Queer Identity Theory

Gabriel Garcia Roman’s Queer Icons project creates tension between queer identity and religious narrative in a way that ultimately allows queer bodies to occupy a new, exalted position that they have previously been disciplined out of. This is done by engaging in a queer politics and renegotiating the positions queer bodies are allowed to occupy. According to Jagose (1996), “there is no agreement on the exact definition of queer” as “the interdependent spheres of activism and theory that constitute its necessary context have undergone various shifts” (p. 76). For the purposes of this analysis, queer theory will be defined as an area of rhetorical criticism and theorizing about sex and gender that aims to deconstruct identity labels and advocate
for fluidity, instability, or nuance of identity, presentation, and action. The goal of queer theory is to “[disrupt] traditional configurations of sex, gender, and sexuality” (Morrish and O’Mara, 2011, p. 982). In order to truly disrupt normative systems, queer theory must “[interrogate] social processes and systems that produce and sustain dominant and marginalized identities” (Chevrette, 2013, p. 180). Because of its interest in dismantling oppressive institutions, queer theory goes beyond identity and can be applied in different fields. Althaus-Reid and Isherwood (2007), as well as Valles-Morales and LeMaster (2015), provide two examples of how queer theory moves beyond communication studies and identity politics. Althaus-Reid and Isherwood (2007) theorize Queer Theology, “a political and sexual queering of theology which goes beyond the gender paradigm of thinking of the early years of feminist theology but also transcends the fixed assumptions of lesbian and gay theology” (p. 305). This theory, like all iterations of queer theory is fundamentally political; its goal is to “de-mystify, undo, and subvert” normative structures (p. 305, 311). Valles-Morales’ and LeMaster’s (2015) theory of queer of color criticism provides a “multidimensional analytic approach to criticism” (p. 77). This theory focuses on the multiple identities that bodies can enact at one time and how those are negotiated (p. 79). Disciplinarity is a theory, originally formulated by Michel Foucault, that deals with the ways people are discursively coerced into particular acts and identities.
Individuals find their identities, or “subjectifications,” through a process of “disciplinary coercion” that “[establishes] the basis of identity and social intelligibility” (Green, 2010, p. 319). Disciplinarity is commonly utilized when studying where particular groups of people are allowed to exist and what acts individuals are allowed to engage in. In her article “Queer Critical Rhetoric Bites Back,” Rand (2013) poses the question: can queer rhetorical studies appear to the various gatekeepers of the field as making potentially radical theoretical interventions or must it always me contained as ‘merely’ queer criticism, caricatured by the most hackneyed lamentations of homophobic discourse that are as self-evident as they are easily ignored? (p. 534)
This question comments on the places queer theorists have been disciplined into occupying within the academy. According to Rand, queer rhetorical studies is often viewed as less valuable than other theoretical studies and is thus disciplined into a relegated position within
academia.

Jana Sawicki (1991), in her book Disciplining Foucault, engages with disciplinarity by proposing a politics of difference, one that “[redefines] our differences” and allows us to “[learn] from them” (p. 28). Roman’s Queer Icons does just that. Queer individuals are regularly excluded from or condemned by religious narratives, but Roman’s work redefines individuals commonly viewed as different or deviant as venerable and praiseworthy. This redefinition allows queer individuals to be viewed in new ways. Roman’s Queer Icons project engages in a political argument about both queer theory and identity as well as disciplinarity. Queer Icons makes a statement about where queer bodies are allowed to exist and thus disrupts conventional notions of queer identity, especially within the context of religion by placing queer individuals in venerated spaces through art. The exigency of this project is best communicated in Chevrette’s (2013) article “Outing Heteronormativity in Interpersonal and Family Communication: Feminist Applications of Queer Theory ‘Beyond the Sexy Streets’”:
Discursive violence, or the ‘words, gestures, tones, images, presentations, and omissions used to differentially treat, degrade, pathologize, and represent lesbian and gay subjectivity and experience’’ (Yep, 2003), can be unintentionally replicated in interpersonal and family communication research through both the use of the comparative framework and the ongoing erasure of queer subjects. This discursive violence can perpetuate material violence in the form of LGBTQ individuals’ self-hatred or self-destructive behavior, or in the form of homophobia and hate crimes. It is therefore crucial that interpersonal communication scholars engage in disciplinary reflexivity to avoid reproducing discursive or material violence. (p. 184) In the article “Outlaws or In-Laws?”, Wilcox (2006) writes that one way to include LGBT individuals in religious spaces is to disrupt sacred texts (p. 78). This makes the “queer [Christian] visible” while simultaneously “spoiling or interfering with the tradition” that has rendered this individual invisible in the first place (p. 78). In Queer Icons, Roman portrays queer-identified individuals as the saints and venerated figures of traditional religious iconography. Roman participates in the “collective identity construction in social movements” that Slagle (1995) theorizes in “In defense of Queer Nation: From identity politics to a politics of difference” (p.
88). There are three elements of this construction: boundaries, consciousness, and negotiation (p. 88, 92). The creation of boundaries “highlight[s] differences between a marginalized group and the dominant culture” (p. 88). This is done in Roman’s work through the title; naming the work Queer Icons signifies that it presents queer individuals rather than heterosexual and cisgender individuals. Slagle (1995) describes consciousness as “the process by which groups come to understand themselves as a collective in opposition to an oppressive group” (p. 92). Roman is conscious of the fact that his “images give visibility to a population that’s generally under-represented in the art world” (WEBSITE) Negotiation refers to “the symbols and everyday actions subordinate groups use to resist and restructure existing systems of domination” (p. 92). This is the work that Roman’s Queer Icons is engaged in. By placing queer bodies into holy, venerated positions, he is restructuring the religious institutions that regularly oppress and marginalize queer
individuals. Roman applies queer theory and disciplinarity in his Queer Icons project in specific ways. “Kia,” like all other images in the project, has more than one print in different colors and patterns, speaking to the fluidity and nuance of identity that queer theory posits. The subject is also placed directly in the center of the image, moving her out of the margins that queer women of color are so often relegated to, both within religious narratives and outside of them. Her hands are held in a manner that traditionally connotes teaching, thus placing her in a position of authority. Kia is also given a halo, like each subject in the project, to imply a venerated or celebrated status. Gabriel Garcia Roman’s Queer Icons project renegotiates the positions queer bodies have been disciplined into and engages in a queer politics to do so. The project ultimately does the work of queer theory by bringing queer individuals into visible and celebrated spaces that they are usually barred from by normative institutions.