QUEER THEORY AT AN IMPASSE
By Robert Klein Engler (01/10/07)
CHICAGO--(8 January '07) In light of recent action by the Massachusetts legislature to advance a ban on gay marriages, it may be time to deconstruct the theory that claims to deconstruct gender and sexual orientation. If we can free ourselves from the labyrinth of language where Michel Foucault waits like the Minotaur, then the debate over gay marriage is a perfect occasion to do that deconstruction.
Queer theorists often claim that sexual orientation is a "social construct." By that they mean to say there are no "essential differences" between men and women. The social roles that men and women historically had, the "Me Tarzan, you Jane" division of the sexes, is in reality just something that society has constructed over time. John Thorp, in his essay, "The Social Construction of Homosexuality," puts it this way, "Homosexuality is not a natural but a social category."
Behind this theory about the social construction of sexuality are a few other assumptions. One assumption is that there is no essence or "soul" that distinguishes individuals, one from another. The social construct theory of sexuality is fundamentally secular. Any mention of a soul as being essential to a person and their identity is tainted with spiritual assumptions that have no place in a secular, theory driven universe. The social construct theory of sexuality also assumes that human beings are infinitely malleable. Like plastic, individuals take on the shape that a social mold imposes on them.
It is with these assumptions in their backpack, that queer theorists set out to conquer the forces of tradition and ignorance that oppose "gay marriage." These theorist reason that if traditional sex roles are nothing more than social constructs, then all they have to do is change the way society is constructed to have gay marriage accepted. "Let's raise the flag of civil rights on the barricades, too, and we will win," they chant.
As platoons of queer theorist march forward to meet the enemies of Church and State, they soon discover they are making things hard on themselves. They learn that the weapons they carry against the forces of tradition, fire both ways. On their road to victory they reach an impasse.
If sexuality is nothing more than a social construct, then why not just change gays and lesbians into being straight? Why not reconstruct them? It would be a lot easier for everyone. There would be less grief and less gnashing of teeth--less foolish books, too.
Furthermore, why not just abolish any form of marriage? Marriage, too, is a social construct, and if it limits men and women to restricted social roles, then just get rid of those roles. Arguments for gay marriage that use queer theory against traditional sex roles turn out to be boomerangs.
The ultimate problem with social construct theories is that these theories are self-referring. In the final analysis, even social construct theories turn out to be simply social constructs. There is no compelling reason using social construct theory to argue why things should not be constructed the way they are. One social construct is just as good as another. When you throw out the boomerang of nonsense, then expect nonsense to come back.
Another problem with queer theory is that it does not recognize the way people actually live. Most people live their lives believing there is something essential about their identity. This is even more so in the case of many gays and lesbians, who often live outside social traditions. Just ask any gay person you know, and they will probably say, "I was always this way," or something like that.
Many psychiatrist, going back at least to Freud, realize that whatever it is that makes a person gay or lesbian, it's next to impossible to change that orientation. Even the Roman Catholic Church now recognizes that the "homosexual condition" is not a matter of choice. In spite of queer theory and social constructs, most gays and lesbians believe they are essentially that way.
Ironically, by using queer theory to ground their political quest for gay marriage, gays end up also limiting the freedom they supposedly want to expand. Nick Yee claims that, "The irony of gay culture is that there is an emerging sense of the correct way of being gay--exemplified by TV shows like "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy". There is a certain way a gay man should dress, certain name brands that are favored...and certain skills and mannerisms that they should have."
Queer theory does not lead to assimilation, but creates instead an alternate universe where eventually all committed human relationships dissolve. This is reminiscent of how communism, in its attempt to share wealth, ends by making everyone poor. Queer theory, whose object is to free persons from the social oppression of some relationships, concludes by abolishing all relationships. For queer theorists who favor the social construction of reality, the impasse they approach leads to an abyss.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Robert Klein Engler
