Is it better to think of 'queer' as an act of doing or as being? There are valid arguments for both sides and I would argue that there is merit on either side. Queer as an act of doing is the easiest to understand or see. As an act of doing, queering behavior could be anything that is different from the norm. Queer as being is more difficult, because it may perpetuate the essentialist discussion. Imposing the term queer onto someone is inappropriate. Someone may be engaging in queering behavior, but they may not want to identify in that way. Perhaps the identity begins to take over their entire identity. For instance, there are some who identify as gay and utilize that in every aspect of their lives: a gay journalist, a gay writer, a gay activist, a gay teacher, etc. Does taking queer that far into an identity take away from the term? If everyone is queer, no one is queer.
Mind boggler: at what point does queer behavior become normative and what, then, becomes 'queer'? Is it possible that so many people will queer their behavior that it will become the norm and not the other? Is it still defined 'queer'?
Is there a need to define 'queer'? According to some, when one defines anything (feminism, queer, etc) the term automatically becomes exclusionary. That is not queer. You are not queer. It may also become overly inclusionary. You are queer. A person or act may be defined as queer without the intention of the doer or person. Does the defining of queer un-queer? I move to suggest that every person has an idea or perception of what queer is or does. This internal decision or understanding is how people interpret queer doing or being. I have my own understanding of what queer is and whether or not I identify with that idea or not is irrelevant. In the act of defining queer, persons are excluded and the term itself has less power. Being or doing queer allows that person to interpret how they will what they are or do rather than having a group of people impose the term onto them. With a definition, we would be essentially placing people into the box labeled queer. When we are trying desperately to change or overthrow the current oppressive system, why are we utilizing their own tools? Why place persons in boxes when that is just what the system does in order to 'other' and discriminate against us?
Thinking about my previous position on defining feminism, I believe that the discourse on queer and queer theory aids my own ideas on the subject. Someone from my queer theory course suggested today that when defining queer or feminism, why not utilize a framework rather than a black and white definition? Utilize ideas and theory rather than imposing a concrete definition onto people. Although I support this proposal, I am unsure as to how to go about it.
Question for the cosmos - How does one go about getting feminist (or queer) discourse into the legal field? I will be graduating with a Gender, Women, & Sexuality Studies and a Political Science degree and heading off to the oh-so-fun law school. While I recognize that there are feminist law professors at universities around the country (and the world), I am curious as to how to bring this perspective into that arena. I am well familiar with my feminist lens in undergrad, but very hesitant to see how this will function within law school. In reality, I'm slightly afraid that I will be laughed at. I think I'm all together too radical for law school...