Queering Class, Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation

Abstract

What is a body of theory’s responsibility to itself? By this, I mean, when theory theorizes about something, to what extent must it/should it clearly abide by or incorporate its own skepticism and interrogations? I believe that this self-reflexive move — in which theory (and theoreticians) reflect upon and actively work to remake itself (their selves) to embrace, represent, and live out its (their) own rules and critiques — is something that we in Anglo-American cultural and literary theory have yet to grapple with fully. Too often critics still assume a masterful/objective “outside” position vis-à-vis their subject matter, even when one of their most powerful theoretical points is that such a position is impossible or highly suspicious. Indeed, as I suggested in my introduction, any form of queer theory that is definitively presented, and in thoroughly normal/unqueer fashion, seems hypocritical at best. This chapter will work to grapple with some of the internal problems with and potentials inherent in queer theorization to date. It will work to keep “queer” queer.