As a straight-identified male, it can be very hard to accept Butler's thesis. The deeper one looks, however, the deeper one finds constructions of heterosexuality. Each and every individual is practicing various psychologically inscribed roles dictated by society. Simply by the amount of discourse surrounding heterosexuality, one could argue that straight identity is perhaps an even more specific construct than gay or lesbian identity, and it is certainly more specific than the nebulous label (or non-label) of queer. The only reason homosexual identity need exist is because heterosexual identity had been established as an opposing - albeit dominant - force.
If all sexuality is simply performative, however, can we ever find the "original"? Butler recognizes the complexity of this problem. She hypothesizes that "the very categories of sex [...] are produced and maintained in the effects of this compulsory performance," yet also recognizes the difficulty in "[exposing] the causal lines as retrospectively and performatively produced fabrications." To borrow a bit of logic from Thomas Aquinas, every effect requires a cause. If the distinctions of sex and sexuality are the effects of "compulsory performance," then what is the cause of the performance itself? Why is there this seemingly innate cultural desire to categorize and label our sexualities? That the importance of maintaining heteronormative values is based on a fear of subversion from the homosexual Other may be offered as an explanation, but even this can only be a proximate cause. This homophobia (or heterosexism) could not have sprung into existence spontaneously; some causal relationship is still required.
If Butler is correct and all gender roles are performative identities created as an effect of "compulsory performance," there must be some ideal and pure original, free of society's imprint. But is such an original traceable? There must be a hypothetical "base" upon which the human psyche is constructed, but is it possible to strip away the layers of construction and conditioning and explore this "original" psyche? With gender and sexuality as the most prevalent factors in nearly all social relations, we have allowed these performative roles to establish the basic structure of human society. If Butler's theory of performativity and construction is correct, which I believe that it is, the implications are immeasurable. Once we have deconstructed the whole of human sexuality, what shall remain?
This article (among others) also appears at Les Faits de la Fiction.
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.