Sedgwick's Axiomatic Analysis

Axiomatic Sedgwick’s “Axiomatic” introduces the reader to the argument that one must understand analyses of the definition of sexuality and romantic attractions in order to understand facets of contemporary Western culture. The author opens her introduction by discussing how the identity of a homo- or hetero-sexuality has always existed and how it affects other supposed binaries across a variety of cultures. Sedgwick laid out seven ideas which she held to be self-evident truths about anti-homophobic analysis. I had not previously heard of some of these concepts, but nonetheless can make sense of them. I interpreted the first axiom as bringing up a critical idea of present equality movements: intersectionality. Social identities aren’t mutually …show more content…
This idea again brings up the concept of intersectionality, but also causes me to question societal categories. The author states: “Sex, gender, sexuality: three terms whose usage relations and analytical relations are almost irremediably slippery.” (Sedgewick 27). Sexuality and gender are lumped together as the LGBT+ community, even though they’re different identities. Perhaps it’s because being transgender and being gay are both straying away from norm. Gender and sexuality often intersect to result in certain behaviors; therefore, this concept could be why Sedgwick claims the identities are hard to separate. Similarly, feminism and anti-homophobia aren’t concerned with the same issues, but they do interact, primarily through gay and bisexual women. As a movement, both have fundamental goals of equality. Overall, these studies can’t be separated because they have similar foundations, even though they concern varying groups of …show more content…
The author’s main ideology around this axiom is “[the] fear is that there currently exists no framework which to ask about the origins or development of individual gay identity that is not already structured by an implicit, trans-individual Western proiect or fantasy of eradicating that identity.” (Sedgewick 41). I’d never realized before about how this argument could truly harm gay people, but now I see why it’s unstable. The thought that one chooses to be gay has more of an origin in nurture, and if sexuality is malleable why can’t it be changed? The concept that sexuality is a result of surroundings can have negative consequences which range from strict and overbearing caregivers to inhumane practices like conversion therapy. Less obviously, the idea that sexuality is more a product of biology is problematic because there could still be intervention using misguided medicine (Sedgwick 43). Overall, I believe that people should not see being homosexual as a problem so that the origin of sexuality is not explored in an effort to “fix someone”. Nature versus nurture is not a stable argument because it can harm people, often without their full