Queer Theory, Gender Theory
I recently completed the book Queer Theory, Gender Theory by Riki Wilchins. Not only is this book excellent as an introduction to Queer Theory, but its an easy read. I really enjoyed reading it! She explains the origins of queer and gender theory through the women's movement, the gay movement, and the transgender movement. She discusses the theorists who began to write queer and gender theory as well as contemplate the usefulness of these theories. The most important part of the book is her application of these theories into action and vision. Most theory one reads these days seems to be loaded with big words and abstract theory, but no direction or vision. QTGT does the opposite. Wilchins explains the theories and their importance to today's society as well as offering a means for action; she even offers examples. I would strongly advocate reading this book even if its just to add to a knowledge base. It is both entertaining and highly informative.
I'm curious as to some of the issues Wilchins raises as well. What exactly are the benefits to deconstructing identities and ideas of 'being' like race, gender, and sex? If these ideas were deconstructed, would it help or hinder feminist movement? Would the theory behind feminisms become so convoluted that the only persons who could understand it are feminist theorists like Judith Butler? What do you think?
*This is a copy of the blog that I cross-posted on my Queering Theory website with some more questions that were raised by the author.
As I was reading through Queer Theory, Gender Theory, a few of the questions that Wilchins poses stuck with me. I think a few would benefit discussion.
I appreciate Derrida's definition of gender as, "a language, a system of meanings and symbols along with the rules, privileges, and punishments pertaining to their use - for power and sexuality (masculinity and femininity, strength and vulnerability, action and passivity, dominance and weakness)" (pg 35). I wonder what anyone else thinks about this definition. Is it beneficial to think of gender as a language and a system rather than 'being'?
In chapter five, Wilchins discusses Foucault's 'politics of self.' I had some difficulty understanding precisely what Foucault is suggesting through the deconstruction of the Self. It seems as if he advocates the questioning of one's own identities, but I'm confused as to what else *precisely* he is suggesting.
Is there "real sex"? If so, what is that exactly? What is the relation of "real sex" to gender? (ch 7)
In the beginning of chapter 9, Wilchins states that, "It may be that binary gender is so fundamental to social reality that it may be impossible to evolve the discourse." Is this statement valid? Could discourse be impossible? Or, if it is possible, is it harmful to feminist movement?
"Is race essentialized in a way that even sex is not?" (pg 109).
In chapter 11, Wilchins makes two interesting comments. "The price of a less coercive feminism may be resigning ourselves to conflict and fragmentation and then agreeing to move forward with all our contradictions intact." & "Maybe, in addition to representing women, part of a feminist agenda should be questioning, even deconstructing that category itself, so that - paradoxically - feminism actually precludes a complete and final definition of Woman" (pg 129). I wonder if these views on feminist movement are helpful or harmful. Is the deconstruction of "woman" a good idea, or will it merely make feminisms more complicated than they already are? Is it possible to have a final definition of Woman that is inclusive?