Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology

2014 Edition
| Editors: Thomas Teo

Queer Theory

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_592


“Queer” has long been used as a term of insult for lesbians and gay men, but by the late 1980s, it was undergoing a re-appropriation within “queer cultures.” Re-appropriation is a political strategy that entails reclaiming and transforming the meanings associated with injurious terms. In the context of queer theory, “to queer” means to disrupt or make something “strange,” twisting or unsettling meanings, pushing the invisible into the spotlight. These techniques are seen to have the potential to transform normative (taken-for-granted) assumptions, and have been widely used to challenge assumptions about sexuality and gender.

Within queer theory, an original focus was on unsettling the taken-for-granted assumption about the relationship between gender and sexuality. An everyday example of this is when lesbians are asked “which one of you is the man?” Here, the entrenched belief is that sexual relationships require a binary division in gender (masculine/feminine –...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access


  1. Ahmed, S. (2008). Queer phenomenology: Orientations, objects, others. Durham/London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bersani, L. (1996). Homos. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Binnie, J. (2004). The globalization of sexuality. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Downing, L., & Gillett, R. (2011). Viewing critical psychology through the lens of queer. Psychology & Sexuality, 2(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edelman, L. (2004). No future: Queer theory and the death drive. Durham/London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards, J. (2009). Eve kosofsky sedgwick (Routledge critical thinkiers). Abingdon/Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Foucault, M. (1979/1990). The history of sexuality, volume 1: An introduction. Middlesex: Penguin.Google Scholar
  9. Freeman, E. (2010). Time binds: Queer temporalities, queer histories. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Halperin, D. (2007). What do gay men want? An essay on sex, risk, and subjectivity. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hegarty, P. (2011). Sexuality, normality and intelligence. What is queer theory up against? Psychology & Sexuality, 2(1), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Love, H. (2007). Feeling backward: Loss and the politics of queer history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Minton, H. L. (1997). Queer theory: Historical roots and implications for psychology. Theory & Psychology, 7(3), 337–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Prosser, J. (1998). Second skins: The body narratives of transsexuality. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Puar, J. (2007). Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times. Durham/London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality (pp. 267–320). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Sedgwick, E. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. Durham/London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Applied Social SciencesUniversity of BrightonBrightonUK