Theorising maybe: A feminist/queer theory convergence

Abstract

In this article, I examine the seemingly incompatible epistemologies of sex offered by dominance ('governance') feminism and queer theory. While these bodies of work, especially when applied to US legal and political activity on prostitution, are commonly viewed as divergent sparring partners, I propose a 'convergence' of the two in the form of a revived and enhanced sex-positive feminism. If dominance feminism is the 'theory of no' to heterosexuality's male gender power, and if queer theory is the 'theory of yes' to the defiant possibilities of sex, sex-positive feminism is a 'theory of maybe': it examines practices of gender and sexuality in multiple contexts to find the ways in which heterosexuality can sometimes reify, and other times resist, the transfer of eroticised dominance and submission to political practices of patriarchy. After tracing the split between feminism and queer theory and arguing for a 'sex-positive queer feminism', I use the example of prostitution to consider some theoretical and practical implications of this shift in feminist lenses.Keywords prostitution, queer theory, radical feminism, sex-positive feminism, sex wars, sex work At a recent US academic conference, I presented a paper on feminist arguments for decriminalising prostitution. Its premise was that decriminalisation might serve as an incomplete but positive step towards both opening up sexuality norms and ameliorating some of the dangers of the practice of prostitution. If that is true, decriminalisation could facilitate some of the goals of abolitionism while also serving other purposes. I expected spirited intellectual engagement that (I hoped) would help me hone and strengthen the argument. Instead, the response from

Heterodoxy: Challenging orthodoxies about heterosexuality

“…As Green points out, queer thinking is about ‘radical deconstruction’ and ‘radical subversion’ (2007: 28–29). Queer thinking denotes an ‘opposition to hegemonic norms’, a protest against the ‘normal’ and ‘static, norm-regulated identities’ (Showden, 2012: 8; see also Warner, 2012). 3…”

“…Figure 1, used to visualise the non-monolithic diversity of heterosexualities, suggests a terrain of socially situated and embodied practices ripe for empirical research. In keeping with understandings of ‘queer’ as a verb rather than noun, as a range of actions rather than modes of identity or being (Showden, 2012: 9; Sullivan, 2003: 50), our aim is to enable research on heterosexuality to invoke a sense of dynamism and interrelational uncertainty, such that heterodoxy is conceived as processual, as non-normative practices , rather than as a question of ‘types’ of identities or even coherent or ongoing behaviours. Heterodoxy may be temporary, contingent and fleeting, as well as sometimes deliberate, decisive and ongoing.…”

Libidinal Heterodoxy

“…The radical potential of queer may be said to sit quite awkwardly, even incoherently, alongside any retention of a focus on heterosexuality (Beasley 1999, 82, 88; Butler [1997] 2013, 471–72). As Green (2007, 28–29) points out, Queer thinking is about “radical deconstruction” and “radical subversion.” Queer denotes an “opposition to hegemonic norms,” a protest against the “normal” (Showden 2012, 8). 5 The broader arena of the nonnormative is not inevitably as challenging as that to which the term queer makes claim.…”

The WWW Cabinet of Curiosities: A Serendipitous Research Tool

“…Many gay and lesbian theorists think that this means the theory has been hijacked and the strength of the revolutionary thinking has been dispersed and hence weakened rather than broadened and hence strengthened. Some feminists also consider that it has weakened radical feminist views of sexuality (Showden 2012).…”