CR#5

It is very difficult to maintain coherent comprehension about such complex interactions when discussed in a context of reference to books that one has never read. That being said, the main ideas in the Epistemology of the Closet, still came through. The themes behind each of the books or prose discussed encompassed the intersection of gender and sexuality (in the form of orientation) while emphasizing the power behind secrecy. I can't help but think of Foucault when knowledge (or withholding if such) becomes a point of power. That being said, there does seem to be a sort dichotomy to the closet. While the person is in the closet, they do hold a powerful secret, but at the same time when one’s sexuality is shoved into a closet. without the ability to have free expression it takes power from the individual as well. This dichotomy seems to almost parallel the existence of binarism discussed in reference to each of the prose chosen by the author.

Much as the closet encompasses the duality of both creating and seizing power from those within the closet, binaries have the dual purpose of using themselves to describe their opposite while that opposite describes them. The two, although opposite, do not exist part although when denied they seem to be completely separate. The author makes this point clear in the discussion on the binary of homo/hetero - sexual. The term heterosexaul was not used until the use of the term homosexual became part of canonical language. Similar binaries exist in the form of secrecy/disclosure, same/different, masculine/feminine, natural/artificial, and health/illness to name a few. Within the context of the works discussed, each of them is related to a set of binaries that create, describe, or deconstruct the characters in each of the books/prose. All of these binarisms exit on an internal level, as much of the time in these works, the characters are ‘in the closet.’ Most of the characters don't even realize that they do have an attraction to the gender that they are attracted to.

The complexity of the intersectionality between gender and orientation comes from an infinitely entangled history, definition, and performance. This is described by the author in terms of the tendency to invert gender to ‘match’ sexuality do that an individual is always truly ‘heterosexual.’ That is a man attracted to men is truly a woman so that their sexual orientation is described within the heteronormative matrix accepted by ‘polite’ society. At the same time there is an opposite tendency (which has more modern origins) to alter sexuality to match gender. At this point the discourse becomes not easily understable, which in part is due to the fact that gender and sexuality/orientation have become inextricably linked with the framework of heteronormative matrix.

As discussed in class, this may be cleared up if one looks at the discourse from the framework of the ‘minority’ or in this case homosexual perspective. Of course, trying to separate the two would really just ;ead to the separation of intersectional discrimination that has been the theme in most of the other readings assigned thus far. So the problem becomes, not how do we separate gender/orientation but why do we need to. Rather the deconstruction of the binaries all together would be more useful. In that case, why not get rid of all binaries black/white, homo/hetero, man/woman, female/male, Anglo-Saxon/And Anglo-Saxon, on which most discrimination appears to be based in the first place.