This constructionist viewpoint leaves the commonly held convictions regarding sexuality and gender in a rather tenuous and undefined (and undefinable) state. Butler's argument effectively demolishes any essentialist notion of sexuality. While some gay and lesbian activists might see this belief as undermining the foundations of their activism, Butler's ideas accomplish the same goals in theory that activism accomplishes through praxis, although Butler's ideas are inherently far more radical. While gay and lesbian activists seek to bring social equality to homosexuals, Butler's constructionism attempts to philosophically erode the power of heterosexuality (and homosexuality with it) and reduce every participant to a level playing field. What makes Butler's argument more revolutionary is that her theories rob heteronormativity of its normative power. The very nature of the homosexual identity as a site of resistance only exists with the implicit acknowledgement that heterosexuality is a naturally dominant norm.
One can look back towards the Homophile movement of the early-to-mid-twentieth century as an example of this denial of "true" identity. These early gay and lesbian activists saw homosexuality as a pitiable condition - an inversion of the heterosexual norm - and demanded sympathy. Even current LGBT-activism centered around gay marriage silently acknowledged the subordinate and imitative role that homosexuals must play in society. The demand for "equal treatment under the law" carries with it the hidden implication of an essential difference. Arguing that homosexuals should be treated like heterosexuals does little to eradicate the existing constructs of "reality" that construct heterosexual and homosexual as separate and opposed identities.
To return to the core of Butler's argument as presented here, we must look again at her concept of "repeated play." In order to establish one's sexuality, there must be a constant reaffirmation of sexual identity. For a heterosexual, this is extraordinarily simple. This is not to say that maintaining a heterosexual identity requires less imitation and play than maintaining a homosexual one, but rather that the performative actions required in establishing a heterosexual identity are far more "socially acceptable" than those required in establishing the "opposite." Society is entirely constructed around this principle of heteronormativity; thusly, heterosexual play is never recognized as such. Homosexual play, on the other hand, does not fall in line with heteronormative society. The play required of the homosexual identity does not correlate with what is expected by society. When Butler presents at the Conference on Homosexuality, she does so as a lesbian. This identity, because it does not subscribe to the heteronormative strictures of society, immediately supersedes all other identity. While a heterosexual scholar may be seen as a scholar and nothing else, a lesbian scholar is a lesbian first and a scholar second.
Article comments
1 - Natalie Bennett
I think Butler is entirely correct about the performative nature of sexuality. My favourite example (best used with a group of Western rugby players after they've had a couple of drinks) is to explain how in (at least traditional) Arab cultures, "homosexuality" is a label only for men who take the "passive" role in male-on-male sexual contact. The "active" male is not defined as "homosexual", simply as being a "normal, red-blooded male".
Sexuality without a social context? Well I don't think that is possible, since usually, as they say, it takes two to tango, and there's your society.
2 - Bryan McKay
Very good point, Natalie. I believe the same is true in many Latin American societies. I remember reading Cuban author Reinaldo Arenas' memoir Before Night Falls last year and being struck by the fact that Arenas - a homosexual - often had sexual relations with "straight" men. The fact that he was always the "passive" partner made him "homosexual," whereas the behavior of the "active" partner was (more or less) socially acceptable.