Why didn't Foucault consider himself genderqueer?

[Skyhilist]

Foucault has noticed that the gender, and the idea of heteronormative gender roles are social constructs, and that shunning of transgender people is an outgrowth of that.

He seemed to have recognized that the idea of considering oneself "male" or "female" would only cause people to have the influence of heteronormative gender roles forced on them in a more concrete manner. So, given this, why is it that Foucault considered his gender to be male instead of just saying "fuck the arbitrary idea of male vs female", and calling himself genderqueer?

Was it for personal reasons? Perhaps people would use that to focus on Foucault considering himself "genderqueer" instead of focusing on his works or the attributes that he would actually like to define him. Or perhaps he thought most people would mix up sex, gender, and sexual orientation, and think that "genderqueer" meant he had different parts or some hated sexual orientation or something that would also draw attention away from the things that he wanted to be known for. A combination personally why I consider myself a cisgender male when speaking to others instead of "genderqueer", even though I think the gender binary is stupid.

Or perhaps the word "genderqueer" just wasn't really used at all when he was around, or he didn't like the idea of there even being a word for defining gender because he saw it as a useless social construct. Hell, maybe he even just thought it would be difficult to refer to himself and to have other people refer to him without using gender pronouns (I personally use gender pronouns to refer to him, because he consider himself a male). I really have no clue what his stance on this was but am interested. Any insights would be appreciated.

Thanks as always.

[Devrim]

He died in the mid 1980s when 'genderqueer' wasn't used at all.

Devrim

[Skyhilist]

Ah alright thanks. Do you think it's likely that he would have considered himself genderqueer if he had been around today?

[Sabot Cat]

I identify as a girl yet understand that gender is defined by affiliation and non-chosen predispositions to that affiliation. Foucault may have identified as a male despite knowing that being male was a matter of identifying as one (unless he said something to the effect that he didn't prefer to be referenced as a male, or the like) because one's gender isn't invalidated by it not being a Platonic Form or an essential, immutable aspect of the body.

[Skyhilist]

Didn't Foucault think that grouping people based on the social concept of gender was irrational and harmful though? And if so, wouldn't that make him less likely to group himself with the traditional 2 gender groups of "male" or "female"?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

he was pretty much skeptical of any categories and labels and this is one of the most significant aspects of his project.

i'd guess that he'd be as skeptical of the label genderqueer as he was of the traditional binaries.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Being a deconstructionist or postmodernist who is critical of categories doesn't liberate one from said categories. I'm critical of white privilege and the idea of "Race" as a category but I wouldn't view myself in a colorblind way. In fact, thinking of one as without "race" just because "race" is a social construct is a dangerous idea with possibly reactionary consequences.

Also as others said "genderqueer" is not a concept which was around at the time. That, and he would want to deconstruct the notion of "genderqueer" as much as he would "male" and "female"

[Queen Mab]

Philosophers are generally very good at not acting according to their philosophies.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Philosophers are generally very good at not acting according to their philosophies.
in what ways did foucault not act in accordance with his theories?

[Queen Mab]

in what ways did foucault not act in accordance with his theories?

I don't know, I've never read his work. Just making the point about philosophers in general. For example, Hume's behaviour didn't change after he asserted that inductive reasoning was fundamentally flawed.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I don't know, I've never read his work. Just making the point about philosophers in general. For example, Hume's behaviour didn't change after he asserted that inductive reasoning was fundamentally flawed.
foucault pretty much practiced what he "preached", even though it wasn't anything like preaching.

he spent a lot of time fighting with cops and was also very open about his sexuality whilst also seeing the labels put upon him as fairly arbitrary. this was the same for his thought as well, which wasn't easily categorized either. that was his whole point really.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I don't know, I've never read his work. Just making the point about philosophers in general. For example, Hume's behaviour didn't change after he asserted that inductive reasoning was fundamentally flawed.

Remember that Hume argued in his philosophical works that we shouldn't really change our behavior. So no, in that sense he didn't contradict his philosophy in his actions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

he was pretty much skeptical of any categories and labels and this is one of the most significant aspects of his project.

The rejection of categorisation and labels really irks me, because in the first place it is impossible in practical terms (at the most basic level we use categories and labels to organise and distinguish things respectively), and secondly because it seems to be based on the misconception that categories and labels have to be absolute with no room for ambiguity or fuzziness.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The rejection of categorisation and labels really irks me, because in the first place it is impossible in practical terms (at the most basic level we use categories and labels to organise and distinguish things respectively), and secondly because it seems to be based on the misconception that categories and labels have to be absolute with no room for ambiguity or fuzziness.

Skepticism of X does not entail outright rejection of X. Skepticism is merely a critical attitude. Foucault was interested in issues like how power relations define that categorization, not in saying all categories are necessarily "bad"

[Skyhilist]

The rejection of categorisation and labels really irks me, because in the first place it is impossible in practical terms (at the most basic level we use categories and labels to organise and distinguish things respectively), and secondly because it seems to be based on the misconception that categories and labels have to be absolute with no room for ambiguity or fuzziness.

I think his main problem was the role that such arbitrary categories played.

Also thanks to other posters, I understand better now.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Skepticism of X does not entail outright rejection of X. Skepticism is merely a critical attitude. Foucault was interested in issues like how power relations define that categorization, not in saying all categories are necessarily "bad"

Maybe Foucault himself was only critical, but I've seen plenty of people who do seem to outright reject categories and labels. Maybe they weren't paying enough attention?


I think his main problem was the role that such arbitrary categories played.

Categories are only arbitrary if they are used and defined that way.

[ThePeoplesProf]

He died in the mid 1980s when 'genderqueer' wasn't used at all.

Devrim

Yup, this is exactly what I would have replied if I had seen this thread earlier. "Identity politics" really only started to become big after Foucault's death (his work is a strong influence in this field, as are Beauvoir, Butler, et al.). In his lifetime, he very much enjoyed and occasionally wrote about his sexual encounters with other men. He frequented gay saunas/bathhouses and didn't really seem to problematize his participation in these predominantly/sometimes exclusively male-centered spaces.

On a different note, I used to LOVE everything about Foucault, before I was fully Marxist/anti-capitalist. Now, there are really only two of his concepts that I find useful: docile bodies and the panopticon (in Discipline and Punish); the rest, not so much. There are several good reads out there explaining some of the reasons I no longer find Foucault politically useful for the left. I can't post links on RevLeft yet but just search for "Foucault: friend or foe of the left" and see what you think.

[Skyhilist]

Categories are only arbitrary if they are used and defined that way.

Well gender certainly is arbitrary in terms of allocating social roles, at least in most cases. That's mostly what Foucault was arguing against, the use of such a category to create heteronormative gender roles, when in fact in the context of creating social roles, the categorization of "gender" should be somewhat irrelevant.

[ThePeoplesProf]

Well gender certainly is arbitrary in terms of allocating social roles, at least in most cases. That's mostly what Foucault was arguing against, the use of such a category to create heteronormative gender roles, when in fact in the context of creating social roles, the categorization of "gender" should be somewhat irrelevant.

Comrade, Foucault never once used the term "heteronormative" though. You're basically attributing ideas to him that weren't really formulated until after he died... Indeed he influenced them, but it's anachronistic to claim that Foucault himself argued any of what you've said. The term "heteronormative" was popularized in the early 90s (after Foucault's death) by queer theorist Michael Warner ("queer theory" wasn't even a coherent discipline in Foucault's day, despite the fact that his work was and continues to be influential to the field).

Of course I agree with you that social roles should be divorced from gender, but for this to happen, we need to get rid of capitalism, the system that depends on sexism, racism, heterosexism, homophobia, trans*phobia, etc. to survive by dividing and conquering the majority of people to keep in place the wealth, status and power of the privileged few. I would recommend that you check out any of the following authors' works if you're interested in reading more historical materialist analyses of gender, sexuality, race, etc.

*Angela Davis: Women, Race and Class
*David Berry: "For a Dialectic of Homosexuality and Revolution" (an analysis of the work of French anarcho-communist openly bi writer and activist Daniel Guérin)
*Friedrich Engels: The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State
*John D'Emilio: "Capitalism and Gay Identity"
*Lise Vogel: Marxism and the Oppression of Women
*Martha Gimenez: "Marxism and Class, Gender and Race: Rethinking the Trilogy"
*Selma James: Marx and Feminism; Sex, Race & Class
*Sharon Smith: Women and Socialism: Essays on Women's Liberation
*Sherry Wolf: Sexuality and Socialism: History, Politics and Theory of LGBT Liberation
*Silvia Federici: Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation; Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle

[ThePeoplesProf]

Hey comrade Chomsssssssky. I'm just wondering whether you found my comments and suggestions helpful. I hope they made sense.