an unending process of linguistic becoming: a poststructural analysis of queer liberation

a theory paper for my sociology class in college. please keep in mind that i was 20 when i wrote this and i apologize for it being unreadable and pedestrian

The concept of the self has long been a topic of philosophical discussion, but recent poststructuralist methods of analyzing identity formations have introduced the question of whether a true ontological self can exist at all. Poststructuralist theories posited by authors such as Judith Butler and Michel Foucault have laid a majority of the groundwork for queer theory, a field of study operating on the assumption that there lies no fundament behind identity formations like sexuality and gender. Such formations are argued to instead be social constructions normalized through repeated behavior and modes of power. Performativity theory and the theories on sexuality introduced by Butler and Foucault respectively have both spurred decades of academic discourse that continues to recontextualize the way identity formations are perceived in our modern society.

Butler’s work on performativity is directly influenced by speech-act theory, a linguistic concept in which expressions perform actions with bearings on reality. A performative speech-act is any statement that produces a tangible effect, with the requirement that it is legitimized by an accepted law or norm that is cited in the statement; one example would be the ceremonial “I pronounce you man and wife”, a statement that not only announces a civil union between two people but also legitimizes the union when uttered in the appropriate legal and social context.

An integral phenomenon examined in the theory is how the constant citation of such laws in our social world constructs a reality with artificial conventions that appear real and necessary (Purdue, 2011). With performativity, Butler takes this nature of speech-act theory and applies it to the formation of gender; that is, by repeatedly “performing” or citing acts scripted by gendered laws and norms, we are continuously constructing a referable reality of gender that may appear tangible to us but nonetheless is lacking in any material foundation. Therefore, gender “is real only to the extent that it is performed” (Butler, 1989).

It should be mentioned that “gender performance” and the concept of “performativity” hold distinct meanings; while the former refers to the temporary “donning” of appearances and behaviors that represent a gender, the latter refers to the production of a subconscious social fabric that is repeatedly enforced. When gender is a performance, it is akin to a play-actor embodying a role through acting in a way that is crucial to the concept of his character. When gender is performative, it produces a series of effects that consolidate an internal reality; using the same metaphor, gender performativity can be compared to a play’s script that relies on the individual actors to perform in it to remain actualized and reproduced.

Naturally, Butler posits that gender is socially constructed and not founded in one true reality as the laws that dictate gender performance vary greatly among periods of time and across different regions; with that assumption, she also ascertains that there is no ontological self that precedes or is disembodied from a gendered identity. Instead of a subjective identity that expresses their gender through language and behavior, Butler comments that “identity is performatively constituted by the very ‘expressions’ that are said to be its results” (Butler, 1989). In other words, identity does not determine one’s behavior; citational behavior constructs one’s identity. Identity is then not a habitable status that one can possess and be defined by but is rather “an unending process of linguistic becoming” (Kaplan, 2007).

The mutable and deconstructive nature of a poststructuralist analysis of gender indicates that there is potential for the traditional heteronormative citational script to be subverted. Since the rules that govern normative heterosexuality are not natural or essential, there is no justifiable reason for the amount of strict enforcement they occupy in modern society. To deconstruct this “regulatory fiction”, Butler suggests that alternative reiterations of gender can reveal how identity is “ready-made” by “refusing to treat them as if they referenced an independent or transcendent reality” (Kaplan, 2007). It is the iterability of the performance generated from the traditional script that gives performativity insurrectionary potential to reveal the contradictions within heteronormative hegemony (Young, 2016).

The work of Michel Foucault has heavily influenced the poststructuralist nature of Butler’s theories on gender; his theories introduced in The History of Sexuality question the discursive nature of sexuality during a time when the sexual liberation movement was at its peak. In his book, Foucault refutes the repressive hypothesis, a Freudian notion that claims discussions on sex have only been stigmatized and prohibited throughout history. According to the hypothesis, repression of sexuality began in the 17th century when the bourgeoisie believed that sex inhibited economic productivity and made an effort to control the sexual pursuits of the working class, subduing it to merely a private matter between husband and wife; therefore, upholders of the repressive hypothesis concluded that in order to liberate themselves, discussions about sexuality must be rendered open and free.

What Foucault finds disputable about the repressive hypothesis can be summarized in the three questions he poses: 1) "Is sexual repression truly an established historical fact?", 2) "Are prohibition, censorship, and denial truly the forms through which power is exercised in a general way, if not in every society, most certainly in our own?", 3) "Was there really a historical rupture between the age of repression and the critical analysis of repression?" (Purdue, 2011).

Foucault does not attempt to question the fact that sexual repression exists; rather, he questions why sexuality has only grown dramatically as a seemingly necessary topic of discourse. He notes that the increase in repression has not led to silence but instead "an institutional incitement to speak about [sex], and to do so more and more; a determination on the part of the agencies of power to hear it spoken about, and to cause it to speak through explicit articulation and endlessly accumulated detail.” The discursive restrictions placed on sex have not rendered the topic invisible; they developed a meticulous framework in which to discuss sexuality, notably through Christian confessions about the slightest inclination towards sex and the proliferation of the scientific study of sex in the name of public interest and population control. Foucault argues that discourse around sex has only intensified as a result of the modes of control placed upon it; the repressive hypothesis and arguments about sexuality’s stigmatization are themselves contributing to its endless discussion.

It was one of Foucault’s objectives to understand how and why sexuality has become the pervasive topic it is in modern society; for him, the reason for sexual discourse’s ubiquity lies directly in power relations between language and knowledge. Whoever determines what is talked about also determines what is known; consequently, whoever determines what is known also determines how we perceive reality and identify ourselves. Foucault writes that “as if in order to gain mastery over [sex] in reality, it had first been necessary to subjugate it at the level of language, control its free circulation in speech, expunge it… and extinguish the words that rendered it too visibly present.” Because the epistemological classification of concepts provides for the manifestation of our reality, those who control what is discursive and what isn’t hold a great deal of metaphysical power. Thus, with the linguistic actualization of sexuality as an identifiable concept, anyone who partakes in its discourse is able to wield it as a conduit of power that allows for the subjugation of individuals who fall outside of its artificial regulations.

I find the works of Butler and Foucault to be necessary in order to develop a greater understanding of the power structures formed around identity, though their insurrectionary applications to realms outside of academic discourse prove to be challenging. There are certain limitations that a poststructuralist view of identity introduces to lived existence, especially with Butler's views on performativity. The most compelling argument against performativity lies in whether it is even meaningful to describe gender and identity as something socially constructed when they are concepts that are already deeply integrated into our paradigms as social beings. No matter how artificial identity formations are, there are marginalized groups who experience undue amounts of violent discrimination due to them and communities who find their perceived materiality to be affirming and therefore salient. Accepting that identity is unfounded and artificial “does not necessarily lead people away from a desire for identity” (Kaplan, 2007), especially when the politicization of identity has made self-identification a necessity for social and legal survival.

Butler provides few ways to effectively subvert heteronormative hegemony, mostly because performativity’s subversiveness cannot be determined formulaically. Furthermore, fully subscribing to Butler’s theory would require the relinquishing of the widely accepted concept of the Cartesian self, a self that dominates the spirit of Western thought. With her argument that there lies no subjectivity behind gender performance, questions regarding how individuals are able to have agency over their performances are left severely unanswered. If gendered acts that abide by the traditional script alone are disembodied from the self, how can it be known whether one’s subversive acts are also uniquely their own, if those subversive acts are successful in deconstructing heteronormativity at all?

Abiding by Butler’s “abstracted, simplified level of discursive signification” would additionally put one at risk of inadequately addressing the harsh realities of gender experience, including “oppressions and punitive regulations of non-dominant gender practices, hate to violence that is done to transgender individuals, and the moral pressures put on gender minorities” (Xie, 2014). As much of a desire deconstructing gender is, one cannot do so without taking into account the egregious amounts of harm dealt by its materially regulatory applications. Even the insurrectionary practice of subverting gender under performativity theory would place one at extreme risk because alternative constitutions of gender are not guaranteed to be respected or preserved in institutions of power. “The quantitative increase of gender performances does little to subvert dominant gender binary, given that for the majority of social members, the idea of genders remains powerful, and gender still means male or female, man or woman” (Xie, 2014).

The same qualifications apply to Foucault’s views on sexuality. In essence, trying to apply poststructuralism materially to a preexisting institution of power is far from a simple task, and one that may take an unquestionable amount of social force and endurance. It may be even more difficult to subvert sexuality as a construct because of its heavy integration into both discursive and material reality. Recent efforts to cement LGBTQ+ identities into political legislature have only solidified the construct of queerness as a political identity.

With the previous qualifications being said, I still affirm that adopting a poststructural framework is necessary while constructing one’s understanding of identity, especially when engaging with the affairs of queer liberation. Though such theories cannot realistically be applied to the fullest extent, the fundamental concepts behind them provide a much-needed framework for remobilizing queer liberation. Understanding Butler and Foucault is crucial to the argument that identity isn’t inherent enough to constitute how much it determines our realities.

I find poststructuralism to be extremely affirming as a gender non-conformant and an asexual individual. My understanding of my identity has never been stable or unfluctuating, which has proven to be difficult while trying to integrate myself into the social realities that are so often occupied by members who do not experience traditional identity nonconformity. I believe it is due to my own lived experience with gender and sexuality that I hold such a distaste for current power structures formed around identity; my constant alienation from current postulations on identity has led to my fondness of theories that call for their rejection and abolishment.

Before I continue, it is necessary to include the stipulation that for many, assimilation and reform to heteronormative hegemony is the only option for survival; in many cases, making one as palatable and cooperative as possible to higher institutions is the most viable way to obtain individual rights to security. (Marriage and housing are the first that come to mind.) That being said, I have doubts over whether conceding to heteronormative hegemony would provide queer people the sustainable justice they deserve in the long term.

Why I firmly hold the belief that poststructuralism is essential towards queer liberation is due to the proliferation of narratives involving the concessive integration of queer people into heteronormative society. Much of today’s discourse involving challenging heteronormative hegemony has been derailed by questions of queer moral quandaries, biological innateness, and religious prudence, concepts that attempt to adapt queer people or otherwise peripheral members into heteronormative code; otherwise, queer liberation has been largely simplified to a classically liberal ideal of seeking reform within an oppressive system. While Butler and Foucault may have not provided much scripture on how to address the regulatory nature of heteronormative hegemony through poststructuralist praxis, their work is crucial towards furthering queer liberation.

At the time of the publication of Gender Trouble and The History of Sexuality, the concept of coming out was not the extravagant display of pride and public spectacle it is today. In recent times, coming out is a grand announcement of one’s identity; many queer celebrities and internet personalities online put on ornate performances to announce their queerness. The result of this culture has led to the perception of coming out as a necessary rite of passage every queer person is expected to participate in at one point in their lives; not doing so may result in the social denial of acceptance and community and the legal denial of identification and security. In order to reach the level of material respect as a heteronormative individual, a queer person is expected to “reveal” themselves, even though heterosexual individuals are already granted respect and actualization upon birth through the heteronormative hegemony. While coming out is a meaningful ritual for many queer individuals, it is at most a grandiose mechanization to assimilate into heteronormative hegemony, where cisgender heterosexual people are innately in the center, and queer people are innately on the periphery. In essence, a queer person coming out, while a victorious milestone many have been taught to aspire to, remains as merely a member of the periphery making a bid for the oppressive center to show ontological, legal, and social mercy to them.

Quite similarly, other attempts have been made to further integrate queer communities into preexisting heteronormative society. The Supreme Court case United States v. Windsor was considered to be a landmark victory for LGBT+ rights in the United States; many consider gay marriage to be a monumental improvement towards granting queer people legislative equality. However, the same issue applies: while a perceivably successful attempt to offer queer people concessions as reparations for their marginalization, legalizing gay marriage is still at its core a veiled attempt to preserve heteronormative hegemony. The institution of marriage still remains largely patriarchal, monogamous, and legally binding, whether it supports the union of queer people or not. The medicalization of transgender people is another example. Several studies have been made to prove the biological innateness (and therefore righteousness) of being transgender, with several arguments referring to the existence of multiple biological genders, several novel chromosome pairings, and the physical forms of transgender brains. While the continuation of these studies may bring a deeper understanding of the transgender individual, the findings of the studies are ultimately wielded as a cisgender lawbook meant to justify the existence of transgender people within a cisnormative society. No matter how “justified” transness is calculated to be, transness is still a quality continually being regulated by a violently oppressive system.

For many, the extent of queer liberation ends here, with the continued legalization of queerness within a hegemonic institution that innately refuses to actualize it. However, I believe that is not the fault of the queer individual; to be taught that your queerness is something innately sequestered and disenfranchising and that queerness can only be survivable through performing queerness under heteronormative scriptures is a narrative experienced by almost every queer person existing under heteronormative hegemony. It would be expected that not many would question the nature of their marginalization with great scrutiny and instead invest more energy into trying to survive as a marginalized individual.

However, the mild acceptance of the concessions granted by heteronormative hegemony by the queer community would only prolong the subsequent subjugation of queerness. As long as heteronormativity remains as the dominant citational script, power will still be held over the predetermined periphery, and its members will continue to engage with heteronormative politics out of complacency and survival. There must be a larger incitement to question the nature of identity as a conduit of power and the nature of those who wield such power over the queer periphery. Queer liberation must include a critical analysis of why queerness is definitive and constructed as a consequential identity formation to begin with. It is for this reason that poststructuralism is necessary for fundamental change; those on the periphery must be reminded that identity formations are social constructions that have been normalized for mechanizations of power and structural violence. It is only through the deconstructive practice of these social constructions that will disrupt the hegemony of heteronormative citationality.

Bibliography

Butler, J. (1989). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
Felluga, D. (2011). Introduction to Judith Butler, module on performativity.
Felluga, D. (2011). Introduction to Michel Foucault, module on the REPRESSIVE HYPOTHESIS.
Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books.
Kaplan, C. (2007). Keywords for American cultural studies. New York: New York University Press.
Ton, J. (2018). Judith Butler's Notion of Gender Performativity (Unpublished master's thesis). Villanova University
Xie, W. (2014). Queer[ing] Performativity, Queer[ing] Subversions: A Critique of Judith Butler’s Theory of Performativity. Comparative Literature: East & West. doi:10.1080/25723618.2014.12015486
Young, S. (2016, November 13). Judith Butler: Performativity.