Thoughts on ‘queer’ - from London, with love

I’m currently visiting London for two weeks. Not to start collecting data, interview people and answer some questions. No no no, actually doing something productive is not the aim here. I’m here to explore the field (go to pubs), meet some deaf Londoners (party) and eventually leave with more questions than when I came. As the good, responsible researcher that I pretend to be, I’m also writing pages full of notes. Curious what my notes look like? Well, lucky you, here is a little sneak peak! (Error 404: context not found.)

“So, I guess, in essence, I’m still struggling with what the word ‘queer’ means. And that’s the tricky part: ‘queer’ demands to be undefined. Any attempt to define ‘queer’ is in conflict with everything it stands for. In general, I’m afraid of confrontation, but let’s pick a fight with the word ‘queer’. In my head (and also in most research) queer has two readings. On the one hand you can use it as a synonym for LGBT+. Queer = anything or anyone not cishet. On the other hand, queer is inherently political. It is a rejection of the norms, of the normative. This rejection can come in many forms but cannot be separated from the norm. Antinormativity needs the norm, needs the normative because it tests the boundaries of the normative. ‘Queer’ thus can simply refer to LGBT+ people, but it can also be separated from sexuality and gender completely – in theory.

I don’t know yet which words are most suitable to use in my research. I adore the word ‘queer’. I adore how it is always political, always radical, always in flux. However, these characteristics seem to not match anything I have seen here in London so far. ‘LGBT+’ however feels to me as if it lacks creativity, is an utter bore and is an attempt to separate gender and sexuality from the political. Love is love, nothing political about it. LGBT+ people are just normal people living normal lives, right? But in all seriousness, can we separate sexuality and gender from the political? Feminist scholars have thought us that the personal is political and who am I to disagree with feminist scholars. Moreover, claiming that LGBT+ people are normal re-enforces current social norms. These norms are not only oppressive to people who diverge from gender norms, but also for other minority groups such as people of colour, indigenous communities, religious minorities, poor people, disabled people; anyone who diverges from any norm in any way. ‘Queer’ on the other hand has the potential to challenge the systems of oppression that profit from the status quo such as the patriarchy, colonialist and white-supremacist structures and, of course my favourite, capitalism. ‘Queer’ has this potential – in theory.”

(Yes, I write my notes in blog form because I like to keep myself entertained too. It also absolves me from the academic obligation to make sense - at least, in theory.)