Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Share
01 Introduction
When queer theory intersects with postcolonial theory, particular questions arise
concerning the relationship between nationality, nationalism, and sexuality,
between citizenship and gender, sex, and normativity. Queer theory is concerned
with a series of questions about what is considered normal, specifically when it
comes to human desire and sexuality. Postcolonial theory is also concerned with
what is considered normal, but asks that we consider long lineages of slavery,
oppression, imperialism, and colonialism in answering; that is, postcolonial theory
looks at how relations of domination and colonization have normalized certain
national modes and patterns of exploitation, violence, and dehumanization.
The conjuncture of queer and postcolonial theories, both plural in form and
content, gives rise to several pressing questions, like:
Below you will find a list of possible research topics that emerge out of the
intersection between the two theories.
02 Essentialism
Queer theory, on the other hand, generally rejects most simple essentialisms, and
would argue in the last case that social development had a hand in those
formations. Essentialism is typically contrasted to theories of “social
constructivism,” or the idea that the environment, other people, and social
influences have as much — if not more — impact on development than simply genetics
or “essence.” Postcolonial theory, as well, rejects simple binaries imposed from
imperial powers.
03 Universality
Queer and postcolonial theories also are both concerned with notions of the
“particular” or “local” as contraposed to a “universal” or “global.” Neither
theories consider those terms fixed in content or form, which is to say that a
considerable sum of their work comes in critiquing certain norms as they are
considered by some to be universal, or natural, or some kind of “inevitable and
historical fact.”
Norms complexly contain ideological traces, which is a way of saying that norms are
both perpetuated by certain ideologies and perpetuate certain ideologies. Ideology,
in this sense meaning particular ways of thinking or viewing the world, gives rise
to norms, and in turn norms give rise to ideologies (a tricky note: some would say
we cannot say which came first, the norm or the ideology, as they are “co-
constitutive” and emerge alongside each other).
For instance, “rugged individualism” is a popular way of viewing the world in the
United States in that significant responsibility is delegated to the individual for
making their way through the world. The emergent norm of “workaholism” produces a
work-addicted culture with particular material conditions. That ideology emerged
from norms in turn related to the “Protestant work ethic” and the “Prosperity
Gospel,” and laborers who had to work to survive. Certain concepts considered to be
universal truths, such as the supposed inherent goodness of democracy, may
circulate without question or objection from colonial-imperial sites to colonized
sites.
Coming out, for example, is a trope in Western LGBTQ life experiences, but it is
not universally or uniformally experienced — and neither is it a life experience we
can assume non-Western cultures simply also go through. Queer theory and
postcolonial theory challenge the universality of coming out as a transnational
trope or experience, and understanding the different ways that cultures/individuals
relate to their queerness (whether through “coming out” and confessing it, or
elsewise) can open up vast new areas of inquiry. Homophobia is another complicated
concept brought into more distress when both approaches are utilized.
04 Identity
Queer theory and postcolonial theory alike resist the temptation to conceptualize
identity as merely additive of discrete categories (meaning they don’t impact the
other identities) that you either do or do not belong to. Instead, they focus on
the intersectionality of identities to understand the ways that, for instance, race
is sexualized or gendered, or disability is racialized or classed. To take the
example further, think about what is meant by saying a “white gay man” versus a
“black gay man”; they both may share similar sexual identities, but queer and
postcolonial theories would argue that the race they both belong to impacts how
their sexuality formed and what the actual, material representation looks like;
additionally, that they would both be considered “men” is also worthy of critique.
It is worth noting that both theories also argue that these identity categories are
not inherent, universal, or “natural,” instead critiquing state, national, and
imperial powers and colonial histories of domination for having a hand in
constructing those categories — while maintaining that they were somehow a priori
to, meaning that they came before, colonial or state interventions, discourses,
violences, and ideologies.
05 Globalization
The two approaches can “bridge” the sometimes theoretical gap between materialism —
the consideration of material conditions like income, access to food,
education/literacy rates, scarcity of resources, etc., — and desire, which is a
complicated term, rife with nuance, that we can basically summarize as the longing
for something, be it an erotic want or something else. In queer theory, this focus
is sometimes on “deviant” sexual desire but can also be desire for belonging and
kinship, for queer intimacies, for a quotidian normalcy, etc. Desire is sometimes
critiqued in non-materialist ways, but postcolonial theory can bridge that gap by
forcing questions with queer theory like: how does a scarcity of resources impact
sexual desire? or what are the material conditions produced by colonialism that
influence what is desired?
Even further, we can see how sodomy and sexual deviance were associated with
colonized bodies in need of a “civilizing project,” revealing how intimately
intertwined sexuality is with justifying nation-building and nation-expanding
projects. Contemporary globalization, in the hands of Western powers like the
United States, additionally erases the sexual histories of indigenous and native
cultures, subsuming their difference into the “American Melting Pot.” This
complication shows us how difficult it is to simply think of queerness as a
“Western” concept insofar as it developed out of encounters between colonizing and
colonized bodies rather than simply emerging “from the West.”
The combo of queer and postcolonial theory can bring issues like the above into the
foreground, asking questions about the legacies, untold histories, and inherited
conceptions of norms surrounding sexuality. This focal point can reveal to us the
ambivalences of origins and how complicated it is to find the “source” or the
“cause,” but also the importance and legitimacy of questioning things often taken
for granted within commonsensical knowledges. Further, it forces us to question the
positionality of critique: what is being assumed as the “center” and what is the
“periphery”? How might moving that center, or destroying the concept of a center,
change criticism?
Further Reading