Posted on

Historicising Modern Bisexuality. Vice Versa emphasises the universal nature and presence of bisexuality

Historicising Modern Bisexuality. Vice Versa emphasises the universal nature and presence of bisexuality

Original Essays

Theorists such as Angelides (2001) and Du Plessis (1996) agree that bisexuality’s lack happens maybe perhaps not through neglect but through an erasure that is structural. This–≤–ā—öideologically bound inability to imagine bisexuality concretely –≤–ā¬¶ is common to various –≤–ā¬ėtheories–≤–ā‚ĄĘ –≤–ā¬¶ from Freudian to –≤–ā¬ėFrench feminist–≤–ā‚ĄĘ to Anglophone film theory, from popular sexology to queer theory–≤–ā—ú (p for Du Plessis. 22). Along side Wark (1997) , Du Plessis and Angelides are critical of theorists such as for instance Judith Butler, Eve Sedgwick, Diana Fuss, Elizabeth Grosz, as well as other critics central to queer concept for their not enough engagement with bisexuality. Christopher James (1996) has additionally noted the –≤–ā—öexclusion of bisexuality being a structuring silence–≤–ā—ú within much queer, gay and theory that is lesbianp. 232). James contends that theories of –≤–ā—ömutual interiority–≤–ā—ú (the theorisation associated with –≤–ā—östraight–≤–ā—ú in the queer and vice versa) are acclimatized to elide bisexuality (p. 232).

A good example of the nature that is problematic of bisexuality in queer concept is Eve Sedgwick’s (1990) mapping of contemporary sex across the poles of –≤–ā—öuniversalizing–≤–ā—ú and –≤–ā—öminoritizing–≤–ā—ú (p. 85). For Sedgwick, intimate definitions such as for example –≤–ā—ögay–≤–ā—ú will designate a minority that is distinct while in addition suggesting that sexual interest includes a universalising impulse; that –≤–ā—öapparently heterosexual people and item choices are highly marked by same-sex impacts and desires, and vice-versa for evidently homosexual ones–≤–ā—ú (p. 85). Continue reading Historicising Modern Bisexuality. Vice Versa emphasises the universal nature and presence of bisexuality