THE QUEER THEORY

The only difference between the Queer Theory and Gay/Lesbian studies is that- Gay/Lesbian studies focus only on the question of homosexuality while Queer theory, investigates, researches, and politically critiques anything that may fall under deviant and normative categories and mostly based on sexual identities and activities1. From the dictionary definition, the term Queer means something that is out of the ordinary or odd. Queer Theory, therefore, seeks to look at any type of sexuality that is ‘out of the ordinary'. This means that the theory focuses majorly on sexualities that are ‘queer' and looks at what strategies are used to define the term ‘normal' and what is ‘queer'. This theory expands its roots to deeper grounds of looking at all kinds of behavior such as the ones which are gender-bending and those which are ‘queer' non-normative sexuality2.

Majority of urban gay men, homosexuality is a key determinant of their identity because they are exclusively involved with gay circles in places they live, work and socializes. These type of people are defined as lifestylers or the peacocks. There is also another group of gay people as described by Brekhus as Commuters or the Chameleons. Just as the name goes, this type of people changes with the surrounding. “They work and live in the suburbs primarily identifying as straight in their conventional and suburban settings but lead an intense gay social and sexual life outside the suburbs”4. In other words, the person must have a “core self”, “the true” self which is at the “core of every person that reflects the inner unchanging context-independent essence of human beings.

”8 Backhaus posits that there are three major identity types which he refers to as the identity grammars. This is because there is a grammar through which the structure of the identity is established. With regards to the persona and the integration of the three identity grammars, I believe that everyone fits into the criteria of these concepts. The first of the identity grammars is the identity peacocks. These characteristics project on how much I am committed to my identity. In the same context, it is reasonable to infer that the social networks dictate a lot about how much straight I remain. All my friends are straight; this means that they will easily notice when I start expressing gay traits. In the same context, I would notice when one of my friends starts showing such traits.

This is because as Brekhus puts it “in general, marked identities require more commitment than unmarked and thus produce more lifestylers"10. For instance, I identify as a person with multiple specialized pieces of knowledge. This means that the way I talk with my friends is entirely different from the way I talk to my parents or relatives. In the same context it is reasonable to infer that just like the sexual identity of being gay, I have to travel back home in China for my expression to change. In simpler terms, I have separable audiences for my behavior and social identity, the way I communicate with women and females is different from the way I communicate with my male friends. In the same context, my language traits change depending on the availability of a given cluster of people such as older people than I am.

In fact for the gay type, they only engage in gay activities when they need to fulfill the need. It is critical to note that these behaviors are done low-key and subtle to evade the public eye or the social network's concern. In simpler terms, the behavior is kept a secret while the person enjoys their stay in marked or committed identity grammars. As an integrator, there is a noticeable expression of interleaved commitments. Brekhus argues that the gay identity among gays for centaur is just but one of the different identities that they assume in different sexual orientations and audiences11. Lastly and most importantly, I have multi-dimensional social networks of this behavior. It is critical to note that as an integrator you work harder to satisfy all the different needs.