19 Feb. Foucault, History of Sexuality, Vol. 1, Pts 4-5
Halperin, “Is There a History of Sexuality” on ereserve
Jagose, Queer Theory, Ch. 6-8
20 Feb. 
Psycho Beach Party
21 Feb. Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, “Introduction: Axiomatic,” 1-63
19 Feb. Foucault, History of Sexuality, Vol. 1, Pts 4-5
Halperin, “Is There a History of Sexuality” on ereserve
Jagose, Queer Theory, Ch. 6-8
20 Feb. Psycho Beach Party
21 Feb. Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, “Introduction: Axiomatic,” 1-63
Sedgwick’s two binaries
(Sedgwick introduces these binaries on p. 1 and then fleshes them out later — you could look at 83-90 if it’s not clear what she means)
Sedgwick writes about the contradiction between a minoritizing view and a universalizing view of homo/hetero definition and between a gender separatist and a gender transitive trope of gender definition for same-sex desire (see the box on p. 88). Choose one or the other of these two binaries and discuss one of her examples or use it to discuss a real-life example from your own experience or reading.
Sedgwick references Foucault’s idea of homosexuality as “a separate species” in her discussion of gender inversion and gender transitivity. She later references Halperin in the same discussion, commenting on the fact that both have different views but are addressing the same issues of masculinity and femininity in homo/heterosexuality. Clearly gender transitivity is a distinct issue from sexuality and orientation, yet their interaction is important. I find it interesting to look at how an identity is formed by both gender transitivity and sexuality. As we saw “But I’m a cheerleader”, gender identity and sexuality do not necessarily coincide in a traditional way.
Sedgwick introduces the idea of the contradiction between minoritizing and universalizing views which are used to articulate the significance of being defined as either hetero or homosexual. In my personal experience, sexuality is more of an issue in the universalizing aspect. Being bisexual, it was not just a matter of me defining myself to those that are in the homosexual community as I spent more time answering to those who were not. Whereas the queer community embraced me and it was those who were heterosexual that placed importance on why I couldn’t settle for just heterosexuality or just homosexuality instead of living in the grey area. To me, this is an issue that is not contained within the small boundaries of a minority, as I may have loved for it to be, as the judgement, the ridicule, the inevitable questions come from those of all sexualities.
Sedgwick explores the differences in the minoritizing view and universalizing views partially in the frame of who should be “concerned” about the definitions of sexuality, specifically sexualities that do not fall under the heterosexual category. In the minoritizing view, these definitions belong to the concern of the minority, in which the “gay” community, as a minority, models itself after racial identity in the civil rights movement. The universalizing view posits that everyone, no matter their sexuality, should be concerned with society’s definitions/variations of sexuality. This reminds me personally of an activity Middlebury does during orientation, called “Voices of the Class,” where people are directed to publicly stand when they identify with a statement read to the group. One of the questions this year was (paraphrased) “stand if you identify as a member of the LGBT community or an ally of the LGBT community.” Only about 6 people out of 150 or so stood. This was different from my freshman year, when they asked “stand if you identify as a member of the LGBT community” – the “ally” section was left out. Still, only 5 or so people stood. I would like to believe that at Middlebury, a lot of people should or would want to identify themselves as an ally of the LGBT community, or at least not as homophobic. I would see this as an example of the prevalence of the “minoritizing” view of sexuality, that being part of the gay community is to be gay, and to be part of the minority. My freshman year, I did not stand because I wasn’t out, but this year, I did stand, and soon after I found myself in conversation with the few other people that did stand. The minoritizing view does seem to have the effect of forming a “gay” community, but it also makes the community more narrow, and makes it more difficult to identify with the community for people who are questioning or still uncomfortable with their sexuality.
I also had the opportunity to participate in “Midd Uncensored” as a freshman last year and as an FYC this year, and noticed the same prevalence of the minoritizing view that you did. By including allies in this year’s version, “Midd Uncensored” was essentially trying to force the universalizing view on everyone, but it wasn’t accepted by the freshmen as evidenced by the insignificantly different number of people who stood up. As you said, the minoritizing view can be a good thing as it creates a sense of community amongst people who sometimes feel abnormal, but with that sense of community comes a sense of exclusivity. I’ve known a number of people (myself included) who have fallen under the minoritizing definition of homosexuality but have not felt “gay enough” to be considered part of the community. This may have more to do with the prevalence of what Sedgwick referred to as “gender transitivity,” or the association of femininity with gay men and masculinity with gay women, etc., but the nature of the minoritizing view also has something to do with it.
However, it doesn’t really seem as if switching to the universalizing view would be a better option. Our society has already deemed that view as antiquated – or at least the parts of it that deny a gay identity and claim that homo/hetero definition is based on external behavior and not internal attraction. But as you said, because the universalizing view allows everyone, even those who fall under the heterosexual category, to be “concerned” with other sexualities, it has some positive attributes that can’t be ignored.
This is not based on any empirical evidence, but I feel as if more and more people are now choosing to identify themselves as a person who “happens to be gay” rather than a Gay Person. I’m not sure if this is indicative of a move back to a universalizing view or if it’s some kind of compromise between the two extremes, but it’s definitely something to think about.
Sedgwick’s discussion of the contradiction between a universalizing and minoritizing view of a homo/hetero definition relates to the contradiction in the lesbian/gay movement’s shift from the liberation movement to the later “ethnic model” that we read about in Jagose. The liberation movement was a challenge to the existing models and widely accepted definitions of gender and sexuality, and aimed to destabilize and make every person question her own identity and worldview, regardless of how she defined her own orientation. This is easily linked to Sedgwick’s idea of a universalizing view of the homo/hetero definition: it matters to everybody, no matter who they are, and does not offer neat boxes which we can check off and use to create divisions amongst ourselves. In contrast, the movement’s later ethnic model did not ask us to self-reflect, or to reconsider our notions of gender/sexuality, but simply to accept or even tolerate a group of people with a clearly, narrowly defined orientation. This model, like the minoritizing view of the homo/hetero definition, makes sexual orientation a cut and dried issue that most of us don’t have to think about. Both serve to “other” anyone who does not fit the definition of heterosexual. This makes me think of the concept of ex-nomination, which I read about in another class in the context of whiteness and maleness. One of the reasons it is a privilege for a group not to be named (because it is the default group) is that it helps protect the group from scrutiny. For instance, the concept of a “white identity” does not really exist. White people do not have to think about their race, and the people around them do not jump to attribute their actions to their race, or view them as sort of ambassadors who are representing their entire race.
I thought Sedgwick’s view on the relationship between gender and sexuality was interesting. I think that it is important to recognize that sexuality does not directly influence/determine the gender roles an individual decides to fill. I feel like it is common for people to generalize and suppose that because a man is gay, he is also feminine or that because a woman is gay, she is masculine and vise versa. It is important to note that there can be very masculine gay men and feminine lesbians, but that there are also girls who like sports and dress in men’s clothes that are not necessarily gay like in But I’m a cheerleader.
The universalizing view of homo/heterosexuality brought up in axiom 4 and later in the table presented on pg 88 explore the idea of nurture as being dominant to nature. In this view, everyone is equally ‘susceptible’ to homosexual behavior as it presents itself in all cultures but in varied ways. In Jagose, the terms queer and gay were pushed to their limitations; is a married, single man who occasionally has gay sex considered gay? Were people exhibiting homosexual behaviors prior to Foucault’s definitive marker of the ‘beginning’ of homosexuality? People within my own cultures exhibit homosexual behaviors but don’t identify as gay; however, one can argue that they are straight or bisexual (or exhibit the bisexual potential). For example, I have friends who have gay sex but find themselves in relationships predominantly with members of the opposite sex; this, they see, defines them as straight.
Nice article, waiting for you next article