Genderfuck: The Law of the Dildo

Author(s): June L. Reich

Source: Discourse, Vol. 15, No. 1, Essays in Lesbian and Gay Studies (Fall 1992), pp. 112-127
Published by: Wayne State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41389251 .
Accessed: 19/07/2013 16:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wayne State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Discourse.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:07:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Genderfuck: The Law of the Dildo

June L. Reich

To revoltoutright againstpatriarchy
is to affirmits authority. To righ-
teously confront itis toseepatriarchy
as a monolithic wholefreeofcontra-
dictionand morepowerful thanitis.
Suchrighteousness meansdenialthat
patriarchy is part of us, and thus
forces ustodefineourselves incontrast
to.Betterto acknowledge patriarchy
and underminefromwithin, gently
erode,recognizediscrepancies, play
withtheroles,thelanguageand the
symbols, and let the playitselfrob
themoftheirterrifying power.
- CarolLeMasters(28)
Alexextracted her [Michael's]cock.
Kaywasalreadyat her elbowwitha
canofCriscoanda towel."Roomser-
vice,"shegrinned."Oh,yeah,slickit
up, stud,getthatbigfuckpoleready
to do thatfinepiece a favor.Gonna
fuckthatslutrightoffathosehigh-
heeledshoes."
- PatCalifia(120)

This is an essay on boys and girls,or those who would-be-boys

and those who would-be-girls.It's the parable of genderfuck,a
littlepricklivingin a capitalist,postmodern world.
Genderfuck: Susie Bright says, "When we want to compli-
ment someone's visual menu, we say 'genderfuck' instead of
androgynous" (9). She wrotethisin 1989, in her "Toys For Us"
column of the fifth-anniversary issue of On Our Backs.Although

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:07:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fall 1992 113

she was talking about fashion, not theory,her definition con-

denses a historyof discourse and materialismthat touches on
how we live our lives as queers and straights,girlsand boys,and
consumers of culture.
In the "Toys forUs" essay,"A Staris Porn," Brightpredicted
for the gay or "post gay" nineties a sexual liberation theme of
"Get Over Yourself' (8). What is this "get over yourself' call to
arms? The end of identitypolitics?Yes. Are we defined by who
we are, or by what communitieswe are part of? No . . . "To get
over yourself' is counter-identity politics. It's the modus ope-
randi: we are defined not bywho we are but bywhatwe do. This
is effectivelya politicsof performance.It neitherfixesnor denies
specific sexual and gendered identificationsbut accomplishes
something else. This paper is an exploration of the imperative
of that somethingelse.
As many theoristshave argued, sexuality and gender are
interrelatedbut distinctiveculturalconstructions,and sexuality,
in particular,mustbe thoughtof as irreducibleto gender.1There
are contradictionsthatinhere,let's say,in the differencebetween
myselfin the shower (as a woman - gendered) and myselfin
bed (as a femme - sexualized) that need to be articulated
through a theoryof genderfuck,which "deconstructs" the psy-
choanalytic concept of differencewithout subscribing to any
heterosexistor anatomical truthsabout the relations of sex to
gender (you remember the binarisms, male=masculine,
female=feminine,masculine=aggressive,feminine=passive,etc.)
Instead, genderfuck structures meaning in a symbol-perfor-
mance matrixthat crosses throughsex and gender and destabi-
lizes the boundaries of our recognitionof sex,gender,and sexual
practice.
In the fall of 1989, already out as a lesbian and a femme,I
began coming out as a "genderfucker."What this means, basi-
cally,is thatI began a reinvigoratedreading of the discontinuity
between sex and gender, during sex, in my performance as a
"girl" on the streets,and in intellectualpursuitsin the realms of
phallogocentrism.
Although I don't want to theorize lesbian sexualityas the
privileged site of genderfuck and feministpolitical practice, I
understand genderfuck most clearly within the context of
butch/femmerole playing.Butch/femmeoffersa rich history
fortalkingabout bodies, identities,and agential politicsin a way
that hopefully furthersthe work of breaking down multiple
oppressions.

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:07:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
114 Discourse15.1

Butch/FemmeHistory:Condensed

Butch/femmehas been a recognizable lesbian practice fora

verylong time. Masculine and femininewomen couples histori-
cally have been recognized as lesbians when less conspicuous
sisterspassed (as straights,or unnoticed) on the streets.Conse-
quently,because of their visual recognizability,butch/femme
codes have enjoyedvarioussociopoliticalmeanings.In the 1950s,
withunderground lesbian social organizations (like the Daugh-
ters of Bilitis) and publications beginning surreptitiousdiscus-
sions about sex, butch/femme was often criticized for not
conformingwithmainstreamfashion.Joan Nestle has eloquently
documented the 1950s as, among other things,assimilationist
timesforlesbians:

Butch-femme was an eroticpartnershipservingboth as a

conspicuousflagofrebellionand as an intimateexploration
ofwomen'ssexuality. Itwasnotan accidentthatbutch-femme
couples sufferedthe moststreetabuse and provokedmore
assimilatedor closetedLesbianstoplead withthemnottobe
so obvious.. . .
The butch-femme couple embarrassedotherLesbians
(and stilldoes) becausetheymadeLesbiansculturally visible,
a terrifyingactforthe1950s.. . . The desireforpassing,com-
binedwiththeradicalworkofsurvivalthattheLadder[pub-
lishedfrom1956 to 1972] was undertaking, was a paradox
createdbytheAmericaofthefifties. . . . To survivemeantto
takea publicstanceof societalcleanliness.Butin thepages
of the journal itself,all dimensionsof Lesbian life were
exploredincludingbutch-femme relationships. The Ladder
broughtoffa unique balancingact forthe 1950s. It gave
nourishment to a secretand subversive lifewhileitflewthe
flagof assimilation. (101-02)

Nestle's essay,which she saystook fortyyearsto write,is part

of a huge body of literatureand sweat that foregrounds the
conflictsbetween lesbianism and feminism.In Daring toBe Bad:
Radical Feminismin America , 1967-1975, Alice Echols argues that
lesbianism from the beginning constituted a "problem" for
feminism":

Untillate 1969,opponentsof women'sliberationwere

more apt to raise the issue of lesbianismthanwere many
radicalfeminists- manyofwhomwere befuddled
initially
by the conjoiningof these seeminglydisparateissues. Of
course,some radicalfeminists did allude to sexual prefer-

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:07:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fall 1992 115

enee, if onlyobliquelyin the contextof sexual liberation.

While mostearlyradicalfeminists believedthatthe sexual
revolutionofthe'60swasin manyrespectsmoreexploitative
than liberating,theynonethelessenvisionedfeminismdis-
mantlingtheedificeofsexualrepression.. . .
But manyradicalfeminists, especiallythosewho viewed
women'sliberationand sexualliberationas mutuallyexclu-
sive,wereoftenskittishifnothostiletowardlesbianism.Most
commonly, theydismissedlesbianismas sexual ratherthan
political.Thus RoxanneDunbarof Cell 16 [an earlyradical
feminist group] arguedthatthetaskoffeminism was to get
womenout of bed ratherthanchange the genderof their
partners.... A numberofradicalfeminist agreed [also] that
lesbiansweretoo attachedto sex roles,in theformofbutch-
femmeroles,to be likelyor desirablerecruitsto feminism.
Manyalsofearedthatlesbianismcouldbecomea refugefrom
feminist activism.
But at the same timethatmanyradicalfeminists were
rushing to disassociate
feminism from lesbianism,manyoth-
ers- bothpoliticoesand radicalfeminists - werediscover-
ing thattheyfeltsexuallyattractedtowardone another.. . .
(211-12)

Eventuallya strain of feminismand lesbianism cohered to

become a lesbian-feminist movement(part of culturalfeminism,
which eventuallysuperseded radical feminismas a mainstream
political institution). This of course is not the end of the story(I
stillhaven't entered the lesbian- feministdebate or even come
out yet). Butch/femmecontinued to be disparaged, throughthe
seventiesand eighties,especially,in what has come to be known
as the "sex wars" (see, for example, Vance). Arguing that
butch/femmerole-playingwas "heteropatriarchal" and oppres-
sive to women, cultural feministsbegan a campaign of sexual
censorship, based on a philosophy that sexual representations
and sex itselfwere transparentagents of women's oppression
(rather than complex cultural expressions). Butch/femme
became to some symbolicextentmore dangerous than it had in
the fifties,at least in terms of feminist debate: role-playing
became s&m (a conflation that distortsa continuum of sexual
practices), and s&m was vilified.But by this time, the porno-
graphic and erotic works of lesbians, and discussions of their
meanings and values, became more public; and in the 1980s
popular criticaltheoriesbyand fora sophisticated"queer" audi-
ence began popping up, so thatthe semioticsof fashion and sex
codes, postmodernism, and a host of other topics enjoyed a
vogue that is stillprevalent. (I came out by thistime.)2

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:07:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
116 Discourse15.1

Framingthe Phallus

I begin mytheoryof genderfuckwiththe dildo. It is, in fact,

my raison d'être , my personal philosophy,akin to religion. But
before I followthisall-importanttheoreticalvein,I would like to
frame the phallus in its psychoanalytic(Lacanian) and literary
contexts,briefly, in order to engage the slipperytheoreticalprac-
tice of reading and writingthe body.
The phallus, broadlyspeaking,forcesa subject into the Sym-
bolic, the realm oflanguage, signification,and culture.In theory
it is not an object, or an organ, but an experience of difference
(even, or especially,primarysexual difference),initiatinga sub-
ject into desire, which is an experience of lack. The phallus, as
"point zero" in psychoanalytictheory,determines meaning by
fillingin absences, covering over the split it creates between
object and concept. The logic of significationdemands that a
concept and object be identical to one another. And yet the
phallus, as the determiningfigurein signification,like a zero,
does not reallyexist.The zero institutesthe process of numerical
progression,but itsignifiesnothing.It assures,however,that1=1
because of its place/functionas zero (1+0=1; but 1 is, neverthe-
less, the 2nd point on the number line, and is thereforealways
already displaced) (Miller; for more on "suture," see also
Heath). Through a theoreticallyanalogous process, the phallus
signifiesa pretended or fantasmaticunity,suturingobject and
concept in a dialectical relationshipwitha subject.
Unitycould be thoughtof as a consensus of meaning, or of
referentiality. In the trafficof signifiersand signifieds,there is
potentially unlimited play that preventsmeaning fromsettling
into one cozy,specificdefinition.But, as the process of interpre-
tationforcesan inevitablerestat signified,political interference
at the point of representationis critical.The phallus has fortoo
long been associated withbeing or not being the penis (this is
heterosexism), even in abstractmathematicaltheory,and often
most vehementlywhen thisconnection is being disavowed (see
Gayle Rubin's critique of psychoanalysis in "The Traffic in
Women"). In thisrespect,the phallus can deconstructitselfinto
total nothingnesswithoutupsettingsex/gender binarismsand
privilegingmale constructionsof desire. If itis possible, through
genderfuck,however,to interruptthe referentiality of the phal-
a of
lus, theory subjectivity and desire could be expounded with-
out makingphallogocentrisman accusation of exclusive (that is,
male-centered) practice, but one process (among many) that
produces meaning and knowledge.Because, as I hope to expose,

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:07:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fall 1992 117

women alreadypossess the phallus, though how,where,why,and

to what extentwe do is hotlycontested.

The Dildo*

(*Dildos are measured fromtheirbases to theirheads, mak-

ing allowances forslightloss in lengthiftheyare to be used with
a harness. I would appreciate if this systemwere applied to my
essaywhen determiningitsdesirability.Please measure concepts
frombase of page to header, and observe safe reading practices
when moving fromone section to another. Borders are perme-
able.)
The question fueling this investigation of genderfuck is:
"What is the differencebetween a woman witha strap-onand a
man?" Assuming that the symbolicman wants to fuck and not
be fucked (which I would assume makes him femme), I would
argue that in a libidinal economy there is no structuraldiffer-
ence. Butch/femme relations are constructed around differ-
ence, or hetero-sexuality, if you like (though this is not to say
"straight"sex).
"Subject positions" have consumed much recent feminist
theory,building on psychoanalyticand ideological critiques in
order to elucidate a point fromwhere women can act without
being erased or posited as non-subjects,or the negative of the
"masculine." Sue-Ellen Case, in "Toward a Butch-FemmeAes-
thetic,"argues thatbutch-femmesubjectpositionsallow an artic-
ulation of agency in a wayheterosexual female positions fail to.
Beginning with Teresa de Lauretis's "feminist subject," who
accomplishes a "sense ofself-determination at the micropolitical
level" (282), Case proposes forfeminismcoupled butch-femme
subjects that "do not impale themselveson the poles of sexual
differenceor metaphysicalvalues,but constanÜyseduce the sign
system,throughflirtationand inconstancyinto the lightfondle
ofartifice,replacing the Lacanian slashwitha lesbian bar" (283) .
Taking up Case's aestheticargument,I would like to forwardthe
coupled butch-femme subject into the explicit realm of the
phallic.
Case's aesthetichinges on artificeand the discourse/perfor-
mance of camp. She argues first that psychoanalysis has
hegemonicallyconsigned femininity to a passiveperformanceof
"masquerade," a position that is purelynegative excess. Then,
building upon the historyoffeministmasquerade theoriesthem-
selvesbased on Joan Riviere'swatershedreading of a frigidintel-

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:07:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
118 Discourse15.1

Advertisement forJupiterI & II and AdamI 8cII byScorpio.On Our

Backs8.6 (1992): 2.

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:07:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fall 1992 119

lectual woman patient, Case maintains that feminine masquer-

ade remainspassive onlywithinthe constructof assumed hetero-
sexuality. Riviere's argument is this: the intellectual frigid
woman, having symbolicallycastratedher fatherbyvirtueof her
intellectual acumen, assumes feminine behavior as a reaction-
formationagainst this taboo. Riviere notes that 44heterosexual
women don't claim possession [ofthe penis] openly,but through
reaction formations;whereas the homosexual women openly
display their possession of the penis and count on the males'
recognitionof defeat" (Case 291) . Case maintainsthatthisopen
displayis "consciously played out in butch-femmeroles":

The butchis the lesbianwomanwho proudlydisplaysthe

possessionof thepenis,whilethefemmetakeson the com-
pensatorymasqueradeofwomanliness. The femmehowever,
her
foregrounds masqueradebyplayingto a butch,another
womanin a role; likewise,the butchexhibitsher penis to a
woman who is playingthe role of compensatorycastra-
tion. . . . [Because] thereis no referent[forthe penis] in
sight,the fictionsof penis and castrationbecome ironized
and "campedup.". . . Thesewomenplayon thephallicecon-
omyratherthanto it. (291)

Heterosexual masquerade theories stabilize the femi-

nine=passive/masculine=activeequation in biological terms,so
that "women" are only able to assume an active position by
takingon a male perspective.This has proven to be problematic
forfeministtheorists,who have been forcedto argue, as a logical
consequence, that active pleasure can only be taken by men or
women acting like men. A way out of this bind has been to
foreground,by "camping it up," the ironyof the masculine and
femininepositions themselves,so thatthe culturalconstructions
of gender are highlighted.Case maintainsthatin butch=femme
camp, both partnersare performers,because the penis is con-
spicuously absent and women are playing to each other. And
while she maintains,rightfully so, thatthismove both highlights
and subvertscultural constructsof gender, it does not alter the
masquerade, which necessitatesa distancebetween a performer
herself (whateverthat is - even if it is argued that there is no
essential self) and the constructshe performs.While the players
have shiftedfrommale-female (penis present) to butch-femme
(penis absent), the distance between the gendered body and
sexual role playinghas remained structurally equal. I would like
to argue that foregroundingthe distance between the phallus
and itsperformanceas penis or dildo would ironize the prescrip-

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:07:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 120 Discourse15.1

tiveconstructsof femininity and masculinitywithoutnecessarily

distancing the gendered body fromits sexual materialityin per-
formance.This strategyhopefullyreinstatesan embodiment that
is sorelylacking in currentdeconstructiveand performativethe-
ories.
Case's definitionof the butch-femmesubject position bears
repeating here, because it is at thisjuncture thatI would like to
push some of its consequences: "These are not split subjects,
sufferingthe tormentsof dominant ideology.They are coupled
ones thatdo not impale themselveson the poles of sexual differ-
ence or metaphysicalvalues . . ." (283). For one thing,her defi-
nition assumes an awareness about butch-femmerelations that
is necessaryforcamp but not alwaysthe livedexperience ofmany
butch and femme women. I find it interestingthat most butch
women I've talked with knew themselvesas lesbians firstand
women second, while many femmes understood their identity
foremostas womanlyand most often tried on hetero relation-
ships before acting on theirlesbian desires.
Furthermore,Case's couple dances around penetration,the
phallic act par excellence.
She has ignored the dildo, and whatour
dynamic duo may be doing offstage,for a micropoliticallysafe
space outside ideology.I am not arguing thatthisspace doesn't
exist or isn't useful (it's essential) for political change, but I
wonder about what is glossed in the theoretics,specificallycon-
cerning the symbolic politics of penetration, fucking,phallic
aggression,etc.
As a prosthesis,the dildo has oftenbeen accused ofbeing the
literalizationof women's lack, a substitutepenis, the object of
women's desire. Desire foran other is confused withheterosex-
ualityso-called3when the penis is the referentfor the phallus,
and the dildo becomes a subordinateand stand-informan. Con-
sequently,lesbian penetrationis confused withheterosexual so-
called practice, rather than being constitutedas a unique, or
different,instance of meaning. This misunderstandingnot only
fuelsstraightmisconceptionsoflesbianismbut has led to censor-
ship withinthe feministcommunity,mostlyby Lesbian Separat-
ists who outlaw s&m practices at women-onlyfunctions,and
anti-pornographyfeminists,who claim in various degrees that
sex hurtswomen.
The dildo is a sutured phallus. Quite literally.Symbolically,
however,it could be conceived of as thephallus. The dildo, by
itself,is a funny-looking piece of molded silicone or rubber.But
in context,itis a powerfulfucker.It is thelaw ofthe Daddy Butch.
As a phallus, it assures differencewithoutessentializing
gender.

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:07:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fall 1992 121

And, I would argue, it could irreparablyalter any inter-sex(or

gendered) relationswhen the libidinal paradigm is shiftedfrom
gender-identity to sexuality-performance.
When we inspect the dildoed-girl and the dicked-boyfor
meaningfuldifferences,I mustinsistthatthere is some substan-
tive differencebetween them (there is a preference in who we
take to bed, forinstance). The consequence of thisdifferenceis
the gendering of desire,since in structuraltermsthe twofigures
are the same.
So I mightofferthe hypothesisthat "boys" like to fuckand
"girls" like to be fucked and situatethese two positions,mascu-
line and feminine,as extremes or poles of a gender/sexuality
spectrum.The anatomical binarismmale-femalefigureshere as
a kind of limit-text, one which worksto undermine genderfuck
ifwe insiston recognizingbiological "realness" ("naturalness")
on the one hand, but which genderfucks if "realness" (as
defined in Paris Is Burning) works strictlyat the level of the
performanceof dominant stereotypeswithout"corresponding"
genitalia revealed. To my mind, these two situationsfigurethe
extremesof the anatomical axis.
A word about transsexuality:it works to stabilize the old
sex/gender systembyinsistingon the dominantcorrespondence
between gendered desire and biological sex. The feelings of
acute discontinuitythatlead to cosmetic alternationneed theo-
rizingapart fromgenderfuck.Pepper LaBajia, reigningMother
of the House of LaBajia and somewhatof a superstarbecause of
the box-officesuccess of Paris Is Burning, described the politics
of anatomybest when she said she neverwanted a sex-change.A
vagina is no guarantee of securityor happiness.
The consequences of the dildo-as-phallusare potentiallyfar
reaching for emancipating theoryfromthe appeal to Truth. At
the veryleast, the dildo schema announces the arbitrarinessof
the hegemonic phallus=penis construction,while attending to
the rigid logic of the phallic economy. At its most radical, the
dildo, as an equal-opportunityaccessory,and as a simulacrum
(an object circulatingwithoutorigin), undermines the penis as
a meaningfullystable organ, denaturalizing the body without
erasing its materiality.
Using the dildo as an interpretiveas well as a sexual device
opens the fieldof identificationto all sortsof contradictorycon-
structions.My femininity, for example, is an instance of drag
performance (that is, genderfucked). Not only are there posi-
tions for feminine women and masculine men, manly women
and womanly men (these can be accomplished through mas-

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:07:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
122 Discourse15.1

querade theories), thereis also space forqueer or straightbutch

and femme identitiesthat traversethe theoreticallyspacialized
continuummore than once. For instance,I knowa butchwoman
who likes to be penetrated bya butch lover,pretendingtheyare
both gay men. Whyshould thatbe perverse?

Camp: "A Holiday for ConsentingAdults"5

It's embarrassing
to be solemnand
treatise-like
about Camp. One runs
theriskofhaving,oneself,produced
a veryinferior
pieceofCamp.
- SusanSontag(277)

My genderfucksensibilityhas me questioning the self-con-

scious performance of virtuallyeveryoneI see on the streetsor
on the bus, although I am aware that not only are not many of
these folksqueer, gay,or straight,theyprobablyhave no notion
of how radicallydifferentthe economy of theirdesireswould be
in a relation of dildoic-phallicsignification.In an effortto keep
thisparadigm in perspective,then,I willattempta shiftfromthe
reading to thewritingof the body.Both are discursiveacts,public
in nature but privatizedideologically.Reading practices gener-
ally are used in performative theories, but I think writing
demands a specificitythat makes generalizing the body more
difficult.It also constructsthe micropoliticallysafespace needed
forpositiveagential politics.
I will contextualize reading/writing by utilizing butch/
femme relations once again. As a femme,I am in a privileged
position in relation to dominant culture because, while my
object-choice may be thoughtto be perverse,myperformance
of myselfis allied withdominant notions of femininity. Mybutch
lover,on the otherhand, constructsherselfas a boy.To reconcile
this dominant contradictionI would insistthat she is a boy,in
bed, and perhaps in varyingdegrees on the streets.This turns
upside down not only cultural binarismsof sex and gender in
sexual relationships,but also the dominant assumptionsof who
has the power to inscribemeaning on the bodies of others.As a
femme,I do the writing,and I read, insuringnot only myown
non-erasure but also authorizing the noncontradiction of a
butch's gender/sexual performance.
Yet performativepoliticsare cooptable, or at least subject to
easy misinterpretation.How is myfemininity differentthan that
of the straightwoman withlittleself-consciousnessof her gen-

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:07:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fall 1992 123

de red construction;or, for that matter,what differencedoes it

make ifdominant culturecan read her and me as essentiallythe
same?
The language of performance, critical to the theoreticsof
postmodern bodies, usuallyconstructssubject and object as spec-
tator (reader) and performer (read) in a dualism that either
forecloses or negativizesagentic possibilities.Without an alter-
native criticallanguage, however,theories of performance are
stillpreferableto those ofidentity.The crux of agentic possibility
in performativelanguage could be thought of as "presence,"
where the apparent paradox of mimesis,or the representation
of the construction of representation (a self-consciousperfor-
mance) is worked out withinthe limitsof "verisimilitude,"or
what I have been calling "realness." Mimicryproblematizes the
real by representingboth the presence and absence of a con-
struction.It's hard to keep itup, though,as meaning is an excess,
an effectthe performercannot control.
An aesthetics of pleasure, more precisely,offersno guaran-
teed effects,but involvesa "leap of faith,"a reading and writing
that must take place with the consent of subjects. The dildo
performance is "queer" not because it is part of gay or lesbian
sex but because it doesn't respect the distinctions of a het-
ero/homosexual dichotomy.What limits an anything-goesin
interpretation,however,is a politicsof radical materiality,where
the constructionof the semioticsystemon the body is accounted
for.
Does the genderfuckperformance,a mimicry,unmask the
psychoanalyticconstructionsof feminineand masculine sexual-
ity?The answer,it seems, relies on the referentialposition of the
phallus. At the veryleast, repositioningthe phallus as dildo rad-
icallyaltersthe meanings of "being" and "having" in such a way
that the constructionsof sexualitycannot be reducible to anat-
omy, even though we can acknowledge primarysexual differ-
ence. The point is thatdifference,in itself,signifiesnothingbut
needs an interpretationto effectmeaning.
To ask,once again, some rude but importantquestions: does
the site of woman's primarysexual differenceconstitutea lack
or is itjust a vagina? What does a woman witha vagina and with
a dildo represent?A man, a masculine woman, the denaturaliza-
tion of masculinity?If phallic homosexual practice were a mim-
icryof heterosexual genital-to-genital practice (and it could be
conceived this waywithoutbeing derogatory), its perversion is
not the performativeact but the subversionof the construction
that naturalizes or normalizes heterosexual so-called practice.

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:07:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
124 Discourse15.1

Sexual practices are mimicry,differencedfrom themselves as

concepts and objects. We are sutured,dildoed folks.
Camp is the celebration of passionate failures.The triumph
of theatricalityover substance, it is cynical,ironic, sentimental,
pleasure-seeking,naivelyinnocent,and corrupting.More impor-
tantly,it accomplishes more than mere inversionand duplicity;
it alters traditional sensibilities altogether. In "Notes on
"
'Camp,' Son tag fingersa fewreallyinsightfulaspects of camp,
which I would sum up ifI were only as erudite:

34. Camptasteturnsitsbackon thegood-badaxisofordinary

aesthetic judgment.Camp doesn'treversethings.It doesn't
argue that thegood is bad, or thebad is good. Whatitdoes
- a supplementary
is to offerforart(and life)a different [!]
- setofvalues.(286)

55. Camp tasteis,above all,a mode ofenjoyment, of appre-

ciation- notjudgment.Campis generous.Itwantstoenjoy.
It onlyseemslike malice,cynicism.(Or ifit is cynicism, it's
nota ruthlessbuta sweetcynicism.)Camp tastedoesn'tpro-
pose thatit is in bad tasteto be serious;it doesn'tsneerat
someonewho succeedsin beingseriouslydramatic.Whatit
does is to findthesuccessin certainpassionatefailures.

56. Camp tasteis a kindof love,love forhumannature.It

relishes,ratherthanjudges,thelittletriumphs and awkward
intensitiesof "character.".. . Camp tasteidentifies
withwhat
itis enjoying.People whosharethissensibility are notlaugh-
ing at the thingtheylabel as "a camp," they'reenjoyingit.
Camp is a tenderfeeling.(291-92)

Camp is also veryhomosexual; while it's not exclusivelyso, it

was, as Case says,born in the closet (287). Where Sontag failsto
grasp the political ramificationsofcamp, manygaytheoristshave
picked it up. I hope genderfuckwillbe seen as another quixotic
incarnation.
In formulatingmygenderfucktheoryI had threeoptions,as
I saw it, in camp territory:(1) the dildo most certainlyis camp.
Following thisargumentled me smack into Sue-Ellen Case's lap
(not a bad place to be, I should think). The dildo is nothing if
not pure artifice,a "supplement" to the "natural" body. With
butch/femme, "a strategyof appearances replaces a claim to
truth.Thus, butch-femmeroles evade the notion of 'the female
body' as it predominates in feministtheory,dragging along its
Freudian baggage and scopophilic transubstantiation. These
roles are played in signsthemselvesand not in ontologies. Seduc-

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:07:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fall 1992 125

tion, as a dramatic action, transformsall of these seeming reali-

tiesinto semioticplay" (297) . However,I wanted to reclaim some
body (anybody) and also challenge lesbianism as theory.So the
dildo as camp isn't the whole picture,as I see it.
This brings me to (2) the penis as a camp object. As a dyke
withno grudge againstboys,I have litde troublewiththisdeduc-
tion. Byarguing thatthe dildo is more phallic than the penis, the
male organ (to use a SenateJudiciaryCommitteeturn-of-phrase)
is somewhat depleted of itspowers. In the lightof the dildo it is
not hard to see the penis as another masquerade of the phallus,
ready-madewith a "dildo envy" complex, and to subsequently
foregroundculturalconstructionsof masculinity.
And (3) the phallus itselfmust be camp, in relation to the
dildo and in relation to itself.Here is the triumphof "instant
character" over content, and also passionate failure.When the
dildo denudes the penis it reincarnatesthe phallus in its image,
not vice versa.Dildo phallocracymaintainsthatdildo, penis, and
phallus are all camp entities.

Genderfuck

Genderfuck could be said to be the effectof unstable signi-

fyingpracticesin a libidinal economy ofmultiplesexualities.The
production of a recognizable genderfuckparadigm, effectedby
camp "realness," altersthe contextualprocess of significationby
foregroundingthe gap between sex and gender and producing
different models of interpretation through different writ-
ing/reading practices.Genderfuck,as a mimetic,subversiveper-
formance, simultaneously traversesthe phallic economy and
exceeds it.
This process is the destabilization of gender as an analytic
category,though it is not, necessarily,the signal of the end of
gender (whose binarisms I have grown quite fond of in some
respects). The play of masculine and feminine, on the body
and/ as (note the "lesbian bar") the text,subvertsthe possibility
of possessing a unified subject position. Once woman, a symbol
and construction,no longer equals female in any meaningful
way- that is, once the splitbetween anatomyand the semiotic
is recognized in the process of interpretation- the economy of
desire foran Other does not have to followa heterosexistmatrix.
The ambiguityof the systemis itsinterplayand constantnegoti-
ation between the meaningfulproductionsofsex/gender,on the
one hand, and gender/sexual performance,on the other.It is a

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:07:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
126 Discourse15.1

discourse of pleasure, producing desire in a subject who is able

to get over herselfand have it make a difference.
What is a genderfuck body? It is, to steal a phrase from
Roland Barthes,a "drag anchor" (65; emphasis added). Drag: a
performance thatinterruptsthe circulationof the phallus in its
attemptto fix,that is, anchor, signification.A drag anchor, far
fromcenteringa soul, casts a body loose in a queer sea of love.

Notes

I would like to take thisopportunityto thanka fewfolks:Judith

Halberstam,MichelleLekas,Carol Mason,KittyMillet,JohnMowitt,
and Paula Rabinowitz. Also,forhisinterest and encouragement, David
Halperin,and myfriendsfromthe"FlauntingIt" conference,Cheryl
Kaderand ThomasPiontek.It's been a ball.
1 This
argumentwas recentlyadvanced by Sedgwick,especially
chapter1: "Ultimately, I do feel,a greatdeal depends- forallwomen,
forlesbians,forgaymen,and possiblyforall men- on thefostering
of our abilityto arriveat understandings ofsexualitythatwillrespect
a certainirreducibilityin itto thetermsand relationsofgender"( 16).
2 I don'tknowwhen
exactly"queer theory"began,butthedistinc-
tion"queer," as opposed to "lesbian/gay," marksa shiftin theory.
3 I have borrowedthe idea of the so-
hyphenatedheterosexuality
calledfromAbelove.He talksabout "cross-sexgenitalintercourse"as
"sexual intercourseso-called ." This makesapparentthe constructed-
nessof sexualintercourse or heterosexuality,whendominantculture
wouldhaveus believeitsbeingis naturalornormal,or thatitsmeaning
is clearand uncontested.
4 ParisIs
Burning(1990), a filmbyJennieLivington,documents
theballsofNewYork'sblackand Latinogaymale underground.
5 "CAMP RULES" 7.

WorksCited

Abelove,Henry."Some Speculationson the Historyof Sexual Inter-

courseduringtheLongEighteenth Centuryin England."Genders
6 (Fall 1989): 125-30.
Barthes,Roland. ThePleasureoftheText.Trans.RichardMiller.New
York:Noonday,1975.
Bright,Susie. "A Staris Porn." On OurBachsOct.-Nov.1989:8-9.
Califia,Pat. "The Calyxof Isis." MachoSluts.Boston:Alyson,1988.
84-176.

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:07:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fall 1992 127

"CAMP RULES." Camp: TheLie ThatTellstheTruth. NewYork:Delilah,

1985.
Case, Sue-Ellen."Towarda Butch-Femme Aesthetic."Makinga Specta-
cle:Feminist
EssaysonContemporary Women Ed. LyndaHart.
s Theatre.
AnnArbor:UMI, 1989.282-99.
Echols,Alice.DaringtoBeBad: RadicalFeminism inAmerica, 1967-1975.
Minneapolis:University ofMinnesotaPress,1989.
Heath,Stephen."Filmand System:TermsofAnalysis,PartI." Screen
16.1 (1975): 7-77;"Partii." Screen16.2 (1975): 91-113.
LeMasters,Carol. "S/M and theViolenceofDesire." Trivia:AJournal
ofIdeas 15 (Fall 1989): 17-30.
Miller,Jacques-Alain."Suture (Elementsof the Logic of the Signi-
fier)." Screen18.4 (1977-78):24-47.
Nestle,Joan. "Butch-FemmeRelationships:Sexual Courage in the
1950s."A RestrictedCountry.Ithaca:Firebrand,1987. 100-09.
ParisIs Burning.Dir.JennieLivingston. OffWhiteProductions,1990.
Rubin, Gayle. "The Trafficin Women: Notes on the 'Political
Economy'of Sex." Women , Class, and theFeminist
Imagination.Ed.
KarenV. Hansen and lleneJ.Philipson.Philadelphia:TempleUP,
1990. 74-113.
Sedgwick,Eve Kosofsky. TheEpistemologa oftheCloset.Berkeley:U of
CaliforniaP, 1990.
"
Sontag,Susan. "Notes on 'Camp.' AgainstInterpretation. New York:
Farrar,1966. 275-92.
Vance, Carole S., ed. Pleasureand Danger:Exploring FemaleSexuality.
London: Pandora,1989.

This content downloaded from 129.174.21.5 on Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:07:12 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions