe historicaldevelopmentsof lesbiandesires,bodies,passions,
struggles, politics.
Butlergoes on in the articleto questionnot onlyidentityas a lesbian
but theprocessof "comingout,"as it further implicatesthe "subject"in
the subjectionof beingnamed and known: "Is the 'subject'who is 'out'
freeof its subjectionand finallyin theclear? Or could it be thatthesub-
jectionthatsubjectivatesthegayor lesbiansubjectin some wayscontin-
ues to oppress,or oppressesmostinsidiously, once 'outness'is claimed?"
(1991, 15). She further asks, "Can sexualityevenremainsexualityonce
it submitsto a criterionoftransparency and disclosure?"(15). Hmm,that
old devil moon is back again. Sexuality,she must be, how you say,an
enigma,hidden,dark,unconsciousforherto be ... fun.Shhh,don'ttalk,
don'tknow,don'teventhinkyou know,don'tclaim,don'treveal:desire
needs darkcurtainsof mystery to be pleasurable.
Shane Phelan, writingin the Signs special issue on lesbianism,joins
othersin critiquingtheprominenceof the "comingout" processforles-
bian identity,assertingthatthelanguageof "comingout" implies"a pro-
cess of discoveryor admissionratherthanone of construction or choice"
(1993, 773), thus producing an essentialist
notion of a "real" lesbian
identity that exists beneath the layers of denial or hiding. But I am not
surecomingout is as unitaryand simplea processas thesetheoristsmake
it out to be. Granted,formanyit can be thatsortof a revelatory move,
revealingthatwhichwas "reallythere"buthiddenall along. Butforoth-
ers, coming out is, first,not a momentbut rathera contradictory and
complexprocess that involves (perhaps)self-revelation,construction, po-
liticalstrategy,choice,and so forth.Second,it seemsludicrousto pretend
thatinternalizedhomophobiaand the realitiesof heterosexism and het-
erosexualprivilegeare not operativein and aroundthese"comingout"
processes.Phelanand othersseemto writeas ifwe "come out" in a social
and politicalvacuum. Phelan cites Barbara Ponse and Mark Blasius as
arguingfora conceptionof comingout as a sortof "becoming,"learning
the ways of being gay or lesbian (Phelan 1993, 774). But, again, I do
not see these as mutuallyexclusive.Of course "comingout" impliesa
becoming,a construction of theselfas gay,now not "hidden"withinthe
fictionof heterosexuality. But this "becoming" is, for so many,also
mergedwith a profoundsense of "revealing"a "truth"that one had

previously"hidden." That truthmightindeed be a fiction(in that no

identityis everpresocial,inheringin some untouchedpartof thesoul or
psycheor body), but it is a fictionthat manylive throughand in quite
deeply.
StevenSeidmanalso writesthathe now feelsmoreuneasywiththeact
of comingout and makes a similarleap that associates "coming out"
witha necessarilyregulatory process:
To theextentthatthepositiveeffectsof comingout haveturnedon

announcinga respectablehomosexuality, thispoliticshas thenega-
tive effectof pathologizingall those desires,behaviors,and lives
thatdeviatefroma normalizedhomosexuality-or heterosexuality.
Such a relentlesspoliticsof identity-"homosare reallyno different
fromstraights"-reinforcesan equally relentlessnormalizationof
conventionalsexual and gendercodes. In otherwords,comingout
is effective
onlyifthehomo made publicis announcedto be likethe
straightin everyway but sexual orientation.Thus all thewaysthat
homos may be queer-for example,thosewho like to cross-dress,
role play, have multiplesex partners,or engage in commercial,
rough,or public sex-are pathologizedby the strategyof coming
out as a respectablehomo. (1994, 170)
This constructsa totalizingnarrativeofcomingout thatdefieslogic.Why

does Seidmanassume that all who come out do so as "respectableho-
mos"? Surely,that is part of the discoursebut obviouslynot the whole
of it. What about the veryact of "coming out" necessarilyimpliesthe
pathologizingof certainpractices?It certainlycan (as can everything),
butI see no necessaryrelationunlessone viewsanydeclarationof identity
(howeverprefacedbycaveats)as an immediatesmokesignalto theforces
of dominationthatall is clear.And what of our responsibility to others?
If one less youngperson feelsalone and vulnerable,one less colleague
isolated and marginalized,is thatnot something-at the veryleast-to
consider?
But queer theorygetsits mostFelliniesquewhenit startsmullingover
the (exciting!)possibilitiesof the "male lesbian."Indeed,JacquelynZita
devotesan entirearticleto this subject.Zita proposes the male lesbian
as radicalgenderbender,"challengingthe naturalnessof 'maleness' and
'heterosexuality'by the bizarre-nessof his self-intendingsex and gender
attributions"(1992, 125). Once again, menin thefrontlinesin thefight
forequalityand justice.JustlikeTootsie!

I cross-dress,thereforeI am
I worryabout thecentrality of dragand camp to queer signification.14
As Carol-AnneTylernotes,gay camp is no longerjust funin an unfun
world,gay campers "have become draped crusadersforthe social con-
structionist cause, catchinggenderin theact-as an act-so as to demon-
stratethatthereis no natural,essential,biologicalbasis to genderidentity
or sexual orientation"(1991, 32). From"ChickswithDicks" to Ru Paul
to butch/femme bravado,crossinghas become the metaphorof choice
and the privilegedsignof the new queer sensibility. As muchas lesbians
may now be "playing" with these signifiers (and giventhe realitythat
thereare women who cross-dress,etc.), these are, afterall, historically
primarily male activities,particularly in themode ofpublicperformance.
In addition,"playinggender"formale dragqueens or cross-dressers can-
not, in a world marked by the of
power gender within patriarchy, the
be
same forwomen.As muchas we mightintellectually wantto talk about
a more fluidand shiftingcontinuumof both genderand sexual desire
(and the separationof thetwo) we cannotaffordto slip intoa theoryof
genderas simplyplay and performance, a theorythat,albeit attiredin
postmoderngarb,appears too much like the old "sex roles" framework
or evenan ErvingGoffman-type "presentation of self"paradigm.As the
editorsof the special issue of Radical America("Becominga Spectacle:
Lesbian and Gay Politics& Culturein theNineties")ask, "What are we
to make of thepervasiveinterestin 'cross-dressing'? Has 'cross-dressing'
replaced 'coming out'-does 'performing yourself' catch some of thede-
sireformobility, the fearof beingpinneddown, foundout, leftout, or
fixed,that 'coming out' (discovering,revealing,expressingyour 'true
self')cannot?" (Radical America1993, 9).
The conceptof "performance"has dominatedrecentfeminist theory
as well as gay/lesbian/queer theory.Butleris obviouslykeyhere,as her
work has come to signifya radicalmovein boththeoreticalarenas,and
the notions of genderplay and performancethat she elaborateshave
foundthemselvesthe startingpoints forany numberof new works in
14
I willforgohereanysubstantive discussionofthelongandcomplicated historyof
dragandcamp(themselves notsynonymous, ofcourse)within thelesbianandgaymove-
ment.Clearly, thesimplistic
readingofdrag(particularlyfemaleimpersonation)as only
misogynist parodyhasbeenrightly subjected (whichis notto saythat
to seriouscritique
thisreading didnothavesomemerit). Butwhiledragis notunproblematically misogynis-
tic,neither theprivileged
is itunproblematically signofgender-bendingradicalism orsex-
ual transgression. Carole-Anne on thepolitics
article
Tyler's ofgaydragoffersup a com-
pelling critique oftheclaimsofradicalism. shewonders
Specifically, howoneis to makea
distinction between campandmisogynist
gender-bending masqueradewhenall identities
arefictions, andwhena "white, bourgeois,andmasculine fetishistic
imaginary" reigns
(1991,62).

feminist theoryand queer theory.I wantto be carefulnot to simplify her

complex and compelling contributions to thesediscussions. I think she is
much more carefulabout theorizing"performance"than many others
who have constructeda less nuanced analysis.Indeed, in Bodies That
Matter,Butlersets out to clarifywhat she sees as a misconstrualof her
stance on performativity, particularlywhen it comes to the question of
drag. Just as she is explicitthattheperformance of genderis nevera sim-
ple voluntary act (like choosing the clothes one puts on in the morning)
and is always alreadyconstitutedby the rules and historiesof gender,
she reiteratesthatambiguityof drag,arguingcarefullythat "drag is not
unproblematicallysubversive. . . [and] there is no guarantee that
exposingthe naturalizedstatusof heterosexuality will lead to its subver-
sion" (1993a, 231). Yet, provisos(as in "performanceis neversimply
voluntaristicaction") do littlewhen the performancesremainremoved
froma social and culturalcontextthateitherenables or disenablestheir
radicalenactment.
Clearly,cross-dressing, passing,and assortedtropesofpostmodernde-
lightare sexier,morefun,moreinventive thanpreviousdiscoursesofiden-
tityand politics.Indeed,I thinkthe performance motiftheperfecttrope
forour funkytimes,producinga sense of enticingactivityamid the de-
pressingruinsof late capitalism.It obviouslyspeaks to thepastiche-like
worldof imagesand signsthathavecome to signify what it meansto live
in thepostmodern(see Madonna and MichaelJacksonifyou doubtthis),
yetthishand can, and has, been overplayed.In particular,thistropebe-
comes vacuous when it is decontextualized,bandied about as the new
hope fora confusedworld.Theoriesof genderas play and performance
need to be intimately and systematicallyconnectedwiththepowerofgen-
der (really,the power of male power) to constrain,control,violate,and
configure.Too often,merelip serviceis givento the specifichistorical,
social, and politicalconfigurations thatmake certainconditionspossible
and othersconstrained,as Hennessyherenotes in her critiqueof Butler
(and others)forthe lack of attentionto the materialcontextof "gender
performance":"What does it mean to say thatwhat can be seen as pa-
rodic and what genderparody makes visible depends on a contextin
whichsubversiveconfusionscan be fostered?What exactlyis meantby
'context'here?" (Hennessy1994, 40). Withoutsubstantiveengagement
withcomplexsociopoliticalrealities,thoseperformance tropesappear as
entertaining but ultimately depoliticizedacademicexercises.
There is greatinsightand meritin understanding genderand sexual
identityas processes,acquisitions,enactments,creations,processes(and
Butleris rightto creditSimonede Beauvoirwiththisprofoundinsight),
and Butlerand othershave done us a great servicein elaboratingthe

dissimulatingpossibilitiesof simulation.But thisinsightgetslost if it is

not theorizedwith a deep understandingof the limitationsand con-
straintswithinwhich we "perform"gender.And withoutsome elabo-
rated social and culturalcontext,thistheoryof performanceis deeply
ahistoricaland, therefore, ironically(because postmodernism fashionsit-
selfas particularismpar excellence)universalistic, avoiding discussion
a
of the contexts(race,class, ethnicity, etc.) thatmake particular"perfor-
mances" more or less likelyto be possible in the firstplace. It is not
enoughto assertthatall performance of gendertakesplace withincom-
plex and of
specificregimes power and domination;thoseregimesmust
be explicitlypart of the analyticstructureof the performancetrope,
ratherthanasides to be tossedaroundand thenignored.15
I worry,too, about theromanticization of themarginsand of theout-
law that this emphasison "genderbending"oftenaccompanies.Rear-
rangingthesignsofgendertoo oftenbecomesa substitute forchallenging
genderinequity.Wearinga dildo will not stop me frombeingraped as a
woman or beingharassedas a lesbian.And whiledonningtheaccoutre-
mentsof masculinity mightmakeme feelmorepowerful,itwillnot,short
of "passing,"keep me out of theghettosof femaleemployment. This de-
constructionof signs-this explorationof the fictitious and constructed
natureof genderencodingand genderitself-mustbe a partof anyradi-
cal gay politics,but if it becomesradicalgay politics,we are in trouble.
Phelan thoughtfully points out the dangersof a limited,deconstructive
politics:"Votersin Colorado,or homophobeswithbaseballbats,willnot
be persuadedby discussionof genderambiguity;I suspectit will exacer-
bate theiranxiety.TellingthemthatI am not 'really'a lesbianis different
fromsayingitto readersof Signs;whattheSignsaudiencecan understand
as deconstruction becomessimplya returnto the closetin others'eyes"
(1993, 782). So, I have a concernhereabout queerpoliticalactivism(and
theory)degenerating into a self-styled rebelstance.It can again become
a simpleinversion(we're here,we're queer,get used to it), a revelingin
our otherness,embracingit, claiminga "dirty"identity. Ironically,the
rebelqueer has also been toutedbymainstreammedia: "Meanwhile,de-
viantsexualitiesare in culturalfashion.Fromtheunexpectedresponseto
The CryingGame to thepopularityof Dame Edna and Ru Paul ('Queen
fora Day'), fromtheseemingly endlessparadeofcross-dressers, transgen-
derists,and dragqueens on daytimetelevisionto thespateof filmsabout
to emergefromHollywood ... it appearsthecultureis slantingqueerly"
(Doty 1993, 8). Nevertheless,the recent public fascination with
15Again,I wouldnoteherethatButler's mostrecent rather
workseemsto address, suc-
manyofmyconcerns.
cessfully, I stillamconcerned
Nevertheless, thatmuchofthediscus-
sionarounddrag,performance, etc.,remains
crossing, orthatthe
deeplydecontextualized
contextseemsto be solelya textualandrepresentationalone.
856 SIGNS Summer 1 996

queernessin no way impliesan antihomophobicmove;indeed,it is often

quite theopposite.16
Readingthesetales of modernqueer liferevealstheobsessivefocuson
theself,therelentlessnarcissismand individualismof narrativesof queer
theory:"I pack a dildo, therefore I am." It is sortof like,let us make a
theory from our own sexual practices(e.g., "I'm a cross-dressingfemme
who likes to use a dildo while watchinggay male porn videos withmy
fuckbuddywho sometimeslikesto do itwithgaymen.Hmm,what kind
of a theorycan I makefromthat?"). But,in myreading,thenotionof the
"personalis political" did not mean let us constructa theoryfromindi-
vidual personalexperiences.Rather,therewas some notionof collective
experience,sharedexperience.So that,in theearlyconsciousness-raising
sessions,developingtheoriesout of,say,theinconsistency of male leftists
not doinganyhouseworkor childcare grew,not onlyout of an individu-
al's experiencewith "her man," but out of a real sense that this was a
significantsocial problemand social reality.Now, it mightbe thatdrag,
cross-dressing,S/M,and otherassortedpracticesmighthave a collective
basis,butthatis certainlynothow itis beingaddressedin mostliterature.
Indeed,I am astoundedat theextentto whichthedistinction betweenthe
social and the individualis constantlyelided, resultingall too oftenin
eithera naivesocial-psychological view of theworldor a narcissisticob-
sessionwithoneselfas theworld.
Now, I would be the last to decryexperience,to want to rope it off,
out of the reach of theory.Indeed,one of the strongestand mostlasting
aspectsof feminist theorizinghas been an adamantrefusalto isolateper-
sonal narrativesout of the reachof theorymaking.But I fearthatmuch
of thisworkis taking"the personalis political" in an unintendeddirec-
tion: mylife,mypersonalstoryis theory:I am the world. In addition,I
thinktheseare personalstoriesdesignedto be outrageous,to articulate
the authoras inheritorof themantleof Sadean dissidence.
Susie Bright,self-styled mavenof sexy hipnessand hip sexiness,has
been a centralfigurein thisnew queer sensibility.17 Fromher tenureas
editorof the sex magazine On Our Backs to her sex shows and advice
columnsto hernew statusas queermomoftheyear,shehas beenlionized
by the purveyorsof radical chic and postmodernwackiness.In a grand
(and simplistic)reversal,Brightchampionsporn as the finalfrontierof
liberatedsexuality.While theporn and sex debateswithinfeminism, for
16
I am currently
workingon a book thataddressespreciselythesequestions:"The
Gay 90s: Media, Politics,and theParadox of Visibility."
17 I am
by no means conflatingtheworkof someone likeBrightwiththeoristssuch as
Butler,Sedgwick,or Rubin.Indeed,howevermuchI disagreewiththem,thesetheorists
are complicatedand surelysophisticatedin theirvariousanalysesof gender,sexuality,and
the anatomyof desire.Bright,whileoftenentertaining, is certainlynot in the same cat-
egory.

all theirdivisiveness and tendencyto hyperbolize, did open up significant

theoreticaland politicaldiscussionforfeminists, thisnew (uncritical)em-
brace of porn seems somewhatempty.Porn was once reviled,now it is
celebrated;dildos were once tarredwith the brushof heteroimitation,
now theyare lauded as thegrooviestadditionto sexual pleasuresincethe
clitoriswas "found."Strippers, hookers,and othersex workerswereonce
pitied for the abuse they receivedat thehandsof thepatriarchy, now they
are applauded as theheroinesfora sex radicalfuture.Butch/femme was
once "understood"as thedebased detritusof theforceofthecloset,now
it is the veryepitomeof radical sexual politics.Once therewas a vision
of mutual,tender,nonhierarchical sex as the model of liberation,now
the model of liberationis premisedon power and conflict,theorizedas
"essential"to sexual desire.This reversal,thispendulum-like movement,
is bothcounterproductive and reductive,settingup a new hierarchy ofthe
sexual sophisticateversusthe old-fashionedprude.Is pornography now
to be unproblematically celebrated?Is theprostitute theheroine?Is using
a dildo and doing butch/femme whereit's at (and only at)? This move
"pits renegadesex 'radicals' againsttheirbad 'feminist'mothersand, in
theprocess,simplifies thecomplexityof lesbianhistory, whichwas never
quite as sexlessas theymake it out to be" (Stein1993, 19).
Sue-EllenCase has attemptedto elevatethebutch/femme couple to the
positionof privilegedsubjectivity and politicalagency;18indeed,butch/
femmeis even seen as the culturallycorrectmode of being,"the lesbian
who relatesto her culturalroots by identifying with traditionalbutch-
femmerole-playing"(1993, 295). Case, too, reinscribes the narrativeof
exclusionary feminist hetero police who to
try tamper with the bangee
realnessof butch/femme bravado.
Case developsher theoryof the privilegedsubjectivity of the butch/
femmecouple throughthetheoryof femininity as masquerade,firstpro-
pounded by psychoanalyst Joan Rivierein 1929 and laterdevelopedby
Mary Russo, Mary Ann Doane, and Butler.The premiseof masquerade
is strictlyFreudian, as the processof masqueradeinvolvesthepossession
of the father'spenis (thushis castration)and the concomitantconstruc-
tion of the mask of womanlinessto avoid retribution and avertanxiety
(Case 1993, 300). Case argues that "this kind of masqueradeis con-
sciouslyplayedout in butch-femme roles,particularly as theywereconsti-
tutedin the 1940s and 1950s. If one reads themfromwithinRiviere's
18
Case is by no means theonlyrepresentative of theoriesof butch/femme. Indeed,
manyothers(such as JoanNestle) havewrittenabout butch/femme in morehistorical
terms,attempting to place butch/femme in thecontextof repressionas well as to locate
the liberatorymoments.Case is used hereas emblematicof a sortof queer/postmodern
readingof butch/femme troublingand politically
that,I believe,is boththeoretically
limited.

theory,the butchis the lesbianwoman who proudlydisplaysthe posses-

sion of the penis,while the femmetakes on thecompensatorymasquer-
ade of womanliness"(300). This,of course,leads to ironyand camp. But
are we thento assumeironyand camp as necessarilyradical?And radical
forwhom?And what happensto thistheoryifwe pull out the Freudian
rug,ifthefloatingsignifiers of "penis" and "castration"disappearor are
at least renderedlimp?This also leans towardtheworstsortof postmod-
ern delightin self-referentiality.
In otherwords,thereexistsunderneath
Case's argumenta theoryof postmodernsignsthatseemsto say thatthe
veryact ofrevealingtheconstructedness of something(gender,sex, adver-
tisements,films,music videos) is an act of deconstructing its power to
exertregulatorycontroland dominativepower.But,certainly, we know
thisnot to be thecase when it comes to popular culture.Advertisements
are no less seductivein theirabilityto sell productsand produceideolo-
gies when theyturnaway fromrealismand heap on that "wink-wink"
ironyand self-mocking, self-revealingattitude.Even if we buy the argu-
mentthat butch/femme "plays" withthe codes of both sex and gender,
thenwhy must that necessarilylead to a challengingrevisionof those
codes? And has it, historicallyspeaking?And forwhom? And if Case
privilegesbutch/femme as thenew radicalsubject/couple forthenextmil-
lennium,thenis everything else out of the running?Is a new hierarchy
beingset up?
So, our identities,then,are whollyencompassedby particularsexual
acts, appetites,tastes,positions,postures.And those acts themselvesare
conceivedas separatefromthegendersoftheactorswho do them,paving
theway fora construction of thequeerpersonas someonewho performs
certainkindsof sexual practicesor has certainsortsof desires,regardless
of thegenderof themselvesor theirvariouspartners.What we havehere
is then a new sort of sexual essentialism.Now no longer"known" by
some self-defined unitaryidentitythatencompassessexual acts but per-
haps moves beyondand throughthem,we are now knownonlyby what
we do sexually(and not at all bywhom we do it with).Again,personal
transgression or predilectionhas metamorphosedintopoliticaland theo-
reticalaction. Sexual hobbies do not a theorymake.
From queer to where? Murmursof dissent

Fortunately, many feministsand lesbians are beginningto challenge
the new politicsof "genderplay" and expressconcernboth witha new
commodificationof gay life and an evacuationof substantivepolitical
concernwithchangingactual social relationsof powerand domination.I
would note,too, thatmuchofthiscriticismis comingfromwithin"queer
studies" itselfand that this process of self-criticism
bodes well for the

future.Many writersexpressambivalenceabout the trashingof lesbian

feminismand recognizethat "those thingsthat are real dangers-ran-
dom, vicious violenceagainstwomen and gay men and people of color,
the decimationof a generationfromAIDS and complacency,the slow,
suredestructionof the air and waterand land, themiseryof urbanpov-
erty,and the latestwars-weren't createdby lesbian feminists. Increas-
ingly,I wonder whether we take each other on because we've lost faithin
our abilityto fightthe big fights"(Whisman1993, 55). Whismanalso
speaks of the alliance betweengay women and men: "Some may play
aroundwithmen,butlesbianqueerssee themselves as morelikegaymen
thanstraight women.New lesbiansmaketheirchiefpoliticaland cultural
allianceswithgay men,arguingthatlesbiansand gaymen are two sides
of the same coin" (56). I thinkthisalliance has importantpoliticaland
intellectualpotentialand mustcontinueto growand expand. But all too
often,this alliance is forgedat the expense of a deepeningof feminist
commitment.
Whismanalso takespeople likeBrightto taskforconstructing lesbian
cultureas "sexuallyrepressed"whilepositing"male sexuality[as] unre-
pressed,authentic,the norm.... It's simplisticto thinkthat some 'au-
thentic,''unrepressed'lesbiansexualitywould look likemale sexuality-
even of the gay male variety.The femalesof the emergentQueer nation
seemto have forgotten foraccess to whatthe
thatwe're not just fighting
boys have" (Whisman1993, 56-57). Again,the alliance mustgrowbut
needs to moveawayfromthetendencyto assumegaymale sexualityand
iconographyas the pinnacleof radicaltransgression and lesbianismand
lesbianfeminismas a tired,PC remnantof dayslong gone.
Many are waryof the easy dismissalof feminism, as if "gender"was
now a done deal and we neededto moveon to a new discourseof sexual-
ity: "It would be prematureto dismissthe insightsof feminism-of a
gender-basedperspective-in favorof a queer discoursewhich sets up
universal,thatis, male, subjectsas itsimplicitreferent. Lesbiansand gay
men have everyreasonto be suspiciousof 'queerness'and itspromiseof
an instantidentity"(Kader and Piontek 1992, 9). The universalizing
move of "queerness" also has the potentialto make a similarargument
about race,thusevacuatingthespecificities ofracializedidentities in favor
of a queer universalismthatclaims multiracialstatuswithouteverseri-
ouslydevelopinga race-basedcritiqueof heteronormativity.
In a piece on thechangingdimensionoflesbianidentity, Alisa Solomon
warnsagainstthesuperficiality of muchof theyounglesbianpersona:
Young dykeswho lipstickup claim power by assertingtraditional

femalecoquettishnessand withholdingit fromthetraditionalmale
beholder.In the giddyprocessof unleashingtheirlibidosfromthe

reigning,constraininghegemonyof their lesbian predecessors,

though,theyfailto recognizea double bind:theirappropriationof
sluttishfemininity is occurringat the momentwhen the dominant
cultureis rollickingwitha headyantifeminism.Butch-femme dykes
of the past dressedas an emblemof identity, but style-nomads-
who wear lipsticktonightand Doc Martenstomorrow-are lost in
the surfaces, and their ironic androgynymasks deracination.
(1993,213-14)
She raisesthepossibilitythatthenew queer radicalismis not so mucha

move of empowermentas it is a sign of despair and tiredgenerational
rebellion,the jaded groansof women beset by backlash and anxious to
findsexual space beyondwhat is typicallyavailable.
Into thissexual stew stepswhat writerAnn Powerscalls the "Queer
Straight,that testy lovechild of identitypolitics and shiftingsexual
norms.... At first,it mayhave seemedlike a splash made by Madonna
and Sandra'sdouble dip-but theQueer Straightthinghas begunto per-
meate the culture"(1993, 24). Powers describesthe phenomenonas it
works its way throughpopular culture (The CryingGame) and hip
nightlife (drag) to finda strangehome in academia: "Nattilyattiredaca-
demicclimbersled panel discussionon homosocialityin thebeatnikscene
and the filmsof JohnWayne,affecting camp attitudesevenas theystole
kissesfromtheirgirlfriends in thehall .... Straight
marchersat domestic-
partnerrallies dared to chant, 'We're here! We're queer! Get used to
it!'" (24).
Powers,while sympathetic to the "queer straight"(trueto form,she
is one), calls into question the political ramificationsof this mode of
passing:
Anyof theseQueer Straightswould probablybe horrified to think

theirbehaviormighttranslateas a tease. They mean to practice
whattheoristscall 'genderperformativity'-the act ofdefining your
sexualitythrough manner and style.Postmodernism's logic of sur-
faces has turnedthe closet inside out, makingthe projectionof a
queer attitudeenoughto claim a place in homosexualculture.Yet
Queer Straights don'tpracticethefundamental acts of intimacythat
groundhomosexualidentity. Theyare neitherbisexual[n]orexperi-
menting.They'renot ambiguouslydefinedcompanionsof gaymen,
as werethefag-hagsofyore.Queer Straights don'tjusthangaround;
whattheydo is pass.... In addition,thenotionofpassinghas con-
notationsfor queers-and people of color-that hardlysuggests
liberation.... Then there'spassing raciallyin the opposite direc-
tion. Posingas a "WhiteNegro" became fashionablein the 1950s,

when bohemiansthoughtthey'dconqueredracismby identifying

AfricanAmericansas morevirileand expressivein theirnoble sav-
agery.The currentwave of lesbianand gaychic mirrorsthisreverse
racism,as itascribestemptingattributes
suchas hotsexuality,
tragic
courage,and wit
devastating to homosexuals.(24)
As Celia Kitzingerand Sue Wilkinsonnote, "Queer theoristshave never

answeredthequestion,Whatmakesstraight
satisfactorily heterosexuality
'queer'?" (1994, 455). Arestraight queersmarkedbytheirwilledcritique
of heterosexuality or by theirchoice of sexual practices(S/M insteadof
vanilla,fetishfantasies,etc.) or bytheirallegianceto gaypolitics?In this
vagueassertionof straight queerness,heterosexuality seemsratherbenign
and absent.
Many othersare waryof thetermqueer itself,as feminist, lesbianper-
formanceartistHolly Hughes expresses:
I'm ambivalentabout the termqueer.I thinkit's usefulin certain

ways-it has the cringefactor,it's confrontational. And thereis
somethingabout the experienceof beingan outsiderthat'sembed-
ded in the word. When you throwit back in people's faces,it can
producea certainsenseof empowerment. It also has limitations.In
some ways,it remindsme of thewordgay. I worked reallyhard to
get lesbian into usage, and so did a lot of other people who came
beforeme. Lumpingus togethererasesthedifferences, theinequali-
ties betweenus. At certaintimesit can be useful;at othersit can
reallybe throwinga rugoverour diversities.... I feellikeI see the
word queer used a lot to erase my identityas a lesbian.... That
'fuckyou' queer identityis moreeasilyaccessibleformenthanfor
lesbians,becauseofsexismand justtheoverwhelming realityofsex-
ual violence.Lesbianscan'tstop beingwomenand dealingwiththat
reality.(1992, 29)
Hughes (and others)pointsout thepossibility thatqueerwill,in itseager-

ness to universalize,actuallyserveto ignoreor erasetheembodiedpower
of genderevenas it claimsto movebeyondit. I thinkshe expressesquite
accuratelythe ambivalencemanylesbians and gay men feeltowardthe
term-an embraceofitsconfrontational stance,a joyinitsrefusalofassim-
ilationistliberalism,whileat thesame timea discomfort withitstoo-easy
glossovergenderand theimplicationsofsexismand sexualviolence.
Queer mayhold out some possibilitiesfora politicsand a theorythat
challengethe fixityand clarityof identity, that speak to the fractured
(non)selfof postmodernsubjectivity. addition,the queer encourage-
In
mentof new alliancesbetweengay menand lesbianscan offerbothnew
knowledgesand thedevelopmentof innovativepoliticalformations. And

we shouldembraceitsrecognitionthatmuchslipsout of therigiddistinc-
tionsof hetero/homo, man/womanand thatour theoreticaland political
engagements need to reckon creativelywith the excess that dares not
speak its name. The queer attemptto understandthatsexualityand sex-
ual desireis not reducibleto genderand also not simplyexplicableby
reference to it is important.Butwhilesexualityis notreducibleto gender,
it is also not possible to "think"withoutit. For even the lionized drag
queen, genderexertsa powerfulforce,one (perhaps)to be challengedor
deconstructed.
Indeed,thisreexaminationoftherelationshipbetweengenderand sex-
ualityhas seemedto founderon two fronts.On the one hand, it can re-
assert(as in Sedgwick'scase) a notionof a seamlesscontinuum-rather
like AdrienneRich's (1980) lesbian continuum,whichwas criticizedfor
effectively desexualizing(or, in Sedgwick'scase, disappearing)lesbian
sexual identity. In this case, we aren'twhat we do in bed; we are what
we defineourselvesas not. Queer hereis a sortof rebelliousand radical
voluntarism.On theotherhand, it can reasserttheold understanding of
gayidentity as markedwhollybysexual practice,thusmakingthelesbian
or gayman definedsolelybyour sexual practices.In thiscase, (a la Bright)
we are what we do in bed; sexual acts are determinative of identity.
We
are back to the old antinomies,garbed perhaps in more (post)modern
clothesbut unable to tryon radicallynew ones. And repeatedclaims of
multiplicity and playdo not,in mymind,constituteseriousand rigorous
theoreticaland/orpoliticalalternatives to the (re)establishedantinomies.
The inclusive,universalizing moveof queertheoryand politicsappears
laudatory,but it can all too easilydegenerateinto a "we are the world"
pluralismthatrefusesto see the lines of power as theymarkthemselves
on thelivesofgendered,raced,ethnicsubjects.The inclusivemove (queer
as anything/everything not irredeemablyheterosexual)seems at first
glance like a model of coalitionpolitics,but all too oftenis morelike a
meltingpot, where substantive structuraland experientialdifferences are
erasedin thebattleagainstthehet (really,thenormativehet)enemy.And
what of otherenemies?And otherallies? Is it possible thatrace, forex-
ample, gets erased (or rathercommodifiedto the point of invisibility)
whenwhitesappropriateworking-class(or poor) African-American drag
queens as cutting-edge metaphors?19 What happens,then,to a sustained
and systematicanalysisof theworkingsof a racisteconomy?
Indeed, Butlerexpressesjust such an instrumentalist and voluntarist
notion of identitywhen she claims,approvingly, that "'queer' was sup-
posed to be one in whichit didn'tmatterwhat you did, or how you did
it, or how you feltabout what you did; if you were willingto affiliate,
thatwas politicallyviable" (Kotz 1992, 83). If what you think,how you
19Seeparticularly
Reid-Pharr
1993.

act, and what you feeldo not matter,thenwhat does? Only ifyou show
up at thedemo and claim solidarity?Or feelpeevedat dominanthetero-
sexuality(eventhoughyoutakeprivilegefromit)?Have we learnednoth-
ing about processand the transformative natureof truecoalitionbuild-
ing? Barbara Smith criticizesthe contemporary movementforits lack of
political radicalismand itsrefusal to deal systematically and substantively
withissues of race and class: "When the word 'radical' is used at all, it
means confrontational, 'in your face' tactics,not strategicorganizing
aimed at therootsof oppression.Unliketheearlylesbianand gaymove-
ment,which had both ideological and practicallinksto the left,black
activismand feminism, today's'queer'politicosseemto operatein an his-
toricaland ideologicalvacuum. 'Queer' activistsfocuson 'queer' issues,
and racism,sexual oppressionand economicexploitationdo not qualify,
despitethe factthatthe majorityof 'queers' are people of color,female
or workingclass" (1993, 13). In otherwords,queer herecan become a
new, all-embracingdesignationthat fallsinto manyof the trapsit pur-
portedlysets out to avoid in positing"queerness"as some sortof post-
modernuber-identity. What is to keep queer frominstantiating thesame
old exclusionsof race and class? Whyare so manyof the purveyorsof
queernesswhite,male (or gay male identified), and economicallyprivi-
leged?The realand substantive issuesof inclusionand coalitionalpolitics
cannotbe addressedsimplybya newrhetoricthatnamesitselfall embrac-
ing and expansive.As Zita writes,"To constructa new fieldof queer
studieswithoutaddressingmisogyny, gender,male supremacy, race,and
class as theseare differentlyexperiencedbya wide diversity offemaleand
male queers,is to seal thehappymarriageof gayand lesbianstudieswith
a Hallmarkcard and a Falwellianblessing"(1994, 271).
The "answer,"such as it is, is surelynot to dismissqueer theoryalto-
gether,as I thinkI have made clear throughout thecourseof thisarticle.
But thepartof "queer" thathingeson a separationfromfeminism (both
theoryand politics) seems to me misguidedat best. A more profitable
directionmightbe theconstantand creativerenegotiation of therelation-
ship between feminism and queer theory and politics,with the "goal"
not beinga severancebutrathermoremeaningful and substantive ties.In
thesedaysof ChristinaHoffSommersand Katie Roiphe,CamillePaglia
and Naomi Wolf,I thinkit needsreiterating thattherecan be no radical
theory and surely no radical politics without feminism, howevermuch
thatfeminism might be rendered plural and reconfigured. This is nowhere
moretruethan in recentright-wing rhetoricregarding"the family"and
the scarydiscourseof familyvalues. Here, a nuancedand subtleunder-
standingofthewaysin whichbothpatriarchy and heterosexism construct
thediscourseand producethepoliticswould be fruitful. For example,in
analyzingthe attacks on lesbian and gay parents(broughthome most
depressingly bytherecentdefeatof SharonBottoms'sattemptto keepher

son),20we mightdevelopframeworks ofknowledgethatexplicitlyaddress

themutual"concatenation"of bothgenderdiscoursesand sexualitydis-
courses. Yes, Bottomslost her son because she is queer,but one cannot
understandher "queerness" withoutreferenceto ideologies of appro-
priatemotherhoodand familialformationsthat are always deeplygen-
deredas well.Bottoms's"workingclassness"is also notassimilableunder
a genericcategoryof queer and mustbe reckonedwithin anyattemptto
read thisevent.Indeed,I would preferqueer theoristsspend a bit more
timeon themundanefigureof theworking-classlesbianmotherand the
horrifying spectacleof theremovalof herchildthanon theendlessrhap-
sodies for drag and dildos. A feministqueer theorymightfocus more
on thematerialrealitiesof liveslivedunderpatriarchal,capitalist,racist
regimes,not as backgroundor aside, but as the verystuffof a political
and politicizedanalysis.Thus, the situationof, say,Bottomswould be
analyzed around somewhatdifferent questions.It is not thatwe would
not ask about her "performanceof gender" or her seeminglybutch/
femmeengagementwithherpartner,AprilWade. But the feministqueer
scholarmightinvestigate the social and historicalcontextin which this
awfuldecisionemerged-a contextof antigayactivismand simultaneous
of attackson singlemothers(whichis the onlyway she is
gay visibility,
understood,givenour dominantconceptionsof family)and lesbian baby
booms,of familyvalues and right-wing populism.Bottomscould thenbe
read not as simplya "queer" subjectbut, rather,as a particularwhite,
working-classlesbian in a veryconservativestatewhose relationto any
"queer nation" is tenuousat best.
Or the relation betweenqueer and feminismcan also proceed on
queer'sown turf.If queer theoryinsistson theseparationof sex and gen-
der (the studyof sexualityas distinctfromthe studyof gender),thenI
would be interested in studiesthataffirmatively and persuasivelydemon-
stratethisnew analyticstrategy. In studyinganyparticularconfiguration
of sexualities,is it possible to be fullyoutsideof an analysisof gender?
The regimesof sexualityand genderare not identical,eitherhistorically
or theoretically,but I remainskepticalof theirprematureseparation.A
substantivedemonstration of thisnew queer analyticwould be helpful.
With all the righteousrage and empoweringspectacleof queer per-
formativepolitics,it is importantto rememberthat "genderfuck"and
kiss-insare necessarybut not sufficient aspects of a progressivepolitics
and theory.As a culturaltheoristand educator,and longtimeactivist,I
20
The SharonBottomscase is familiarto manyas thecase in whicha Virginialesbian
was sued forcustodyof heryoungson by herown mother,evenwhenthe biologicalfa-
therhad no objectionto Sharon'scustodyof thechild.Bottomsand herpartnerlost cus-
tody,thenregainedit,onlyto lose again in thefinalappeal to theVirginiaSupremeCourt.
The child is now livingwithhis grandmother,and his motheris allowed limitedvisitation
(althoughneverwithherpartner).

am more than aware of the power of the semioticand of the absolute

necessityto engageon theleveloftheimage,particularly in a culturethat
is so thoroughlyinfusedwithrepresentation. And, god knows,progres-
sivepoliticshas longsuffered froma failureofimagination;thenewqueer
politicsadds muchneededpanacheand witto theseemingly interminable
struggles for basic equity.Yetthis is not enough, or, rather, it mustalways
be coupled with a recognitionthat playingwith gendermay engage in
destabilizingit somewhatbut will not, in itself,stop the power of gen-
der-a power that stillsends too manywomen to the hospital,shelter,
rapecrisiscenter,despair.We mustask how images,representations, per-
formance,genderscriptsrelateto "broader"structures, contexts,econo-
mies,histories.21 Sexism,homophobia,racismactivatethemselves in mul-
tiplerealms,but too oftenqueer theoryoperatesas if our oppressionis
solely a matterof sexualityand its representation and regulation.As I
have arguedelsewhere,we cannot affordto lose sightof the materiality
of oppressionand its operationin structuraland institutional spaces.22
Hennessy's recent piece, "Queer Visibilityin Commodity Culture"
(1994), is an exemplaryattemptto hold on to theinsightsof queerwhile
forcingan examinationof the class-baseddiscoursesthatconstructthe
new queer visibilities.Hennessyforcefully demandsthatqueer theorists
pay moreattentionto the processesof commodification and avoid valo-
rizinga politicsof theoutrageousat theexpenseof attendingto thereali-
tiesof structured social relations,relationsnotreducibleto thediscursive
or cultural,althoughcertainlynot determinative of themeither.
Destabilizinggender(or rendering its apparent)is notthesame
artifice
as overthrowing it; indeed,in a culture in which dragqueenscan become
the hottestfashion,commodificationof resistanceis an omnipresent
threat.Moreover,a queer theorythatpositsfeminism (or lesbiantheory)
as thetranscendedenemyis a queer thatwill reallybe a drag.
Departmentof Sociology
GeorgetownUniversity
References
Anzaldua, Gloria. 1991. "To(o) Queer theWriter-Loca, escritoray chicana."In
Inversions:
Writing 249-
byDykes,Queers,andLesbians,ed. BetsyWarland,
PressGangPublishers.
63. Vancouver:
21 theworkofwriters
In thisregard, suchas KathWeston(1993),JohnD'Emilio
(1983),Jonathan NedKatz(1995),MarthaVicinus(1992),Elizabeth Kennedy andMade-
lineDavis(1993),Esther Newton,andJoanNestleareimportant to theoften
correctives
ahistoricalanddecontextualized
readingsofsuchputativelyqueerpracticesas butch/
femme. Weston'salternative,
ethnographicaccountofa lesbian"PromNite"exposesthe
limits ofa performancetheorythateschewshistorical (1993).
specification
22 SeeWalters1995.

Bensinger,Terralee.1992. "Lesbian Pornography:

The Re/Makingof (a) Commu-
nity."Discourse 15(1):69-93.
Bergman,David. 1991. "Somethingabout Eve: Eve KosofskySedgwick'sCloset
Drama." Review of Epistemologyof the Closet by Eve Sedgwick. Raritan
11(1):115-31.
.1993. "DiscipliningGay and Lesbian Studies."AndrewR. Hilen Lecture
at theUniversity of Washington,Seattle.
Bordo, Susan. 1990. "Feminism,Postmodernism,and Gender-Scepticism." In
Nicholson 1990, 133-56.
Butler,Judith.1990. GenderTrouble:Feminismand the Subversionof Identity.
New York: Routledge.
. 1991. "Imitationand GenderInsubordination." In Fuss 1991b, 13-31.
. 1993a. Bodies That Matter.New York: Routledge.
. 1993b. "CriticallyQueer." GLQ: A Journalof Lesbian and Gay Studies
1(1):17-32.
Case, Sue-Ellen.1991. "TrackingtheVampire."differences 3(2):1-20.
. 1993. "Towarda Butch/Femme Aesthetic."In The Lesbian and Gay Stud-
ies Reader,ed. HenryAbelove,Michele Aina Barale,and David M. Halperin,
294-306. New York: Routledge.
Creet,Julia.1991. "Daughterof theMovement:The Psychodynamics of Lesbian
S/M Fantasy."differences 3(2):135-59.
Daumer,ElisabethD. 1992. "Queer Ethics: Or, the Challengeof Bisexualityto
Lesbian Ethics."Hypatia 7(4): 91-105.
de Lauretis,Teresa. 1991. "Queer Theory:Lesbian and Gay Sexualities,an Intro-
duction."differences 3(2):iii-xviii.
D'Emilio, John. 1983. Sexual Politics,Sexual Communities:The Making of a
Homosexual Minorityin the UnitedStates,1940-1970. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Dhairyam,Sagri.1994. "RacingtheLesbian,DodgingWhiteCritics."In The Les-
bian Postmodern,ed. Laura Doan, 25-46. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Doty,Alexander.1993. Making ThingsPerfectly Queer: Interpreting Mass Cul-
ture.Minneapolis:University of MinnesotaPress.
Duggan, Lisa. 1992. "Making It Perfectly Queer."SocialistReview22(1):11-31.
.1994. "QueeringtheState."Social Text39:1-14.
Fuss, Diana. 1991a. "Inside/Out."In Fuss 1991b, 1-12. New York: Routledge.
, ed. 1991b. Inside/Out:Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories. New York:
Routledge.
Hall, Lisa Kahaleole Chang. 1993. "Bitchesin Solitude:IdentityPoliticsand the
Lesbian Community."In Sisters,Sexperts,Queers, ed. ArleneStein,218-29.
New York: PlumeBook/Penguin.
Harper, PhillipBrian, E. FrancisWhite,and MargaretCerullo. 1993. "Multi/
Queer/Culture." Radical America24(4):27-37.
Hartsock,Nancy C. M. 1983. Money,Sex, and Power: Toward a FeministHis-
toricalMaterialism.Boston:NortheasternUniversity Press.
Hennessy,Rosemary.1993. "Queer Theory:A Reviewof the differences Special
Issue and Wittig'sThe StraightMind." Signs:Journalof Womenin Cultureand
Society18(4):964-79.

. 1994. "Queer Visibilityin CommodityCulture." Cultural Critique,

31-76.
Herrnstein, RichardJ.,and CharlesA. Murray.1994. The Bell Curve:Intelligence
and Class Structurein AmericanLife.New York:FreePress.
Hughes,Holly. 1992. "IdentityCrisis:Queer Politicsin theAge of Possibilities."
InterviewbyAlisa Solomon. VillageVoice,June30.
Kader, Cheryl, and Thomas Piontek. 1992. "Introduction." Discourse
15(1):5-10.
Katz,JonathenNed. 1995. The InventionofHeterosexuality. New York:Dutton.
Kennedy,Elizabeth,and Madeline Davis. 1993. Boots of Leather,Slippersof
Gold: The Historyof a Lesbian Community. New York:Routledge.
Kitzinger,Celia, and Sue Wilkinson.1994. "Virginsand Queers: Rehabilitating
Heterosexuality?"Gender& Society8(3):444-63.
Kotz, Liz. 1992. "The Body You Want: Liz Kotz InterviewsJudithButler."Art-
forum31:82-89.
Maggenti, Maria. 1993. "WanderingthroughHerland." In Sisters,Sexperts,
Queers, ed. ArleneStein,245-55. New York:PlumeBook/Penguin.
Martin,Biddy.1993. "Lesbian Identityand AutobiographicalDifference(s)." In
The Lesbian and Gay StudiesReader,ed. HenryAbelove,MicheleAina Barale,
and David M. Halperin,274-93. New York:Routledge.
. 1994. "SexualitieswithoutGenderand OtherQueer Utopias."diacritics
24(2-3):104-21.
Minkowitz,Donna. 1992. "See What the Girls in the BackroomWill Have: A
Dyke'sAdventure."VillageVoice,June30.
Modleski, Tania. 1991. FeminismwithoutWomen:Cultureand Criticismin a
"Postfeminist" Age. New York:Routledge.
Moraga, Cherrie,and AmberHollibaugh. 1983. "What We're Rollin aroundin
Bed With: Sexual Silencesin Feminism."In Powers of Desire: The Politicsof
Sexuality,ed. AnnSnitow,ChristineStansell,and SharonThompson,394-405.
New York:MonthlyReviewPress.
Morgan,Tracy.1993. "Butch-Femme and thePoliticsofIdentity."In Sisters,Sex-
perts,Queers, ed. ArleneStein,35-46. New York:PlumeBook/Penguin.
Nicholson,Linda, ed. 1990. Feminism/Postmodernism. New York:Routledge.
Nunokawa,Jeff.1992. "IdentityCrisis:Queer Politicsin theAge ofPossibilities."
InterviewbyAlisa Solomon. VillageVoice,June30.
Phelan, Shane. 1993. "(Be)Coming Out: Lesbian Identityand Politics."Signs
18(4):765-90.
Powers,Ann. 1993. "Queer in theStreets,Straightin the Sheets:Notes on Pass-
ing." VillageVoice,June29, 24, 30-31.
Radical America.1993. "Introduction." Radical America24(4):2-13.
Reich, June L. 1992. "Genderfuck:The Law of the Dildo." Discourse 15(1):
112-27.
Reid-Pharr,Robert. 1993. "The Spectacle of Blackness." Radical America
24(4):57-65.
Rich, Adrienne.1980. "CompulsoryHeterosexualityand Lesbian Existence."
Signs5(4):631-60.
Riggs,Marlon. 1992. "Unleash the Queen." In Black Popular Culture,ed. Mi-
cheleWallace (projectmanager)and Gina Dent, 99-105. Seattle:Bay Press.

Roy,Camille. 1993. "Speakingin Tongues."In Sisters,Sexperts,Queers, ed. Ar-

lene Stein,6-12. New York:PlumeBook/Penguin.
Rubin,GayleS. 1993. "ThinkingSex: Notes fora Radical Theoryof thePolitics
of Sexuality."In The Lesbian and Gay StudiesReader,ed. HenryAbelove,Mi-
cheleAina Barale,and David M. Halperin,3-44. New York:Routledge.
Sedgwick,Eve Kosofsky.1989. "AcrossGender,Across Sexuality:Willa Cather
and Others."SouthAtlanticQuarterly88(1):53-72.
. 1990. Epistemologyof the Closet. Berkeley:Universityof California
Press.
.1991. "How to BringYour Kids up Gay." Social Text29:18-27.
. 1993. Tendencies.Durham,N.C.: Duke University Press.
Seidman,Steven.1994. "Queer Pedagogy/Queer-ing Sociology."CriticalSociol-
ogy 20(3):167-76.
Smith,Barbara. 1993. "Queer Politics:Where'sthe Revolution?"Nation, July
5, 12-16.
Solomon, Alisa. 1993. "Dykotomies:Scents and Sensibilities."In Sisters,Sex-
perts,Queers, ed. ArleneStein,210-17. New York:PlumeBook/Penguin.
Stein,Arlene.1992. "Sistersand Queers: The Decenteringof Lesbian Feminism."
SocialistReview22(1):33-55.
. 1993. "The Year of theLustfulLesbian."In Sisters,Sexperts,Queers,ed.
ArleneStein,13-34. New York:PlumeBook/Penguin.
Tyler,Carole-Anne.1991. "BoysWill Be Girls:The Politicsof Gay Drag." In Fuss
1991b, 32-70.
Vance, Carol, ed. 1984. Pleasureand Danger: ExploringFemale Sexuality.New
York: Routledge.
Vicinus,Martha. 1992. "'They Wonderto Which Sex I Belong': The Historical
Roots of theModern Lesbian Identity."FeministStudies18(3):467-97.
VillageVoice. 1990. "The Queer Issue." VillageVoice,August14.
.1993. "The Queer Issue." VillageVoice,June29.
Walters,Suzanna. 1995. Material Girls:MakingSense of FeministCulturalThe-
ory.Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress.
Warner,Michael. 1991. "Fear of a Queer Planet."Social Text9(4):3-17.
. 1992. "From Queer to Eternity:An Armyof TheoristsCannot Fail."
VoiceLiterarySupplement,June,18-19.
Weston, Kath. 1993. "Do Clothes Make the Woman? Gender,Performance
Theory,and Lesbian Eroticism."Genders17:1-21.
Whisman,Vera. 1993. "IdentityCrises:Who Is a Lesbian,Anyway?"In Sisters,
Sexperts,Queers, ed. ArleneStein,47-60. New York: Plume Book/Penguin.
Wilson,Ara. 1992. "SearchingfortheBisexual Politic."Out/Look4(4):22-28.
Zita, JacquelynN. 1992. "The Male Lesbian and the PostmodernistBody."
Hypatia 7(4):106-27.
. 1994. "Gay and Lesbian Studies:Yet AnotherUnhappyMarriage?" In
Tiltingthe Tower:Lesbians TeachingQueer Subjects,ed. Linda Garber,258-
76. New York: Routledge.


The University of Chicago Press

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The University of Chicago Press

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The University of Chicago Press

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From Here to Queer: Radical Feminism, Postmodernism, and the Lesbian Menace (Or, Why

Can't a Woman Be More like a Fag?)

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:59:24 PM

Suzanna Danuta Walters

Queer defined (NOT!)

Eve Sedgwick Teresade Lauretis ball culture

I would liketo thankDavid Bergmanand AmyRobinsonfortheirhelpfulcomments

830 SIGNS Summer 1996

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:59:24 PM

conferencesat Santa drag butch/femme

These signifiers(and others,of course) constitutewhat many have

Summer 1996 SIGNS 831

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:59:24 PM

withina changingfieldof theoryand practice;feminism (and genderthe-

832 SIGNS Summer 1996

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:59:24 PM

sexual orientation= oppressedidentity)that have so oftenseemed to

Summer 1996 SIGNS 833

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:59:24 PM

the "mainstream"gay/lesbian movement, or,as Michael Warnerargues,

The insistenceon "queer"-a termdefinedagainst"normal" and

834 SIGNS Summer 1996

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:59:24 PM

For queer theory,in particular,thishas been a centraltenet,exemplified

Partof what is interesting

Here, Sedgwickarticulatesa definition of queer thatlocates its powerin

Summer 1996 SIGNS 835

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:59:24 PM

836 SIGNS Summer 1996

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:59:24 PM

hegemonicsexuality:"Whereexactly,in thisborderlinesexual economy,

Homo politicus,homo academicus

Summer 1996 SIGNS 837

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:59:24 PM

broughtus togetherin a timeof crisisboth fromthe disease itselfand

5 I do not mean to be facetioushere;indeed,theverypublic debatesoverthe "place"

of organizationslikeNAMBLA (NorthAmericanMan-BoyLove Association)in thegay

838 SIGNS Summer 1996

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:59:24 PM

dangerous)politics of simpleopposition,potentiallyaffiliating groups,

Summer 1996 SIGNS 839

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:59:24 PM

thatare themselvessuspect),yetneedingdesperatelyto organizewomen

seem to be a proliferation of the "Sedgwick"phenomenonin whichmarried,heterosexual

840 SIGNS Summer 1996

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:59:24 PM

teachgay"subjects," as maleprofessors mustteachaboutwomenand

facultystatistics;we also do so because we feeldiversity

Summer 1996 SIGNS 841

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:59:24 PM

the whitepersonto claim blacknessif she or he "feels" black (or even

842 SIGNS Summer 1996

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:59:24 PM

whitenessof queernesswhile stillattempting to instantiatethe category

Summer 1996 SIGNS 843

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:59:24 PM

share this excitementand embracethe queer move thatcan complicate

844 SIGNS Summer 1996

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:59:24 PM