Queer Theory vs Lesbian Feminist Theory
For my final journal entry, I wanted to weigh in on my impressions of the two major theoretical arguments we have covered this quarter: Queer Theory and Lesbian Feminist Theory. Although I find that Queer Theory is a better approach to the ways that I theorize identity, Lesbian Feminist Theory does have practical applications.
At the beginning of the quarter, we discussed in class how Lesbian Feminist Theorists thought that Queer Theory was dominated by homosexual men. How does Judith Butler’s work play into this? Were the critiques of Queer Theory occuring before Butler was publishing or after? There do seem to be female theorists engaged in producing Queer Theory, which seems to contradict the arguments of Lesbian FeministTheorists. Does it matter that QT is dominated by homosexual men? I would argue that academia, and academic theorists, also occupy a privledged positition within society, regardless of their gender. Does the fact that queer theorists and lesbian feminist theorists are primarily academic indiviuduals with academic privlege?
On the other hand, the queer theorists seem to imply that lesbian feminist theorists cling to biological notions of gender and sexuality (implying that sexuality is related to gender). To this, I ask: does it matter? Does it matter if gender identities and sexualities are linked or not? I would argue that, whenever we think about gender and sexual identities, we are dealing with physical lived experiences in addition to whatever theorizing we do. How do we explain how individuals deal with their gender identities in a world that places an emphasis on biological notions of gender? How do people deal with having a queer sexual identity in a heteronormative culture?
I think that both lesbian feminist theories and queer theories have their place. I actually think that the two disciplines are complimentary in nature. No one viewpoint offers us the complete picture. We need them both to understand how gender identity and sexuality work together to form a cohesive whole.
Michelle said,
March 16, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Some who identify as lesbian feminist certainly know about BUtler and others. Sheila Jeffreys, for instance, is still producing theory and it seems to me from her work that she still believes that queer theory is “feminism free.” If we believe that, then I htink that is the answer to why it matters. To say it doesn’t matter would be tantamount to saying that the absence of feminism doesn’t matter, wouldn’t it?
Now, the question is whether you believe that. I guess I don’t believe that about all queer theory. I wanted us to look at theory by people like Tyler, like Butler, like Hammonds, and like Halberstam, who I do think are asking questions that have important connections to feminism and that expand it in some significant ways. Partly, my goal was to move beyond those initial “debates” and to look at some lesbian theory and some queer theory as they are manifest in texts that do not necessarily purport to be theoretical texts.
My impression is that Bechdel is clearly asking questions that are not so much queer as they are lesbian; I think that Maney’s work examines gender in ways that seem pretty queer to me; etc. (I decided not to go on, since I am sure you get my point.) So, the title of the theoretical text we read–Feminism Meets Queer Theory–is at the core of the questions I think we were asking all quarter: “What happens when lesiban feminism meets queer theory? What are the tensions? Where are the coincidences? Etc.”