Wednesday reflection: Queering sacred texts
Today's class started with a discussion of the Queer Commentary on the Bible, to be published in the fall (Mona West and Bob Goss, editors). Several of our readings for today were from this new commentary. I look forward to obtaining the entire volume, I'm sure it will be a very useful resource.
Bob made a statement to the effect that queer commentators are exegetical activists. He quoted from Foucault, who spoke of the insurrection of subjugated knowledges. This places queer theory and queer theology within the context of action, of praxis. Arguably, exegesis that is not activist, that is static, is blasphemy, for the Spirit blows wherever it wants to.
There was discussion of erotophobia as the root of misogyny, and both as the root of homophobia. Bob sees homophobia as based on a fear of women and of women's sexuality. To be queer in heteronormative society is to usurp the proper socially assigned roles of male and female. A man who is willingly penetrated by another man is "as a woman" and has turned the "natural" order on its head.
It was good to be reminded that, while we may see others "like ourselves" everywhere and throughout history, homosexuality and heterosexuality as binary modes of sexuality are relatively recent social constructs. When these concepts were first developed in Germany in the late nineteenth century, they were both labels for pathological sexual behavior (i.e. sexual intercourse with the same or opposite sex for the sole purpose of pleasure).
Somehow, heterosexuality was depathologized and granted normativity, while homosexuality was extended to apply all kinds of same-sex attraction and behavior (and still remains pathologized to an extent within modern society).
This led to a discussion of different approaches to understanding biological sex, gender identity and sexual orientation. We talked about essentialism vs. social constructionism. The searches for a gay gene or certain innate biological markers of masculinity/femininity are examples of essentialist projects.
I commented that such projects tend to reify certain normative categories by assuming, for instance, that all men who self-identify as "gay" are in fact all "gay" in the same essential way (which I don't believe to be true). Essentialist views, derived as a means of validating gay identity, can in fact be turned into instruments of oppression when coopted by the majority (as in the search for a genetic or chemical "cure" for "homosexuality").
Social constructionsm views gender and sexuality as performative. The poststructuralist Judith Butler was quoted in this respect. We were reminded that some trans people are uncomfortable with Butler's position, sensing that a pure constructionist approach invalidates the experience of trans people in relation to their gender identity. But it was pointed out that "performative" does not necessarily mean inauthentic. All social expression is in some sense performative. And even if our gender or sexual orientation is in some sense essential, it does not mean that our expressions of these are not performative.
We also discussed use of the word queer as a noun, adjective and verb. I thought the discussion around the verb, to queer, was particularly valuable.
Queer (v.) <=> To spoil, turn around, pervert, subvert...
At this point I asked a question (a queery?): All this is great, but why does it sometimes make me feel that we're all in danger of disappearing up our own queer asses? How does all this theory help us to bring about the kingdom of God? What use is it? One of the strongest criticisms of queer (and post-modern) theory in general is that it is largely just academic masturbation. All this talk about play, subversion, spoiling, how does it change the world?
Queer theology, at its best, might save queer theory from just such an orifical disappearance. This is because theology, at its heart (if not always in its head) is capable of producing changed lives. Disruption, leading to transformation, is at the core of the gospel message. "The first shall be last..." "You have heard it said... , but I say..."
Queer theology can disrupt normativity in such a way that the possibility for a radical re-centering in God becomes possible. The subversive truth of the gospel empowers us for change, personal and social. Upon reflection, this has been my own experience over and over.
This led to a discussion of ordained ministry providing empowerment as a change-agent through preaching, teaching and life example. Bob reminded us that embodiment is most important. We need to go places and be with people that clergy are not supposed to go to and be with. We need to "stay with our uncomfort" for it is in this that we hear and respond to God's calling.