Is 'Queer' An Empowering Terminology?
September 28th 2007 14:42
[This is a reproduction of an article which will be featured in the University of Sydney's Honi Soit newspaper next week. Enjoy.]
Labels – who needs them? Whether you think that 'queer' is a fiesty recontextualisation of the word's demeaning usage, or see it as too laden with negative connotations to be empowering, whether you use it with pride, for convenience, or not at all, one thing is for sure: it has emerged as the umbrella term of choice for a number of generations of USyd students with a GLBTI orientation. It literally pops up in every GLBTI context around campus, with a browse through titles alone indicating its popularity: the Queer Action Collective, the Queer Discussion Group, Queer Space, Queer Convenors and, now, Queer Honi Soit.
Originally meaning 'odd' or 'suspicious', later utilised as an insult to anyone who didn't fit the gender/sexuality mould, but particularly GLBTI men, it has been appropriated into a postmodern vocabulary since the 1980s which has resulted in self-titled 'queers' claiming the right to use the word with a defiant sense of pride.
Perhaps 'queer' is so popular because of its non-specificity. According to David Halperin, queer is "an identity without an essence" and signifies "whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant." The proponents of the word celebrate it for challenging mainstream perceptions of sexual identities frequently categorized as 'other'. Many students find it an encouraging alternative to some of the other categorizations out there, such as GLBTI (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered and intersexed, perceived as too much of a mouthful) and non-straight (another useful umbrella term, but marginalising transgendered people who are heterosexually attracted).
According to some, 'queer' has the additional advantage of referring to people who are questioning their sexuality or see themselves as 'heteroflexible,' thereby appealing to more orientations than GLBTI. At any rate, the label is 'in,' with university students and young adults in the twenties being more likely to use the term than any other age group or demographic. Interestingly, current SRC president Angus McFarland reports that he rarely uses the word outside the university context, as older generations tend to be less receptive to the potentially empowering attributes of the label.
Why do some students also find it problematic? I personally don't find the idea of resuscitating a derogatory term for widespread use charming or revolutionary – I find that it reproduces the negativity with which it was originally invested, whether the speaker intends this or not. Why embrace a term which has been used to marginalize and oppress communities (like 'nigger' for black people)? Does the use of 'queer' imply a stake in the shame game, i.e. the internalized discrimination of people against themselves? Why even take into account other-ising notions of identity?
I would like to suggest the term non-Hetero(sexual) instead, the capital H indicating a modernist notion of a fixed identity (appropriated from Foucault's History à histories theory). Because who wants to have one of those, anyway?
It's a good thing that we have room for debate over the labels we use in our community, and I hope this one will continue as it raises many important questions of identification.
Labels – who needs them? Whether you think that 'queer' is a fiesty recontextualisation of the word's demeaning usage, or see it as too laden with negative connotations to be empowering, whether you use it with pride, for convenience, or not at all, one thing is for sure: it has emerged as the umbrella term of choice for a number of generations of USyd students with a GLBTI orientation. It literally pops up in every GLBTI context around campus, with a browse through titles alone indicating its popularity: the Queer Action Collective, the Queer Discussion Group, Queer Space, Queer Convenors and, now, Queer Honi Soit.
Originally meaning 'odd' or 'suspicious', later utilised as an insult to anyone who didn't fit the gender/sexuality mould, but particularly GLBTI men, it has been appropriated into a postmodern vocabulary since the 1980s which has resulted in self-titled 'queers' claiming the right to use the word with a defiant sense of pride.
Perhaps 'queer' is so popular because of its non-specificity. According to David Halperin, queer is "an identity without an essence" and signifies "whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant." The proponents of the word celebrate it for challenging mainstream perceptions of sexual identities frequently categorized as 'other'. Many students find it an encouraging alternative to some of the other categorizations out there, such as GLBTI (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered and intersexed, perceived as too much of a mouthful) and non-straight (another useful umbrella term, but marginalising transgendered people who are heterosexually attracted).
According to some, 'queer' has the additional advantage of referring to people who are questioning their sexuality or see themselves as 'heteroflexible,' thereby appealing to more orientations than GLBTI. At any rate, the label is 'in,' with university students and young adults in the twenties being more likely to use the term than any other age group or demographic. Interestingly, current SRC president Angus McFarland reports that he rarely uses the word outside the university context, as older generations tend to be less receptive to the potentially empowering attributes of the label.
Why do some students also find it problematic? I personally don't find the idea of resuscitating a derogatory term for widespread use charming or revolutionary – I find that it reproduces the negativity with which it was originally invested, whether the speaker intends this or not. Why embrace a term which has been used to marginalize and oppress communities (like 'nigger' for black people)? Does the use of 'queer' imply a stake in the shame game, i.e. the internalized discrimination of people against themselves? Why even take into account other-ising notions of identity?
I would like to suggest the term non-Hetero(sexual) instead, the capital H indicating a modernist notion of a fixed identity (appropriated from Foucault's History à histories theory). Because who wants to have one of those, anyway?
It's a good thing that we have room for debate over the labels we use in our community, and I hope this one will continue as it raises many important questions of identification.
| 57 |
| Vote |
Comments (6)
Add Comments
