Philosophical and

UNIT 1 PHILOSOPHICAL AND Psychoanalytic

Perspectives
PSYCHOANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES
Sanil M. Neelakandan
Structure

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Objectives
1.3 Theoretical Premise of Queer Theory
1.4 Psychoanalytical and Philosophical Influences
1.4.1 Sigmund Freud
1.4.2 Jacques Lacan
1.4.3 Michel Foucault
1.4.4 Contemporary Scholarship in Queer Theory
1.5 Let Us Sum Up
1.6 Glossary
1.7 Unit End Questions
1.8 References
1.9 Suggested Readings

1.1 INTRODUCTION
In the past, essentialist views on sexuality reduced sexuality to mere
physically determined phenomena. On the other hand, social constructionists’
readings on sexuality have explored the relationships between power and
the construction of sexual identities/ practices within society. In this unit,
we begin by laying out some of the theoretical premises underlying queer
studies. You will then be able to explore the perspectives of social theorists
like Sigmund Freud, Jacques Lacan and Michel Foucault, and the relevance
of their perspectives within the field of queer theory. You have already
been introduced to some of the basic concepts of Freudian and Lacanian
theories in the previous block. Here, we will try to understand some of the
ways in which queer theory re-reads or engages with the theoretical milieu
of these thinkers. You will also examine some of the nuances of these
perspectives in order to achieve an overall view of the philosophical and
psychological underpinnings of these theories through the lens of
psychoanalysis. We will also briefly discuss the contributions of Jonathan
Dollimore, Diana Fuss and Steven Seidman, towards the end of the unit.

441
Queer Theory
1.2 OBJECTIVES
This unit explores the background of queer theory, in the context of the
psychoanalytical and philosophical theoretical premises of Sigmund Freud,
Jacques Lacan and Michel Foucault. After reading this unit, you should be
able to:

• Understand the background of queer theory;

• Identify the dominant perspectives of Sigmund Freud, Jacques Lacan and

Michel Foucault; and

• Explain these philosophical and psychoanalytical perspectives in terms of

their impact on queer theory

1.3 THEORETICAL PREMISE OF QUEER THEORY

Background

While ‘queer’ has been a contested category, the discourse of ‘queer theory’
evolved in the late 1980s. Queer theory allowed us to examine issues
related to sexuality and subjectivity from the perspective of gay and lesbian
scholarship. Moving away from previous essentialist and reductionist
approaches, it argues for the social constructionist approach, about which
you have already read in Unit 1 of Block 3. Queer theory challenges older,
conventional, binary ways of thinking which represent ‘gay’ and ‘straight’
as oppositional categories. In earlier scholarship, we often find vague and
skewed readings of same-sex desire in diverse periods and eras, leading to
narrow readings and perspectives on the nature of the taxonomy of same
sex desire, Greek pederasty, medieval sodomy, early modern ‘mollies’,
‘inverts’ and other such categories. Among other things, this led scholars
to construct boundaries between romantic bonding among women, lesbian
love, and over-simplified forms such as gay, lesbian, straight and so on
(Tobin, 2001, pp. 326-27). In other words, the quest for the authenticity
of plural voices resulted in different standpoints. Judith Butler argues that
this endless search for categories has led to an epistemic crisis and has
given way to the category of the ‘queer’ (Cited in Tobin, 2001, p. 327).

As that which is the embodiment of non-heterosexual desires, queer signifies

the non-normative. It has been argued that queer theory emerged as a way
of rejecting the proliferating and improbable categories of ‘gay’ and
‘straight’. Queer theory draws on linguistics, and is influenced by the
readings on language by the philosopher Jacques Derrida. It relates Derrida’s
readings to issues of sexuality to begin questioning the category of ‘gay’
442
(Cited in Tobin, 2001, p. 327). Queer theorists and thinkers challenge the Philosophical and
Psychoanalytic
accepted differences that circulate in relation to the terms ‘gay’ and Perspectives
‘straight’, ‘non-normative’ and ‘normative’ and so on. Earlier scholarship
did not engage much with issues of homosexuality in relationship to diverse
forms of heterosexuality. On the other hand, queer studies investigated the
attraction of homosexual popular music culture attraction for straight
adolescents. Queer theory dismissed the essentialist understanding of the
constitution of gay identity. Rather, it tries to map out gay and straight
milieus of thought that are inherent in diverse personalities and texts.
Queer readings explore the relations of self and subjectivity in a meaningful
manner, by connecting the sense of the self to the field of political action
(Tobin, 2001, p.327). Queer theory also interrogates discourses influenced
by hegemonic forms of sexuality.

In order to get an overview of queer theory, it is important to have an

understanding of the work of queer intellectuals such as Wayne Kostenbaum,
one of the renowned American scholars in this field. His poems and social
criticism provided excellent reflections on the life worlds of American queer
intellectuals. Kostenbaum engaged with the predilection of gay men for
opera in his work The Queen’s Throat, Opera, Homosexuality and the
Mystery of Desire (2001). In this work, Kostenbaum explores the issue of
masculinity within opera and within the gay world. Another path breaking
work in the field of queer studies is Michael Warner’s Fear of a Queer
Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory (1993). It provides an excellent
theoretical approach on the questions of nationalism and its link with queer
worlds. In this diverse and rich anthology, Warner explores the subversive
potential of queer theory and the ways in which it challenges socio-political
conditions. It is evident from these works that queer theory and queer
ethics go beyond the critique of heterosexuality and heterosexual society
to identify and examine a variety of issues from queer perspectives.

‘Gay Shame’, ‘Gay Pride’ and Queer Theory

Two main issues that we will be discussing here are those of ‘gay shame’
and ‘gay pride’. In this context, the theoretical challenges posed by
theorists such as Judith Halberstam, David Halperin and Valerie Traub in
the field of queer studies, are very significant. Judith Halberstarm argues
that notions such as ‘gay shame’ and ‘gay pride’ are linked to the
contestations of queer studies. ‘Gay pride’ refers to the social movement
for freedom and dignity. In other words, it argues for the “destigmatization
of homosexuality”. It mitigates the “personal and social shame attached
to same-sex eroticism”. On the other hand, ‘gay shame’ is theorized as the
443
Queer Theory emotional anti-thesis and political antagonist of gay pride. Another important
theorist, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, throws light on how queer identity and
queer resistance are ingrained in shame (Sedgwick, cited in Halperin &
Traub, 2009). Thus, ‘gay shame’ is a “site of solidarity and belonging”
(Sedgwick, cited in Halperin & Traub, 2009, pp.3-9).

As a notion, ‘gay pride’ is linked to, and unable to transcend the notion of
‘gay shame’. Therefore, the queer identity is marked by “collective
affirmations of pride” and “residual experiences of shame” (Halperin &
Traub, 2009, p.5)). It is also argued that queer theories are linked to the
corporatization of gay culture. According to Judith Halberstam, gay pride
is related to the mobilizations of consumptions and gentrification and has
produced an assimilationist trend in gay neoliberalism. In other words, the
life styles that are part of the gay culture have been impacted by, and
become inextricably linked to, the culture of neoliberalism. Due to this,
‘gay pride’ does not end up challenging some of the exploitative dimensions
of neoliberalism, and consumerism. In this regard, it is interesting to note
the observations of scholars such as Tim Edwards, who states:

The primary point concerning queer politics is that it is a politics

of lifestyle. The expansion of a visible gay male subculture in
particular, coupled with an increasingly visual and vociferous lesbian
network, is spearheading a gay politics centered upon the power
of the pink pound….the wider issue here is that such developments
are not merely the major gay initiatives that they seem. The
expansion of the gay consumer culture is an example of new lifestyle
markets developed during the 1980s and not a testimony to the
power of the pink politics (Edwards, 2008, p. 202).

However, Edwards also helps us to see that, beyond this, queer politics also
emphasizes on diversity and difference as political strategies. According to
Edwards, these strategies have certain inherent limitations: diversity is
questioned due to its individualistic and divisive interests, while the notion
of difference can be perceived as essentialist in nature (Edwards, 2008, pp.
202-203). Here, it would be useful for you to re-visit the notions of cultural
essentialism that you came across in Block 3 (see especially Unit 1 & Unit
4). Edwards also discusses the role of pleasure which forms a part of queer
sexual autonomy and politics (Edwards, 2008, p. 203).

According to American queer theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, ‘gay shame’

is associated with the early experience of sexual shame. In her well-known
work Epistemology of the Closet (1990), Eve Kosofsky Sedwick provides
444
interesting perspectives on what she calls the “homo/heterosexual Philosophical and
Psychoanalytic
definition”. She discusses this notion in the context of its genealogy in the Perspectives
nineteenth century. “Homo/heterosexual definition”, according to her, was
a kind of “world mapping by which every given person, just as he or she
was necessarily assignable to male or female, gender was now considered
necessarily assignable as well as to a homo or a hetero-sexuality” (Sedgwick,
1990, pp. 1-2). Sedgwick deploys this universalizing view of homosexuality
to engage with notions of power and knowledge, and to challenge the
reductionist tendencies related to binaries such as ‘homosexual’/
‘heterosexual’.

In her discussion of attempts to liberate from ‘gay shame’, Judith Halberstam

contends that a theoretically inclined queer adult can convert “past
experiences with abjection, isolation and rejection into legibility, community
and love” (Halberstam, 2005, p.63). At the same time, ‘gay shame’ rejects
the normativity of a ‘gay pride’ agenda. In other words, the notion of ‘gay
shame’ is more nuanced in its exploration of the queer predicament as
compared to the more normative nature of the queer pride agenda. Judith
Halberstam asserts that the romanticization of the pre-stonewall protest,
the glorification of youth, and the realm of ‘gay shame’ are problems
related to this moment of theorization, which is focused upon certain
historical moments of queer assertions (Halberstam, 2005, p.63).

In the context of the above return to the past, the focus on ‘shame’ leads
to an emphasis on “a too psychically invested subject”. (Halberstam, 2005,
p.63). Returning to the past negates the contemporary anti-normative
queer politics of race and immigrant communities based transgender
assertions. For instance, the presence of a majority of white gays was
peculiar of that period. Thus, an unquestioned return to the pre-stonewall
protest moment cannot fully deal with the complexities related to sexuality,
race and immigrant communities (Halberstam, 2005, p. 63). It has been
argued that critics of these assertions are white gay men. Thus, there are
tendencies to equate ‘gay pride’ with contemporary politics and alternatives
are often ignored or marginalized. According to Judith Halberstam, ‘gay
shame’ universalizes the self of those who are from the shame formation.
Halberstam argues that ‘gay shame’ is universalized based on the separation
of the white male from privilege. Denial of privilege becomes a key element
in subjectivity formation of the white-male milieu. It also generalizes the
impact of shame on others. Halberstam argues against such reductionist
views of shame and proposes that the notion of shame is multidimensional,
and that it leads to psychic traumas. Shame marks the incompetence to
445
Queer Theory achieve power and authenticity. This particular assertion is linked to the
notion of castration in psychoanalysis. You have already read about the
role of castration in psychoanalytical theories in the previous block (Unit 2,
Block 5). Castration also plays a central role in the delineation of shame
since, in Freudian psychoanalytical theory, shame is linked to the discourse
about femininity. Thus, the white male who experiences shame is marked
by his entry into femininity and the loss of masculine privilege. For instance,
the image of the ‘sissy boy’ is theorized as an embodiment of shame and
has been viewed in relation to the contemporary gay reclamation of gay
masculinity.

We should note, however, that lesbianism can be distinguished from the

above in its marked absence of a crisis related to femininity. Judith Butler
introduces the concept of “melancholy” embedded in novels of lesbian
masculinity such as The Well of Loneliness (Hall, 1928/2005) and Stone
Butch Blues (Feinberg, 1993/2003) (Cited in Halberstam, 2005, p. 64).
Shame is conceptualized as a gendered form of sexual abjection that belongs
to the feminine and not to the male. Similarly, Pedro Almodovar’s film Talk
to Her (2002) also explores ‘gay shame’ and its consequences. In a path
breaking reading of this film, Halberstam easily dismantles the conceptual
ambiguity related to ‘gay shame’. Halberstam considers this movie as one
which engages with ‘gay shame’. Through such examples, we can see a
paradigm shift in the theoretical discourse and analysis based on ‘gay
shame’/ ‘gay pride’.

Check Your Progress: How have different scholars of queer theory

explained the notions of ‘gay shame’ and ‘gay pride’? Based on
your reading of these different perspectives, explain, in your own
words, what these terms mean to you.

Queer Studies, Disciplinarity and Critique of Dominant Ideologies

Contemporary queer discourses textualize sexuality as a singular way of

inquiry, using it as a lens to view diverse fields such as Queer Ethnic
Studies, Queer Postcolonial Studies, and Transgender Studies among others.
Queer investigations are interdisciplinary in nature and may be described
as the “promiscuous rogue in the field of focused monogamists” (Halberstam,
2005, p. 66). Thus, queer studies rejects the notion of a “disciplinary
446
home” and offers instead a “critique of disciplinarily” (Halberstam, 2005, Philosophical and
Psychoanalytic
p.66). This has led to conflictual positions between the theoretical discourses Perspectives
emerging from humanities queer enclosures and empirical social science
queer enclosures.

Halberstam also warns about the loss of queer life due to its forced consensus
with the dominant ideology of the heterosexual family. In other words,
queer life may be weakened when it is co-opted within the ideology of the
dominant, heterosexual ideologies of the family. On the other hand, queer
subcultures pose challenges to the culture of the heterosexual family cultures
through different queer lifestyles. For instance, adoption of children by
middle class gays and lesbians, their deployment of reproductive technologies
to form a family and so on, challenge the mainstream and hegemonic
culture of the heterosexual family.

In this context, it is also important to understand the notion of queer public

intellectuals. Queer public intellectuals are those who help to circulate
queer discourse outside the academic arena, and engage with those who
are outside academic institutions. According to Halberstam, the emergence
of queer public intellectuals provides a transgression of the boundaries
between community and campus, activism and theory, classroom and
club.

The category of queer has been conceptualized as “an umbrella term for
a coalition of culturally marginal sexual identifications” (Jagose, 1996,
p.1). The question of identity plays an important role in queer studies since
identity is abound with mutually dependent and undefined social constructions
(Villaverde, 2008, p.78). In other words, the notion of identity can provide
a sharp understanding of gender and sexual norms.

The following observations by scholars can offer us insightful overviews

about queer theory. For instance, Britzman states:

I think of Queer Theory as provoking terms of engagement that work

to recuperate…to exceed …contain and dismiss…Queer theory offers
methods and critiques to mark the repetitions of normalcy as a
structure and as a pedagogy…insist(ing on) the production of
normalization as a problem of culture and thought (Cited in Villaverde,
2008, p. 79).

Similarly, G.D.Shlasko emphasizes the certain qualifying aspects of queer

studies. According to Shlasko:

447
Queer Theory • “Queer as a subject position describes people whose gender and/ or
sexuality fall outside the cultural norms and expectations…describing
one’s location relative to those norms” (Shlasko, 2005, cited in
Villaverde, 2008, p. 80).

• “As a poetic, queer challenges the very idea of the normal…as both
outside of gender and hetero-norms and alsoopposed to the existence
of these norms and the structure that serve to police their boundaries”
(Shlasko, 2005, p.124).

• As an aesthetic, queer “looks for and enjoys potentially subversive

content in cultural texts of any media, from academic research papers
to television advertisements to graffiti (Shlasko, 2005, p.124).

Thus, queer theory unveils the process that determines sexual categorization.
It also shows the limitations of divisions made on the basis of categories
such as heterosexual-homosexual and identity politics. It rejects the notion
of identity politics as a false construction of “unitary entity or person”
(Edwards, 2008, p.196).

On the other hand, queer theory and politics are themselves criticized for
depoliticizing the material conditions that determine sexuality. For instance,
it is contended that queer theory has depoliticized the economic, cultural
and political oppression of lesbians and gay men (Hennessy, 1995, cited in
Edwards, 2008, p. 201).

1.4 PHILOSOPHICAL AND PSYCHOANALYTICAL

INFLUENCES
Let us now examine the work of some theoreticians whose contributions on
sexuality, from psychoanalytical and philosophical perspectives, have had
an influence in the shaping of queer theory. These explorations related to
sexuality will help us to understand the nuances of queer theory more fully.

1.4.1 Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)

You have already read about some basic concepts of Freud’s theories on
sexuality in the unit on “Feminism and Psychoanalysis” (Unit 2, Block 5) of
this course. You may find it helpful to re-visit those sections before moving
ahead. Some of Freud’s major works as well as secondary literature related
to his works are also provided at the end of this unit.

It has been argued that Freud was influenced by scientific positivism,

vitalism and Victorian culture. He is one of the thinkers who spent much
448
of his intellectual life in exploring the perennial questions related to the Philosophical and
Psychoanalytic
psyche and sexuality. Freud argued that it is science that deals with the Perspectives
psychic energy of the mind and personality. According to Freud, mind and
body are inseparable in nature. Freud proposed that the id, ego and
superego constitute the structure of personality (Cited in Adams and Sydie,
2001, pp. 330-331). (Please review the explanations of these terms as
provided in Unit 2 of Block 5). Freud foregrounds the notion of ego in
relation to the two other conceptual categories of “id” and “superego.” As
you have already seen, the id is the reservoir of uncontrolled affective
energy. It is related to the gratification and pleasure, and devoid of the
notions of time and control. It is the seat of our basic instincts which
include love, hate and aggression. According to Freud, the id can be
evidenced from infancy itself (Cited in Adams and Sydie, 2001, p. 330). The
super ego, on the other hand, acts as a moral check and is connected to
influences emerging from external reality.

The super ego is the product of socialization and abounds with moral
regulations that govern our conduct. It establishes the do’s and don’ts in
the world of the individual and acts as a censoring agent on our actions,
leading to feelings of guilt (Cited in Adams and Sydie, 2001, p.330). On the
other hand, the ego operates between the id and the super ego. Ego acts
as a conscious site of intellect. It deals with conscious thinking, reasoning
and choosing in time, and mediates between the forces of impulse and
control (Cited in Adams and Sydie, 2001, p. 331).

Freud also talked about how individuals cope with the struggles of id and
super ego by using defense mechanisms (Cited in Adams and Sydie, 2001,
p. 331). One such mechanism, called sublimation, converts the undesirable
id into a socially accepted outlet. For instance, artistic energy is shown as
the conversion of psychic energy into aesthetic creativity. Rationalization
is another defense mechanism which stands for the justification of actions
of the subjects.

In the previous block, you have read about the role of the Oedipus complex
in Freudian theory. In order to understand the ideas of Freud, one also has
to engage with his ideas on civilization. Freud argues that the mind is the
repository of instincts which represent the demands of the body. They act
as the important aspects of behaviour. According to Freud, there are two
types of instincts. The sexual instinct, which includes feelings of love and
desire for inclusion and connection, is called eros. The other instinct is
related to aggression and the death drive and is called thanatos. Eros deals
with eroticism and self-preservation and Thanatos with aggression and
449
Queer Theory destruction. Both of these coexist in a particular fashion and influence
human life. Freud asserts that the forces of Civilization regulate these
sexual as well as aggressive elements and function as a super ego in the
field of culture (Cited in Adams and Sydie, 2001, p. 332).

Let us now look at how some of these ideas have been used by queer
theorists in the discourse on sexuality. One of the Freudian notions used by
queer thinkers is that of ‘polymorphous perversity’. According to Freud,
adult sexuality emerges from polymorphous, infantile sexual norms, and
was therefore made up of plural desires and tendencies, homosexuality
being one of them. Henry Abelove, a cultural historian, who explored
Freud’s approach towards homosexuality, cites one of the letters written by
Freud in April, 1935 (printed in 1951) to a mother who wrote to Freud about
the homosexuality of her son. The following extract from this letter gives
us interesting insights regarding Freud’s views on homosexuality:

Box No. 6.1

“I gather that your son is a homosexual. I am almost impressed by

the fact that you do not mention this term yourself in your information
about him. May I question you, why you avoid it? Homosexuality is
assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice,
no degradation, it can not be classified as an illness, we consider
it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain
arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of
ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the
greatest among them (Plato, Leonardo da Vinci etc). It is a great
injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime and cruelty too. If
you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis. By asking
me if I can help, you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality
and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in
a general way, we can not promise to achieve it. In a certain
number of cases we succeed in developing the blighted germs of
heterosexual tendencies which are present in every homosexual, in
the majority of cases it is no more possible. It is a question of the
quality and the age of the individual. The result of the treatment
can not be predicted. What analysis can do for your son runs in a
different line. If he is unhappy, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his
social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full
efficiency, whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed…”

(Freud, cited in Abelove, 1993, pp. 381-383).

450
As is evident from the above, Freud clearly refused to classify homosexuality Philosophical and
Psychoanalytic
as an illness. Abelove uses this letter to explore Freud’s approach towards Perspectives
homosexuality, and to construct an intellectual historical account of Freud’s
engagements with homosexuality. Similarly, Freud responded to the trial of
a prominent Vienna professional who was charged with homosexual practices.
In one of his interviews, Freud stated “I advocate the standpoint that the
homosexual does not belong before the tribunal of a court of a law. I am
even of the firm conviction that homosexuals must not be treated as sick
people, for a perverse orientation is far from being a sickness. Wouldn’t
that oblige us to characterize as sick many great thinkers and scholars who
we admire precisely because of their mental health?” (Freud, cited in
Abelove, 1993, p. 382). Using the above examples, Abelove argues that
Freud repeatedly insisted that homosexuals are not sick and they do not
belong to a court of law. On the other hand, Freud added that if a
homosexual molested a child below the age of consent he should be charged
as any heterosexual who gets charged under analogous circumstances.

Other examples from Freud’s interventions in respect to homosexuality are

equally significant. Freud opined about homosexuality in the Vienna Public
Press in 1930 and was co-signatory to a statement addressed to the joint
Austro-German legal commission which was considering the revision of the
penal code. According to the statement “homosexuality had been present
throughout the history and among all people” (Freud, cited in Abelove,
1993, p. 382). The statement also condemned homophobic society that
drives homosexuals to commit suicide and pushes them towards anti-social
activities. Freud also criticized the Dutch psychoanalytic associations’ decision
to object to the membership of a homosexual doctor. In another letter
addressed to Ernest Jones, and jointly written with Otto Rank, Freud states,
“Your query dear Ernest concerning prospective membership of homosexuals
has been considered by us and we disagree with you. In effect, we cannot
exclude such persons without other sufficient reasons, as we can not agree
with their legal prosecution. We feel that a decision in such cases should
depend upon a thorough examination of the other qualities of the candidate”
(Freud, cited in Abelove, 1993, p.383).

The above mentioned examples clearly show Freud’s approach towards

homosexuality. Since Freud’s theories have remained so influential within
the field of psychoanalysis, the impact of his views on homosexuality has
also been immense. Let us now examine the theories of Jacques Lacan and
Michel Foucault from a similar perspective.

451
Queer Theory 1.4.2 Jacques Lacan (1901-81)
We have looked at some aspects of Jacques Lacan’s theories in the unit on
“Feminism and Pyschoanalysis” in the previous block (Block 5, Unit 2).
Jacques Lacan is considered to be one of the pioneering figures in the
history of psychoanalysis. Born in Paris of a bourgeois family in Paris in
1901, he pursued a medical degree at the Sorbonne, before shifting to
psychiatry during the 1920s, for which he trained under Gaetan de
Clerambault. Besides other influences on his works, he was also influenced
by the art of observation of Gaetan de Clerambault and the art of baroque
self presentation of the surrealists. It is argued that the reinterpretation
of Freud by Lacan started in the 1930s. His writings from the 1950’s,
especially Ecrits, also show his attraction towards Hegel and the Hegelian
understanding of the master-slave dialectic.

Previously, you have looked at some basic concepts in Lacan’s theories of

psychoanalysis and his re-interpretation of Freud’s theories. In the following
section, we will examine some aspects of Lacanian theory that are relevant
to queer intellectual investigations. In many of his works, Lacan explores
the role of the ‘Other’ which is basic to the human predicaments related
to nature. The ‘Other’ is constructed based on the loss of objects (especially
the first love object, the mother), and the replacement of those primary
love objects by substitute objects (‘other’ objects). Thus, desire moves the
subject beyond the self, and foregrounds the division within the subject.
The ‘Other’ is the object that determines and supports subjectivity. It also
shows that “we are neither fully defined by our erotic relations nor are
they entirely personal” (Watson, 2009, p.115).

Lacan argues that language is the discourse of the other. In other words,
we use language to represent the “other” (for instance, the parental other,
culture, etc). As you read before in Block 5, Unit 2, Lacan uses Saussure’s
ideas, borrowed from linguistics, to show that language consists of a chain
of signifiers. Desire expresses the loss or lack in being through signifiers.
Since signifiers are linked in metonymically in a chain, Lacan contends that
desire is the “metonomy” (see Glossary) of the lack in being. It is impossible
to conceive desire without language. The articulation of desire by the
subject through language is also accompanied by the subject’s alienation
(since language is perceived as “other.”) (Cited in Watson, 2009, p.116).
Lacan argues that we are neither determined by our erotic relations, nor
by our personal relations in a complete fashion. Sex is the psychoanalytic
framework associated with conscious and unconscious knowledge (Cited in
Watson, 2009, p. 115).
452
Queer theorists use the Lacanian understanding of language in specific Philosophical and
Psychoanalytic
ways. Lacan argues that language fails at every attempt to circumscribe Perspectives
the sexual, and focuses upon the divided subject. This perspective is close
to the queer rejection of the limited focus on identity. Lacan does not
reduce perversion to sexual behaviour; rather, he inverts perversion by
looking at it as a structure. Homosexuality is, therefore, not theorized
as perverse in Lacanian works. On the other hand, it is associated with
the “infringement of the normative requirements of the Oedipal complex”
(Cited in Watson, 2009, p. 129).

Lacan contends that the subject’s truth is outside of the networks of

certainties by which the human recognizes his or her ego. It is important
to understand the critical stance of Lacan on the category of sex, since it
is epistemically close to certain queer premises. Lacan asserts that when
one loves it has nothing to do with sex. Scholars such as Tim Dean consider
Lacan’s move to think of sexuality outside of the purview of sex as radical.
Lacan deconstructs the possibility of the sexual relationship by proposing
that such a relationship is nonexistent (Cited in Watson, 2009, p. 130). We
have already discussed the role of ‘jouissance’ in Lacanian theory. The
Lacanian notion of ‘jouissance’ is also helpful in understanding the queer
perspective on sexuality (Cited in Watson, 2009, p.134).

The notion of death drive is also linked to sexual satisfaction. According to

Lacan, sexual identity is illogical in every respect. This perspective provides
radical insights to the queer analysis of sexuality. In other words, sexuality,
according to Lacan, is antithetical to identity, although the structure of
identity is related to sexuality. Since identity disappears with the eruption
of sexuality, sexuality destabilizes the self. Lacan theorized sexuality as the
merging point of the subjectivity of the self and the other. It is linked to
the discursive network of the other (Watson, 2009, p. 125-26).

As you have seen above, Lacan constructed a different intellectual trajectory

through his linguistic dexterity. His theories have left an indelible mark on
future theorizations about sexuality. Next, let us look at some of the
contributions of Michel Foucault from the perspective of their impact on
queer theory.

Check Your Progress: What were Freud’s views on homosexuality?

How do Lacan’s theories further build on the notion of the Oedipus
complex and the ‘other’ to develop a theory of sexuality which is
based on the relationships between identity, sexuality and language?

453
Queer Theory 1.4.3 Michel Foucault (1926-1984)
Michel Foucault was born in Poitiers, France in 1926, He defended his
doctoral thesis in 1961. It was later published as History of Madness. He
further received his diploma in psychology in the year 1950 and worked in
a psychiatric hospital for some time. Foucault also taught briefly at the
University of Uppsala. Michel Foucault differs from other thinkers due to
his path breaking reading of sexuality at evidenced in some of his most
well-known works (See especially The History of Sexuality, 1976-1984).

Foucault was influenced by the works of George Canguilhem in biology and

medicine. Canguilhem argued that the “abnormal arouses theoretical interest
in the normal” (Miller, 1993, p.60). Foucault’s works on sexuality reflect
the influence of the theoretical perspectives of Canguilhem. Foucault
provided a critical explanation of Victorian morality through his exploration
of the nature of repression. This exploration of Victorian morality is important
for queer knowledge especially since Foucault deconstructed the historical
factors that structured the moral order. He was able to show how this sort
of moral order only resulted in creating the distinction between the normal
and abnormal. Thus, his exploration of Victorian morality helps us to critically
explore and question the categories of the so called ‘moral’ and the
‘immoral’/’deviant’/’abnormal’ and so on.

At the same time, his approach towards subjectivity added a new dimension
to the queer project. Foucault analyzed the links between sexuality,
subjectivity and truth. He positioned sexuality not as a natural category,
but as a constructed category related to experience, which itself is rooted
in historical, social, cultural and biological contexts. In his analysis of
Foucault’s theories, David Halperin argues that Foucault never provided
obvious reasons for same sex relations. When Foucault was asked about
innate levels of homosexuality and social conditioning, he replied: “On this
question I have absolutely nothing to say, no comments” (Spargo, 2000,
p.13).

On the other hand, Foucault argues that a new technology of sex emerged
at the end of the eighteenth century to become a major site of state
centric interventions. These interventions were carried out to control social
bodies and resulted in producing new forms of surveillance. Repression of
sexuality was a part of this process. It is argued that the term ‘sexuality’,
as we now understand it, was absent in the period before the nineteenth
century. In this context, it is important to understand Foucault’s ideas
about knowledge and power since he claims that power can produce
454
knowledge. He proposes four ways in which knowledge and power are Philosophical and
Psychoanalytic
associated with the new practices and technologies of sex. These are Perspectives
related to Foucault’s critique of psychoanalysis and the cultural construction
of sexuality. Briefly, the four phenomena can be listed as follows:

i) The “hysterization of women’s bodies”: Women’s bodies are perceived

as being saturated with sexuality. Therefore, women are represented
as unstable bodies that can be prone to hysteria, resulting in images
of “nervous women” (Cited in Adams and Sydie, 2001, p. 584).

ii) The “pedagogization of children’s sex”: Children who indulged in sexual

activities are viewed as functioning contrary to the law of the nature.
Parents, doctors, experts and educationists realized the consequences
of the sexual potential of children. Myths of masturbation are related
to these perceptions (Cited in Adams and Sydie, 2001, p. 584).

iii) The “socialization of procreative behaviour”: The regulation of

population operated as a means of controlling procreative behaviour in
line with the needs of society. Foucault claimed that this process of
control is political in nature. For instance, financial support and
contraception are embedded in this political discourse (Cited in Adams
and Sydie, 2001, p. 584).

iv) The “psychiatrization of perverse pleasure: Sexuality comes to be treated

as a separate psychical and biological instinct which can be subjected
to psychiatry (Cited in Adams and Sydie, 2001, p. 585).

According to Foucault, these four phenomena related to knowledge and

power result in the creation of four subjects - the hysterical woman, the
masturbating child, the Malthussian couple and the perverse adult. (Thomas
Robert Malthus is considered as a British scholar who provided brilliant
interventions in the field of population studies. He argued that if a couple
should “limit the number of children according to their wishes, they would
become too lazy to undertake any activity” (Cited in Bhende and Kanitkar,
1994, p.100). The above mentioned four forms of knowledge showed the
emergence of a calculated approach to life and mechanisms, which
exerted control over people through the establishment of certain
structures, as in the four instances mentioned above. Foucault calls this
control through structures “bio-power” (Cited in Adams and Sydie, 2001, p.
585). This concept is useful in understanding sexual norms and practices,
and how we internalize them.

455
Queer Theory Foucault also questions how social forces convert sexuality into moral
experience. This line of questioning led him to investigate how “western
man had been brought to recognize himself as a subject of desire” (Cited
in Britzman, 1998, p. 252). Foucault used the term “western man” in a
broader sense to explore the construction of western man as a subject of
desire. He further asks whether sexual practice has acquired the sense of
ethical practice. In his exploration of the Greek understanding of sexual
practice as ethical practice in his work The Use of Pleasure (History of
Sexuality, Vol. 2, 1984), he argues that the ethical realm demands self
control as in the dominion of self over the self in the case of acts that are
induced by nature such as sex. For instance, the ethical codes amongst the
ancient Greeks ensured control over the body, the institution of marriage
and the love of boys. These ethical codes produced three modes of self
control intended to create the ethical subject, namely, “dietetics, economics
and erotics” (Cited in Adams and Sydie, 2001, pp. 585-586). Dietetics
refers to the “right time for sexual pleasure” and takes into account the
changing dimensions of the body and the seasons. Economics refers to
conduct in family and marriage. Foucault includes in this category, the
“masculine art of governing a household-wife, servants, estate” (Cited in
Adams and Sydie, 2011, p. 585). Erotics is concerned with the moderation
that is significant in the relationship between an old man and young boys.

Foucault examines the relationship between sexuality and morality in the

early Roman Empire (Cited in Adams and Sydie, 2001, p. 586). While
discussing the changes in the trends related to marriage, Foucault indicates
that the shift in classical Greek ideas which started with the age of Augustus
led to a greater emphasis on marriage and its demands, and a decreasing
emphasis on the love for boys. This shift reflects the socio-economic
changes of that period. A sense of freedom was attached to the institution
of marriage especially in the selection of partners, decisions related to
marriage, and reasons to marry. Foucault argues that this shift gave rise
to the emergence of the “culture of the self”. As a part of this change,
different practices, recipes and procedures related to sexuality came into
existence (Foucault, 1984, p. 59). Thus, sexuality becomes associated with
pleasure as well as danger. Therefore, the measures to regulate sexuality
emerged as a part of different societal orders. Religion too becomes a way
to control the sexual proclivities. Thus, Foucault shows that power is
exercised through the control of sex.

Other works by Foucault can also give us a greater understanding of his

philosophy. Foucault edited two memoirs, one by Herculine Barbin (1978)
456
and the other by Pierre Rivière (1975). Let us look at these briefly to see Philosophical and
Psychoanalytic
what they reveal to us about Foucault’s views on sexuality. Perspectives

Herculine Barbin was a nineteenth century hermaphrodite who lived as a

girl for the first twenty years of her life. On realizing that she was a
hermaphrodite, doctors guided her to undergo a sex change operation. As
a result of the misdirected treatment, Herculine Barbin committed suicide.
Foucault points out how this shows society’s insistence on the notion of a
true sexual identity; he argues that the new scientific practice which
attempted to construct narrowly defined sexual identities ended up
victimizing people who did not fit into these narrow categories.

In the second memoir edited by Foucault, Paul Rivière, who is a peasant,

confesses that he has committed the murder of his mother, sister and
brother while dressed in his Sunday clothes. After the murder, he wanders
about in the country side and talks about the murder. While some of the
judges declared him to be sane, others insisted that he was insane. Paul
Rivière wrote his memoir during his incarceration and later committed
suicide. Foucault uses these two examples to explore the construction of
the “normal” and the implications of social control in such constructions
(Cited in Adams and Sydie, 2001, pp. 591-92).

In his famous and widely read work Discipline and Punish (Foucault, 1970,
p. 179, see especially “The Means of Correct Training”), Foucault argues
that discipline “makes” individuals through institutional structures that prune
“moving, confused, useless multitudes of bodies and forces into a multiplicity
of elements”. Foucault contends that “homosexuality threatens people as
a way of life” (Cited in Halberstam, 2005, p.67), and explores the radical
potential of queer milieus. According to Foucault, homosexuality is viewed
as a constructed category of knowledge rather than a discovered entity. He
explores the religious dogmas of the nineteenth century which created a
sense of shame in the minds of people who engaged in so called “aberrant”
(sexual) activities. For instance, scholars such as David Halperin have
recovered the positive potentials of Foucauldian analysis in the case of
S/M. David Halperin argued that S/M as a gay subculture emerged in the
urban areas of United States. He describes it as a “re-mapping of the body’s
erotic sites” (see Halperin, 2001, pp. 294-302). Foucault theorized S/M as
a strategic game which produces pleasure rather than conceptualizing it as
a terrain of domination.

As you have seen above, Foucault provides a broad frame of analysis on the
discourse of sexuality. Such a perspective can be considered as the
457
Queer Theory predecessor of queer thought of the late post-modern period. In other
words, his perspectives helped to expand the diverse aspects that structure
the category of the ‘queer’, and provided a more sophisticated framework
of sexuality. Foucault argues that “the critical ontology of ourselves has
to be considered not, certainly, as a theory, a doctrine, nor even as a
permanent body of knowledge that is accumulating; it has to be conceived
as an attitude, an ethos, a philosophical life in which the critique of what
we are is at one and the same time the historical analysis of the limits that
are imposed on us and an experiment with the possibility of going beyond
them” (see Foucault, 1984, pp. 32-50). Foucault’s theories radicalized the
understanding of homosexuality and challenged the hegemonic chivalric
stereotypes of homosexuality. Based on his analysis, as discussed above,
Foucault argued that the category of the ‘homosexual’ emerged as a
constructed category of knowledge out of a particular context in the
1870s. In examining the repression of sodomy by the church during the
renaissance, Foucault uses the category ‘species’ to denote the particular
historical context’s construction of perverse sexuality. Men and women
were forced to confess about their sexual choices according to the law of
the church. According to Foucault, “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 hermaphroditism of the soul. The sodomite
had been a temporal aberration; the homosexual is now a species” (Halperin,
1998, p. 95). This statement embodies the crux of Foucault’s philosophical
understanding.

Check Your Progress: What are the four phenomena used by Michel
Foucault to explain the relationship between knowledge, power and
sexuality? Use other examples from what you have learnt about
Foucault’s work to show how Foucault arrived at the conclusion that
knowledge was used as a way to control and structure sexuality.

1.4.4 Contemporary Scholarship in Queer Theory

Although this unit focused mainly on the influences of the psychoanalytic
and philosophical theoretical perspectives of Freud, Lacan and Foucault on
the evolution of queer theory, it is equally important to note the significant
contributions of some more contemporary queer theorists in this context,
namely Jonathan Dollimore, Diana Fuss, and Steven Seidman. Below are
458
listed just a few of their contributions, which you can explore further with Philosophical and
Psychoanalytic
the help of the suggested readings provided at the end of the unit. Perspectives

Jonathan Dollimore in his book Sexual Dissidence: Augustine to Wilde,

Freud to Focault (1991), investigates the notion of sexual dissidence.
According to him, dissidence is a form of resistance and sexual dissidence
operates at the plane of gender. It disrupts the opposition between the
dominant and the subordinate (Dollimore, 1991, p. 21). He also introduces
the notion of the “paradoxical perverse or the perverse dynamic” (Cited
in Lucey, 1993, pp. 313-16), which refers to the production of perversion
based on the social structures that indulge in the offence as well as the
enforcement of it. According to Dollimore, “The perverse dynamic denotes
certain instabilities and contradictions within dominant structures which
exist by virtue of exactly what those structures simultaneously contain and
exclude” (Dollimore, 1991, p. 33). Following this line of thought, Dollimore
engages with the social exclusion and symbolic centrality of homosexuality.

An equally important theorist, Diana Fuss focuses on the differences related

to categories such as ‘homo’ and ‘hetero’. According to Diana Fuss, the
category of homo becomes part of the sexual border which helps to assert
identity. She argues that there is a kind of exclusion related to the term
‘homosexuality’. However, she notes that sexual borders are unstable and
insecure. She reflects on the need for a theory of sexual borders which
can structure new social and cultural arrangements of movements and
transmutations of pleasure in the social field (Fuss, 2001, pp. 344-351).

Steven Seidman theorized that the norm of heterosexuality is less sustained

by social repression, than by normalizing controls. In other words, normalizing
controls play a vital role on determining the norms of heterosexuality. He
contended that gay politics can be seen as a response to a repressive social
logic of normative heterosexuality. According to Steven Siedman, gay identity
politics is a historically unique form of sexual politics. It is named as queer
politics and it operates as a response to gay normalization. He opined that
the normative grounds and political claims of queer politics are unclear.
But, he suggests ethical-political elaboration of a queer anti-normalizing
politics (Seidman, 2001, pp. 353-360). One of Seidman’s significant
contributions is that his theories have helped to expose the disinterest of
queer theorists towards the lesbian and gay mainstream and straight
mainstream. Further, he also acted as a social agency in the creation of
the gay scholastic culture and politics of the 1990s (Edwards, 2008, p.195).

459
Queer Theory
1.5 LET US SUM UP
In this unit you have observed how thinkers such as Sigmund Freud, Jacques
Lacan and Michel Foucault have enriched the historical and ongoing debates
on sexuality. You have examined the epistemic differences of queer theory
from other forms of thought. Finally, you have seen how queer theory
differs from other dominant ways of thinking that are conditioned by
prevalent heterosexual practices and thinking. In Units 2 and 3 of this
block, you will be able to approach queer theory from literary-cultural
perspectives, and within the Indian context. It would be helpful for you
to make connections between the psychoanalytical and philosophical
perspectives that you have read here, with issues you come across in the
following two units.

1.6 GLOSSARY
Essentialism : It refers to the arguments which limit complexity
of social phenomena to a single aspect or
essence.

Homophobia : George Weinberg coined this term to refer the

psychological fear of homosexuality in his work
Society and the Healthy Homosexual (1972).

Identity : It refers to the sense of personhood, the self.

Identities are not fixed, but rather fluid in
nature.

Metonymy : It is a figure of speech in which a word denotes

another through a particular sort of association.
For instance, the phrase ‘the bench’ denotes a
group of judges and magistrates (For further
information, see Colman, 2009, p. 461; for a
detailed explanation, see Carpini, 2001, p. 247).

Name-of-the-Father : According to Lacan, this refers to the laws and

restrictions that control desire and rules of
communications.

Object : It refers to the object of one’s sexual desire.

For instance, Freud refers to the mother as the
primary object of love.

460
Perversion : It refers to the search for “abnormal” sexual Philosophical and
Psychoanalytic
objects in the absence of repression. It denotes Perspectives
the difference of individuals from what society
constitutes as ‘normal’.

Repression : In Freud’s work, it is defined as the mechanism

of ego to suppress and forget its instinctual
impulses. It represents the way in which
unacceptable thoughts or wishes are banished
from consciousness and buried in the
‘unconscious’.

Social Constructionism: It represents the theories that focus on the

socially created part of social life. It asserts
that society is the creative production of human
beings. Human beings are productive in the
creation of society. In other words, this term
emphasizes the invented nature of the social
word, and disregards the given views about the
social world.

Sign : It refers to the unification of signifier and

signified. Signified stands for a concept. Signifier
stands for a sound image. The notion of sign
plays a vital role in postmodern scholarship.
This has been described by the linguist Ferdinand
de Saussure in his collected lectures Course in
General Linguistics (1915).

1.7 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1) Discuss the historical and theoretical background of queer theory with
the help of some of the concepts discussed in the above unit.

2) Explain Freud’s perspectives on sexuality, and how they can be linked

to queer perspectives on sexuality.

3) How does Jacques Lacan theorize sexuality? How far it is relevant to

queer theory?

4) Critically analyse the contributions of Michel Foucault to queer theory.

461
Queer Theory
1.8 REFERENCES
Abelove, Henry, Michele Aina Barale & David.M.Halperin (1993). The Lesbian
and Gay Studies Reader. New York, London: Routledge.

Adams, Bert N. & R. A. Sydie (2001). ‘Knowledge, Truth and Power: Foucault
and Feminist Responses’. In Sociological Theory. New Delhi: Vistaar
Publications.

Bhende, Asha. A & Tara Kanitkar (1994). Principles of Population Studies.

Bombay: Himalaya Publishing House.

Britzman, D.P (1995/1998). ‘Is there a queer pedagogy? Or, stop reading
straight’. In W.Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum: Toward New Identities. New York:
Routledge.

Butler, Judith (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of

Identity. New York: Routledge.

Carpini, Dominic Delli (2001). ‘Metonymy’. In Victor.E. Taylor & Charles.

E. Winquist (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Postmodernism. London and New York:
Routledge.

Colman, Andrew M. (2009). Oxford Dictionary of Psychology. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Dollimore, Jonathan (1991). Sexual Dissidence: Augustine to Wilde, Freud

to Foucault. New York: Oxford University Press.

Edwards, Tim (2008). ‘Queer Fears: Against the Cultural Turn’. In Sara
Delamont and Paul Atkinson (Eds.). Gender and Research, Volume 4: Men’s
Studies, Queer Theory and Polyvocality. New Delhi: Sage.

Feinberg, Leslie (1993/2003). Stone Butch Blues. Alyson Books.

Foucault, Michel (1961/1965). Madness and Civilization. (Trans.Richard

Howard). New York: Pantheon.

Foucault, Michel (1966/1970). The Order of Things. (Trans. A. Sheridan).

New York: Random House.

Foucault, Michel (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. (Trans. A. Sheridan).

London: Tavistock Publications.

Foucault, Michel (1973). The Birth of the Clinic. (Trans. A. Sheridan). New
York: Vintage Books.

462
Foucault, Michel (1975). I , Pierre Rivière, Having Slaughtered My Mother, Philosophical and
Psychoanalytic
My Sister and My Brother, A Case of Patricide in the Nineteenth Century. Perspectives
(Trans. Robert Hurley). New York: Vintage Books.

Foucault, Michel (1978). Herculine Barbin. (Trans. Richard McDougall). New

York: Random House.

Foucault, Michel (1979). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.
New York:Vintage Books.

Foucault, Michel (1984). ‘What is Enlightenment?’ In Paul Rabinow (Ed.)

The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, Michel (1984). The History of Sexuality: Volume 2, The Use of

Pleasure. (Trans. Robert Hurley). New York: Pantheon.

Foucault, Michel (1986). The History of Sexuality: Vol 3, The Care of the
Self. (Trans. Robert Hurley). New York: Pantheon.

Freud, Sigmund, Jose Breuer & Nicola Lickhurst (1895/1956). Studies on

Hysteria. London.

Freud, Sigmund. (1926/1957). The Future of an Illusion. (Trans.

J.W.D.Robson-Scott). James Strachey (Ed.), New York: Doubleday Anchor.

Freud, Sigmund. (1930/1951). Civilization and It’s Discontents. (Trans. Joan

Riviere). London: Hogarth Press.

Freud, Sigmund (1933/1965). New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis.

(Trans.& Ed. James Strachey). New York: W.W.Norton.

Freud, Sigmund (1935). Autobiography (Trans. James Strachey). New York:

Standard Editions.

Freud, Sigmund (1939). Moses and Monotheism. (Trans. Katherine Jones).

New York: Vintage.

Freud, Sigmund (1939/ 1977). Civilization, War and Death. (John Rickman,
Ed.). London: Hogarth Press.

Freud, Sigmund (1947). Leonardo da Vinci: A Study in Psychosexuality.

(Trans. A.A.Brill). New York: Random House.

Freud, Sigmund (1963). General Psychological Theory. (Phillip Rieff, Ed.).

New York: Collier Books.

Freud, Sigmund (1991). On Sexuality. (Ed. Angela Richards, Trans. James

Strachey). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
463
Queer Theory Fuss, Diana (2001). ‘Theorizing hetero and homosexuality’. In Steven Seidman
& Jeffrey C. Alexander (Eds.), The New Social Reader: Contemporary Debates.
New York: Routledge.

Halberstam, Judith (2005). ‘Queer Studies’. In Philomena Essed, David

Theo Goldberg, & Audrey Kobayashi (Eds.), A Companion to Gender Studies.
Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Halperin, M. David (1998). ‘Forgetting Foucault: Acts, Identities and the

History of Sexuality’. Representations, No.63, 93-120.

Halperin, M. David & Valeri Traub (2009). Gay Shame. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

Halperin, M. David & Valeri Traub (2009). ‘Beyond Gay Pride’. In David
Halperin & Valeri Traub (Eds.), Gay Shame. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Hall, Radclyffe (1928/2005). The Well of Loneliness. London: Wordsworth.

Jagose, A. (1996). Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York: New York

University Press.

Kostenbaum, Wayne (2001). The Queen’s Throat, Opera, Homosexuality and

the Mystery of Desire. Cambridge: Da Capo Press, Perseus Book Group.

Lacan, Jacques (1977/ 2006). Ecrits. (The First Complete Edition in English,
Trans. Bruce Fink). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Lucie, M. (October 1993). ‘Review of Sexual Dissidence: Augustine to Wilde,

Freud to Foucault, by Jonathan Dollimore’. Journal of the History of
Sexuality, 4(2), 313-16.

Miller, James (1993). The Passion of Michel Foucault. New York: Simon &
Schuster.

Rabinow, Paul (1984). (Ed.) The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon
Books.

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky (1990). Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Seidman, Steven (2001). ‘From Identity to Sexuality, Queer Politics: Shifts

in Normative Heterosexuality’. In Steven Seidman & Jeffrey C.Alexander,
The New Social Reader: Contemporary Debates. New York: Routledge.

Shlasko, G. D. (2005). ‘Queer (v) Pedagogy’, Equity and Excellence in

Education, 38, 123-134.
464
Spargo, Tamsin (2000). Foucault and Queer Theory. UK: Icon Books/ Philosophical and
Psychoanalytic
USA:Totem Books. Perspectives

Tobin, Robert (2001). ‘Queer Theory’. In Victor. E. Taylor & Charles. E.

Winquist (Eds.), Encylopedia of Postmodernism. London and New York:
Routledge

Villaverde, Leila (2008). Feminist Theories and Education. New York: Peter
Lang Publishing.

Watson, Eve (2009). ‘Queering Psychoanalysis/Psychoanalyzing Queer’, Annual

Review of Critical Psychology, No.7.

1.9 SUGGESTED READINGS

Butler, Judith (1990), Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of
Identity. New York: Routledge

Dollimore, Jonathan (1991). Sexual Dissidence: Augustine to Wilde, Freud

to Foucault. New York: Oxford University Press.

Foucault, Michel (1976/ 1998). The History of Sexuality Volume 1: The Will
to Knowledge. London: Penguin.

Fuss, Diana (2001). ‘Theorizing hetero and homosexuality’. In Steven Seidman

& Jeffrey C. Alexander (Eds.), The New Social Reader: Contemporary Debates.
New York: Routledge.

Halperin, M. David & Valeri Traub (2009). ‘Beyond Gay Pride’. In David
Halperin & Valeri Traub (Eds.), Gay Shame. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Katyal, Akhil (2009). ‘How the Homosexual Came To Be: A Journey Through
Freud’, in Darkmatter: In the Ruins of Imperial Culture. London.

Seidman,Steven (1995). ‘Deconstructing Queer Theory’. In Linda Nicholson

and Steven

Seidman (Eds.), Social Postmodernism: Beyond Identity Politics. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Watson, E. (2009). ‘Queering Psychoanalysis/Psychoanalysing Queer’. Annual

Review of Critical Psychology, 7, 114-139.

465