ABSTRACT
What does it mean to be a sexed subject? It might mean simply ‘being’ sexed in a particular way—having, for instance, a ‘gay sensibility’ or a ‘lesbian essence’ (and we might note here that all too often it is only non- or counterhegemonic sexualities which are thought of as marking their bearers in particular ways—no one talks of ‘straight sensibility’). But thinking from various theoretical angles—from deconstructive feminism, from identity politics, from anti-essentialist viewpoints—has suggested instead that we can usefully think of sexualities, like genders, as performative constructions naturalised through repetition (Fuss 1989; Butler 1990, 1993; see also Julia Cream’s chapter in this volume). This might help us to think about the way sexualities become codified—even stylised—and how that codification informs the subjectivity of our sexed selves. Social histories of sexual minorities have shown us how vital this performative vocabulary can be, both as a marking of difference (from heterosexual hegemonies) and as a marking of sameness (creating a cohesive group identity essential for the formation of recognisable ‘communities’ and so on). Stressing the relational nature of sexual identities, and interrogating the strategies for the performance of our sexed selves, we can think through Diana Fuss’ (1991:2) questions about ‘the complicated processes by which sexual borders are constructed, sexual identities assigned, and sexual politics formulated’.
