Enlightenment through an Uncomfortable Unconscious.
While my understandings of both Queer Theory and Mahayana Buddhism are equally and unfortunately scant, I’ve noticed some interesting connections. While it’s obviously impossible to pare down an anti-essentialist theory to its essence, Queer Theory can be perceived as an instrument for the problematization of social/moral systems, identities, classifications, and narratives built on essentialist and static conceptions of an objective world. For instance, Queer Theory problematizes “biological sex” through the example of individuals who physically don’t fit into the male/female dichotomy. There’s also problematization of gender through demonstration of the internal contradictions of the categories “femininity” and “masculinity” (i.e. Why did McDonald’s segregate genders in the 80’s by having male employees cook while female employees took orders and handled money?). Of course, Queer Theory also problematizes heteronormativity by de-privileging the heterosexual relationship as a standard which all other lifestyles/sexualities deviate from. This de-privileging implies a radical question, namely, “Who actually conforms to the heterosexist model?” The answer, of course, is no one. The wide variety of practices, fetishes, turn-ons, and sexual pleasures demonstrate not only the possibility of labeling every person as perverted or deviant in some way from the heterosexist model, but also the impossibility of creating a normative model which somehow manages to capture a majority of individuals. For instance, how can we say that a guy receiving anal sex from another guy is queer, but pegging is straight? Does it matter if the penetration involves a pink dildo or a pinky? How are you queer for enjoying the feel of leather, yet straight for enjoying one hair color or type over others? So really, to be human is to be queer. Obviously, our society marginalizes certain groups and individuals more than others, but these marginalizations are social and not “natural”. Therefore, a girl engaged in multiple, emotional-sexual relations with multiple genders is perceived as more queer than a girl who only kisses guys with long hair; but in reality, they’re both queer as fuck.
So, what does this have to do with Mahayana Buddhism? Basically, the relationship exists analogically. There’s a school known as Madhyamaka which asserts (among other things) that striving for nirvana (the snuffing out of desires) is counter-productive because striving is exactly the opposite of what one is trying to rid oneself of. While Queer Theory obviously does not advocate the abandonment of desires (unless those desires are not one’s desires), the point of confluence emerges once one understands the ontology of the Madhyamaka school. According to the Saptasatika-prajna-paramita Sutra, “If anyone regards Bodhi [(Buddha-nature)] as something to be attained, to be cultivated by discipline, they are guilty of the pride of self”. This Buddha-nature is relevant to Queer Theory because the concept is premised on the idea that every individual is already enlightened and satori (awakening) is merely a matter of realizing one’s inner Buddha. Put another way, we’re all already queer, and it’s merely a matter of pointing this out to everyone. This is prevented by our useless and incorrect assumptions and conceptions; thus, according to the Lankavatara Sutra: “all things subject to discrimination have no reality”. This line of thought finds reflection in Queer Theory’s problematization of seemingly stable and well-ordered categories, as well as the words of the most (in)famous samurai, Miyamoto Musashi: “Until you realize the true Way, whether in Buddhism or in common sense, you may think that things are correct and in order.” In summary, certain Buddhist doctrines are related to Queer Theory because they both postulate that everyone already contains the potential for enlightenment and the obstacles to this enlightenment are our cognitive categories.
The problem with this connection is that it could imply a conservative approach to queer activism. If everyone’s already queer then there’s no need to agitate because everyone will eventually come to their senses. This conservatism became pronounced in Zen Buddhism and even led to the justification of a warrior code, bushido. Obviously, this approach is totally unsuitable for Queer Theory. While everyone may already be queer, the socio-political reality does not reflect this, and consequently anti-queer hatred is widespread. So the task becomes similar to that of Mahayana Buddhist monks in the first millennia of the Common Era. People need help finding their inner queer. While some might criticize this as a Maoist approach, I think a fine distinction should be drawn between Chinese cadres forcing peasants to attend education sessions and the proselytizing methods of monks which they copied. So yes, I’m advocating Queer missionaries (but they can’t be like Christian missionaries!) for two reasons. Idealistically, because queerness is awesome and I like humanity in general and think everyone should have a chance to self-actualize. Pragmatically, because if there are more queers it’s easier to smash the straight system of oppression. Still, even if one is resolved to go forth and create a queer pandemic, the methods are still up for debate.