Sexuality and gender in contemporary women's Gothic fiction - Angela Carter's and Anne Rice's Vampires: Angela Carter's and Anne Rice's Vampires

SEXUALITY AND GENDER IN

CONTEMPORARY WOMEN’S GOTHIC FICTION:

ANGELA CARTER’S AND ANNE RICE’S VAMPIRES

Belo Horizonte Faculdade de Letras

SEXUALITY AND GENDER IN CONTEMPORARY WOMEN’S

GOTHIC FICTION: ANGELA CARTER’S AND ANNE RICE’S

VAMPIRES

by

FernandaeSousaeCarvalho

SubmittedetoetheeProgramaedeePós-graduaçãoeemeLetras:eEstudoseLiterárioseinepartiale fulfillmenteofetheerequirementseforetheedegreeeofeMestreeemeLiteraturasedeeExpressãoeInglesa.

ThesiseAdvisor:eSandraeReginaeGoularteAlmeida,ePhD

BeloeHorizonte FaculdadeedeeLetras

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

e

Toemyegrandmother,eAnaeRosa,ewhoeisenotehereephysicallyetoeseeemeeachievingemyeobjectives,e butewhoecontinuesetoebeetheeinspirationeforeeverythingethateIeameandeforeeverythingeIewantetoebe. Toemyemother,eErnestina,etheesourceeofemyestrength,etheeprovidereofeunconditionaleloveeande support,eandeaneexampleeforeme.

ToemyefathereJoséeAntônio,etoemyesistereNancy,eandetoemyebrothereBráulio, eforetheirecare,e supporteandeunderstanding.

ToemyeuncleeJoséeInácio,eforesoegenerouslyegivingemeetheeopportunityetoepursuitemyeobjectives,e andetoeallemyerelativesewhoecaredeaboutemeeandesupportedemyeprofessionalechoices.

Toemyeallefriendseandecolleagues,eforetheirewordseofeaffectioneandeencouragement.

ABSTRACT

Inethisethesis,eIeprovideeaneanalysiseofeAngelaeCarter’seandeAnneeRice’seworksebasedeone theiredepictioneofevampires.eMyecorpuseisecomposedeofeCarter’seshortestoriese“TheeLoveseofe LadyePurple”eande“TheeLadyeofetheeHouseeofeLove”eandeofeRice’senovelseThe Vampire Lestat

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION

[T]he e principal e value e of e studying e fantasye fiction e is e to e provide e us e with e a e negativee psychology, e access e to e the e denied e hopes e ande aspirationseofeaeculture.eButeifethiseisetrue,etheree is e a e more e specific e value e to e Gothic, e which e ise that, e unlike e Utopian e fiction, e it e actuallye demonstrates e within e itself e the e mechanismse whicheenforceenon-fulfillment.e(Puntere188)e

thatetheedepictioneofesomeesupernaturalecharacterseinecontemporaryegothicefictionewrittenebye womenereflectsetheeviewseonetheeissueseofesexualityeandegenderedevelopedeinetheirehistoricale context.eMyeaimehereeisetoeidentifyetheseeviewsethrougheaecomparativeeanalysiseofecharacterse depicted e by e two e late-twentieth e century e women e writers: e Angela e Carter’s e and e Anne e Rice’se vampires.

Ieargueeinemyeworkethatetheseewriters’egothicedepictioneofevampiresereflectsetheedebatese onegendereandesexualityethatetakeeplaceeinethee1970seande1980s.eTheevampireeinethisehistoricale contextebecomeseaneimportantemetaphoreforetheedesireseandefearseconcerningesexualeliberation,e related e respectively e to e feminists’ e and e homosexuals’ e claims e for e sexual e freedom, e and e to e thee dangereofetheeconsequenceseofethisefreedom,erepresentedemainlyebyetheeAIDSeepidemic.eIne Carter’seandeRice’sestories,etheevampires’econditioneaseoutcastseofehumanityeisebotheaefreedome andeaecurse:etheyecanefreelyesatisfyetheirebloodelust,ebut,easeaneinevitableeconsequence,etheye contaminate e their e victims. e This e thesis e is e informed e by e four e different e approaches, e which e Ie correlateeineorderetoeconstructetheetheoreticaleapparatusethatesupportsetheseearguments.ee

Theefirsteapproacheisetheecomparison,einetermseofeliteraryegenreeandethematiceconcerns,e ofetwoewritersethateareeofteneconsideredeveryedifferentefromeeacheother.eIndeed,eAngelaeCartere andeAnneeRiceedifferesignificantly,eespeciallyeinetermseofestyle.eTheeformereiseconsideredeae postmodernewriter,ewhoseewritingeisesophisticated,edenseeandecomplex,emixingedifferenteliterarye traditionseineaedisruptiveeaway.eTheelattereiseaepopularewritereofebestesellers,erelatedetoemasse cultureeandelesserevisedeineacademicecriticismeinecomparisonetoetheeformer.eProbablyebecauseeofe suchedifferences,ethereeareenoeworksethateoffereaedirectecomparisonebetweeneCartereandeRice.eIne thisesense,etheecomparativeeanalysiseIeintendetoemakeehereebetweenetheseewriterseprovesetoebee relevant e for e two e reasons: e they e have e never e been e compared e before1_{e and e their e works e are e note}

1_{eInemyeresearch,eIelookedeforeworksethatecompareeCarter’seandeRice’seworkseatewebsiteselikee}

usuallyediscussedewithesucheemphasiseuponetheiregothicecharacteristics.eIebelieveethatesucheane approacheisepossibleebecauseeofeCarter’seandeRice’secommoneuseeofetheevampire.eIteisethroughe vampireecharacters,eIeargue,ethatetheeworkseofebothewritersepresentediscourseseagainstesexuale repressioneandetheesocialeimpositioneofegendereroles.e

Ineorderetoeprovideeaecomparisonebetweenetheedepictionseofevampiresepresentedebyethesee twoewriters,etheecorpusetoebeestudiedehereeconsistseofeAngelaeCarter’seshortestoriese“TheeLovese of e Lady e Purple” e and e “The e Lady e of e thee Housee of e Love,”e and e of e Annee Rice’s e novels eThe Vampire LestateandeThe Queen of the Damned.eCarter’seshortestorieseareeparteofetheecollectionse

Fireworks: Nine Profane Pieces and eThe Bloody Chamber and Other Stories,e respectively.e Theyeareeversionseofefamousefairyetalese(“SleepingeBeautyeinetheeWood”einetheecaseeofe“Thee LadyeofetheeHouseeofeLove,”eande“Pinocchio”einetheecaseeofe“TheeLoveseofeLadyePurple”)e mixedewithefolkloriceandeliteraryeaccountseofetheevampireemyth,eportrayingewomeneineaewaye thatedisruptsetheiretraditionalerepresentations.eRice’senovelseareerespectivelyetheesecondeandethee thirdevolumeseinetheeserieseVampire Chronicles.eTheyepresenteaewholeemythologyeofetheeorigine of e these e creatures e and e their e struggles e to e understand e existential e and e moral e issues e in e theire conditioneofeimmortalepredators.e

MyesecondeapproacheinethisethesiseconsistseofeconsideringeCarter’seandeRice’seuseeofe vampireecharacterseaeparticularewayeofeexploitingeelementseofegothicefiction.eIeargueehereethate theseewritersebelongetoetheesameebrancheofegothicefictionerelatedetoethee1970seande1980s.eBye usingetheelabele“contemporaryegothicefictionewrittenebyewomen”etoereferetoetheeworkseanalyzede inethisethesis,emyeintentioneisenotetoedefineeaetotallyenewetraditionethatemakeseaecomparisone betweeneCartereandeRiceepossible,ebutetoeemphasizeehoweeachetermeofethiselabelecontributesetoeae discussioneofetheeissueseofesexualityeandegenderethatereflectsethee1970seande1980s.eHowever,e there e are e no e simple e definitions e for e the e term e gothic e fiction, e for e what e can e be e called e ae contemporary e form e of e gothic e fiction, e or e for e what e is e particular e in e gothic e works e written e bye women.eTheorieseabouteeacheofetheseetermseareediscussedeineChaptere1,ewhicheconsistseofemye theoreticaleapparatus.eTheeworkseofeBottingeandePuntereareeusedetoepointeoutetheemainefeaturese ofegothiceliteratureetoebeeconsideredeinemyeapproacheregardingetheeworksebyeAnneeRiceeande AngelaeCartereaseparteofethisetradition.eMyediscussioneaboutetheecontemporaryeconfigurationeofe gothic e fiction e is e based e on e thee works e of e Botting, e Punter, e and e Veeder, e which e offer e relevante argumentseforemyechoiceetoeclassifyetheeworkseanalyzedehereeasecontemporaryegothicefiction.e Throughetheebibliographicaleresearcheaboutetheegothicetraditioneandefeministeliteraryecriticismeine thisesameefirstechapter,eIeinvestigateetraitsethateareeconsideredetoebeecharacteristiceofegothice fictionewrittenebyelate-twentiethecenturyewomen,einetermseofeliteraryedeviceseandeideologicale discourses.eTheeworkseofeBecker,eWilliams,eandeWintereareetheebasiseofethiseresearcheforetheire attemptetoedefineetheecharacteristicseofetheeso-calledefemaleegothic.eTheeworkseofeMoi,eHumm,e Hutcheon,eandeWeedoneareebasicesourceseforetheeelucidationeofetheefeministeimplicationseofemye approachetoeCarter’seandeRice’sestorieseaseparteofeaetraditioneofewomen’segothicefiction.

consider e in e this e thesis e theories e related e to e the e psychological, e cultural e and e social e aspects e ofe sexualityeandegender.eTheeworkseofeButler,eCastro,eChodorow,eGlovereandeKaplan,eGoodman,e Grosz,eMoi,eRubin,eSedgwick,eWeeks,eandeWolfeconsisteofetheemainesourceseforetheedefinitionse ofesexualityeandegendereandeforetheediscussionseofetheeimplicationseofetheseeissuesethateIeuseeine my e theoretical e apparatus. e I e rely e mainly e on e Butler’s e theories e about e gender, e on e Foucault’se argumentseaboutetheehistoryeofesexuality,eandeoneKristeva’senotioneofetheeabjectetoeexploreethee possibilitieseofetheeuseeofetheevampireefigureetoerepresentediscussionseofetheeissueseofesexualitye andegender.eTheeworkeofeWeeks,ewhicheprovideseaerevieweofetheeideaseaboutetheebodyeande sexuality e that e characterizes e modernity, e and e that e of e Sontag, e which e discusses e the e metaphorse related e toe thee AIDSe epidemic, e aree importante for e mye approach, e ase theye presente ae historicale developmenteofeideaseconcerningesexualityeandegender.eBotheworkseecharacterizeethee1970seande 1980seaseaeturningepointeinetermseofetheedebateseonesexualeliberatione(becauseeofetheefeministe andehomosexualemovementseandetheespreadeofeAIDS),eprovidingetheehistoricalebasiseofemye researcheandesupportingemyeargumentethatethiseperiodeinspiredeaeparticulareconfigurationeofe gothicefiction,eespeciallyethatewrittenebyewomen.e

Rice’sewokseexploreeineorderetoeconveyediscussionseaboutesexualityeandegender.eToesupportethise argument, e I e usee Kristeva’s e theory e of e abjection. e In e this e way, e I e believe e that e interpretinge thee vampireeaseaneabjectebeingedemonstratesethatetheethreatseandetheeattraction,etheefearseandethee desiresethisecreatureesymbolicallyerepresentsetoetheesocialeandeculturaleorderereflectetheethreatse andetheedesireserelatedetoetheeabjecteimplicationserenderedetoesexualityeandegenderebyetheesexuale freedomeandetheeAIDSeepidemicethatemarkedethee1970seande1980s.

MyetheoreticaleapparatusepresentedeineChaptere1eprovideseaeseteofetoolseforebothethee analysiseofeeacheauthor’seworkseseparatelyeandeforetheecomparisonebetweenethem,etoewhicheIe proceedetoedevelopeineChapterse2eande3.eInethisesense,eChaptere1,e“SexualityeandeGendereine Contemporary e Women’s e Gothic e Fiction,” e consists e of e a e discussion e on e the e definition e ande characterizationeofecontemporaryegothicefictioneaseaegenre,eofewomen’sewriting,eofetheeissueseofe gendereande sexuality, e ofe theesymbolismseofevampires, e andeofethee criticismeone Carter’se ande Rice’seworks.eChaptere2,e“FromeWomen’seSexualeFreedometoeBisexuality:eSexualityethroughe AngelaeCarter’seandeAnneeRice’seVampires,”eIeuseetheetheoreticaledeviceseidentifiedeinetheefirste chapteretoeanalyzeetheseeauthors’eworkseineaecomparativeeway,esoeasetoedemonstrateehowetheye conveyediscourseseonesexualityethroughetheiredepictioneofevampires.eSimilarly,eineChaptere3,e “FromeFreedomeofeGenderePerformancesetoeAndrogyny:eGenderethrougheAngelaeCarter’seande AnneeRice’seVampires,”eIeagaineanalyzeetheeworkseofetheseewriterseinetermseofetheepointseraisede ineChaptere1,eineorderetoeidentifyehowetheirevampireseconveyediscourseseonegender.eFinally,eine thee“Conclusion,”eIedemonstrateehowetheeworksebyeCartereandeRiceediscussedehereecontributeetoe aneunderstandingeofeWesternecultureeine thee1970seandethee 1980se in etermseofesexualitye ande gendereissues.e

CHAPTER 1 – Sexuality and Gender in Contemporary Women’s Gothic

Fiction

In e this e thesis, e I e assume e the e existence e of e particular e ways e of e using e devices e that e aree characteristiceofegothicefictioneineresponseetoetheeanxietieseofeaeparticularehistoricalemoment.e Accordingly,emyeargumenteisethatetheeuseeofegothicedeviceseineworksewritteneinethee1970seande 1980s e is e peculiar e in e relation e to e gothic e works e of e the e eighteenth e and e nineteenth e centuries. e Ae particulareuseeofegothicedeviceseiseinformedebyeaeparticularepointeofevieweaboutetheework’seculturale and e historical e context. e Therefore, e another e argument e presented e heree is e that e thee usee of e gothice devicesebyewomenewriterseinethee1970seande1980semayerelateetoefeministeperspectiveseaboutethee culturaleandehistoricalecontexteinewhichetheyewrite.eIfesexualityeandegendereareeissuesethatehavee raisedesomeewomen’seanxietieseinethatecontext,etheseeareetheeissuesethateIeassumeeaseimportantetoe beeinvestigatedeineaecomparativeeanalysiseofetwoecontemporaryewomenewriterseinethisethesis.eIne orderetoeproceedetoesucheaneanalysis,ealletheseeassumptionseareetakeneintoeconsideration.e

supportemyeargumentethatetheireworksefiteintoetheecategoryethateIeamecallingehereecontemporarye gothicefictionewrittenebyewomen.

1.1. Contemporary Gothic Fiction Written by Women 1.1.1. Characterizing Gothic Fiction

Definingegothicefictioneprovesetoebeeaecomplicatedetask,easetheeveryehistoricaleorigineofe theegothiceineliteratureeandeitsedescriptioneaseaegenreeareeproblematic.eIteisecommonlyeagreede thatetheefirstegothicenovelewaseHoraceeWalpole’seThe Castle of Otranto (1764),epublishedeinethee late-eighteenthecentury,eandethateitepresentedetheemainecharacteristicsethatewouldeinspireeande constituteealletheeothereworkselatereclassifiedeasebelongingetoethisegenree(Williamse13).eBute scholarsedisagreeeinesomeepointseaboutetheedelimitationeofetheetraitsethatedifferentiateethisegenree from e others, e about e the e works e to e be e included e in e this e tradition, e and e even e about e its e verye qualificationeaseaegenre.

becomeedependenteuponeae“hermeneuticallyecirculareprocess”e(2).eeIneotherewords,etheetheoriese thateidentifyetheelineseofetheegothicegenreetakeetheeriskeofemanipulatingetheedefinitioneofethise genree according e to e one’s e explanatory e intentions. e Evidence e for e thee possibility e of e misguidede classifications,eaccordingetoeWatt,eiseinetheefactethate“mosteofetheeworksewhicheliteraryehistorye has e classified e as e ‘gothic’ e actually e described e themselves e by e way e of e the e larger e category e ofe ‘romance’” e (3). e The e author e explains e that e the e romance e emerged e as e a e kind e of e fiction e thate opposedsetheenovel,ewhicheisesupposedetoebeeconcernedewitheaerealisticerepresentationeofeitse historicaleandesocialecontext,esoethatetheeauthorsewhoelabeledetheireworksease“romance”etriedetoe emphasizeetheirelackeofecommitmentewitheaerealisticerepresentation.eTheeproblemeinetheere-classificationeofetheseeworkseunderetheeneweconstructeofe“gothicefiction”eisethatenotealleofetheme representesucheaneevidenteseparationefrometheenovelegenreethatecouldefiteintoethisecategory.e

TheesolutionepresentedebyeWattetoeovercomeealletheseeproblematiceassumptionseusedeine theeclassificationeofediverseeworkseasegothiceise“toelookeatetheemannereinewhichecertaineworkse botheappealedetoetheevocabularyeofetheegenreeandedefinedetheepossibilitieseofferedebyetheethatethee gothicegenreeshouldebeedefinedeconsideringetheerelationshipebetweenetheepartse(theeworks)eande theewholee(theegenreeitself)eandethateitseparticularitieseshouldebeeidentifiedeusingeaseaeframeworke theelargerecategoryeofetheeromance.eWatt’seproposaleseemseplausible,ebuteevenesoeiteproveseae veryehardetask,enoteaccomplishedesoefar:etheeamounteofeworkselabeledeasegothiceandeaseromancee and e the e overall e differences e among e them e make e the e delimitation e of e a e set e of e recurrente characteristicsethatecouldebeeusedetoedefineeandedifferentiateeeachecategoryeaedifficultetask.

genres e thate are e different e frome thee gothic. e Similarly, e theree is e thee dispute e about e thee relatione betweene gothice andefantasyefiction,easefantasye devicesearee commonlye pointedeasepresente ine gothicefiction.eThereeareediscrepancieseamongetheedefinitionseusedebyecritics,eeacheofewhome triesetoesupportehiseoreheregenreedescriptionebyepointingeoutetheedifferenceseandesimilaritieseine variedeworksebyewritersewhoehaveelittleeinecommon.e

Terroreandehorroreareealsoeconsideredebyesomeescholarseasetwoedifferentetraditionseintoe whichegothicefictioneisedivided.eThisedivisionefindseitsesourceeinetheestylisticedifferencese(ande personalequarrels)ebetweenetwoelate-eighteenthecenturyewriters, eMattheweGregory eLewiseande AnneeRadcliffe.eTheeidentificationeofethoseedifferenceseand,ethus,etheeargumentseforeaedivisione ofetheegothicetraditionefindesupporteespeciallyeinetheewordseofeRadcliffeeindicatingetheedifferencee betweenehereworkeandethateofeLewis:e

Terror e and e horror e are e so e far e opposite, e that e the e first e expands e the e soul, e ande awakensetheefacultiesetoeaehighedegreeeofelife;etheeotherecontracts,efreezes,eande nearlyeannihilatesetheme.e.e.eeandewhereeliesetheegreatedifferenceebetweenehorrore and e terror e but e in e the e uncertainty e and e obscurity, e that e accompany e the e first,e respectingetheedreadedeevil?e(qtd.eineMelaniepar.e4).e

Radcliffe’sedefinition,einethisesense,eisebasedeonetheeeffectsethateterroreandehorrorehaveeonethee senses,eprivilegingetheeformereinedetrimenteofetheelatter.eBasedeonethisedifference,esomeecritics,e aseMelaniestates,eclassifyeRadcliffe’seandeLewis’seworkseinedifferentetraditions:eterroregothice (representedebyeRadcliffe’sestyle)eandehorroregothice(representedebyeLewis’sestyle)e(par.e4).eAseIe willediscusselater,ethisesameedistinctionebetweenetheseeauthorseleadsetoetheeoneebetweenetheeso-calledefemaleeandemaleegothic.

audience,eusingeasecharactersemonsterseofeaesupernaturaleoresci-fieorigine(15).eWorkseofeterror,e ineturn,ecauseefeareinetheeaudiencee“byeexploringepsychologicalephenomenaethateareealletooe human.”eInsteadeofemonsters,etheecharacterseineterrorefictionepresenteaneabnormalepsychology.e Finally,etheeauthorearguesethateinegothicestories,e“suggestionseofeother-worldlyebeingse[are]eoftene introduced e only e to e bee explained e away e naturalistically” e (15). e This e division e seems e clear e ande useful,ebuteeveneso,eitemustebeerecognizedethatesomeeworksemayepresentecomplexesituationsethate doenotefitesoeeasilyeintoeonee(oreintoeonlyeone)eofetheseecategories.e

WhileetryingetoeidentifyegothicedeviceseinetheeworksebyeCartereandeRiceethateIeanalyzee here,eIerecognizeethateCarroll’sedefinitions,ealthougheaccurate,eareenoteuseful.eHisedefinitioneofe gothicestoriesedoesenoteapplyetoethoseeworks,easethereeisenoenaturalisticeexplanationeforethee existenceeofevampireseinethem.eRiceedoeseprovideeaneexplanationeineThe Queen of the Damned,e buteiteisenotenaturalistic,enotepossibleeinetheerealmeofelifeeexperience:eaccordingetoeher,etheefirste vampireewasecreatedewheneaespirit,eenviouseofehumanemateriality,emergedewithetheedyingebodye ofeaneEgyptianequeen,ewhoedevelopedetheehabiteofesuckingebloodeofelivingebeingsetoemaintaine here life. eThee stories eIe analyzeecannotebeeclassified easeterror, eeither, e asetheyedoenotepresente vampirismeaseaepsychologicalephenomenon.eCarroll’secategoryeofehorrorefiction,eineturn,eseemse to e be e appropriate e to e classify e Carter’s e and e Rice’s e works, e as e their e vampires e are e monsterse describedeineaewayetoecauseehorroreinetheeaudience,ebutenoteonlyethat.eTheefactethatebotheauthorse useegothicedevicesetoecharacterizeetheseemonsterseinetheestoriesecannotebeedismissed,eandeIearguee inethisethesisethatesucheuseeiserelevanteforetheeimplicationseofetheireworkseandetheirehistoricale contexts.e

termseineorderetoesupportehiseorehereexplanatoryepurposeeineinterpretingeaeliteraryework.eAsetheree areenoeundisputableedefinitionseforetheegothicegenreesoefar,eaneanalysiseofeworksethatebelongetoe thisegenreerequireseaediscussioneofetheemosterecurrenteaspectseraisedebyecriticseineorderetoeavoide misguidedeconclusions.eInethisesense,eiteisemoreeusefuletoethisethesisetoeconsideretheedeviceseande traitsethatehaveebeenepointedeouteasebeingecharacteristiceofegothicefictione(moreespecificallye thoseeenumeratedebyeDavidePuntereandebyeFredeBotting),einsteadeofefocusingeonemoreegenerale definitions.eIteisepossibleeinethisewayetoeavoidetheemanipulationeofegenreedefinitionsethateWatte warnseuseagainst.

DavidePuntereofferseaeusefuleinsightewheneheepointseoutethreeemajoreelementsetoethee characterizationeofegothicefiction.eTheefirsteofethemeiseparanoia,ethateis,etheesensationeofebeinge persecuted,etheeplausibilityeandetheereasoneofewhicheremaineuncertaineinetheestory,eineaewayethate theereadere“iseplacedeineaesituationeofeambiguityewitheregardetoefearsewithinetheetext”e(404).eThee secondeelementeisebarbarism, eaneideaethaterelates etoetheefeareofetheepast,eofetheearistocracye (“which e provides e the e basis e for e vampire e legendry”), e of e racial e degeneracy, e “and e moree recentlye.e.e.etheefeareofetheebarbaricenoteonlyefrometheepastebutealsoeinetheepresenteandeeveneine thee future e (405). e The e third e element e enumerated e by e Punter e is e taboo, e which e relates e to e rulese intendedetoeguaranteee“sociopsychologicaleequilibrium,”easetheeonesethateregulateetheerelationse betweenetheesexeseore“man’sesupposedeplaceeinetheehierarchyeofenaturaleandedivineelife”e(405).eIe useetheseethreeeelementseinemyeanalysiseofeCarter’seandeRice’seworkseasegothicefiction,earguinge thatetheyecanebeeperceivedeinethoseestories,ethus,econtributingetoetheedepictioneofethee1970s’eande 1980s’ediscussionseonesexualityeandegender.e

1),erelatedespeciallyetoetheestory’sesetting:e“desolate,ealienating,eandefulleofemenace.”eBottinge also e points e out e the e idea e of e threat e to e Enlightenment e and e humanist e values, e “associated e withe supernaturaleandenaturaleforces,eimaginativeeexcesseseandedelusions,ereligiouseandehumaneevil,e socialetransgression,ementaledisintegrationeandespiritualecorruption.”eFascinationewithe“objectse and e practices e that e are e constructed e as e negative, e irrational, e immoral e and e fantastic” e and e withe “transgressioneandeanxietyeovereculturalelimitseandeboundaries”eareealsoegothiceelements.eThee presenceeofesuggestiveefigureseofeimaginedeanderealisticethreatseinetheeploteisealsoementionedebye theeauthor,eincludingespecters,emonsters,edemons,ecorpses,eandefaintingeheroinese(2).eStilleine relationetoetheeanxietieseexploredebyegothicefiction,eBottingepointseoutefactsethateusuallyeelicite them: e “political e revolution, e industrialization, e urbanization, e shifts e in e sexual e and e domestice organizationeandescientificediscovery”e(3).eConcerningetheeideaeofetransgressioneconveyedeine gothiceplots,etheeauthorearguesethateiteoccursemainlyeinerelationetoesocialeproperties,emoralelaws,e physicalelaws,etheeboundseoferealityeandepossibility,eandetraditionalecodeseofeunderstandinge(6).e Heealsoearguesethatethisetransgressioneiserelatedetoeuncertaintiesethatetheestoryeraisese“aboutethee nature e of e power, e law, e society, e family e and e secularity” e (5) e and e to e ambivalence e of e meaninge (moral, e political e and e literary) e (9). e Botting e explains e the e function e of e transgression e when e hee addresseseiteaseoneeofetheecoreeissueseineGothicefiction,etheeoneethateevokesetheefeelingseofeterrore andehorror:e

Inethisesense,ebyefocusingeonetransgressiveepractices,egothicefictioneprovideseaereaffirmationeofe theestructureseiteunderminese(aefunctionemoreerelatedetoegothiceworkseofetheeeighteentheande nineteenthecenturies),ebuteitemayealsoeinciteeaerevision,eaereconstructioneofethisestructure.e

Veederegoeseevenefurthereindicatingeanothereeffecteofegothicetransgression:

Througheitsethematiceanderepresentationaleinsistenceeuponeouteredesires,egothice acts e as e a e counterdiscursive e formation e that e fosters e pleasure e in e terms eof ebothe psycheeandesocietyebyetheereleaseeoferepressedeaffectseandebyetheeexplorationeofe foreclosedetopics.e(28)

Foretheeauthor,etherefore,ethrougheitsedepictioneofetransgressionseofesocialeruleseinefavoreofeper-sonaledesires,egothiceactseserveetoealleviateetheetensionecausedebyerepressioneinelifeeexperience.e

Alletheseeelementserelateetoetheepotentialeofegothicefictionetoeundermineesocialenormse andetaboos,eincludingethoseerelatedetoesexualityeandegender.eThroughoutemyeanalysiseofethee corpuseofethisethesis,eIedemonstrateehowetheseeelementseareepresenteineeacheworkeandehowetheye contributeetoeaediscussioneofetheeissueseofesexualityeandegender.eInethiseway,einemyeanalysiseIe considereelementsethateareewidelyerecognizedebyeliteraryecriticismeasecharacteristiceofethisegenree ineorderetoedemonstrateethatetheyeareeusedeineaeparticularewayeinetheeworkseanalyzedehere.eThee particularities e observed e can e be e said e to e relate e to e the e historical e context, e configuring e ae contemporary e form e of e gothic e fiction. e But e as e the e definition e of e the e term e “gothic e fiction” e ise problematic,esoeisetheedefinitioneofe“contemporaryegothicefiction.”e

1.1.2. Characterizing Contemporary Gothic Fiction

argueethatewhateweecallegothicegenreeexistedeonlyeinetheeperiodebetweenetheelate-eighteentheande theelate-nineteenthecentury,esoethatetheegenreethateinetheetwentiethecenturyeisecommonlyedefinede asegothiceiseactuallyepureehorrorefictione(ineCarroll’seterms)eoreeveneonlyeregardedease“populare culture”e(Williamse2).eTheeoneseinefavoreofetheenotioneofeaecontemporaryeconfigurationeofethise genre e argue e that e gothic e elements e used e in e the e eighteenth e and e nineteenth e centuries e are e nowe adapted e to e the e particularities e and e necessities e of e the e twentieth e century. e For e Botting, e thise possibility e of e historical e diffusion e and e adaptation e shows e that e the e gothic e is e “a e hybrid e form,e incorporatingeandetransformingeothereliteraryeformseasewelleasedevelopingeandechangingeitseowne conventionseinerelationetoeneweremodeseofewriting”e(14).eTheeauthoreseeseaeparallelebetweenethee developmenteofegothicedeviceseagainsteEnlightenmentevalueseinetheeeighteenthecenturyeandetheire adaptationetoeconfrontemodernepremiseseinetheetwentiethecentury.eWhileenamingecontemporarye gothic e “postmodern e gothic,” e hee suggests e that e this e genre e assumes e thee so-called e postmoderne commitment e of e criticizing e modernity e and e argues e that e the e fragmentation e of e postmoderne narrativeseservesetheegothicefunctioneofeunderminingevalueseandeideasesociallyetakeneforegrantede (169). e Veeder’s e words e also e address e this e focus e on e ae critique e of e modernity e in e contemporarye gothicefiction:e

Iebelieveetheenatureeofetheegothiceisetoenurture.eThisebeliefederivesefromewhateIe takeetoebe ea ebasicefacteofecommunalelife:ethatesocietieseinflicteterribleewoundse uponethemselvese andeatetheesameetimeedevelopemechanismsethatecanehelpeheale thesee wounds.eGothicefictionefrometheelateeeighteenthecenturyetoethee presenteise onee such e mechanism. e Note consciouslye ande yete purposively, e Anglo-Americane cultureedevelopsegothiceineorderetoehelpehealetheedamageecausedebyeoureembracee ofemodernity.e(20-21)

Hisenotioneofegothicefictionesuggestsethateiteiseaecounterdiscourseethateserveseaesocialefunction:e thateofehelpingeindividualsetoecopeewithetheireanxietieseandeuncertaintieseinerelationetoehistoricale andeculturalechanges.

The e particularities e of e twentieth e century e gothic e fiction e can e be e summarized e in e thee followingestatementebyePunter:e“Contemporaryegothicereflectseandeprovideseaesingularesymbolice languageeforetheediscussioneofepreoccupationseofeouretime:ecapitalismeinhumanity,einformatione overload, e child e abuse, e serial e murder, e pollution, e ande corruption”e (179).e Such e issuese becomee preoccupationsebecauseetheyechangeeaspectseofetheesocialeorder,eleadingetoestrugglesebetweene theeindividual’seidealseandethiseneweordereinewhicheheeoresheeiseinserted.eTheeoldenormsethate usedetoeprescribeetheeproperewayseofedealingewitherealityeareenoweinadequateeandepeopleefeele lost.eThisefeelingeofeinadequacyeisewhatecontemporaryegothiceoftenedepicts.eAsetheecomplexitiese of e the e postmodern e world e expand e the e preoccupations e of e humankind, e contemporary e gothice writersetendetoefollowedifferentepathsefromethoseeofetheegothicetradition,eand,econsequently,etheire worksereflectesuchepreoccupations.eIeuseetheeterme“contemporaryegothicefiction”einethisethesisetoe refer e to e the e particular e way e of e using e gothic e devices e that e reflects e and e responds e to e thee contemporarye historical e context, e moree specifically, e toethee decadese ofe thee 1970s e ande 1980s.e Amongetheevastearrayeofepossibilities,eIefocuseonetheeconcernseofesomeewomenewriterseinethesee twoedecadeseineorderetoeinvestigateetoewhateextentetheecontemporaryegothicefictionethatetheye produceereflectsetheireresponsesetoesucheconcerns.

1.1.3. Feminist Literary Criticism and the Gothic Tradition: Characterizing Women’s Gothic Fiction

womenethatefocuseseonewomen’seexperienceewithinethisetradition.eTheebasiseforetheediscussione andeinterpretationeofewomen’sewritingehasebeeneexploredebyefeministeliteraryecriticism,ewhiche focuses e on e the e way e that e literary e practices e provide e an e important e perception e of e women’se experienceseandequestionetheepatriarchaleassumptionsethatehaveedominatedesocialerelations.eAse RosanneeKennedyeobserves:e“Feministeliteraryetheoryeiseaecriticaleformeofeknowledgeewhiche analyses e thee role e that e literary e forms e and e practices, e together e with e thee discourses e of e literarye criticismeandetheory,eplayeineperpetuatingeorechallengingehierarchieseofegender,eclass,eraceeande sexuality”e(306).Theeterme“patriarchal,”easeChriseWeedoneputseit,e“refersetoepowererelationseine whichewomen’seinterestseareesubordinatedetoetheeinteresteofemen.”eAccordingetoetheeauthor,e suchepowererelationsecanetakeedifferenteforms,esuchease“theesexualedivisioneofelabor,”e“theesociale organizationeofeprocreation,”eande“theeinternalizedenormseofefemininityebyewhicheweelive”e(2).e Besides,esheearguesethateiteiseonetheesocialemeaningsegivenetoebiologicalesexualedifferenceethate patriarchale powere rests.e Onethee otherehand,efeministe theoryeine generaleandefeministe literarye criticismeineparticularetryetoedistinguishecertainenotionsethatehaveeoftenebeeneappropriatedeande misusedeinecontemporaryediscourses.eTheseenotionseareerelevantetoemyeanalysiseofewomen’se contemporaryegothicefiction.e

essentialismethateitsesingulareformeimplies,edesignatinge“womeneaseaehistoricaleclasseratherethene womaneaseaefeminineeessence”eoremythe(Humm,eDictionarye302).e

TorileMoieputseiteinethiseway:

Iteiseinetheepatriarchaleinterestethatetheseetwoetermse(femininityeandefemaleness)e stayethoroughlyeconfused.eFeminists,eonetheecontrary,ehaveetoedisentangleethise confusion,eandemust,etherefore,ealwayseinsistethatethoughewomeneundoubtedlye areefemale,ethiseinenoewayeguaranteesethatetheyewillebeefeminine.eThiseiseequallye trueewhethere oneedefinesefemininitye in ethee oldepatriarchale wayseoreineae newe feministeway.e(65)

Itefollowsefromethiseargumentethatefeministeliteraryecriticismeviewsefemininityeaseaecategoryethate isesociallyeconstructedeandethatethisecriticismeisecommittedetoeexposingetheeartificialecharactereofe thiseconstructionethatetheepatriarchalesystemepresentseasenatural.

Theenotioneofeidentityebecomeseaneimportanteissueeinetheedevelopmenteofefeministetheo-ries.eAccordingetoeHumm,efeministseargueethateidentityeise“theepointeofedepartureeofeanyeprocesse ofeself-consciousness,”ewhicheiseimportanteforetheebasiseofewomen’secontestationeofetheepatriar-chaleoppressioneimposedeonetheme(Modern Feminismse 406).eTheeproblemeisethat,easefeministe critics e suggest, e “women’s e understanding e of e identity e is e multiple e and e even e self-contradictory”e(Modern Feminismse406-07).eRecentefeministetheorieserecognizeethatethereeisenoe singleeidentityebuteaemultiplicityeofepossibilitieseregardingecategorieseotherethanegender,esuchease class,erace,eandeethnicitye(Almeidae91).eInethisesense,eaewomanemayeidentifyeherselfenoteonlyease aewoman,ebuteaseaemiddle-classeBlackeAmericanewoman,eforeinstance.eFeministeliteraryecriti- cismestressesetheefactethatetheewayetheseedifferentecategorieseinterrelateeisetooecomplexetoecon-veyetheeideaeofeaesingleeidentity.e

patriarchalediscourse.eAccordingetoeWeedon,esincee“[t]oepracticeeliteraryecriticismeisetoeproducee readingseofeliteraryetextseandeinetheeprocesseofeinterpretationetemporarilyetoefixemeaningeande privilege e particular e social e interests,” e feminist e literary e criticism e “seeks e to e privilege e feministe interesteinetheeunderstandingeandetransformationeofepatriarchy”e(136).eItedoesesoebyedenouncinge theeoppressioneofewomenebyepatriarchyeandetheireconsequentesuppressioneasetheeinsignificante other e of e men, e issues e that e can e be e perceived e in e the e traditional e representation e of e women e ine literature.e

More e recently, e the e interrelation e between e feminist e and e postmodernist e theories e offerse importantepossibilitieseforefeministeliteraryecriticism.eLindaeHutcheonearguesethatefeminismeande postmodernism e overlap e in e some e points e and e influence e each e other e (“Feminism e ande Postmodernism”e26).e Craig e Owense conveyse thee similarities e betweene thesee twoe movements,e including:eaneendorsementeofeLyotard’seargumenteaboutetheecrisiseinetheelegitimizingefunctione ofethee“GreateNarrativeseofetheeWest;”eaecritiqueeofethee“systemeofepowerethateauthorizesecertaine representations e while e blocking, e prohibiting e or e invalidating e others;” e the e idea e that e thee “representationalesystemseofetheeWesteadmiteonlye[theevision]eofetheeconstitutiveemaleesubject;”e a e critique e of e e binarism; e and e the e defense e of e “the e importance e of e ‘difference e ande incommensurability’”e(qtd.eineCreede399).eInethisesense,epostmodernismeandefeminismehaveeine common e the e contestation e of e ideas, e values, e patterns, e conventions, e and e ideologies e taken e fore grantedeineWesternecultures.eHutcheonecallseattentionetoetheefactethatethisecontestationedoesenote aimetoedisintegrateeoretoedeclineeordereandecoherence,ebutetoechallengee“theeveryeconceptseupone whicheweejudgeeordereandecoherence”e(“FeminismeandePostmodernism”e28).e

desirable—toemen”e(The Politics of Postmodernisme 155).eIneaneargumentesimilaretoethateofe VirginiaeWolfeaboutetheewomenewriter’seneedetoeundermineetheefemaleestereotypesecreatedebye patriarchye(Gilberte andeGubare596),e Hutcheoneclaimse thate women ewriters ecane subvertesuche culturallyeprescribedeandebiasedewayseoferepresentingewomeneineliterature.e eSheearguesethate “postmodernestrategiesecanebeedeployedebyefeministeartistsetoedeconstructiveeends—thateis,eine orderetoebeginetheemoveetowardseaechange”e(The Politics of Postmodernisme 149).eTheeuseeofe postmodern e strategies, e however, e relay e to e feminism e a e problem e often e attributed e toe postmodernism:ethateofeaeparadoxicalecomplicityewithetheeveryevaluesetheyeseeketoecontest.eThise iseoneeofetheereasonsemanyefeministecriticsequestionetheecloseeassociationebetweenefeminismeande postmodernism.eYet,edifferentlyefromepostmodernism,efeministeapproachese“goebeyondemakinge ideologyeexpliciteandedeconstructingeitetoeargueeaeneedetoechangeethateideology”e(Hutcheon,eThe Politics of Postmodernism 168).eThroughepostmodernisteparodyeandetacticseofedeconstruction,e feministewritersepresente“newekindseofefemaleepleasure,enewearticulationseofefemaleedesire,”e presenting,etherefore, ealternativesethatecaneinscribee in eorderetoesubverte patriarchaletraditionse (160).e

authoreiselocatedewilleproduceetheediscourseseofetheetext”e(153).eTheeauthorefurthereexplainseit,ear- guingethatethiseapproacheassumesethatetheestructureeofetextsewrittenebeewomeneindicatesetheelimi-tationseandetheepossibilitiese(inetermseofeartisticeexpression)epresentedetoethemebyetheepatriarchale societieseinewhichetheyelive—thateisewhyetheiretextsereflectetheesocialediscoursesecurrenteinethee historicalecontexteofetheeproductioneofetheeworke(156).eAneidentificationeofetheseediscoursese showsehowetheeworkereproduceseoreresistsethemeandewhateiseparticulareofewomenewriterseinethee constructioneofethisereproductioneoreresistance.eInethisesense,ethisefeministereadingeapproachese theespecificitieseofewomen’sewritingebasedeonetheesocio-historicalecontexteofetheework,enoteone theewriter’selifeeexperienceeaseaewomaneoreoneaevieweofewomenebasedeoneessentialisteconcepts.e

Most e critics e emphasize e the e fact e that e gothic e fiction e itself e emerged e as e “a e ‘women’se fiction,’ewrittenebyeandeforewomen”e(Puntere191),easeaegenderedegenre.eBut,easeitewasementionede earlierehere,etheedistinctionebetweeneaemaleeandeaefemaleemodalityeofegothicefictionehaseitse sourceeinepersonalestruggleseandestylisticediscrepanciesebetweenetwoeeighteenthecenturyewriters:e MattheweGregoryeLewiseandeAnneeRadcliffe.eKarieWinterearguesethatetheedistinctionsebetweene theegothicetraditionseoriginatedefrometheseeauthorseaccountseforetheedifferenteexperiencesemene andewomenehaveeofefear.eAccordingetoetheeauthor,etheedifferenceeisethat,ewhileemenefeare“thee Other”e(womeneincluded),ewomenefeare“theeterroreofetheefamiliar:etheeroutineebrutalityeande injusticeeofetheepatriarchalefamily,econventionalereligion,eandeclassistesocialestructures”e(91).e Ellen eMoerse coinedethee terme“femaleegothic”etoe referetoe thise tradition efollowedebye womene writers e since e Radcliffe e in e the e eighteenth e century e (Winter e 90). e This e term e can e still e bee distinguishedefromewhateSusanneeBeckerecallsethee“feminineegothic.”eSheearguesethatewhileethee “femaleegothic”erefersetoeworksewrittenebyewomen,ethee“feminineegothic”epresupposeseaewomane asetheespeakingesubjecteofegothicetexts,eincludingethoseewrittenebyemene(10).eSheeagreesewithe Moer’sedefinition,etherefore,eindicatingethatetheefemaleegothiceisenecessarilyecharacterizedebye women’seauthorship.ee

“generatedesuspenseethroughetheelimitationseimposedebyetheechosenepointeofeview,”ewhileemalee gothice“deriveseitsemostepowerfuleeffectsefrometheedramaticeironyecreatedebyemultipleepointseofe view”e(102).eInerelationetoetheesecondeissue,eWilliamsearguesethate“whereasetheefemaleetraditione of e gothic e explains e the e ghosts, e the e male e formula e simply e posits e the e supernatural e ase ‘reality’”e(103).eFinally,etheedifferenceseregardingetheethirdeissueeconsisteofetheefactethate“thee maleegothicehaseaetragiceplot,einewhichetheehero/villain efailseandedieseforebeingeaneisolatede overreacherepunishedefore.e.e.ehiseviolationeofetheeLaw,”ewhileetheefemaleeformulae“demandseae happyeending,etheeconventionalemarriageeofeWesternecomedy”e(103).eBesides,efemaleegothice“ise organizedearoundetheeresourceseofeterror,eofeaneimaginedethreateandetheeprocessebyewhichethate threateisedispelled,”ebutetheemaleeformulae“specializeseinehorror—theebloodyeshroud,etheewormye corpse”e(104).eIteiseworthenoticingethateWilliams’sedefinitioneofetheefemaleegothicerelatesetoe Carroll’sedefinitioneofegothicefiction,easebotheconveyeaneexplanationeforetheesupernaturaleeventse theye introduce. e Here definition eofe thee malee gothic, e in e turn,e relates e toe Carroll’s e definition e ofe horror e fiction e and e resembles e the e common e attribution e of e horror e as e characteristic e of e a e malee traditionebasedeoneLewis’sestyle.eTheeauthorealsoedifferentiatesemaleeandefemaleegothiceinetermse ofeperspective:

Male e gothic e is e a e dark e mirror e reflecting e patriarchy’s e nightmèree [a e nightmaree aboutetheemother],erecallingeaeperilous,eviolent,eandeearlyeseparationefromethee mother/mater denigratedease“female.”e“Femaleegothic”ecreateseaeLooking-Glasse Worlde[inewhich]eancienteassumptionseaboutethee“male”eandethee“female”e.e.e.e are e suppressed e or e so e transformed e as e to e reveal e an e entirely e different e world,e exposingetheeperilselurkingeonetheefather’secorridorseofepower.e(107)

raiseewomen’seanxieties.eAseitecanebeeperceived,ewomen’seexperienceeofepatriarchalerepressione iseconsideredebyeWilliamseandemostecriticseaneinherentepreoccupationeofefemaleegothicefiction.e

binariese(asetheemale/female)eandeessentialistemodelsethaneonetheecriticismeofetheeimplausibilitye ofehegemoniceideologiese(sucheasepatriarchy).e

Beckeregoeseevenefurtherebyearguingethatetheerelationshipebetweenegothicefictioneande feminismecharacterizesewhatesheecallse“neo-gothic”e(4).eThiseliteraryegenre,eaccordingetoeher,e “spansetheetimeebetweenetheepoliticizede1970s,etheeconservativee1980seandetheemillennium-riddene1990s,”edecadeseconnectedebye“aelackeofeorientationeespeciallyerelatingetoeeverydayelife,e asetheetraditionaleseparationseofetheesphereseofeproductioneandereproductionealongegenderelinese [were]eshaken”e(4).eNeo-gothic,einethisesense,eaddressese“theegenderedeproblemseofeeverydaye life”e(4).eBeckerearguesethatetheegothicerevivaleexperiencedeinethoseedecadeseiserelatedenoteonlye toepostmodernisme(aseBottingeandeVeeder, equotedeearlier, eargue),ebutealsoetoefeminisme(1).e Accordingetoeher, ealthough e gothicefiction e ise characterized ebyeanti-realism, e ite representse lifee experiencesebecauseeofeitsebasiseoneexcess,eemotions,eandesubjectivity.eSucherepresentationeise theebasiseforetheecontextualizatione(bothehistoricaleandecultural)eofeaegothicestory.eBeckerepointse out e “three e gothic e ways e of e contextualizing e experience” e (that e is, e three e gothic e strategies e fore representingelifeeexperience):edefamiliarizationeofeaerecognizedeexperiencee(whicheenforcese“thee familiar, e the e domestic, e everyday e experience, e to e an e excess”); e refamiliarization e of e thee supernaturale(thateassuresetheeexistenceeofesupernaturaleeventseandecreatureseatetheeplotelevel,e questioninge“theeeasyeacceptanceeofewhateweeconsideretoebeereal”);eandedisplacementeofethee radicaledoubteraisedeinetheestoryeintoetheerealmeofetheereadere(whichechallengesetheeassumptionse abouterealityeandegender,edrawingeattentionetoetheeworkingseofeexperience)e(24-25).eTherefore,e theseethreeewayseofecontextualization,ewheneappliedetoesexualeandegendereexperiences,einforme theediscussioneofetheeissueseofesexualityeandegendereandetheecontestationeofesocialeassumptionse aboutethem.e

experienceeisenotesimplyeinstalledeinetheetext,epassivelyereproducingetheepatriarchalestructuree that e informs e it. e Rather, e it e is e installed e in e the e text e in e an e already e disruptive e way e throughe defamiliarization,eitseplausibilityeisequestionedethrougherefamiliarization,eandetheeideologyethate informseiteisechallengedewhenetheedoubtseabouteitseplausibilityeraisedeinetheestoryeareedisplaced.e What e Becker e is e describing, e therefore, e can e be e considered e a e process e used e by e contemporarye womenewriterseofegothicefiction,ewhichesheecallse“femaleeneo-gothic.”

Nevertheless, e Becker’s e (ase well e ase Williams’s e ande Moer’s) e definition e of e thee femalee gothiceisetooesimplistic,erenderingethisetermeproblematic.eAseChristineeRuotoloeeteal.eindicate,e manyequestionseemergeebeforeeoneecanecomeetoeaesatisfactoryedefinition:e

Whatespecificallyedifferentiatesebetweenethee“FemaleeGothic”eandeotherekindseofe Gothic?eFromeotherekindseofenovels?eCaneweereade“Female”ease“Feminist,”eore do e these e novels e simply e reproduce e the e patriarchal e structures e their e heroinese inevitably e struggle e against? e Is e the e Female e Gothic e somehow e “personal”?e Political?ePsychological?e(par.e1)

Lewisecannotebeetakeneasenecessarilyeapplyingetoeothereworksewritteneinedifferentehistoricalecon- texts.eItewouldenoteguarantee,etherefore,eaeconsistentecharacterizationeofeaemaleeandeaefemaleetra-ditioneofegothicefiction.

1.2. Sexuality and Gender 1.2.1. General Definitions

1.2.2. Gender

AseSandraeAlmeidaeasserts,etheedefinitioneofetheetermegendereasesociallyeandeculturallye constructedewasetheebasiseofefeministecriticismeinetheetwentiethecentury,ewhichefocuseseonethee differentiationebetweenegendereandesex,ereferredetoeabovee(91).eAecurrentepreoccupationeamonge feministecritics,elikeeJuditheButler,eisetheefactethatetheenotioneofegendereinteractsewitheothere conceptsethateconstituteesocialerelations.eButlereexplainseasefollowsetheeimplausibilityeofethee alreadyementionedeassumptionethatetheeterme“woman”edenoteseaecommoneidentity:e

Ifeonee“is”eaewoman,ethateisesurelyenotealleoneeis;etheetermefailsetoebeeexhaustive,e notebecauseeaepregenderede“person”etranscendsetheespecificeparaphernaliaeofeitse gender, e but e because e gender e is e not e always e constituted e coherently e in e differente historical e contexts, e and e because e gender e intersects e with e racial, e class, e ethnic,e sexualeanderegionalemodalitieseofediscursivelyeconstitutedeidentities.eAseaeresult,e itebecomeseimpossibleetoeseparateeoute“gender”efrometheepoliticaleandeculturale intersections e in e which e it e is e invariably e produced e and e maintained. e (Gender Troublee4-5).e

Here,eagain,eitecanebeeperceivedetheeclaimeforeaehistoricaleandeculturalecontextualizationeofethee notioneofegendereandeofetheediscourseseabouteit.eTheeintersectioneofethisenotionewitheothererealmse ofesocialelifeeaddsetoetheecomplexityeofesuchegendereidentities,eindicatingehoweessentialistethee socialediscoursesethateclassifyedifferenteindividualseintoetheedichotomyeman/womaneare.eThere-fore, eaneacknowledged eprincipleein econtemporaryecriticismeisethateessentialistedefinitionseofe gendere(informedebyetheepatriarchalediscoursesethateassumeethategenderedeidentitieseareeuniform,e fix,eandetotalizing)efailetoeaccounteforetheecomplexityeofegenderedeidentities.

claimingethate“itsemeaningeiseasetroubledeandeunfixedease‘woman’”e(xxxi).eSheerefersetoethise problemeusingetheeterme“femaleetrouble:”e“thatehistoricaleconfigurationeofeaenamelessefemalee indispositionewhichethinlyeveiledetheenotionethatebeingefemaleeiseaenaturaledisposition”e(xxx).eIne otherewords,etheefemaleetroubleerefersetoetheeinconsistencyeofetheebeliefethatetheefemaleesexeise biologicallyedetermined.eIneherebook,eButlereextendsehereargumentsetoetheemoreegeneralenotionse ofesexeandegender,eaffirmingethatetheeformereiseasesociallyeconstructedeasetheelatter,eandeshee coinsetheeexpressione“genderetrouble”etoereferetoetheecomplexityeofegendereidentitiese(Gender Troublee2).eButleredefendsethatenotionseofeaebiologicalebasiseshouldeneverebeetakeneforegrantede in e the e definition e of e gender e identities e and e that, e rather e than e being e the e source e of e gendere differences,etheenotioneofesexeiseinformedebyetheesameediscursiveesystemethateinformsetheenotione ofegendere(Gender Troublee9-10).

e Another e contention e presented e by e Butler e relates e to e the e question e of e whether e thee constructioneofegendereidentitieseimpliesedeterminismeorefreeewill.eeThiseconstructionecaneimplye determinismeifeitesuggestsethate“theebody”eise“aepassiveemediumeonewhicheculturalemeaningsearee inscribed;”eiteimpliesefreeewilleifeitesuggestsethatetheebodyeise“theeinstrumentethroughewhicheane appropriativeeandeinterpretiveewilledetermineseaeculturalemeaningeforeitself”e(Gender Trouble

12).eIteisenotecleareifetheeconstructioneofegendereoccurseaseonlyeoneeofetheseetwoepossibilities,e but,easeButlereindicates,eitecanebeeperceivedethateinebothecasesetheebodyeiseconsiderede“aemeree

The e limits e of e the e discursive e analysis e of e gender e presupposee and e preempt e thee possibilities e of e imaginable e and e realizable e gender e configurations e withine culture.e.e.e.eTheseelimitseareealwaysesetewithinetheetermseofeaehegemoniceculturale discourse e predicated e on e binary e structures e that e appear e as e the e language e ofe universalerationality.eConstrainteisethusebuilteintoewhatethatelanguageeconstitutese asetheeimaginableedomaineofegender.e(Gender Troublee12)e

Saideineaedifferenteway,ehegemoniceculturalediscoursesepredictetheedefinitioneofetheenotioneofe genderetoebeeincorporatedebyesocietyeandeconditionetheegenderedeexperiences,elimitingeinethise wayebothetheepossibilitieseofegendereconfigurationethateareeimposedeoneandethoseethateareeunder-takenebyeindividuals.ee

Inethisecontext,etheeissueeofegendereidentityeprovesetoebeealsoeproblematic.eButlereaffirmse that e “‘persons’ e only e become e intelligible e through e becoming e gendered e in e conformity e withe recognizableestandardseofegendereintelligibility”e(Gender Troublee22).eAddressingetheequestione ofe“howetheeregulatoryepracticesethategovernegenderealsoegoverneculturallyeintelligibleenotionse ofeidentity,”esheearguesethat:

sexualitye(foreinstance,ethatetoetheefemaleesexecorrespondsetheefeminineegendereandetheefemalee sexuality,easeifetheseethreeecategoriesewereefixedeinethemselves).eMoreover,etheesameeculturale matrixethatedeterminesewhichegendereidentitieseareeintelligibleealsoedeterminesewhicheonesearee unacceptablee(Gender Troublee24).eWhateButlerecallse“unintelligibleegendereidentities”ewoulde apply,ethen,etoetheecaseseofeandrogynyeandealsoetoegayeandelesbianeidentities.eAndrogyny,eac-cordingetoeHumm,eise“aeGreekewordefromeandroe(male)eandegyn e(female)ewhichemeanseaepsy-chologicaleandepsychicemixtureeofetraditionalemasculineeandefeminineevirtues”e(Dictionarye10).e Theenotioneofeunintelligibleesexualitiesecouldebeeapplied,ethen,etoehomosexualityeandebisexuali-ty,ewhileetheenotioneofeunintelligibleegendersewoulderelateetoegays,elesbians,etravestites,eande transgenders. e These e possibilities e contest e the e idea e that e sex e and e genders e are e always e binarye (male/female,eman/woman).

Theenotioneofeandrogynyeiseimportanteinefeminist’seargumentseaboutetheecomplexitieseofe gender e identities. eGinettee Castro e discusses e thee androgynist e point e of e viewe as e ae “theory e thate developedewithinetheenewefeministemovementeofethee1960s”eandeaffirmsethateandrogynyeise“thee most e revolutionary e concept e in e contemporary e feminism” e (125). e It e is e not e a e strictly e codifiede theory,etheeauthoreemphasizes,ebuteaeneweperspectiveeinefeminismewitheontologicaleandesociale implications.eCastroeexplainsethatetheeconcepteofeandrogynyecontestsetheenotionethatetheemalee andetheefemaleesexeseareenecessarilyeoppositeeandethateoneeiseprivilegedeoveretheeothere(Castroe 125). e The e social e implication e of e the e concept e of e androgyny e is e that e it e challenges e the e sociale divisionseofegendereroleseandetheelimitationetheyeimposeeonetheeindividual’sepersonality.e

everyesorteofebeingeparticipatingeinetheefullespaneofehumaneexperience”e(Castroe126).eThiseper-spectiveechallengesetheenotioneofegendereidentity,ewhicheise“aneassignedeorelearnedesexerolee.e.e.e basedeonetheeindividual’serepressioneintoetheeunconsciouseofeallepsychicemanifestationseofethee oppositeesex”e(127).eGenderedestereotypes,einethisesense,eareeconstructedebasedeoneaeparticulare society’seperceptioneofesexualedifference,eineaewayethatetheeinternalizationeofetheseestereotypese asepatternseofebehavioreandeidealeidentitiesereinforcesetheediscoursesethateclaimethatetheyeareenat-ural,einnateecharacteristics.eThiseiseaeprocesseofesocializationeofeindividualsepromotedebyesociale institutions.e

Thee modernistewritere VirginiaeWolfe proposeseaeconcepte ofeandrogyny ein erelation etoe literaryecreationeandecriticism.eAndrogyny,eforeWolf,eisetheeconditioneinewhichetheeindividuale liveseandethinksewithoutetheenecessityeofeassumingeaesocialepositioneoreaneidentityeinerelationetoe one’sebiologicalesexeandeineoppositionetoetheeotheresex.eSheearguesethatethisefusioneofetheemalee andetheefemaleesideseofetheebrainefertilizesetheemindeandepermitseitsefacultiesetoebeeusedeatetheire fulleste(98).eNevertheless,etheeopinionseofefeministseaboutetheeconcepteofeandrogynyeareenote consensual.eAseHummeaffirms,e“androgynyewaseforeWoolfeandemanyefeministecriticseaewayeofe liberating e women e from e the e negative e forces e placed e by e patriarchy e on e their e sex,” e being e “ane spectrum e on e which e human e beings e could e choose e their e places e regardless e of e history e ore tradition”e(Dictionarye10).e

“[o]therefeministseargueethateandrogynyeiseaestaticeconceptebecauseeiteignoreseissueseofepowere which e can e promote e individual e psychological e transformation e through e materiale change”e(Dictionarye11).eDespiteetheseeproblematiceimplications,eandrogynyeseemseaeplausiblee notioneifeconsideredeinerelationetoerecentefeministeargumentse(likeeButler’s)ethatesucheaethingease gendereidentityedoese noteexist.e Iteise alsoerelevante fore myeanalysise ofe Rice’secharacterse aseIe discusselatereon.

Ineanotherework,e“ImitationeandeGendereInsubordination,”eButlereaffirmsethate“[t]hereeise noe‘proper’egender,eaegendereproperetoeoneesexeratherethaneanother”e(“Imitation”e722).eShee underminesetheeerroneouseassumptionethateheterosexualizedegenderseareetheenormal,etheeoriginale ones,erenderingetheenotioneofegendereitseimplicitequalities:ephantasmatice(becauseeiteisebasedeone an e ideal), e performative e (because e “it e constitutes e as e an e effect e the e very e subject e it e appears e toe express,”),ecompulsivee(becauseeiteiseconstantlyerepeatingethateperformanceeineorderetoebeeseene aserealeandeoriginal),eandecompulsorye(becauseetheenoncomplianceewitheheterosexualenormse results e in e “ostracism, e punishment, e and e violence, e note to e mention e thee transgressive e pleasurese producedebyethoseeveryeprohibitions”e(“Imitation”e725).e

Butleresuggestsethateheterosexualityedoesenoteprecedeehomosexualityeasemucheaseiteisethee veryepotentialityeofethiselatterethatemakesepossibleetheeformer’seclaimeofeoriginalitye(“Imitation”e 724).eTheeperformativeerepetitioneofeheterosexualityeisewhaterenderseheterosexualeidentityethee illusoryequalityeofebeingenatural.eThateis,etheemoreetheechildrenelearneandeactualizeewhatetheyearee taught,etheemoreethoseestereotypicalegendereroleseareeconsideredenaturaleandenormalebyesociety,e inethateculturaleandesocialeconditioningeisemistakenlyerelatedetoebiologicalepredispositions.

Butlerealsoediscussesetheeimplicationseofetheerelationebetweenegenderepresentationeande sexuality:

genderepresentation.e.e.e.eeSexualityeiseneverefullye“expressed”eineaeperformanceeore practice.e.e.e.eeParteofewhateconstitutesesexualityeisepreciselyethatewhichedoesenote appeareandethatewhich,etoesomeedegree,ecanenevereappear.e.e.e.eThatewhicheise excludedeforeaegivenegenderepresentationetoe“succeed”emayebeepreciselyewhateise playedeoutesexually,ethateis,eane“inverted”erelationebetweenegendereandegendere presentation e and e gender e presentation e and e sexuality. e On e the e other e hand, e bothe genderepresentationeandesexualepracticesemayecorrelateesuchethateiteappearsethate theeformere“expresses”etheelatter,eandeyetebotheareejointlyeconstitutedebyetheeverye sexualepossibilitiesethatetheyeexclude.e(“Imitation”e725-26)e

Butlereshows,einethisesense,ethatethereeisenoenecessarilyecontinuityebetweenegenderepresentatione andesexuality,esoethat,eforeinstance,etheewayeaepersonebehaveseinepubliceisenoteenoughetoeexpresse hiseoreheresexualepractices,emuchelessehiseoreheresexualeidentitye(asetheelatteremayealsoenotebee expressedethroughetheesexualepractices).eTheeideaethategenderepresentationeexpressesesexualitye iseitselfeillusory:e

[It]eiseaeperformanceethateproducesetheeillusioneofeaneinneresexeoreessenceeore psychicegenderecore;eiteproduceseonetheeskin,ethroughetheegesture,etheemove,ethee gaite(thatearrayeofecorporealetheatricseunderstoodeasegenderepresentation),ethee illusioneofeaneinneredepth.e(“Imitation”e728)e

sexualityeareenotionsecomposedeofebinaryecategorieseandethatetheyeareecontinuouseandecongruente witheeacheother.

Inethisesense,etraditionalenotionseofefemininityeandemasculinityerepresentewhateButlere callseculturallyeintelligibleegendereidentitieseandeareebasedeonetheenotioneofeheterosexualityease originalesource.eTheseenotionseindicate,easeDavideGlovereandeCoraeKaplaneargue,econfusionse betweenetheeconceptseofetheebiologicale(orenatural)esexeandeofegendereasetheeculturaleandesociale aspect e of e sexual e difference e (xxi)—concepts e that e are e already e problematic, e as e shown e above.e Traditionaledefinitionseofefemininityeandemasculinityetryetoeassociateebiologicaletraitseofesexetoe sociale andeculturaleidentities eandeperformancese in eorderetoe pointeoute essentiale qualitiese thate characterize e an e individual e as e a e man e or e as e a e woman. e These e attributes e inform e a e separatione betweenewhatetheehegemonicesocialediscourseseconsideretoebeegoodeandewhatetheyeconsideretoe beebadefemininityeoremasculinitye(aseifesuchejudgmentsewereepossible)eandetheyevaryeaccordinge toehistoricaleandeculturalechanges.eInethisesense,ebothenotionseareeillusoryeinethatetheyetryetoe essentializeesomethingethateisetooecomplexeandemutable.eOnetheeotherehand,etheeanalysiseofehowe theenotionseofemasculinityeandefemininityeareeconstructedeineliteraryeworks,eforeinstance,ecanebee usefuletoeunderstandetheeprocesseofesexualeandegenderedeidentificationeconveyedeinerelationetoe itseparticularetimeeandeculture.e

Rubineaffirmsethatetheenotioneofepatriarchyeasetheeonlyesocialesystemethateworksetoemaintaine sexismeobscureseotheredistinctionse(538).eSheearguesethat

any e society e will e have e some e systematic e ways e to e deal e with e sex, e gender, e ande babies.eSucheaesystememayebeesexuallyeegalitarian,eateleasteinetheory,eoreitemaye bee“genderestratified,”easeseemsetoebeetheecaseeforemosteorealleofetheeknowne examples.eButeiteiseimportante.e.e.etoemaintaineaedistinctionebetweenetheehumane capacityeandenecessityetoecreateeaesexualeworld,eandetheeempiricallyeoppressivee wayseinewhichesexualeworldsehaveebeeneorganized.ePatriarchyesubsumesebothe meaningseintoetheesameeterm.eSex/genderesystem,eonetheeotherehand,eiseaeneutrale term e which e refers e to e the e domain, e but e is e the e product e of e the e specific e sociale relationsewhicheorganizeeit.ee(539)e

Rubin,einethisesense,eproposesetheeuseeofetheetermesex/genderesystemeineplaceeofe“patriarchy,”ease thiselattereimpliesebiasedeandeerroneousedefinitionseaboutetheecreationeandetheeorganizationeofe sexualepracticeseanderelations.eSimilarly,eButlerearguesethatetheenotioneofepatriarchyeiseessential-izedeaseifeitewereeaeuniversalestructureeofedomination.eThisenotionehasebeenecriticizede“foreitse failureetoeaccounteforetheeworkingseofegendereoppressioneinetheeconcreteeculturalecontextseine whicheiteexists”eandeforeitsecomplianceewithetheeideaeofeaecommonesubjugationeexperiencedebye allewomenealikee(Gender Trouble e5).eeRubin’seargumentseforeaechangeeinetheeuseeofetheetermepa-triarchyealsoerelateetoeaeculturalehistoricaleinconsistency:eiterefersetoetheespecificeformeofemalee dominanceerepresentedeinetheeOldeTestament,enamely,epastoralenomadse(539).eUsingetheesamee termetoereferetoecontemporaryeinstitutions,esheeargues,eisethereforeenoteproper.e

imposed e general e category e also e represents e the e imposition e of e heterosexuality. e Consequently,e Rubinestatesethate“[t]heesuppressioneofetheehomosexualecomponenteofehumanesexuality,eandebye corollary,etheeoppressioneofehomosexuals,eise.e.e.eeaeproducteofetheesameesystemewhoseeruleseande relationseoppressewomen”e(546).eSheealsoearguesethatewhateentailsetheeconstrainteofefemalee sexualityeisetheeasymmetryebetweenetheetwoesideseinetheebinaryegendererelationse(548).eBut,ease sociallyeinformed,etheseerelationseneedetoebeecontextualizedeineorderetoebeecontested.

AseWeedoneputseit,einetheecontexteofepatriarchalesocieties,e“theenatureeandesocialeroleeofe women e are e defined e in e relation e to e a e norm e which e is e male” e (2). e The e notion e of e biologicale determinatione ofe femininity, e in e thise sense, e leads e toe thee creation e ofe negativee stereotypese fore womenewhoerefuseetheeidealerolesepatriarchalediscourseseassignetoethem.eSuchestereotypesearee based,ethus,eonetheeideaeofeunnaturallityeoresupernaturallity.eThiseisealsoewhateGilberteandeGubare attackewhenetheyediscusseVirginiaeWolf’seideasethatemaleeauthorsehaveecreatedetwoeextremese images e to e represent e women e in e literature, e those e of e the e “angel” e and e the e “monster” e (596).e Commoneroleseprescribedetoewomenebyepatriarchyeareetheeoneseofeaegoodewifeeandeofeaegoode mother, e and e they e call e “for e particular e qualities, e thought e to e be e naturally e feminine, e such e ase patience,eemotioneandeself-sacrifice”e(Weedone3).eEveryebehavioreorepersonalityethatedifferse fromethiseprescriptioneisedenigrating,erelatedetoeevileandethreateningetoetheeorderethatepatriarchale discourseselabelease“natural.”

Murphy e 4). e It e can e be e perceived e here e that e gender e works e together e with e racial e issues e in e thee construction e of e these e stereotypical e social e roles e prescribed e for e men, e roles e that, e like e thosee prescribedeforewomen,ehaveeworkedetoeconstrainegendereidentities.e

AccordingetoeP.eF.eMurphy,esuchemasculineerolesehaveetheiresourceeine“mythseaboute male e sexuality e [that] e have e informed e men’s e lives e over e the e past e two e centuries e and e focus,e frequently, e on e the e relationship e between e a e man e and e his e body” e (4). e An e example e of e thise relationshipe(andethateisepresenteinemoderneliterature)eiseaeman’seobsessionewithehisepenis,ewhiche becomes e “a e symbol e of e power, e an e instrument e of e appropriation, e and e a e weapon” e (4). e Alsoe addressingetheseemythseofemasculinity,eDavideG.eGilmoreearguesethate“traditionalemanlyecodese of e stoicism, e physical e strength, e sexual e prowess, e and e bravery e function e to e protect e the e sociale unit”e(qtd.eineLeverenze47).e

Like e the e notion e of e femininity e for e Butler, e masculinity e and e male e sexuality e for e P. e F.e Murphyecannotebeeunderstoodeasestatic,eabstract,eoreessential.eWhatehaveebeenecurrenteineliterarye representationeofemanhood,eaccordingetoetheeauthor,eareedominanteculturaleassumptionseaboute masculinity, e in e a e way e that e this e representation e ends e up e exposing e the e untenability e of e suche assumptionse(5-6).eThisefactetooeiseineagreementewitheButler’seargumentethatenon-conforminge gendereidentitiese(ore“subversiveematriceseofegenderedisorder”)equestionetheeplausibilityeofethee culturalematrixeofeintelligibilityeforegendereidentities.

had e to e be e kept e firmly e in e their e proper e place” e because e “in e men e they e were e a e sign e ofe weakness” e (60). e According e to e Mosse, e the e definitions e of e masculinity e and e male e sexuality,e therefore,edependealsoeone“thoseeunsightlyefeatureseandepathologicalebehaviorsethateindicatede everythingeaneauthenticemasculinityewasenotesupposedetoebe”e(qtd.eineGlovereandeKaplane61).eIne otherewords,etheeidealeofemasculinityedependedeonetheedefinitioneofeitsecountertypes,ewhiche wereesaidetoebeedangerousethreatsetoetheehealthyebody,eandetherefore,eshouldebeeresistede(likee masturbationeoresodomy,eforeinstance).e

Concerningetheeissueeofetheedifferenceseinetheewayemeneandewomeneareeaffectedebyethee impositioneofegendereroles,eDavideLeverenzediscusseseGilmore’sesuggestionethat

bothemaleecodeseofecombativeeorestoiceassertivenesseandefemaleecodeseofeself-sacrifice e have e to e be e learned, e but e . e . e . e men e need e ritual e and e ideologicale socializationebecauseetheyeareemoree“atomistic,”ewhereasewomenearee“normallye underetheecontroleofemen,”eespeciallyeineprecapitalistesocieties.e(40)e

Leverenzeconcludesethate“theemythe[ofemasculinity]ehasebecomeebothemoreehomophobiceande moreeambiguouslyeplayfuleaboutesexualeidentity”eandethateite“continuesetoeidealize,emarginalizee andemutilateewomen,”ewho,eineturn,e“continueetoefunctione[inenarratives]easeadjunctsetoeaeman’se remasculinization,eprovidingeemotionalesupportseandephysicaletargets”e(41).eTheeauthor,ehence,e seemsetoeagreeewithetheeideaethatenotionseofefemininityecontinueetoelocateewomeneineaepositione ofemajorevictims,eindependentlyeofehowenotionseofemasculinityealsoevictimizeemen.

1.2.3. Sexuality

traditionallyebeenerelatedetoehomosexualityeorebisexuality.eHowever,etheebasiseofethisedivisione betweeneheterosexualityeandehomosexualityeiseundecided,easeNancyeChodoroweobserves:e“Bothe are e similarly e constructed e and e experienced e compromise e formations” e (770). e In e order e toe understande thee mechanisme thate defines e thesee two e categories e ase opposite, e it e is e necessary e toe returnehereetoetheeideaeofecompulsoryeheterosexuality,ealreadyementionedeinerelationetoeButler’se notioneofegendereintelligibleeidentities.eJulieeRivkineandeMichaeleRyanediscusseitereferringetoe Adriennee Rich’se arguments:e“Th[e]eregimee [ofe compulsoryeheterosexuality] ehadeaseaemajore correlate e (if e not e a e presupposition) e the e banishment e of e alternative e sexual e practices e and e thee violationeofebearerseofenon-heterosexualegendereidentities”e(RivkineandeRyane675).eTheeregimee ofecompulsoryesexualityeprivilegeseheterosexualityeandecondemnsealternativeesexualepracticese andeidentities, ethateis, ethoseethatedeviateefrometheesociallyeprivileged efunctioneofebiologicale reproduction.e

Theeindividual’seassumptioneofeaepositioneinetermseofehiseoreheresexualityerelatesetoethee ideaeofesexualeidentity,ewhicheHummedefinesease“aesenseeofeone’seownesexuality,”ewhicheise “culturally e rather e than e biologically e determined”e (Modern Feminismse 409). e Thee author e alsoe emphasizesethatetheetermesexualeidentityereferseonlyetoe“theepublicepresentationeofesexualeaimse andeobjectiveseaseintegratedeintoetheepersonality”e(409),efromewhicheitecanebeeconcludedethateite doesenotenecessarilyecorrespondetoesexualepractice.eTheeveryefactethatepublicepresentationeande practice e may ereveal e incoherente aspects e of e one’s esexualities e confirms e thee complexity e of e thee individual’seposition.eee

ande thuse sharee withe others”e influencee ane individual’s e choicee of eane objecte of esexuale desire.e Sexualefantasiesereflect,ethus,etheeindividual’seappropriationseofetheelanguageeofetheseeculturallye createdenarratives,ewhichealsoeinformetheenotionseofesexualeattractioneandeattractivenessethatearee culturally e privileged. e Consequently, e Chodorow e argues, e such e notions e vary e historically e ande culturally. e In e the e case e of e the e West, e she e affirms, e “cultural e fantasies e are e almost e exclusivelye heterosexual”e(771).eTheeindividualecomponenteofeheterosexualefantasyeandedesireeconsistseofe “a e private e heterosexual e eroticism e that e contrasts e with e or e specifies e further e the e culturale norm”e(772).eBiology,einethisesense,ecannoteexplainetheecontenteofeeithereculturalefantasyeore privateeeroticism.ee

MicheleFoucaulteemphasizesetheenotioneofesexualityeaseaesocialeapparatuseforecontroleofe individuals,edescribingeitsedevelopmentethroughoutehistory.eHeeclaimsethatetheeterme“sexuality”e onlyeappearedeatetheebeginningeofetheenineteenthecenturyeandethatetheeconstitutioneofethisenotione followsetheenormseoriginatedefrometheedevelopmenteofescienceseandefromesocialeinstitutions,ease welleasefrometheesubjectivizationeofetheseenormsebyeindividuals.e(The History of Sexualitye 2:e 3-4).eWhileedescribingetheehistoryeofediscourseseonesexuality,etheeauthorerejectsetheecommone ideaethatesocietyehasealwayseworkedetoerepresseit,earguing,einstead,ethatesexualityeiseaehistoricale constructeprovidedebyesociety.eInethisesense,eheeaffirmsethatetheereasoneforetheedeploymenteofe sexualityeisenote“inereproducingeitself,ebuteineproliferating,einnovating,eannexing,ecreatingeande penetrating e bodies e in e an e increasingly e detailed e way, e and e in e controlling e populations e in e ane increasinglyecomprehensiveeway”e(The History of Sexualitye1:e107).eIneotherewords,esexualityeise determinedeandecontrolledethroughediscoursesethateintendetoeexamineeandeexplainetheehumane sexualizedebody.e

“practices e whose e object e was e not e procreation” e (“The e Perverse e Implantation” e 683). e Sociale discourses,ewhichevaryeculturallyeandehistorically,eprovideenoteonlyetheeknowledgeeofewayseofe properesexualebehavior,ebutealsoeofeformseofesexualetransgression:ewheneaesocialenormedefinese whatekindeofebehavioreiseproper,eitealsoedescribesetheebehaviorsethatecharacterizeetheesubversione ofetheerule.e

powerethroughethiseinvestigation.eAtetheesameetime,ethoseewhoeareeinvestigatedefeeletheepowere ofebeingeableetoeexperienceesexualepleasuresethateareecontraryetoethoseesociallyeaccepted.eFore Foucault,ethroughethisecirculareprocess,etheedeviantesexualitiesebecomeeasesociallyedeterminede asetheesociallyeacceptedeones.e

Foucaultealsoeexplainsetheerelationebetweenesexualityeandemorality,eaffirmingethatethee formereiseconstructedeandeconstrainedebyemoralerules.eHeearguesethatetheedefinitioneofemoralitye is e ambiguous, e meaninge bothe “ae sete of e valuese ande rulese ofe actione thate aree recommendede toe individualsethroughetheeintermediaryeofevariouseprescriptiveeagenciesesucheasetheefamilye.e.e.e,e educationaleinstitutions,echurches,eandesoeforth”eande“theemannereinewhiche[theseeindividuals]e respecteoredisregardeaeseteoferules”e(The History of Sexualitye2:25).eFoucaulteaffirmsethat,easeane ambiguous e term, e morality e presupposes e two e possibilities: e code-oriented e morality—rulese prescribedeforeaneaustereeconduct—oreethics-orientedemorality—relatedetoetheesubjectivizatione ofethoseecodesebyetheeindividual.eInethisesense,esexualityeiseshapedebyesocialeimpositions,easewelle asebyetheeindividual’seinternalizedeideaseaboutesucheimpositions.e

self-disciplined e subject e requires e an e austerity. e Foucault e concludes e that e it e is e more e useful e toe comprehend e the e historical e transformations e of e moral e experience e (“a e history e of e ‘ethics,’e understoodeasetheeelaborationeofeaeformeoferelationetoetheeselfethateenableseaneindividualetoe fashionehimselfeintoeaesubjecteofeethicaleconduct”)ethanetheehistoryeofemoralecodese(The History of Sexualitye2:251).e

Somee pointseine Foucault’se theory,e however,e havee beene frequentlye criticized. eOneeofe them e relates e to e his e definition e of e sex e and e sexuality. e Comparing e Foucault’s e and e Butler’se differentiationeofetheseetwoeconcepts,eGroszearguesethat:

WitheFoucaulteIeagreeethatesexeiseaeproduct,eaneendeeffecteoferegimeseofesexualitye (whicheiseanotherewayeofesayingethatetheeinscription,efunctioningeandepracticeseofeae bodyeconstituteewhatethatebodyeis).eWitheButlereandeagainsteFoucault,eIewantetoe argueethatebothesexeandesexualityeareemarked,elivedeandefunctioneaccordingetoe whethereiteiseaemaleeorefemaleebodyethateisebeingediscussed.eSexeisenoelongerethee labeleofebothesexeseinetheiredifference,easeineFoucault’sewritings,eaegenericeterme indicating e sexed, e as e opposed e to e inanimate, e existence; e it e is e nowe thee label e ande terraineofetheeproductioneandeenactmenteofesexualedifference.e(“Space,eTimeeande Perversion”e213).e