Alicia Cowern

SOC395: History of Sociological Thought

Queering Sociology, Sociologizing Queer Theory

November 7, 2018

Queering Sociology, Sociologizing Queer Theory is essentially Seidman’s criticism of the lack of

sociological involvement within theories and research on sexuality. Seidman’s work also addresses the

historical events and public debates as well as development of Queer theory within other social science

fields with the intention to emphasize to the need for sociological contribution within the domain of

sexuality. Seidman uses these criticisms and a historical timeline to simultaneously explain the

progression of queer theories. While it is important to acknowledge the historical influence on the

development of sexuality theories as well as to emphasize the need for sociological input, I believe that

the importance of Seidman’s writing lies in his condemnation of classical sociological theory and the final

definition of queer theory.

While Seidman condemns sociology in general, he specifically chastises classical sociologists

[Marx, Weber, and Durkheim] for their obvious avoidance of sexuality, pointing to specific, influential

missing pieces within their work. “Marx analyzed the social reproduction and organization of labor but

not the process by which laborers are physically reproduced… [Weber] traced the rise of modern

capitalism, the modern state, formal law, modern cities, a culture of high risk taking individualism but

virtually nothing to say concerning the making of the modern regime of sexuality”(Kivisto 610).

Seidman points out that these major theories which influence much of sociological thought today are

missing one major factor, sexuality. According to Seidman, this failure to include such a major aspect of

society has a direct correlation to the sexual identities of the theorists themselves. “Just as the

bourgeoisie assert the naturalness of class inequality and of their rule, individuals whose social identity is
that of male and heterosexual do not question the naturalness of a male-dominated, normatively

heterosexual social order” (Kivisto 610). The lack of questioning explains why these theorists would be

blind to the influence of sexuality within society and thus blind to any influence within their theories.

Seidman goes as far as to say that this male focus could arguably be the driving force behind the “making

of this regime [society] whose center is the hetero/homo binary and the heterosexualization of

society” (Kivisto 611).

At this point in his writing, Seidman switches to a historical examination. Where it seems to me

he is not only explaining the development of Queer theory but also supporting his argument on the

‘making of this regime.’ Seidman examines the correlation between feminist movements and lesbian

queer movement with the progression of psychoanalysis, psychiatry, and Freudian theory (Dillion 379).

As he recounts these movements and the societal debates around them, Seidman strategically analyzes

the development of the queer theory thus identifying the relationship between the theory and sociology.

The beginning of the movements focused on acknowledging, understanding, and legitimizing the

existence of different sexual identities. As this acknowledgement and acceptance grew to be second

nature to most, then began the transition to thinking of sexual identities, and more specifically identities

in general, as intersectional, thus the birth of queer theory.

While queer theory does not directly mention the concept of intersectionality, it is clear based on

the focus of theory that this concept is central to the theory entirely. “Queer theorists argue that

identities are always multiple or at best composites, with an infinite number of ways in which “identity-

components” (e.g., sexual orientation, race, class, nationality, gender, age, baldness) can intersect of

combine” (Kivisto 615). Intersectionality is the idea that within groups of people with a common

identity there exist internal differences. In other words, an individual experiences within society, or

within specific social institutions, are slightly differently than someone else who may identify similarly to
them. This is because each of their identities reflect overlapping oppressions. Queer theory goes on to

explain “Identity constructions necessarily entail the silencing or exclusion of some experiences or forms

of life” (Kivisto 615). Essentially, the theory argues that by leaving the concept of identity undefined

there is encouragement for the public to have a voice and to speak up. While this remains a main factor of

the theory, there has been much shift to focus the study less on the specific oppression of identities and

more on the specific ways in which this oppression occurs within social structures. “Queer theory is

suggesting that the study of homosexuality should not be a study of minority - the making of the lesbian/

gay/bisexual/subject- but a study of those knowledge and social practices which organize “society” as a

whole by sexualizing -heterosexualizing or homosexualizing- bodies, desires, acts, identities, social

relations, knowledges, culture, and social institutions” (616). Essentially, queer theorists are striving to

transform the theory into one which would analyze society as a whole. It is this specific shift which

Seidman’s draws from to establish a relationship between sociology and queer theory.