Ellen Guo - 2020 Near Scholar by The Harker School

2019-20 JOHN NEAR GRANT Recipient Bi Means of Queer: A Bisexual View of Sedgwickâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Closet Ellen Guo

Bi Means of Queer: A Bisexual View of Sedgwick’s Closet

Ellen Guo 2020 John Near Scholar Mentors: Ms. Donna Gilbert, Mrs. Meredith Cranston April 15, 2020

Guo 2 Occupying the space between the oppositional categories within gender and sexuality, bisexuality offers lenses through which critical theory can delegitimize monolithic identity 1

binaries, nuance conceptualizations of subject formation, and reconfigure notions of sexuality. As an “anti-identity, a refusal . . . to be limited to one object of desire,” bisexuality challenges 2

the compulsory monosexuality that reinforces heteronormativity. Bisexual theorists share many of the same deconstructive ambitions as queer academics, yet queer theorist Kathryn Burrill notes that bisexuality is still often omitted from general discussions of sexuality despite a 3

growing body of bi literature. Even in its emphasis on confronting the normative, queer theory often neglects, paradoxically, to consider bisexuality as a particular epistemology when 4

deconstructing the very binary definition that bisexuality invalidates. Thus this paper aims to investigate the intersection of queer and bi theorizing to challenge the dominant focal nexuses of sexuality studies. In particular, queer theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s seminal Epistemology of the Closet does not discuss bisexual positions. A groundbreaking text “hailed as [an] extraordinary landmark in the development of LGBTI [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex]

Mark A. Gammon and Kirsten L. Isgro, "Troubling the Canon: Bisexuality and Queer Theory," Journal of Homosexuality 52, nos. 1-2 (2006): 174, 176, accessed April 15, 2020; Jonathan Alexander and Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio, "Bisexuality and Queer Theory: An Introduction," in Bisexuality and Queer Theory: Intersections, Connections and Challenges, ed. Jonathan Alexander and Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio (New York: Routledge, 2014), 2, previously published as "Introduction to the Special Issue: Bisexuality and Queer Theory: Intersections, Diversions, and Connections," Journal of Bisexuality 9, nos. 3-4 (2009): 197-212. 1

Annamarie Jagose, Queer Theory: An Introduction, reprinted ed. (New York: New York University Press, 2010), 69. 2

Kathryn G. Burrill, "Queering Bisexuality," Journal of Bisexuality 9, nos. 3-4 (November 25, 2009): 491, accessed April 15, 2020. 3

Laura Erickson-Schroth and Jennifer Mitchell, "Queering Queer Theory, or Why Bisexuality Matters," Journal of Bisexuality 9, nos. 3-4 (November 25, 2009): 298, accessed April 15, 2020; Burrill, "Queering Bisexuality," 491; April S. Callis, "Playing with Butler and Foucault: Bisexuality and Queer Theory," Journal of Bisexuality 9, nos. 3-4 (November 25, 2009): 214, accessed April 15, 2020.

Guo 3 studies” and almost always included in lists of canonical queer theory, Epistemology of the 5

Closet challenges post-Stonewall conceptions of identity and binarized gender and sexuality.

Yet, despite these objectives, the work curiously elides any discussion of bisexuality. Sedgwick’s most central thesis argues for a deconstruction of the homo/heterosexual binary, a structure to which bisexuality is the immediate rebuttal. She challenges the normative construction of sexuality as a singularized, gendered object choice, yet stops short of considering the battle that bisexuality by definition wages against compulsory monosexuality. Similarly noting the omission of bisexuality from both the queer canon and subsequent modern queer literature, in 2009 anthropologist April Callis “write[s] bisexuality into the works of Michel Foucault and Judith Butler,” specifically Foucault’s The History of Sexuality (1978) 6

and Butler’s Gender Trouble (1990). By examining bisexuality with the contentions of these texts, Callis demonstrates the potential for more fruitful queer theorizing when bisexuality is 7

included in discussions of sexuality. Considering the inviting avenues of exploration in Epistemology of the Closet, the present paper aims to write bisexuality into Sedgwick’s Closet, testing the limits of its theory with a different object of analysis and demonstrating that bisexuality is a necessary and productive node of discussion in queer theory. Definitionally, bisexuality contains multitudes. French literary scholar and psychoanalyst Malcolm Bowie recognizes three paradigms: a purely biological synonym for hermaphroditism, the gendered expression of both feminine and masculine characteristics, and the indication of

Jason Edwards, "Why Sedgwick?," introduction to Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Routledge Critical Thinkers (London: Routledge, 2008), 13, Google Books. 5

Callis, "Playing with," 220-21.

Callis, 220-21.

Guo 4 8

attraction to both men and women. The first paradigm deals with sex, where (observing Sedgwick’s definition) sex indicates the “relatively minimal raw material on which is then based 9

the social construction of gender. ” This first paradigm emerged when the term “bisexual” was 10

first used in 1866 by Aleksandr Kovalevsky to describe a hermaphroditic sea squirt. Today, 11

such characteristics would be labeled “intersex” or hermaphrodite. The second assigns bisexuality to the realm of gender, as per Sedgwick’s approach. Early sexologists described bisexuality as a “state of mind” that suggested characteristics of men and women, elucidating a 12

bisexual navigation between the socially constructed genders. Lastly, in the twentieth century bisexuality began to refer to sexuality—the unanswerable questions surrounding romantic and/or 13

sexual attraction.

Yet even within this more modern paradigm exist myriad definitions. Callis presents the following: 1. Individuals who engage in sexual activity with both men and women, regardless of 14

personal identification or labeling.

Malcolm Bowie, "Bisexuality," 1992, in Feminism and Psychoanalysis: A Critical Dictionary, ed. Elizabeth Wright (Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1992), 26, quoted in Susan Feldman, "Reclaiming Sexual Difference: What Queer Theory Can't Tell Us about Sexuality," Journal of Bisexuality 9, nos. 3-4 (2009): 270, accessed April 15, 2020. 8

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990), 27.

Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, "Queering Queer," 302; Callis, "Playing with," 217.

Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, 302; Callis, 217.

Callis, 224.

Callis, 217.

Guo 5 2. Individuals who fall outside the monolithic binary of heterosexual and homosexual; that 15

is, who lie within the spectrum bounded by these two polarized sexualities.

3. A description of all sexuality, wherein each individual harbors and can realize a universal 16

“bisexual potential.”

4. An identity category utilized in political activism and academia.

Sedgwick heavily emphasizes approaching the overlap of the minoritizing view of sexuality (a question specific to a small, distinct group of people) and the universalizing view (pertinent to a large majority of people of various sexualities), rather than reconciling their tensions (as will be detailed in “Contradictory Bi Definition”). Since working in one realm exclusively would immediately and unjustifiably invalidate Closet via the lens of bisexuality, Callis’s minoritizing fourth definition and the universalizing first and third definitions are not suitable for the present analysis. Though the second definition may prove useful in delineating both a minoritizing and universalizing view as well as emphasizing the opposition between bisexuality and homo/heterosexuality, it nonetheless traps bi between the two ends of the spectrum without allowing for different geometries of analysis. As such, the usage of bisexuality in this paper, extending Callis’s second definition, will refer to any sexuality not encompassed by homo/heterosexuality but not necessarily situated within the homo/heterosexual binary. In effect, it is a definition that aims to contrast bisexuality with monosexuality, in which object choice is limited to one gender. Though the etymology of “bisexuality,” vis-a-vis the prefix “bi-,” may appear to substantiate the gender binary, the definition provided above should be understood as

Callis, 217.

Guo 6 indicating a “bisexual umbrella” under which multisexual categorizations (such as “pansexual” or “omnisexual,” among many others) are commonly amalgamated, with no intent of reinforcing 18

binarized gender.

Inextricable from the consideration of bisexuality and its definitions is queer theory, a discipline dedicated to challenging the immanence of identity and the social structures that advantage heteronormativity. Originally a slur used to demean homosexuals, “queer” was reclaimed by the antihomophobic community to describe a new non-assimilationist, inclusive activism that rejected the identity politics of post-Stonewall gay liberation and lesbian feminist 19

movements. The new oppositional politics manifested in groups like Queer Nation that 20

celebrated “in-your-face difference, with an edge of defiant separatism.” More broadly, the 21

denotations of “queer” imply a certain “odd[ness], unconventional[ity], and curios[ity].” Some activists and academics understand “queer” as an umbrella category more aesthetically and semantically pleasing than the alphabet soup of LGBTIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, and Asexual, with the + indicating all non-normative identities not stated in an effort towards inclusivity), while others regard it as a discipline that revolves about 22

definitional indeterminacy and elasticity. American queer theorist David M. Halperin considers that queer

Corey E. Flanders et al., "Defining Bisexuality: Young Bisexual and Pansexual People's Voices," Journal of Bisexuality 17, no. 1 (September 16, 2016): 40, accessed April 15, 2020. 18

Alexander and Anderlini-D'Onofrio, "Bisexuality and Queer," 4.

Joshua Gamson, "Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct? A Queer Dilemma," Social Problems 42, no. 3 (August 1995): 395, quoted in Callis, "Playing with," 214. 20

Alexander and Anderlini-D'Onofrio, "Bisexuality and Queer," 4.

Jagose, Queer Theory, 1.

Guo 7 does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to 23

which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence.

The instability of queer’s lack of coherent definition introduces a productive space appealing in both its linguistic clarity and implied inclusivity. Originally fueled by an activist shift from the liberationist ethnic model reliant on identity politics to the radical ambiguity of “queer,” the academic school of queer theory rejects theories of static subjectivities and extends aspects of 1980s-90s post-structuralist and feminist thought. Queer theorists deconstruct the binary oppositions of gender and sexuality, analyzing the structures of power and discourse that produce and enforce epistemologies, normative 24

definitions, and culture. Post-structuralist discourse, from psychoanalysis to linguistics, theorizes identity as “a sustaining and persistent cultural fantasy or myth,” rejecting the Cartesian dualism that posits an essentialist, “true” self in favor of a socially constructed, unstable 25

subjectivity. The French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault sees “sexual identities as the discursive effects of available cultural categories,” challenging liberationist identity politics 26

and proving a foundational contributor to the emergence of queer theory a decade later. Via a feminist lens, American philosopher and gender theorist Judith Butler discusses the gendered

David M. Halperin, "The Queer Politics of Michel Foucault," in Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 62, quoted in Burrill, "Queering Bisexuality," 493. 23

Callis, "Playing with," 215; Gammon and Isgro, "Troubling the Canon," 172.

Jagose, Queer Theory, 78.

Jagose, 81.

Guo 8 constructions that maintain heteronormativity in her widely influential book Gender Trouble: 27

Feminism and the Subversion of Identity ( 1990). She denaturalizes gender as “a performative effect of reiterative acts” whereby the subject is constituted, arguing against gendered identity categories that delegitimize homosexual positionalities.

As with any philosophy, queer theory has met criticism. Despite declarations of indefinability, fluidity, and ambiguity, the fact that a finite number of articles may be chosen to be published in queer journals or certain books included in sexuality studies curricula imply that 29

queer can never escape meaning. And as queer is constantly “position[ed] . . . as quintessentially resistant, and, of course, as superior to, or more enlightened than, the so-called non-queer,” the unrecognized meanings imbued by such facts and geometries “tend to privilege the values, desires, and aspirations of particular people and groups, and to overlook, or silence those of others,” leading some to critique queer for being “male-centered, anti-feminist, and race-blind.”

Similarly, queer theory often fails to uniquely consider bisexuality. Intuitively, the similar deconstructive strategies and definitional ambiguities would associate queer with bisexual conceptualizations as related academic fields with much to learn from each other. Yet bisexuality remains nested in laundry lists of marginalized sexualities and genders but never explicitly examined, thus questioning the efficacy of queer discourse to theorize sexuality and the

Jagose, 83.

Jagose, 84.

Nikki Sullivan, "Queer: A Question of Being or a Question of Doing?," in A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory (New York: New York University Press, 2007), 47. 29

Sullivan, 48.

Guo 9 31

structures of power that constitute it beyond the naturalized dyad queer endeavors to overturn. As queer theory builds upon the rich history of late-twentieth century activism and political organizing, the elision of bisexuality, with its own productive social movements, remains a 32

fallacious venture inherently incomplete. Psychiatrist Laura Erickson-Schroth and literary scholar Jennifer Mitchell conclude that “in its attempt at theorizing nonheterosexual identity, queer theory has unfortunately come to theorize only homosexual identity.”

Thus this paper aims to traverse the intersection of bisexual and queer theorizing via a bi reading of Sedgwick’s Epistemology of the Closet. Compulsory monogamy will be assumed, thereby not exploring the implications of polygamy and other non-normative relationship geometries on bisexuality and queer epistemologies or subject positions. Mirroring Sedgwick’s deconstructive strategy used to examine homo/heterosexual definition reveals that the production of incoherent bisexual definition can be attributed to the regime of compulsory monosexuality. A bisexual exploration of Sedgwick’s two understandings of sexuality demonstrates the double bind of minoritizing/universalizing definition but ruptures her monosexist gender transitive/separatist views. Since the axiomatic validity of bisexuality warrants study and discourse, this project concludes that any queer theory that does not deconstruct monosexuality runs the risk of erasing bisexual positions and reinforcing binarized homo/heterosexuality.

Burrill, "Queering Bisexuality," 491; Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, "Queering Queer," 313; Alexander and Anderlini-D'Onofrio, "Bisexuality and Queer," 7. 32

Alexander and Anderlini-D'Onofrio, "Bisexuality and Queer," 5.

Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, "Queering Queer," 298.

Guo 10 The Double Bind of the Closet The binarized regime of sexuality remains committed to monosexuality, producing the epistemological violence of bisexual passing and erasure. Because the definitional homo/heterosexual dyad normalizes monogamy, any bisexual individual in a monogamous 34

relationship appears solely heterosexual or homosexual. This erasure of bisexual identification obliges individuals to the phenomena of bisexual passing, where they alternately associate with 35

the homosexual and heterosexual communities. Trapped in this bi/monosexual closet, bisexuals passing as straight or gay move fluidly between the two oppositions but never occupy the space 36

in between or both simultaneously. Bisexuality’s ontological homelessness arises from the profiting of gays and straights alike from a monosexual order that marginalizes problematic identifications like bisexuality. Legal scholar Kenji Yoshino identifies three structures that both heterosexuals and homosexuals have a vested interest in preserving: the cohesion of sexuality 37

itself, gender as the prevailing categorization of sexuality, and monogamy. For example, since heterosexuals rely definitionally on the naturalization of monogamy and normative ideas of sex 38

and gender, they shun bisexuality as antithetical to their very existence. Furthermore, since decades of political activism and social organizing have culminated in modern heterosexuality’s

Callis, "Playing with," 218.

Jessa Lingel, "Adjusting the Borders: Bisexual Passing and Queer Theory," in Bisexuality and Queer Theory: Intersections, Connections and Challenges, ed. Jonathan Alexander and Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio (New York: Routledge, 2014), 190, 196, previously published in Journal of Bisexuality 9, nos. 3-4 (2009): 381-405. 35

Lingel, 190, 196.

Kenji Yoshino, "The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure," Stanford Law Review 52, no. 2 (January 2000): 355, Gale General OneFile. 37

Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, "Queering Queer," 301.

Guo 11 tenuous acceptance of homosexuality’s existence as a polar oppositional, neither side would acquiesce to a system, inclusive of bisexuality, that abrades a hard-won order of difficult 39

compromises. Invested in and legitimized by dichotomous sexuality, both homosexuals and heterosexuals encourage a compulsory monosexuality that erases bisexuality. And hence this section intends to, through Sedgwickian strategies, constellate how homo/heterosexual definition marginalizes bisexuality. Sedgwick’s objective in Epistemology of the Closet is ultimately a deconstructive one: to destabilize the allegedly symmetrical homo/heterosexual binary by demonstrating that the 40

marginalized category is internal to and constitutive of the valorized term. Sedgwick also observes that sexuality, as defined by the gender of object choice, emerges as an identificatory category in the late nineteenth century, subsequently generating a “homosexual” or 41

“heterosexual” label for all individuals. Taken with the immanent instability of binarized sexuality, Sedgwick argues in Closet the thesis that virtually any aspect of modern Western culture must be, not merely incomplete, but damaged in its central substance to the degree that it does not incorporate a critical analysis of modern homo/heterosexual definition. . . . The appropriate place for that critical analysis to begin is from the relatively decentered perspective of modern gay and antihomophobic theory.

Lingel, "Adjusting the Borders," 195.

Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, 10.

Sedgwick, 2.

Sedgwick, 1.

Guo 12 Because of the normalization of heterosexuality, Sedgwick foregrounds the previously neglected analytical mode of antihomophobic inquiry as productive to the deconstruction of binary sexuality. Expanding the scope of this emergent queer theory, she furthers that the significance of such deconstruction lies in the pervasive influence of the homo/heterosexual dyad on almost every “aspect of modern Western culture.” Through antihomophobic readings of canonical texts like Billy Budd and A Picture of Dorian Gray, Sedgwick finds the themes of “knowledge and ignorance . . . innocence and initiation . . . secrecy and disclosure” saturated with “the 43

homosexual topic.” Thus the dichotomy of sexuality presides as a “master term” of modern society, infiltrating other significant definitional cornerstones, including (but not limited to) the three previously mentioned as well as “masculine/feminine, majority/minority, . . . 44

natural/artificial, new/old.” And the avenue by which the homo/heterosexual definition penetrates these nodes is through the closet (the metaphorical space in which homosexuals who pass as straight reside): a symbol culturally inextricable from homosexuality yet also, through its immanent relation to ignorance, influential in and influenced by the processes of knowledge that 45

structure Western thought. Ultimately, Sedgwick’s precarious couplings are subsumed by the similarly unstable dichotomy of closet versus coming out.

Sedgwick exhibits through judicial examples the oppressive double bind of the closet, which “systematically oppress[es] gay people, identities, and acts by undermining through

Sedgwick, 74.

Sedgwick, 11.

Sedgwick, 33, 72.

Sedgwick, 72.

Guo 13 contradictory constraints on the discourse the grounds of their very being,” wherein both the productive webs of knowledge and speech and the equally powerful ignorance and silence of the 47

closet reflect and reinforce the incoherent binary of sexuality that privileges heterosexuality. In Acanfora v. Board of Education, the Maryland teacher Acanfora was transferred to a 48

non-teaching role upon discovery of his homosexuality. After speaking publicly about the situation, Acanfora was refused a new contract entirely on the legal ground, as decided by a 49

federal district court, that the action brought him undue attention. Though a circuit court disagreed, it ultimately ruled that Acanfora had no basis to bring a suit at all as he failed to tell his employers about his association with a homophile organization during his college years, 50

reasoning that with this information, he never would have been hired at all. As Acanfora was punished for both coming out of and staying in the closet, Sedgwick illustrates the impossibly reconcilable closet, epitomizing the incoherence of knowledge/ignorance intimately yoked with hetero/homosexual definition. This definitional instability similarly presides over bisexual identities and epistemologies, exacting the double bind of the bisexual/monosexual closet. Most lesbian and gay activism relied on an essentializing, ethnic model, where sexuality is regarded as an unchangeable, immanent signifier analogous to race, and homosexuals are portrayed as a minority group similarly 51

deserving of civil rights. Since bisexuality could be misinterpreted as a “choice” to be gay

Sedgwick, 70, 4.

Sedgwick, 69.

Jagose, Queer Theory, 60-61; Alexander and Anderlini-D'Onofrio, "Bisexuality and Queer," 3.

Guo 14 (rather than an intrinsic characteristic) or as a half-way point testifying to a possible cure for homosexuality, most activist movements erased bisexuality to prevent the political undermining 52

of their ethnic model. Similarly, bisexuals are often stereotyped, by both homosexuals and heterosexuals, as promiscuous, disloyal, temperamental, indecisive, and deceptive, causing assimilationist movements to reject bisexuals as political allies in favor of preserving a 53

monogamous image. Much like Acanfora, who was expected to stay closeted about his homosexuality and subsequently punished for his media appearance, bisexuals suffer pressure from activist groups to pass as monosexuals. Yet at the same time, heterosexuals demand to be informed of an individual’s bisexuality. Through her reading of Marcel Proust’s À la recherche du temps perdu, Sedgwick argues that modern commitments to sexuality oppress women by holding them to the impossible standard of full comprehension and policing of male sexuality, as 54

they are the primary consumers of said sexuality. One example of this “figure of the woman who can’t know” lies in the AIDS crisis. (Interestingly, this passage is the only one in which Sedgwick discusses a bisexual topic at length, though bisexuality, as an identity and/or epistemology, is never central to the analysis.) A 1987 Times article wrongly presented bisexuality as the bridge between heterosexual purity and homosexual deviance and sickness, where shadowy bisexual men would engage in the diseased homosexual community and 55

insidiously transfer sickness to their innocently oblivious wives. Sedgwick notes that the piece

Alexander and Anderlini-D'Onofrio, "Bisexuality and Queer," 3; Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, "Queering Queer," 302. 53

Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, 298; Alexander and Anderlini-D'Onofrio, 4; Lingel, "Adjusting the Borders," 196-97; Yoshino, "The Epistemic," 427. 54

Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, 251.

Sedgwick, 249-50; Erickson-Schroth and Mitchell, "Queering Queer," 299.

Guo 15 “appropriates the actual voices, of women who supposedly have to know all the secrets of men's sexuality—so that, apparently, they can avoid having any sex with bisexual men and have 56

unprotected sex with certifiably heterosexual men.” This having-to-know demands bisexuals to come out of the bi/monosexual closet to reinforce untainted heteronormativity. As Acanfora was punished for not coming out to his employer (which would have prevented his hiring), bisexuals are compelled to come out to their heterosexual partners so that the allegedly problematic relationship could be avoided. Presiding as the valorized term of the bi/monosexual binary, the homo/heterosexual definitional dyad introduces an irresolvable and irreducible incoherence to bisexuality by simultaneously demanding bisexual closeting and coming out. Sedgwick attributes the persistence of unstable definitional nexuses to their arrangements as locations of “contests for discursive power” which manifest as “competitions for the material or rhetorical leverage required to set the terms of, and to profit in some way from, the operations 57

of such an incoherence of definition.” The immediate suggestion is that heterosexuals and homosexuals struggle against each other to define binarized sexuality in their favor. Considering Yoshino’s analysis that both gays and straights benefit from the erasure of bisexuality in addition to the contradictory terms of the bisexual closet, the contest in which bisexuals are involved cannot be subsumed under the homo/heterosexual dichotomy; rather it is one between bisexuality and monosexuality. As such, any deconstruction of sexuality signifiers that disengages from the violent erasure of compulsory monosexuality serves only to reinforce the one-dimensional, exclusionary structure of sexual binaries that queer theory aims to challenge.

Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, 249-50.

Sedgwick, 11.

Guo 16 Contradictory Bi Definition In addition to the metaphor of the closet, the incoherence of sexual definition can be furthered by mapping out the ways in which sexuality is understood. Sedgwick notes that most antihomophobic thought attempts to reconcile essentialist views (that sexual identity is an absolute, immanent, natural quality of the self) with constructionist ones (where identity is a 58

mutable product of cultural and social factors). Considering these positions as heavily influenced by homophobic thought, Sedgwick proposes two new models for examining sexuality: minoritizing versus universalizing and gender transitive versus gender separatist. But rather than resolve the differences between terms and denominate one or the other as more “correct,” Sedgwick aims to consider their overlap, contradictions, and subsequent consequences 59

for homosexual epistemologies. The present paper will detail the two frames of analysis then explore each unstable intersection, testing the limits of these proposed definitional cornerstones for potential in expansion to non-monosexual inquiry. Sedgwick defines the minoritizing view as understanding the definitions of sexuality as “an issue of active importance primarily for a small, distinct, relatively fixed homosexual minority” whereas the universalizing view is “an issue of continuing, determinative importance 60

in the lives of people across the spectrum of sexualities.” Despite the apparent mutual exclusivity of the two terms, Sedgwick demonstrates that concurrent, overlapping discourses of persons (minoritizing) and acts (universalizing) radically destabilize homosexuality. Though the

Sedgwick, 40; Jagose, Queer Theory, 8.

Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, 2.

Sedgwick, 1.

Guo 17 1986 Supreme Court case Bowers v. Hardwick criminalized acts of sodomy as a universalizing behavior, Sergeant Perry J. Watkins v. United States Army (1988) upheld Constitutional rights 61

for homosexuals, as a minoritizing identity, under the Equal Protection clause. On the other hand, when considering AIDS, the minoritizing rhetoric of “risk groups,” which violently stereotypes all homosexuals as diseased, appears more oppressive than the universalizing notion 62

of “risk practices.” Similarly, Sedgwick details the “homosexual panic” defense, used by men accused of violence towards homosexuals (perhaps in response to unwelcome sexual advances), to reveal a double oppression of homosexuality, wherein either view of sexuality victimizes gay 63

people. Firstly, the minoritizing view reveals a generalized minority of gays attacked by an explicit minority of heterosexuals insecure enough in their own masculinity to revert to excuses 64

of pathological incompetence. Secondly, the defenses owe their success to a universalizing 65

account whereby jurors empathize with the panicked behavior of the assailants. In offering the minoritizing/universalizing views of sexuality, Sedgwick exposes the double bind of homosexuality’s very definition. The question of minoritizing and universalizing plays a key role in theorizing bisexual identity and epistemology, yet the irresolvability of the tension traps bisexuality in contradictions that privilege monosexuality. The early gay liberation movement of the 1970s pursued deliverance from the oppressive restraints of binarized gender and sexuality to ultimately attain a

Sedgwick, 86.

Sedgwick, 20.

Guo 18 utopic future in which none of these categorizations existed and all could delight in their 66

universalizing bisexual potential. Despite this seemingly liberating exultation of bisexuality, sociologist Mark Gammon and cultural theorist Kirsten Isgro caution that such oversimplified portrayals of sexuality can negatively impact social and political organizing since locating bisexuality "everywhere and nowhere" only renders bisexuality the instrument of erasing 67

differences between historically opposed sexualities. As the universalizing discourse of bisexuality proves at once liberating and reductive, the oppressive minoritizing view overlaps with and problematizes coherent bisexual definition. By the mid-1970s, the grand vision of sexual revolution began to disintegrate, and activists increasingly turned to an ethnic model to secure civil rights. As previously discussed, in an effort to maintain their political agendas, these movements suppressed bisexuality via a minoritizing view that highlighted the pernicious stereotypes of bisexuals which threatened gay rights. Though the two universalizing/minoritizing views may not have been temporally simultaneous as the ethnic model gradually replaced advocacy for overthrowing gender/sexual norms (though no doubt significant overlap occurred), the metahistorical constellation of these evolving views reveals the questions central to the incoherence of modern bisexual definition, much like how Sedgwick (in her introductory Axiom 5) aims to consider “those unexpectedly plural, varied, and contradictory historical understandings whose residual—indeed, whose 68

renewed—force seems most palpable today.” The multiply oppressive aegises of

Jagose, Queer Theory, 41.

Gammon and Isgro, "Troubling the Canon," 168.

Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, 48.

Guo 19 minoritizing/universalizing bisexuality during the gay liberation movement situates these Sedgwickian views of sexuality as extendable to non-monosexual identities. The universalizing bisexual discourse oversimplifies sexuality in a utopic realm void of difference, while the minoritizing view provokes both gay and straight communities to reject the demonized minority of bisexuals. Perhaps more importantly, though, the contradictory definitional overlap symptomatizes the instability of not only homo/heterosexual definition but also compulsory monosexuality. Along with the minoritizing/universalizing views of sexuality, Sedgwick also proposes to consider homosexual object choice as a contradictory question of gender. She explains gender transitivity and liminality with “the trope of inversion, anima mulieris in corpore virili 69

inclusa— ‘a woman’s soul trapped in a man’s body’—and vice versa.” On the other hand, a gender separatist view explains that it is “the most natural thing in the world that people of the same gender . . . people whose economic, institutional, emotional, physical needs and knowledges may have so much in common, should bond together also on the axis of sexual 70

desire.” For example, the gender-separatist Radicalesbians of the 1970s equated “lesbian” with 71

“woman-identified woman,” rejecting any association with men in an extension of feminism. In other words, gender transitivity highlights the uniqueness and separability of identity and desire, 72

whereas gender separatism considers identification and desire one and the same.

Sedgwick, 87.

Jagose, Queer Theory, 48.

Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, 88.

Guo 20 Since bisexuality definitionally refers to multiple genders of object choice in its contrast to the monosexual homo/heterosexual binary, its adherence to or deviation from Sedgwick’s gender model of sexuality is not immediately clear. Since homosexual gender transitivity can be seen as an extension of heterosexist aims to reimpose normative gender and sexual configurations, where the feminine man corrects for his homosexuality with a pseudo-opposite 73

object choice, bisexuality cannot be gender transitive. Callis explains, “Either her gender is 74

constantly changing (with her partner), or her gender does not match her sexuality.” As such, bisexuality cannot satisfy the dual requirements of gender transitivity: an imminently inverted soul and pseudo-heterosexuality. Though this modern understanding of bisexuality resists the Sedgwickian presentation of gender transitivity, a historical analysis problematizes this rejection. As per Sedgwick’s Axiom 5, which invites discussion of suppressed but potentially contributory definitions of bisexuality (previously used to reframe the minoritizing/universalizing debate), Malcolm Bowie’s three historical paradigms of bisexuality—as a question of sex, gender, and sexuality, respectively—must be considered. With near-complete replacement of the first paradigm with terminology like “intersex” or “hermaphrodite,” the coexistence of gendered and sexuality-based recognitions define bisexuality today. And from the concurrence of Bowie’s second paradigm, where bisexuality is the expression of both socially constructed notions of masculinity and femininity, arises a possible avenue of a gender transitive view of bisexuality in accordance with Sedgwick’s model. This unstable simultaneous permission and prohibition of a bisexual gender transitivity is reflected in an inability to view bisexuality as gender separatist. For bisexual individuals to alter their own identification for every shift in object choice defeats 73

Callis, "Playing with," 228.

Callis, 228.

Guo 21 the definition of gendered identification in a logical fallacy that proves gender separatism definitionally interwoven with monosexuality. And the incoherence that permeates not just the overlap of gender transitivity and gender separatism but, more importantly, the terms themselves, ruptures Sedgwick’s gendered conceptualization of sexuality. It comes as no surprise, then, that gender and sexuality scholar Maria Pramaggiore writes that bisexual epistemologies “refuse one-to-one correspondences between sex acts and identity, between erotic objects and sexualities, between identification and desire”—the last coupling situating bisexuality decidedly 75

external to Sedgwick’s paradigm that relies on the variable separability of identity and desire. Thus the gender transitive/separatist view of sexuality fails to adequately model or analyze

bisexuality and ultimately proves useful only in the confines of binarized monosexuality from which it was originally conceived. Sedgwick presents the minoritizing versus universalizing and gender transitive versus gender separatist debates of sexuality as unstable definitional nodes that double bind homosexuality. A bisexual deconstruction of these conflicting views reveals bisexuality similarly double-bound by the minoritizing/universalizing model, rendering it valuable to theorizing non-monosexual positions. However, such extensions must consider both the homo/heterosexual and bi/monosexual binaries since the universalizing discourse privileges heterosexuality via an erasure of sexual difference, and the minoritizing view oppresses bisexuals because of compulsory monosexuality. In terms of the gender transitive/separatist model, bisexuality cannot fall anywhere in the space surrounding that debate, thus indicating gender transitivity/separatism as definitionally inextricable from and ultimately unproductive beyond monosexuality. In Maria Pramaggiore, "BI-ntroduction 1: Epistemologies of the Fence," in RePresenting Bisexualities: Subjects and Cultures of Fluid Desire, ed. Donald E. Hall and Maria Pramaggiore (New York: New York University Press, 1996), 3, quoted in Gammon and Isgro, "Troubling the Canon," 162. 75

Guo 22 summary, the furthering of minoritizing/universalizing views or new conceptions of gender-based accounts must consider the bi/monosexual dyad in addition to the homo/heterosexual binary to more widely theorize sexuality. The Future of Sexuality A bisexual tracing of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s seminal deconstructive inquiry in Epistemology of the Closet reveals the incoherence of bisexual definition in which compulsory monosexuality is complicit. The contradictory demands of the closet that govern homo/heterosexual definition similarly destabilize the bisexual meanings constructed in a regime of knowledge and ignorance perpetuated by the distinct yet inextricable closet of the bi/monosexual binary, an instability from which both gays and straights profit. Sedgwick’s overlapping aegises of minoritizing/universalizing views of sexuality double-bind bisexuality, just as it repudiates homosexual definition, yet the Sedgwickian gender transitive/separatist views, though invaluable in theorizing homo/heterosexual incoherence, deteriorates at the threshold of non-monosexuality due to its valorization of singularized object choice. As these analyses demonstrate the significant role the bi/monosexual dyad plays in the situation of bisexuality within more general queer discourse, this study finds that though many extensions of queer deconstructive strategies can effectively examine bisexuality, compulsory monosexuality cannot be overlooked if queer discourse is to theorize any equally valid non-monosexual subject positions or epistemologies. However, the argument for a bi/monosexual binary in discourses of sexuality has drawn criticism from queer and bisexual theorists. Gammon and Isgro offer a consolidation of these critiques: first, that the externalization of bisexuality as a omnipotent remedy to exclusivity

Guo 23 actually removes the contentiousness of bisexuality from the homo/heterosexual binarism and thus simply reinforces yet another bi versus non-bi dyad, whereas placement of bisexuality 76

within the binary would instead allow for the full extent of deconstructive analysis. Similarly, critics resist the synonymization of bisexuality with multiplicity and complexity, where often bisexuality is “then banished together with all of that multiplicity in order to restore the 77

appearance of a stable, binary world.” In addition to simultaneously utopic and reductive, re-binarizing strategies, others object to the blurring of definitional boundaries between homosexuality and heterosexuality under the heading of “monosexual,” which would unfairly cast the relationship between bisexuals and homosexuals as analogous to the homo/heterosexual 78

divide. These criticisms rebuke the aggrandizement of bisexuality as a perfect, fluid identity that transcends the problematically static homo/heterosexual binary. Yet the internalization of bisexuality within the monosexual regime instead of the occupation of an oppositional position, as these critics would suggest, cannot adequately deconstruct bisexuality. That is, only through the externalizing bi/monosexual dyad can non-trivial resolutions of bisexual identity and epistemology occur. Most notably, bisexuality cannot be seen as the third category to complete the triumvirate of “heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual,” a category implied thusly as relationally similar to both hetero- and homosexuality. Intersectional techniques (briefly discussed in Closet) that evaluate “how the

Gammon and Isgro, "Troubling the Canon," 169.

Stacey Young, "Dichotomies and Displacement: Bisexuality in Queer Theory and Politics," in Playing with Fire: Queer Politics, Queer Theories, ed. Shane Phelan (New York: Routledge, 1997), 61, quoted in Gammon and Isgro, 168. 77

Gammon and Isgro, "Troubling the Canon," 168-69.

Guo 24 person who is disabled through one set of oppressions may by the same positioning be enabled through others” substantiate bisexuality as immanently different and exterior to 79

homo/heterosexuality. For example, Sedgwick explains that educated women defer to educated men but expect deference from less-educated men and women, or women using a married name 80

demonstrate heterosexual privilege but also female subordination to patriarchy. In comparison to these static relationships between oppositional categories (where, for example, masculinity almost always oppresses femininity), a bisexual man passing as straight is more privileged than a straight woman, but that same bisexual man now passing as gay must defer to the same straight woman. And when the bisexual man comes out to either the gay or straight community as bisexual, stigmatizing biphobia relegates him to a lower social position regardless of his previously passing, adding yet another layer of complexity that intersectionality and the homo/heterosexual binary (or even spectrum) cannot handle. The persistence of bisexual erasure and subsequent birth of bisexual passing as a result of compulsory monosexuality renders bisexuality, with its immanent fluidity, not more important than homo/heterosexuality, but simply different—to the degree that bisexuality cannot be the third signifier of sexuality and thus externalization is a prerequisite to bisexual understandings. Yet at the same time, bisexuality cannot be treated as wholly independent of homo/heterosexual definition, unlike race, gender, class, etc. In a reductive example, a two-by-two matrix of homo/heterosexuality and masculine/feminine may be able to map out the binarized intersections of sexuality and gender, but a two-by-two matrix of homo/heterosexuality and bi/monosexuality loses all meaning.

Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, 32.

Sedgwick, 32.

Guo 25 Gammon and Isgro’s other critiques similarly disengage from the bisexual theorizing at hand. The findings of this project consistently reiterate the incoherence of bisexual definition rather than proposing a “stable binary world” of bisexual versus monosexual. Furthermore, following Yoshino’s demonstration of a monosexual order in which both gays and straights are invested, the association between bisexuals and homosexuals (or heterosexuals, for that matter) may be more similar to the homo-heterosexual relation than presumed. As Sedgwick establishes the heterosexist, contradictory knowledge and ignorance that structure the homosexual closet, “The Double Bind of the Closet” examines the bisexual closet constructed by homo- and heterosexuals to privilege monosexuality. Despite the perhaps immanent and functionally necessary obscuration of the homo/heterosexual divide in considerations of bisexuality, bi/monosexual binary cannot be understood as a replacement of traditional homo/heterosexual inquiry: it is the bisexual augmentation of queer that renders a more comprehensive analysis. Though the findings of this project predominantly emphasize the significance of bisexual-calibrated reconsiderations of queer theory, the relevance of queer deconstructions of the homo/heterosexual binary to conceptions of bisexuality should not be understated. Not only is the definitional incoherence of bi inseparable from the homo/heterosexual dyad, but Sedgwick also writes that, after all, a real measure of the success of [my] analysis would lie in its ability, in the hands of an inquirer with different needs, talents, or positionings, to clarify the distinctive kinds of resistance offered to it from different spaces on the social map, even though such a 81

project might require revisions or rupturings of the analysis as first proffered.

Sedgwick, 14.

Guo 26 Only by means of the techniques and strategies of â&#x20AC;&#x2039;Epistemology of the Closetâ&#x20AC;&#x2039; could an inquirer of bisexuality rupture the first-proffered homo/heterosexual regime. And thus, it is, paradoxically, to the queer canon, however seemingly blind to bisexuality, that this paper owes its conclusion: that any queer denaturalization of sexuality that ignores the effects of compulsory monosexuality is, quite simply, not queer enough.

Guo 27 Bibliography Alexander, Jonathan, and Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio. "Bisexuality and Queer Theory: An Introduction." In Bisexuality and Queer Theory: Intersections, Connections and Challenges, edited by Jonathan Alexander and Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio, 1-19. New York: Routledge, 2014. Previously published as "Introduction to the Special Issue: Bisexuality and Queer Theory: Intersections, Diversions, and Connections." Journal of Bisexuality 9, nos. 3-4 (2009): 197-212. In a broad overview to an anthology of theoretical, literary, and social approaches to the space between bisexuality queer theory, writing studies and sexuality studies scholar Jonathan Alexander and cultural theorist and activist Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio weave bisexual contributions into the mainstream gay, lesbian, and queer history. They review two significant bisexual texts, Steven Angelides' A History of Bisexuality (2001) and Clare Hemmings' Bisexual Spaces (2002), respectively detailing a Foucauldian deconstructive history and an exploration of the complexity of spaces and genders instead of identities and subjectivities. Urging a reconsideration of normative sexuality and gender, Alexander and Anderlini-D'Onofrio's introduction serves to contextualize bisexual and queer thought. Bowie, Malcolm. "Bisexuality." 1992. In Feminism and Psychoanalysis: A Critical Dictionary, edited by Elizabeth Wright, 26. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1992. Quoted in Feldman, Susan. "Reclaiming Sexual Difference: What Queer Theory Can't Tell Us about Sexuality." Journal of Bisexuality 9, nos. 3-4 (2009): 270. Accessed April 15, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299710903316562. Burrill, Kathryn G. "Queering Bisexuality." Journal of Bisexuality 9, nos. 3-4 (November 25, 2009): 491-99. Accessed April 15, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299710903316737. Responding to calls for the integration of bisexuality and queer discourse, queer theorist Kathryn Burrill reviews arguments for and against applying queer strategies to understand bisexual identities and epistemologies. For example, Burrill contrasts the possibility of (previously nonexistent) bi inclusivity under the banner of queer with risk of either an unfounded valorization of or further erasure of bisexuality. Concluding that queer theory's deconstructive techniques may prevent the development of an exclusive bisexual identity, "Queering Bisexuality" provides a reminder that overly simplified intersections of bisexual and queer theorizing may actually prove harmful and reductive. Callis, April S. "Playing with Butler and Foucault: Bisexuality and Queer Theory." Journal of Bisexuality 9, nos. 3-4 (November 25, 2009): 213-33. Accessed April 15, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299710903316513. To illustrate that queer theory which considers bisexuality is actually strengthened by the analysis, anthropologist April Callis writes bisexuality into two foundational works in modern queer theory: Michel Foucault's The History of Sexuality and Judith Butler's Gender Trouble (1990/2006), noting bisexual possibilities in reverse discourse and gender performativity, respectively. The present study of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's

Guo 28 Epistemology of the Closet was predominantly inspired by this exercise of situating modern bisexual discourse within the queer canon. Edwards, Jason. "Why Sedgwick?" Introduction to Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, 1-16. Routledge Critical Thinkers. London: Routledge, 2008. Google Books. As part of a series on influential critical theorists, art historian and literary scholar Jason Edwards introduces key Sedgwickian ideas, helping contextualize Epistemology of the Closet within the larger body of Sedgwick's work and describing its impact on queer theory and wider cultural studies. Erickson-Schroth, Laura, and Jennifer Mitchell. "Queering Queer Theory, or Why Bisexuality Matters." Journal of Bisexuality 9, nos. 3-4 (November 25, 2009): 297-315. Accessed April 15, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299710903316596. Psychiatrist Laura Erickson-Schroth and literary scholar Jennifer Mitchell analyze bisexual erasure in historical, popular culture, and literary contexts. Offering personal, political, and theoretical reasons for both gay and straight repressions of bisexuality, "Queering Queer" provides one of the most potent criticisms of a queer theory that lacks bisexuality and thus foregrounds the intervention and conclusions of the present paper. Feldman, Susan. "Reclaiming Sexual Difference: What Queer Theory Can't Tell Us about Sexuality." Journal of Bisexuality 9, nos. 3-4 (2009): 259-78. Accessed April 15, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299710903316562. Drawing from Lacanian psychoanalysis, queer theorist Susan Feldman attributes the erasure of bisexuality to queer theory's refusal to acknowledge the limits of symbolization. Feldman's approach highlights the fruitful potentials of radically rethinking and introducing dissonances to established queer theory. Flanders, Corey E., Marianne E. LeBreton, Margaret Robinson, Jing Bian, and Jaime Alonso Caravaca-Morera. "Defining Bisexuality: Young Bisexual and Pansexual People's Voices." Journal of Bisexuality 17, no. 1 (September 16, 2016): 39-57. Accessed April 15, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2016.1227016. Psychologist Corey Flanders and colleagues interviewed self-identified bisexual and pansexual young adults about their views on bisexual definition, finding few differences between the opinions of bisexual and pansexual participants. The discussion of the uses and consequences of the bisexual umbrella inform the definition of bisexuality in this project. Gammon, Mark A., and Kirsten L. Isgro. "Troubling the Canon: Bisexuality and Queer Theory." Journal of Homosexuality 52, nos. 1-2 (2006): 159-84. Accessed April 15, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v52n01_07. Sociologist Mark Gammon and cultural theorist Kirsten Isgro review bisexual and queer academia and history to background their intersection, or lack thereof. After a discussion of bisexual activist narratives, psychological research, and cultural and post-modern accounts followed by a historical sketch of gay/lesbian studies and queer theory, Gammon and Isgro find a notable exclusion of bisexuality from most discourses

Guo 29 surrounding sexuality and thus question the efficacy of the queer canon in theorizing sexual subjectivity. The section on bisexuality as an anti-monosexual identity was of particular interest to the present study, which thus was careful to address the traps of transcendental bisexuality that Gammon and Isgro review. Gamson, Joshua. "Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct? A Queer Dilemma." Social Problems 42, no. 3 (August 1995): 390-407. https://doi.org/10.2307/3096854. Quoted in Callis, April S. "Playing with Butler and Foucault: Bisexuality and Queer Theory." Journal of Bisexuality 9, nos. 3-4 (November 25, 2009): 214. Accessed April 15, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299710903316513. Halperin, David M. "The Queer Politics of Michel Foucault." In Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography, 15-125. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Quoted in Burrill, Kathryn G. "Queering Bisexuality." Journal of Bisexuality 9, nos. 3-4 (November 25, 2009): 493. Accessed April 15, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299710903316737. Jagose, Annamarie. Queer Theory: An Introduction. Reprinted ed. New York: New York University Press, 2010. To historicize queer, queer theorist and feminist Annamarie Jagose explicates the evolution of the early 1900s homophile movement to 70s gay liberation and lesbian feminism and finally to modern queer theory. With an emphasis on the indeterminacy of queer, Jagose breaks down the theoretical and cultural context of this theory, from post-structuralism to performativity to the AIDS crisis, and also provides criticisms of queer. Greatly elucidating the field at large, Queer Theory is an inaugural text for the study of sexuality. Lingel, Jessa. "Adjusting the Borders: Bisexual Passing and Queer Theory." In Bisexuality and Queer Theory: Intersections, Connections and Challenges, edited by Jonathan Alexander and Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio, 189-213. New York: Routledge, 2014. Previously published in Journal of Bisexuality 9, nos. 3-4 (2009): 381-405. Literary theorist and gender studies scholar Jessa Lingel focuses on biographical and autobiographical accounts of bisexuality to describe the lived experiences of bisexual erasure and passing in response to problematic feminist and queer theories that violently reduce bisexuality to a useful tool of analysis. Lingel's delineation of various causes and geometries of bisexual passing prove invaluable to the theorizing of compulsory monosexuality in this project. Pramaggiore, Maria. "BI-ntroduction 1: Epistemologies of the Fence." In RePresenting Bisexualities: Subjects and Cultures of Fluid Desire, edited by Donald E. Hall and Maria Pramaggiore, 1-7. New York: New York University Press, 1996. Quoted in Gammon, Mark A., and Kirsten L. Isgro. "Troubling the Canon: Bisexuality and Queer Theory." Journal of Homosexuality 52, nos. 1-2 (2006): 162. Accessed April 15, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v52n01_07.

Guo 30 Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990. Queer theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's seminal work argues that the definitional instability of the closet, and thus the homo/heterosexual binary, and its grasp on the processes of knowledge and ignorance infiltrate every mode of Western thought. As such, analyzing homo/heterosexual definition, especially from an antihomophobic standpoint, is key to deconstructing any nexus of modern culture. Despite these goals, Epistemology of the Closet curiously overlooks bisexuality, which would intuitively be the best deconstructive subject. Thus this paper aims to explore the consequences of applying Sedgwick's strategies to bisexuality to complicate the currently void intersection of queer and bisexual theorizing. Sullivan, Nikki. "Queer: A Question of Being or a Question of Doing?" In A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory, 37-56. New York: New York University Press, 2007. Cultural theorist Nikki Sullivan describes in this chapter the post-structuralist and deconstructive foundations of and approaches to queer theory. Sullivan highlights key criticisms of queer theory, which prefaces the bisexual critique of queer. Yoshino, Kenji. "The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure." Stanford Law Review 52, no. 2 (January 2000): 353-461. Gale General OneFile. Legal scholar Kenji Yoshino demonstrates the invisibility of bisexuality via an investigation of two major sexuality studies and then theorizes that both straights and gays are invested in bisexual erasure because of their commitment to stabilizing sexual orientation, sex, and monogamy. Yoshino's proposition of an unconsciously coordinated repression of bisexuality structures this study's conceptualization of a hegemonic monosexual regime. Young, Stacey. "Dichotomies and Displacement: Bisexuality in Queer Theory and Politics." In Playing with Fire: Queer Politics, Queer Theories, edited by Shane Phelan, 51-74. New York: Routledge, 1997. Quoted in Gammon, Mark A., and Kirsten L. Isgro. "Troubling the Canon: Bisexuality and Queer Theory." Journal of Homosexuality 52, nos. 1-2 (2006): 168. Accessed April 15, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v52n01_07.

The Harker School | 500 Saratoga Ave., San Jose CA 95129 OofC: 3/25/20 (RM)