Queer Theory Response Paper NUMBA 1

This one is responding primarily to 3 class readings:
Martha Umphrey's "The Trouble With Harry Thaw"
Jonathan Ned Katz's "Homosexuality and Heterosexuality: Questioning the Terms"
Didier Eribon's "The Shock of the Insult"

In our first reading by Martha Umphrey, I really like how she sets up the reader to make the same mistakes she made when encountering the story of Harry Thaw. She sets us up to expect some version of homosexuality as we know it, only for us to find ourselves (whether from the very beginning, or later, when she describes the difficulties she encountered) unable to define his situation with typical modern terms for sexuality. The whole time I was reading it, I was thinking “Well duh! Just because he had sexual encounters with boys doesn’t mean he’s a flamboyant homosexual, bisexual, insane… whatever. It simply means that he was a human being that at one point in time found his sexual desire directed at younger boys. This is not THAT unusual of phenomena.” She does this so that we better understand where she went wrong and why the homo/hetero binary system comes up short. She then introduces her readers to the term “queer” in a very clear and defined way (or, by definition, unclearly defined), describing the value and uses of the concept. This was very useful to me because I’ve only ever known the term as either “unusual,” or referring to an individual that anyone would identify as GLBTIQ.
Umphrey did leave me a little confused about the nature of “doing queered history” and this concept of recuperating queer historical figures. When it is clear that today’s terminology can’t just be extracted from the context of its origination and placed in any historical setting, how can we even locate, let along recuperate, any historical figures that fit our cause?
The second piece, by Jonathan Ned Katz, I had read for my sophomore inquiry sexualities class. I definitely think I got more out of it this time though! He talks in detail about the contextual limitations of sexual terminology. His last paragraph is especially liberating: Encouraging researchers to consider history and other cultures more objectively and with less influence of modern sexual hypotheses. Imagine what we’d see with such an unbiased eye! But then there’s only so much we, as human beings, can do to see more objectively.
The last reading, by Didier Eribon, I found to be more disappointing than not. It really could have been interesting had it been more focused on how we’re psychologically affected by being labeled/identified by other people in different ways. Instead, Eribon chose to discuss being “insulted” via labeling and name-calling. Maybe it’s just me, but being insulted seems to be a choice. We are only victimized (especially by mere words) if we allow ourselves to be victimized. The author makes it sounds like every negative remark that is (or even seems) to be thrown in our direction has devastating consequences on the formation of our very being. While I definitely think that no individual is immune to both the positive and the negative influence of other people, Eribon’s language sounds like a pathetic plea for pity. In this article, the damage caused by being called a name could be equated with the damage caused by being raped! Eribon needs help, any sort of help that would teach him about self-esteem and self-responsibility. Maybe I’m just being cold-hearted.