Queer theories further the disconnection of gender from sex and radically repudiate binary classifications of gender as identity. In queer theory social expectations that cast heterosexuality as the ‘natural’ and ‘normal’ form of sexuality are criticized. These forms of theory emerged from gay politics and therefore the dominance of heterosexuality rather than gender inequalities is emphasized (Beasley, 2005). Queer theorists often attend to practices they claim are ways of doing gender that transgress the binary divide. For queer theorists (for example, Jagose, 1996; Seidman, 1996) identities are multiple, fragmented and constantly shifting. Sexual preferences are not seen as fixed and desires are not static. Queer theory claims to be a celebration of radical diversity. It assumes that people can find space to play with and transform norms about sexuality that privilege heterosexuality and regard other forms of sexual practice as ‘abnormal’. It can be argued that queer theory reflects the ‘queer tendencies’ of postmodernity, which has reorganized relations of sexuality. A full account of these queer tendencies would cover the self-critical nature of queer, the ways in which heterosexual relations have become less socially central, a move towards reflecting on heterosexuality as not necessarily self-evident, and the celebration of the queer within contemporary culture (Roseneil, 2000).This is not, however, the place for such a broad coverage. The key contribution of queer theory as an example of the linguistic turn in approaches to gender is that it provides ‘a critical analysis of modern homo/heterosexual definition’ (Sedgwick cited in Roseneil, 2000: 1).
In trying to understand gender we need to appreciate the centrality of heterosexuality in formulating identities and the socially approved relationships between identity categories. In other words, heterosexuality is crucial as a foundation for the categories ‘woman’ and ‘man’. Convention
has it that in the ‘natural’ course of things, boys will grow into men who will desire women. Man and woman will then reproduce and all will be as it ‘should’ be (Butler, 1993). To free desire and thereby sexuality it is therefore thought necessary to be free of such heterosexist stories. To this end Roseneil (2000) advocates merging elements of a queer perspective with sociological analysis of social changes relating to sexuality. This can expose the ways in which meanings and practices around sexuality have altered historically and thereby would help to denaturalize heterosexuality. In particular Roseneil (2000:2.3) feels that there is much sociology can learn from queer theory’s focus on culture, especially if this is understood within a recognition of the postmodern world as ‘characterized by “economies of signs”’.What Roseneil is recommending is that by attending to meanings it is possible to understand and to challenge the central part that heterosexuality has played in perpetuating gender identities as fixed and as determining how we relate to whom.
There are others who feel that queer theory is over-optimistic in proposing the end of the gender binary man/woman. It can underestimate ‘sedimented’ gender patterns and their accompanying inequalities. Jeffrey Weeks (1985; 2000), for example, remains sceptical of the possibilities offered by the deconstructing of identities. He continues to advocate the need to reclaim gay and lesbian identities, albeit in flexible and diverse forms. Weeks (1985) argues that meanings surrounding homosexuality are not entirely open but a product of particular social and historical locations which tend to restrict non-heterosexuals. Beasley (2005: 157, 170) notes that others propose that the focus of queer theory on nonheterosexuals does not go far enough in undermining gender identity. Whilst discussing heterosexuality is clearly not always helpful in achieving a political shift towards the queer, it does seem contradictory if it is suggested that heterosexuality is somehow inherently non-subversive. It is also possible, as Connell (1995) has argued, that not all non-heterosexuals are inevitably subverting the gender order. Gender hierarchies can be reinforced not only by the way in which supposedly transgressive performances of gender play out (Jeffreys, 1996) but also by the way in which queer theory itself sometimes ‘plays out’. But how does this relate to shifts from structuralism to post-structuralism in explaining how gender operates?
The explanations of structuralism and post-structuralism above broadly indicate that post-structuralism involves all four aspects of the linguistic turn in explaining gender. Most post-structuralist feminists still recognize that society is gendered. They focus on objecting to the way that binary structures always represent masculinity as superior. The critique of materialism involved in post-structuralism emphasizes words over things — deconstructing representations becomes the focus, rather than assuming that we need to search for an underlying social reality. This
gives more attention to different ways in which people see their world, whereas structuralism does tend to assume that social scientists know best, or at least that ordinary people can be sadly mistaken in their interpreta — tions. Yet post-structuralism has faults in addition to its possibilities.