This chapter features the contributions of influential and lesser-known essayists who have written persuasively and engagingly on gender and sexuality in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Issues of identity and difference have had a profound effect on the writing of our age, and certainly on the essay, the most elusive of genres. This chapter considers the intersections of the essay, gender, and queer studies/consciousness over the last few decades, first in a general sense, and then through the lens of specific essayists who have had the most significant impact on the direction of the essay since 1970 in the United States. Beginning with second-wave feminism, this chapter discusses the work of those essayists in feminist and LGBTQ+ communities whose foundational writing on gender still resonates today. The chapter examines important essays that emerged from third- and fourth-wave feminism and then pursues the stylistic and thematic innovations brought by lesbian, gay, trans, and queer writers who have explored topics such as gender as performance, HIV and AIDS, misogyny and misandry, intersectionality, discrimination, and the medicalization and mediatization of desire.

The postmodern moment was both important and turbulent in both anthropology and gender studies. This chapter focuses on how postmodern thought, which is described as being ant-foundational, engaged with thinking about gender and sexuality in gender studies and in anthropology, both in conjunction with each other as disciplines and in conjunction with feminist (and gay and lesbian) movements, which were influential during the same period. As an intellectual trend, the postmodern moment never attracted sufficient advocates to become a majority approach, and its time in the limelight was quickly over; nevertheless, the authors argue that the moment had lasting effects, particularly in terms of thinking about gender and sexuality. More specifically, they suggest that the introduction of postmodern thought affected the politicization of thought about gender and sexuality in the academy. In gender studies, it coincided with the founding of the discipline; in anthropology, it initially most notably came through the route of feminist-inspired kinship studies, and later through the influence of queer on studies of sexuality and embodiment.

In this chapter, I consider how translation pertains to the body on stage as a site of multiplicity and propose the term ‘transembodiment’ in my analysis of Weronika Szczawińska and Bartosz Frąckowiak’s Komornicka. Biografia pozorna (Komornicka. Ostensible biography, 2011). My intention in considering transembodiment is to analyse the effects and limitations of physical and fictional bodies as they appear within the mimetic, representational and concrete frame of the theatre space. Ultimately, I argue that the body is itself a paradigmatic site of translation, which can neither be reduced to nor fully dislodged from language, and which is both submitted to and escapes processes of mimetic representation. In this way, I do not offer transembodiment as a methodology but rather as a structure and a consequence of the process of transmission in the theatre that invites new subjects to emerge and come into being.

Following Thomas Paine, Edmund Burke, Mary Wollstonecraft, and others, Tocqueville’s Democracy in America regards mores or manners as of the utmost significance for democracy. Tocqueville further attributes to women and especially mothers the primary role of inculcating democratic habits of equality. His portrayals of women in Democracy in America are suggestive of the many ways in which gender, race, and class intersect with one another in Jacksonian America. Looking ahead, Tocqueville also anticipates what contemporary feminist theorist Judith Butler describes as “gender troubles.” In Botting’s view, both Tocqueville and Butler appreciate the complex ways in which women and their sexuality shape the mores and manners that animate the culture of democracy. In Tocqueville’s case, the transformation of American girls from objects of sexual desire coveted by the male gaze to mothers who bear primary responsibility for the transmission of manners takes place between volumes 1 and 2 of Democracy. Botting further suggests that Tocqueville’s shifting attitude toward women parallels his own marriage and an increased ability on his part to identify with the sacrifices of young American wives.

This chapter seeks to explore how, why and under which conditions a move away from critique as a negative practice towards an—educationally more valuable—affirmative notion of critique is important in formulating pedagogies that might respond more productively to the challenges of the post-truth era. What is at stake here in reframing critique as affirmative practice in addressing post-truths in schools, is the aspiration to create pedagogical spaces that enable teachers and students to turn their attention to care for the world in ways that go beyond the post-truth/negative critique/us-them impasse. The chapter engages with Foucault’s and Butler’s analysis of critique to show how a combined Foucauldian-Butlerian framework reconceptualizes criticality as an affirmative practice. It is suggested that cultivating an affirmative attitude and ethos of critique in the school context constitutes a virtuous practice of self-transformation and a passionate pedagogical goal that educators cannot afford to ignore.

This chapter reconstructs JŸrgen Habermas's critical theory of domination and uses it to examine the relationship between welfare institutions and democratic social movements. While most scholars approach Habermas as a normative theorist who identifies the moral basis for political critique and democracy in the universal features of human communication, the chapter focuses on another aspect of Habermas's thought: his analysis of the practices through which domination is sustained as well as overcome. The chapter develops two concepts from Habermas's early thought: the causality of fate and the dialectic of moral life. The first term refers to the peculiar manner in which individuals who exist within a structure of domination come to understand themselves as participants in that structure; while the second refers to the political dynamic through which that recognition propels the potential transformation of that structure. The chapter then turns to the critique of gender domination in the Sweden to show how Habermas's categories can help illuminate concrete struggles in the welfare state.

This chapter offers a Foucauldian genealogy of queer theory, which does not stabilize origins, but rather probes incommensurabilities within the field, centers the element of chance that allowed certain theories to become central, and allows for the formation of new roots to the side of those canonized for “founding” a field. Assessing the influence of three major figures – Judith Butler, Eve Sedgwick, and Michel Foucault – as well as psychoanalytic theory, the first section asks what theoretical orientations each of these figures brought to the field of queer theory and how those orientations influenced later queer theorists. The chapter then turns to queer theorists who self-consciously sought alternative intellectual roots for the field and claimed new founding figures, largely in a bid to center racialized populations and/or geopolitical locations outside of Euro-North America. The ambition of this chapter is to simultaneously account for the generativity of particular theorists and theories – sometimes for critics whose political stakes and objects of study could not be more different – while leaving the field open to the claiming of new genealogies.

Max Weber’s famous caution about religion can also be said of one of its major traditions, Christianity. Given its symbiotic relationship to secularism and the difficulty of stating definitively what practices and ethics are essentially “Christian” versus non-Christian in the modern west, how and why should we investigate tensions in Christian ethics about violence, alterity, and justice?