Extinction of Queer

In reading Foucault's final notions of the body in his terms of the cogency of the power held in controlling death, we can see his (possibly extreme) views on the role of construction of sexuality and the notion of how that might be negatively charged. What this really leads us to is the concept form the Sedgewick readings on queer theory. Foucault's views of allowing the body to be constituted of itself presuppose some of the ideas in Sedgewick. In demanding that the only source of sexuality should be the body (literally) and pleasure, Foucault resists the socio-historical context of sexualities established by an ideological hegemonic apparatus.

If we relate this to Sedgewick then (and I think it's a pretty direct relation),  then we can use her views of adopting the term queer. She spends a lot of time on this, with just cause. I really enjoyed the back-up that is described through the deconstructionist view of diction-based or linguistically charged idiosyncrasies and often contingencies within a text as a means of embracing a sense of dissonance. She makes it quite clear in her elaborations upon the precipitous trend in suicides amongst gay teens and adolescents that there is a feeling of going against the grain that comes in conjunction with an identification as homosexual. This same tension in going against the grain seems to be the very source  of identification that Sedgewick seems to find in queer theory's application of the deconstructionist method of isolating those minor details and intricacies of excess in terms of the over all plot arc and theme of a text.

Compiled with the reader response revival inherent in the first person application of the means by which queer theory explores the meanings available within a text, this embrace of tension at a very personal level can be read as an embracing of the recently repossessed monicker of "queer." However, inasmuch as queer is now an umbrella term for the gay/lesbian/transgender movement, then semantically it doesn't mean simply homosexual. It would follow then, that queer has made a semantic return to something akin to odd. Although, it is likely more accurate to define it as apart from a proposed norm as opposed to simply odd or strange, both of which can be devoid of relations to a norm.

This would mean, then, that any who feel as though they have some factor of their embodiment or personality which deviates even slightly from the norm could conceivably be self-labeled as queer. TO the militant gay movement, this might be a sullying of a chosen term. This would be an oversight, though, in my opinion. The point of oppositional philosophies is to eliminate that opposition. Therefore, for queer theory to "succeed" (in the utopian sense) there would need to be a recognition by each and every individual that regardless of what society they inhabit they are quite literally an individual and as such cannot possibly adhere to every single norm in existence. In this way, any one can feel queer, because, in fact, everyone is queer. And if everyone is queer, then no one is. Oppostion negated. Unity reached. This is of course utopian; apart from the militant gay sector there would be opposition to this concept from both the conservative core who would cling to majority status and then the inevitable ignorance that surrounds the issue. So, possibly farfetched, but then again most ideals are. I do like to think sardonically that the meta narrative might have a teleology, however asymptotal.