Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide

Content Warning: This section of the guide includes discussion of antigay bias and transgender discrimination.

Tyson opens the chapter by noting that many students are unaware of the LGBTQ+ background of authors in the Western canon, such as Langston Hughes or Walt Whitman, because their teachers do not educate them about it. She connects the subject’s neglect by the academy to its neglect by literary critics. Lesbian, gay, and queer criticism is a mode of Literary Analysis as a Form of Social Justice because it addresses the marginalization and representation of LGBTQ+ people in literature specifically and society more generally.

The Marginalization of LGBTQ People

Tyson begins with a discussion of Lillian Faderman’s analysis of critic responses to the “Boston marriage,” or a relationship between two women, as depicted in The Bostonians (1885) by Henry James. Faderman argues that critics’ interpretations of the novel as depicting a woman (Verena) being “saved” from a same-sex relationship by a man (Basil) are not reflected in the text but are rather an expression of their own antigay bias.

Tyson then gives a brief history of antigay prejudice and LGBTQ+ rights in the United States, with an emphasis on the ongoing discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ people despite the legalization of gay marriage in 2015. She counters some common antigay beliefs, like the beliefs that LGBTQ+ people are evil, unnatural, or sexually predatory. She defines key terms, including the following:

• Heterosexism: discrimination against gay and lesbian people on the assumption that being straight is “normal” and being gay is “abnormal”

• Heteronormativity: societal pressure to be heterosexual

• Cisnormative: society pressure to be cisgendered or have a gender identity that aligns with gender assigned at birth

• Homophobia: fear of, or aversion to, gay people

• Heteropatriarchy: antigay bias promoted by patriarchal systems

• Internalized (homo-, lesbo-, trans-, etc.) phobia: a fear or aversion felt by a person of a marginalized community toward themselves or others in their community

• Heterocentrism: the assumption that everyone is heterosexual

She describes examples of “everyday” antigay behavior like “the use of the word gay as a synonym for stupid” (279).

She notes that bisexual and transgender criticism are not included as distinct frameworks in this chapter because there is a paucity of sources in these domains.

Lesbian Criticism

Tyson notes that there is a lot of overlap between lesbian criticism and feminist criticism (Chapter 4) because they both contest the patriarchy. However, lesbian criticism focuses on “both sexism and heterosexism” and is particularly attuned to intersectional analysis (280). 

Lesbian criticism broadly defines a lesbian as “a woman whose sexual desire is directed toward women” (280), even if this attraction is not actuated. Writer Adrienne Rich uses the phrase “lesbian continuum” to describe how a “woman-identified woman,” a woman whose dominant orientation and engagement is within social spheres of women, may engage in desire whether or not that desire is sexual or acted upon.

Heterosexuality is a core component of the patriarchy because it is a mode by which men control women’s bodies and normalize that control. Some lesbians politically confront this intertwined dynamic by becoming separatists who form communities only with other lesbians. Others perform separatisms on a less radical scale by, say, “refusing to watch sexist television programs” (282).

Tyson uses this framework to discuss the complexities around identifying a lesbian text. Since lesbian identities have been historically marginalized and/or are fluid and differently constituted across time, lesbian identities might be coded or implicit in an author’s life or her writings. Tyson describes lesbian critics’ analyses of My Antonia by Willa Cather and the work of Emily Dickinson as examples of identifying lesbian texts. For example, Paula Bennett highlights the “homoerotic dimension” of Dickinson’s work, such as “female sexual images” like “My Cactus—splits her Beard / To show her throat” (283). Tyson notes that lesbian critics may also apply lesbian critical analysis to works featuring female heterosexual characters, like Barbara Smith’s analysis of the female friendship in Sula by Toni Morrison.

Tyson then gives a non-exhaustive list of other goals of lesbian critics, including creating a lesbian literary canon, analyzing the characterization of lesbians in literary classics, and assessing intersections of lesbian identity with other aspects of identity like class, race, etc. in literature.

Gay Criticism 

Tyson opens the section on gay criticism with the argument that, unlike lesbian criticism, gay criticism often does not focus on defining the meaning of “gay.” Despite the cultural and historical heterogeneity of gay identity, “gay” is typically taken to mean a man who has sexual desire for other men. Gay criticism, instead, emphasizes "gay sensibility," referring to how gay identity influences one’s perspectives, feelings, cultural creation, and cultural consumption.

Tyson focuses on what she describes as three aspects of “gay sensibility”: drag, camp, and the AIDS crisis. Drag is a heightened, outsized gender performance of the opposite gender (e.g., a man wearing women’s clothes). It is a method of challenging heteronormative assumptions of sexuality and gender. Tyson asserts that camp is “a kind of exuberant self-expression characterized by irreverence, artifice, exaggeration, and theatricality” (284), as seen in performers like Lady Gaga or Cher. It is used to challenge heterosexism and create joy. 

Tyson then gives a brief history of the AIDS crisis. In the 1980s, medical professionals and heterosexist society more broadly were slow to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic because it was seen as a “gay disease” until gay-led protest movements pushed for action. This became a moment of solidarity between the gay and lesbian communities.

Tyson then gives a non-exhaustive list of goals of gay critics, including creating a gay literary canon, analyzing the sexual politics of literary works, and/or “correcting” literary analyses that overlook the gay sensibilities of works. Tyson gives three examples of gay critical analysis: Karl Keller’s analysis of camp in Walt Whitman’s poetic voice, Nicholas Radel’s analysis of gay identity in the works of Edmund White, and Jack Babuscio’s analysis of camp, drag, and gay sensibility in Tennessee Williams’s female protagonists, such as Blanche DuBois from A Streetcar Named Desire.

Queer Criticism

Tyson begins with a discussion of the contested term “queer.” While it has historically had antigay and derogatory uses, some members of the LGBTQ+ community have reappropriated the word as a sign of pride and to contest the stigma of the term. Furthermore, “queer” is interpreted by some as an inclusive term to denote the commonalities shared by the LGBTQ+ community. “Queer” is used in the domain of “queer theory” rather than “gay,” “lesbian,” etc. because queer theory holds that sexuality is a fluid spectrum and that there are not clear binary divisions between gay/straight, man/woman, etc. 

Queer theorists argue that sexuality cannot be entirely defined by “object choice” (i.e., the sex or gender of the object of desire) but instead encompasses a variety of behaviors, desires, and beliefs. Similarly, Judith Butler and other queer theorists argue that gender is not “biologically essential” but rather a performance of “socially constructed” coded behaviors and therefore fluid. Taken together, most queer theorists hold that sexuality and gender must be analyzed in the context of the cultural milieu in which they are situated, while taking into account the lack of binary divisions between categories.

Tyson describes the goal of queer criticism to be the analysis of representations of sexuality and gender that fail to account for “the dynamic range of human sexuality and gender behavior” (291). For example, a queer reading of “A Rose for Emily” by William Faulkner might examine the way traditional models of gender identity and sexuality fail to account for the masculine gender presentation of Emily Grierson and the gay aspects of Homer Barron’s courtship of her. 

Tyson also summarizes Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s queer analysis of Walt Whitman’s “Song of Myself,” which argues that the work is not homoerotic but rather “transcends” traditional interpretations of sexuality based on object choice. Finally, Tyson summarizes a queer reading of Beloved by Toni Morrison and the work’s transgressions of “traditional notions of sexuality and of the natural” through an analysis of the relationships between Beloved, Sethe, Denver, and Paul B (293).

Tyson notes that queer criticism is a “deconstructive project” and therefore complex and “slippery,” as seen in the other examples of deconstructive readings in Chapter 8.

Some Shared Features of Lesbian, Gay, and Queer Criticism

Tyson summarizes some shared features of lesbian, gay, and queer literary criticism:

• Homosocial bonding: analysis of same-sex relationships, whether erotic or not (e.g., Huck and Jim in Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn)

• Homoerotic imagery: analysis of images “that imply same-sex attraction” (294; e.g., the language to describe Ishmael and Queequeg’s relationship in Herman Melville’s Moby Dick)

• Same-sex “doubles”: analysis of same-sex characters with shared characteristics, regardless of affective bonds (e.g., Daisy and Jordan in The Great Gatsby)

• Transgressive sexuality: analysis of representations of sexual taboos, including extramarital affairs (although only as one aspect among other queer elements)

Some Questions Lesbian, Gay, and Queer Critics Ask About Literary Texts

Tyson provides a series of questions that summarize lesbian, gay, and queer critical approaches to literature (296-97):

1. To what extent does the work reinforce “heteropatriarchal ideology”?

2. How does the work address antigay bias or transgender discrimination?

3. In what ways does the work portray LGBTQ+ people and their lives?

4. How does the work reveal the LGBTQ+ interests of a closeted author?

5. Does the work have implicit LGBTQ+ elements?

6. To what extent does the work use specifically LGBTQ+ formal literary elements, e.g., literary devices, themes?

7. How does the work complicate and/or contribute to understandings of sexuality and gender?

Will the Real Nick Carraway Please Come Out? A Queer Reading of The Great Gatsby

In her queer reading of The Great Gatsby, Tyson argues that it is “a sexually ambiguous novel” in that it is a “heterosexual plot” narrated by Nick Carraway “through the medium of a closeted gay sensibility” and that this reflects the author F. Scott Fitzgerald’s own “sexual ambiguity” (297).

Tyson begins the essay with the argument that The Great Gatsby has queer subtext due to the proliferation of transgressive, extramarital affairs in the plot and the “riotous parties” replete with gay symbolism like “same-sex ‘doubles’” (identical girls in yellow dresses). Tyson then analyzes the exchanges between Nick and the effete Mr. McKee, using textual evidence to argue that they have homoerotic subtext. 

Next, she assesses Gatsby’s flamboyant fashion sense as gay-coded and Jordan Baker’s masculinity as lesbian-coded. Having established this, she then argues that Nick is a closeted man with gay sensibilities, as seen in his fascination with Gatsby’s sexual contact with Daisy and his view of Jordan “as a young boy” (301).

Tyson argues that Nick, as a gay narrator, shapes the reader’s understanding of the sexuality and gender identities of the other characters because he focuses on their queer aspects. However, Nick is largely unaware of his own gay desire, as evidenced by his puritanical, performatively heterosexual behaviors that protest a little too much. He nevertheless leaves “gay cues,” such as when he speaks desirously about Jordan’s “faint moustache of perspiration” (305).

Tyson then examines the biography of Fitzerald and notes his experimentations with drag, his fascination with gay sexuality (to the point of antigay prejudice), and his penchant for “transgressive” sexual liaisons. She argues that Fitzgerald’s interest in, and ambiguous feelings toward, sexuality and gender identity are reflected in ambiguous representations of queerness in The Great Gatsby.

Questions for Further Practice: Lesbian, Gay, and Queer Approaches to Other Works

Tyson provides model questions to guide gay, lesbian, and/or queer critical literary analysis. These questions explore how LGBTQ+ concepts, such as representation, heteronormativity, and gender identity, can deepen a reader’s understanding of texts. Topics include the following (307):

1. Heteropatriarchal ideology in Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit by Jeanette Winterson, with a particular emphasis on organized religion in the work

2. Heteronormativity in Maurice by E. M. Forster, focusing on the relationships between Maurice and Alec and between Maurice and Clive

3. Gender identity in Orlando: A Biography by Virginia Woolf

4. The homoerotic subtext in Frankenstein, especially as it relates to the relationships between the characters

5. Representations of sexuality in The Bluest Eye, with a particular focus on the characters’ relationships to men, sex, food, and each other