This is an edited transcript of a roundtable held in the Spring of 2012, at the invitation of the Toronto Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis, where 4 of the most important psychoanalytic thinkers in the fields of gender and sexuality, Adrienne Harris, Virginia Goldner, Muriel Dimen, and Ken Corbett, came together to discuss the state of the field. Each of the participants prepared 1 question for each of the others. The discussion explored some of the historical areas these scholars researched as well as more current ones: the development of gender as a theoretical focus and its manifestations in social discourse now; sexual development, variance, and expression; the relations between gender and sexuality studies and the thrust of the women's and queer liberation movements; the significance of different theoretical frameworks in understanding gender and sexuality, from traditional psychoanalytic notions to chaos theory; clinical considerations; and sexual boundary violations. This roundtable provides rare, sometimes personal, always rigorous, and illuminating snapshots of the work and the place of these minds now.
ADRIENNE HARRISKen Corbett: Ideas about intersectionality currently dominate gender theorizing within the realm of cultural studies. So much so that one might reasonably ask, whither gender? Or alternatively, one might be happy to see gender absorbed in this intersectional matrix. I read your work on gender and complexity theory as presaging this move. I wonder if you might review for us the key concepts in complexity theory that could help us understand how gender can only be theorized as it is interimplicated with factors such as race, class, or ethnicity.Would it be a sign of the effectiveness of our work that this category of gender would be dissolved? I am not sure how to even imagine let alone wish for that. But I am reminded of a comment Susan Stryker (2008) made. Regarding trans experience, she said-and I paraphrase-"Whatever trans means now, it will mean something quite different when I get through with it." I think this is my hope. Our hope. What chaos theory, or complexity theory, or its more ordinary name nonlinear dynamic systems theory 1 offered to me a decade ago was finally a way to model developmental theory that was actually developmental. If you always know how the story turns out, there is really no point in 1 For a thorough background on nonlinear dynamic systems theory see: Harris (2005) and Gleick (1987). Correspondence should be sent to Muriel Dimen, Ph.D.