TL;DR
• Price: £5.01
• Author: Tasmin Spargo
• Date of publication: 1999
• Page count: 81
• Publisher: Icon Books
• Rating: 5/10
Review
Tasmin Spargo’s Foucault and Queer Theory is a sub-100 page booklet which summarises Foucault’s relation to queer theory in a concise — although not detailed — manner. As an introductory book to this subject matter, however, this may be a positive. I would not recommend it for those wishing to understand Foucault in greater depth.
It [homosexuality] was everywhere present in him: at the root of all his actions [...] The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species.
One thing this booklet does effectively is explain why Foucault did not regard homosexuality as an entirely biological condition. Foucault instead adopts the methodology of the historian, arguing that “homosexual” is a comparatively modern classification.
Foucault — and consequently Spargo — juxtaposes the sodomite with the homosexual. The claim is that homosexuality represents a socially constructed category of knowledge rather than a timeless biological identity.
In my view this conclusion depends largely upon the definition of “homosexual”. If the term is used strictly in the biological sense — an AMAB individual experiencing attraction toward another AMAB — then the phenomenon appears independent of cultural construction.
For example, when stating that Shakespeare was homosexual, the intended meaning is that he experienced same-sex desire; it does not imply participation in a modern cultural identity category.
So while 16th century men and women might be urged to confess that they had indulged in shameful sexual practices against the law of God and the land, the late 19th century man engaging in a sexual relationship with another man would be seen, and be encouraged to see himself, as ‘homosexual’.
One of the main reasons for this differentiation is that it became an identity, therefore a species that could be studied and, notably, attacked. However, a reverse discourse began following the 1960s, causing homosexuals to begin identifying as “gay”, using the same medical terms once used against them to fight for themselves.
The fact that a subject position or identity is constructed does not make it any less real for the identified. The homosexual was pathologised as a perverse or deviant type, a case of arrested development, a suitable case for treatment, in short as an aberration from a heterosexual norm.
Being gay or lesbian was a matter of pride, not of pathology; of resistance, not of self-effacement. […] Gay liberation contested the representation of same-sex desires and relationships as unnatural, deviant or incomplete.
One interesting idea posited from the book is the concept of the “closet” inherently imposing hetero-supremacism over gays and lesbians, as it implies being gay is the abnormality rather than heterosexuality. I had not previously considered it this way, and it raises questions about the cultural emphasis placed upon “coming out”.
For lesbians and gay men, being ‘out’ or ‘in the closet’ became a crucial marker of their sexual politics. Coming out suggested emerging from confinement and concealment into the open, a movement from secrecy to public affirmation.
Positives
→ Briefly explains the origins and purpose of queer theory
→ Short — readable within roughly three hours
→ Presents interesting ideas relating to queer theory, such as Foucault’s
“species” or Derrida’s “supplement”
Negatives
→ Does not relate ideas to Foucault as frequently as the title implies
→ Limited application of Foucauldian theory to queer studies
→ Rarely in-depth
Conclusion
Although short, this booklet presents several ideas that may be unfamiliar to many readers encountering queer theory for the first time. Because it can be read in a single sitting and is inexpensive, it remains a worthwhile introductory text — though not an adequate route to understanding Foucault in depth.
General Quotes
Just some quotes I like that didn't have a place in the review.
Queer theory is not a singular or systematic conceptual or methodological framework, but a collection of intellectual engagements with the relations between sex, gender and sexual desire.
Foucault rejected this ‘repressive hypothesis’ and claimed that evidence from the nineteenth century pointed not to a prohibition on speaking about sexuality but to a remarkable proliferation of discourses about sexuality. A vital feature of Foucault’s argument is that sexuality is not a natural feature or fact of human life but a constructed category of experience which has historical, social and cultural, rather than biological, origins.
Having so much invested in believing sexuality to be natural does not mean that it is. This does not mean that Foucault ruled out any biological dimension, but rather that he prioritised the crucial role of institutions and discourses in the formation of sexuality.
From the eighteenth century onwards, sexuality was regarded as something to be regulated and administered rather than judged. New governmental regimes focused on the embodied and sexual individual, and secularised versions of confession became central techniques for internalising social norms.
Modern homosexuality is of comparatively recent origin. Foucault insisted that the category of the homosexual grew out of a specific nineteenth-century context and must therefore be understood as a constructed category of knowledge rather than a discovered identity.
The crucial difference between earlier regulation of sexual practices and that of the late nineteenth century lies in its claim to identify what Foucault called a “species”: an aberrant type of human being defined by perverse sexuality.
Homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species.
The fact that a subject position or identity is constructed does not make it any less real for the identified. The homosexual was pathologised as a deviant type and subjected to the disciplining and marginalising effects of social control.
In Greco-Roman culture, sexual practices were ethical concerns rather than the shameful truth of human experience. Christianity later developed universal moral codes increasingly centred on the truth of sex.
Being gay or lesbian was a matter of pride rather than pathology. Gay liberation contested the representation of same-sex relationships as unnatural or deviant.
Being “out” or “in the closet” became a crucial marker of sexual politics. Coming out suggested emerging from concealment into public affirmation.
Safe-sex education renewed emphasis on sexual practices rather than identities: what one did rather than what one was became the central issue.
Queer meant something deliberately transgressive — a show of difference intended to upset the status quo and challenge assumptions about normality.
Queer theory is perpetually at odds with the normal. It draws upon post-structuralist thought including Lacan’s theory of unstable identity, Derrida’s deconstruction of binaries, and Foucault’s analysis of discourse, knowledge and power.
Using Derrida’s concept of the supplement, heterosexuality may be seen as dependent upon homosexuality for its conceptual coherence.
Declaring oneself to be out of the closet may be liberating, but it simultaneously acknowledges the centrality of heterosexuality and reinforces the binary opposition between heterosexual and homosexual.
We do not behave in certain ways because of our gender identity; rather, we attain that identity through the behavioural patterns that sustain gender norms.