What do you think?
Rate this book
Epistemology of the Closet
Since the late 1980s, queer studies and theory have become vital to the intellectual and political life of the United States. This has been due, in no small degree, to the influence of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's critically acclaimed Epistemology of the Closet. Working from classic texts of European and American writers―including Melville, James, Nietzsche, Proust, and Wilde―Sedgwick analyzes a turn-of-the-century historical moment in which sexual orientation became as important a demarcation of personhood as gender had been for centuries. In her preface to this updated edition Sedgwick places the book both personally and historically, looking specifically at the horror of the first wave of the AIDS epidemic and its influence on the text.
280 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
142 people are currently reading
9599 people want to read
About the author
Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick
33 books300 followersEve Kosofsky Sedgwick was an American academician specializing in literary criticism and feminist analysis; she is known as one of the architects of queer theory. Her works reflect an interest in queer performativity, experimental critical writing, non-Lacanian psychoanalysis, Buddhism and pedagogy, the affective theories of Silvan Tomkins and Melanie Klein, and material culture, especially textiles and texture. Drawing on feminist scholarship and the work of Michel Foucault, Sedgwick uncovered purportedly hidden homoerotic subplots in writers like Charles Dickens, Henry James and Marcel Proust. Sedgwick argued that an understanding of virtually any aspect of modern Western culture would be incomplete or damaged if it failed to incorporate a critical analysis of modern homo/heterosexual definition, coining the terms "antihomophobic" and "homosocial."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews
May 30, 2020
'Epistemology of the Closet' is an exciting book. It looks into the very physiognomy of 'closet,' and assays the work of some great authors such as Proust, Joyce, Lawrence, and Wilde. Even when one is familiar with these writers, it is fascinating to study their works with the perspective of 'Closet.'
'Closet' is not something that happens naturally. In countless personal gay narratives, one often hears, 'Oh I thought I were the only one,' 'this is only happening to me.' These are genuinely felt and lived experiences. It requires much effort to learn that this happens because everything is so profoundly heterosexual. So anything that lies outside the rigid normative binary is 'closeted.' What seems unique, abnormal, strange to queer people is not innocent, but strategically constituted.
In the book, the author explores 'Closet' the homo/ heterosexual binary that is constructed to reinforce the heterosexual by erasing its other. The more distinct this binaries is, the easier it is to regulate sexuality. Prior to the end of 19th century, men were men, but since then, they have been transformed into homo and Heterosexual men, whereas no such distinction existed before. According to Eva Kosofsky, the construction of 'homosexual man' has been a presiding term of the 20th century, one that has the same, primary importance for all modern Western identity and social organization as do the more traditionally visible cruxes of gender, class, and race. This new binary has affected western culture profoundly. Binaries such as secrecy/disclosure, knowledge/ignorance, health/illness, art/kitsch, discipline/terrorism, come to mirror homo-hetero binary.
As I read this book, I also thought that it was also in the modern/industrial phase when agrarian societies were losing their grip, and the progress in modern science was making it possible for Europe to imagine the world differently. As Europe became more advanced, we saw the mushrooming of cities and industrial units, the rise of democracy, decolonization and so forth. The changed world, at least in the west, begin to recognize other identities, which were hidden for a long time. Also, modern cities, by their very nature, do not control human 'desire' in the way agrarian societies do. Therefore, even today, the developed world is far more evolved when it comes to the rights of minority sexualities, whereas in pre-industrial societies, the term 'closet' hardly makes any sense because the homosexual man has not yet arrived there.
As I was reading the book, I was thinking about Marx. No matter how much one is tempted to denounce him; it is amazing to see how well his theories of base and super-structures are in explaining the world. On the one hand, the episteme of the 'closet,' gives the impression that humanity is evolving linearly. On the other hand, when one reflects upon the discourse producing machinery, one sees how easy it is to produce new knowledge systems, new ways of being in the world. Any sense of righteousness and ethics does not necessarily motivate these 'changes' that look so humane because they are as much embedded in pragmatism.
Coming back to the book, I must add that the chapters on Proust and Wilde can still be enjoyed, even if one has not read them. On my second reading of these chapters, I tried to read them as if I knew nothing about their works; they are still accessible. The book, of course, demands patience. The content in it is, after all, the work of a lifetime.
May 1, 2015
I have been thinking a lot lately about how variable the gay experience is across America and around the world, and even by individual. I have been recently seeing a guy from Venezuela who is only in the process of coming out. He hasn't come out to his parents, but has come out to his American friends and classmates, as well as some of his close female cousins. He has three brothers, and after coming out to one of them recently, he received the response that while his brother respects him, he does not support him. I was a bit taken aback by the rather brash out-casting in this day and age, and a bit shocked that there is still so much hatred and misunderstanding in the world today. Being raised in Massachusetts in the middle class, my perception of acceptance is likely to be pretty skewed toward liberal notions of equality, acceptance, etc. I haven't lost any friends, I haven't been eschewed from my family or work communities; I have been accepted for who I am, gay. But I wonder if I am missing out on some important rites and rituals as a homosexual, being so readily accepted? Am I missing out on an experience that is supposed to shape me?
It has been a while now since I have read through Eve Sedgewick's Epistemology of the Closet and while I may have lost some of the particulars and nuances into the receding oblivion, the impact it has made on my world view persists. Throughout literature, just as throughout life, we encounter everywhere the metaphor of the closet. So much rhetoric has been propped up against this metaphor of the "closet" that it seems that it creates this vicious cycle of stigmatizing people who are unsure, figuring it out, or simply constrained by other forces. Being "in" the closet is perceived as living a false, sham half-life - it isn't living. You are deemed doubly guilty: of being gay, and of being ashamed of it. We live in such an insecure society, and everyone is in one closet or another, and many of them are made of glass: they wear their insecurities on their sleeves. It is not only "us" versus "them" - gay versus straight, there is such a broad range of internally directed hatred, judgment and shaming within the gay community. As a group we parade and champion acceptance, but behind the confines of our paper partitions, we do not often accept one another for our variations on the same theme.
I read recently that many believe that homophobia is a fear that the homophobe himself may be gay - that is probably true, and is by no means a new idea. What is the origin of this? Where did all this hate even come from? In the ancient past, homosexuality was a fairly common and accepted passtime, though socially constructed in such a way. Hadrian and Antinoos, Achilles and Patrocles, Jove and Ganymede, Apollo and Hyacinth etc. There was not any kind of enduring relationship - no gaily married men on Olympus that I know of, anyhow. But the sexual component was accepted if not promoted by the ancients. I suppose it must have been the rise of religion that gave voice to the prudish hatred for the sexual act. I have a Mormon friend whose parents told him that while he is entitled to love whoever he chooses, they condemn the homosexual act. What a reverse! Are love and sex not a golden braid in themselves? A complicated relationship exists between the commingling of hearts and the physical manifestation in bodies, but it seems a gross hypocrisy to allow one and condemn the other.
La Rochefoucauld wrote "There are some people who would never have fallen in love if they had not heard there was such a thing" - does the same go for hate as goes for love? How would someone grow to hate themselves or to hate others for their differences, if someone aeons ago had not given voice, conceived of such a word, as defines something to be hated? And will that rhetoric of homophobia and hatred ever truly be extricated from our language? Language is very powerful - it can make people fall in love, it can entertain, it can enlighten, but it can also breed hatred and misunderstanding, it can lie, it can kill.
It has been a while now since I have read through Eve Sedgewick's Epistemology of the Closet and while I may have lost some of the particulars and nuances into the receding oblivion, the impact it has made on my world view persists. Throughout literature, just as throughout life, we encounter everywhere the metaphor of the closet. So much rhetoric has been propped up against this metaphor of the "closet" that it seems that it creates this vicious cycle of stigmatizing people who are unsure, figuring it out, or simply constrained by other forces. Being "in" the closet is perceived as living a false, sham half-life - it isn't living. You are deemed doubly guilty: of being gay, and of being ashamed of it. We live in such an insecure society, and everyone is in one closet or another, and many of them are made of glass: they wear their insecurities on their sleeves. It is not only "us" versus "them" - gay versus straight, there is such a broad range of internally directed hatred, judgment and shaming within the gay community. As a group we parade and champion acceptance, but behind the confines of our paper partitions, we do not often accept one another for our variations on the same theme.
I read recently that many believe that homophobia is a fear that the homophobe himself may be gay - that is probably true, and is by no means a new idea. What is the origin of this? Where did all this hate even come from? In the ancient past, homosexuality was a fairly common and accepted passtime, though socially constructed in such a way. Hadrian and Antinoos, Achilles and Patrocles, Jove and Ganymede, Apollo and Hyacinth etc. There was not any kind of enduring relationship - no gaily married men on Olympus that I know of, anyhow. But the sexual component was accepted if not promoted by the ancients. I suppose it must have been the rise of religion that gave voice to the prudish hatred for the sexual act. I have a Mormon friend whose parents told him that while he is entitled to love whoever he chooses, they condemn the homosexual act. What a reverse! Are love and sex not a golden braid in themselves? A complicated relationship exists between the commingling of hearts and the physical manifestation in bodies, but it seems a gross hypocrisy to allow one and condemn the other.
La Rochefoucauld wrote "There are some people who would never have fallen in love if they had not heard there was such a thing" - does the same go for hate as goes for love? How would someone grow to hate themselves or to hate others for their differences, if someone aeons ago had not given voice, conceived of such a word, as defines something to be hated? And will that rhetoric of homophobia and hatred ever truly be extricated from our language? Language is very powerful - it can make people fall in love, it can entertain, it can enlighten, but it can also breed hatred and misunderstanding, it can lie, it can kill.
October 3, 2020
Fairly early on Sedgwick characterizes this project, in lieu of a warning of sorts, as 'not pellucid'. This is a very accurate assessment, both in terms of content and regarding the form of Epistemology of the Closet. Which is to say that Sedwick tackles the subject matter that she admits is highly problematic with a highly dense text that is resistant to a simple reading as said subject matter itself.
This makes for a reading experience that is as highly interesting as it can be frustrating. Time and time again one finds oneself going back a few lines to disentangle the semantic bog strewn across very long paragraphs riddled with often obscure terms. It is the kind of book that requires a second read while voiding that very possibility by the very nature of the text.
Sedgwick seems very aware that this is her approach inbuilds the main theme of instability of possible semantic attributions into the very fabric of the text itself so that it becomes structural in more senses than one. Whether she realizes it is also likely to turn off potential readers who would otherwise gladly explore the ideas expoused in said text is another question.
From what I gathered, Sedwick presents as fundamental to the whole of Wester culture, with an emphasis on Euro/American cultural realities, what she calls a crsis in homo/heterosexual definition in late 19th/early 20th century. Connected to this centrality (arguably the only 'centrality' in a text that insists on tilting virtually everything off-center) are the ways in which (mostly) male homosexuality is seen as 'universalizing' (in which a potentially discrete minority group is highly relevant to society at large) or 'minoritizing' (in which homosexuality is is essentially only a matter pertaining to homosexuals themselves) and distinctions regarding gender that can be viewed as 'transitive' (homosexuality reproducing 'female' and 'male' patterns of behavior/identity) and/or 'separatist' (with same sex inclinations being a focusing on that particular sex, its particularities and sociocultural circumstances).
Around this axis Sedgwick works out an analysis of seminal (no pun intended) texts in queer literature. Given how non-pellucid Sedgwick herself is, it is not surprising that Henry James should feature so prominently. If James were born in the 20th century and turned to queer theory, I expect he would write very much as Sedgwick does, which is oddly enchanting, in a way.
At any rate, Sedgwick puts into play Melville's Billy Budd; Oscar Wilde's Picture of Dorian Grey (with bits of Nietzsche); Henry James's The Beast in the Jungle; Proust's In Search of Lost Time. Familiarity with these works is mandatory, rereadings may even be in order otherwise an already oblique text veers into unintelligibility. While Sedgwick does frame each author and summarize each work (minus Proust's, which is understandable), the reader is expected to know them fairly well (along with Foucault) and have the particular texts fresh in their memory.
Melville and Billy Budd
This was perhaps my favorite chapter. It places most of the action in terms of private/public spaces and how they conflict and articulate the language of vicarious suffering and desire. Emphasis on secrecy becoming almost by definition 'the homosexual closet' opens up all sorts of possibilities around knowledge and what it means to those who hold and/or withhold it. Issues of articulation, of silencing and pacifying homosexual tensions give it an extra sense of relevance.
Oscar Wilde and The Picture of Dorian Gray
Surprisingly enough this chapter was not as long or thorough as one might expect. Given the importance the text has had for queer writers, readers and queer-ness in general, Sedgwick does not invest as much as one might like in her analysis.
Dorian Gray serves as an examples of how the 'homo' aspect of 'homosexuality' came to be perceived via the by now common place Double them of the picture itself. Considerations of the relation between DR and the gothic genre show just how well versed Sedgwick is in this literature but are unfortunately drowned in parallels/contrasts with Nietzsche that deserved an entire chapter.
Henry James and The Beast in the Jungle
This is a short story that not even dedicated James readers will immediately bring to memory, assuming they have even read it (I had not). The chapter dedicated to the king of obscurity is the one closest to 'pure' literary analysis. It proposes an alternate interpretation to the orthodox one by reading the characters as dancing in and around the closet.
Ideas of self-blindness and internalized homophobia that goes so deep it becomes destructive of the self are presented with the typical overabundance of verbosity but are convincing for all that. It deconstructs the mechanisms through which a queer individual goes from simply suffering from the stifling effects of homophic repression to actively enforcing them.
Proust and A la Reserche
By far the most fun chapter to read and probably the one that is both clearest on sections and obfuscating on others. Sedgick self-inserts, intentionally so, throughout most of this one. The main theme is the closet as spectacle: male homosexuality becomes the epitome of vicarious experience through the narrator's watching Charlus and on a meta-level through the reader's reading the narrator watching Charlus.
This is the only chapter in whuch lesbianism is the focus; through Albertine's fluid and less structured homosexual potential, Sedgwick projects a more modern point of view around homosexuality as a whole.
The notion of the important- perhaps even revolutionary- of female readers of Proust was extremely interesting and one I wished had not be tacked right at the end. I would read an entire thesis on that.
Overall, this is a difficult text that fights the reader almost line by line. It will be intensely rewarding to some and perplexingly frustrating to others.
One thing that can be safely said, Epistemology of the Closet is not, at all, pellucid.
This makes for a reading experience that is as highly interesting as it can be frustrating. Time and time again one finds oneself going back a few lines to disentangle the semantic bog strewn across very long paragraphs riddled with often obscure terms. It is the kind of book that requires a second read while voiding that very possibility by the very nature of the text.
Sedgwick seems very aware that this is her approach inbuilds the main theme of instability of possible semantic attributions into the very fabric of the text itself so that it becomes structural in more senses than one. Whether she realizes it is also likely to turn off potential readers who would otherwise gladly explore the ideas expoused in said text is another question.
From what I gathered, Sedwick presents as fundamental to the whole of Wester culture, with an emphasis on Euro/American cultural realities, what she calls a crsis in homo/heterosexual definition in late 19th/early 20th century. Connected to this centrality (arguably the only 'centrality' in a text that insists on tilting virtually everything off-center) are the ways in which (mostly) male homosexuality is seen as 'universalizing' (in which a potentially discrete minority group is highly relevant to society at large) or 'minoritizing' (in which homosexuality is is essentially only a matter pertaining to homosexuals themselves) and distinctions regarding gender that can be viewed as 'transitive' (homosexuality reproducing 'female' and 'male' patterns of behavior/identity) and/or 'separatist' (with same sex inclinations being a focusing on that particular sex, its particularities and sociocultural circumstances).
Around this axis Sedgwick works out an analysis of seminal (no pun intended) texts in queer literature. Given how non-pellucid Sedgwick herself is, it is not surprising that Henry James should feature so prominently. If James were born in the 20th century and turned to queer theory, I expect he would write very much as Sedgwick does, which is oddly enchanting, in a way.
At any rate, Sedgwick puts into play Melville's Billy Budd; Oscar Wilde's Picture of Dorian Grey (with bits of Nietzsche); Henry James's The Beast in the Jungle; Proust's In Search of Lost Time. Familiarity with these works is mandatory, rereadings may even be in order otherwise an already oblique text veers into unintelligibility. While Sedgwick does frame each author and summarize each work (minus Proust's, which is understandable), the reader is expected to know them fairly well (along with Foucault) and have the particular texts fresh in their memory.
Melville and Billy Budd
This was perhaps my favorite chapter. It places most of the action in terms of private/public spaces and how they conflict and articulate the language of vicarious suffering and desire. Emphasis on secrecy becoming almost by definition 'the homosexual closet' opens up all sorts of possibilities around knowledge and what it means to those who hold and/or withhold it. Issues of articulation, of silencing and pacifying homosexual tensions give it an extra sense of relevance.
Oscar Wilde and The Picture of Dorian Gray
Surprisingly enough this chapter was not as long or thorough as one might expect. Given the importance the text has had for queer writers, readers and queer-ness in general, Sedgwick does not invest as much as one might like in her analysis.
Dorian Gray serves as an examples of how the 'homo' aspect of 'homosexuality' came to be perceived via the by now common place Double them of the picture itself. Considerations of the relation between DR and the gothic genre show just how well versed Sedgwick is in this literature but are unfortunately drowned in parallels/contrasts with Nietzsche that deserved an entire chapter.
Henry James and The Beast in the Jungle
This is a short story that not even dedicated James readers will immediately bring to memory, assuming they have even read it (I had not). The chapter dedicated to the king of obscurity is the one closest to 'pure' literary analysis. It proposes an alternate interpretation to the orthodox one by reading the characters as dancing in and around the closet.
Ideas of self-blindness and internalized homophobia that goes so deep it becomes destructive of the self are presented with the typical overabundance of verbosity but are convincing for all that. It deconstructs the mechanisms through which a queer individual goes from simply suffering from the stifling effects of homophic repression to actively enforcing them.
Proust and A la Reserche
By far the most fun chapter to read and probably the one that is both clearest on sections and obfuscating on others. Sedgick self-inserts, intentionally so, throughout most of this one. The main theme is the closet as spectacle: male homosexuality becomes the epitome of vicarious experience through the narrator's watching Charlus and on a meta-level through the reader's reading the narrator watching Charlus.
This is the only chapter in whuch lesbianism is the focus; through Albertine's fluid and less structured homosexual potential, Sedgwick projects a more modern point of view around homosexuality as a whole.
The notion of the important- perhaps even revolutionary- of female readers of Proust was extremely interesting and one I wished had not be tacked right at the end. I would read an entire thesis on that.
Overall, this is a difficult text that fights the reader almost line by line. It will be intensely rewarding to some and perplexingly frustrating to others.
One thing that can be safely said, Epistemology of the Closet is not, at all, pellucid.
Read
December 17, 2023i read this for my dfd with a particular topic in mind; so some parts i found more useful than others. i don't think giving it an overall rating is fair because of it. however the parts i did find useful were incredibly insightful and very helpful.
July 11, 2022
I've read parts of this over many years, but only now have I finished it. I cannot do justice here to its complexities. This is rather predictable. The book helped to start a whole subgenre of literary and cultural theory; although many of its claims are historical, so its also important to those who — like me — have a historical bent. This book is a wellspring of ideas and perspectives that I'll return to again and again, as I have done to varying degrees hitherto. Like Foucault (and building upon his work), Sedgwick shows us how important sexuality is to understanding modern history and culture. I was most struck by this in the third chapter, in which she analyses Nietzsche and Wilde. This is a bewildering and wonderful beast. It flies between texts and draws us to the image of the male body and its various meanings in a Hellenic or Christian mode, and then to male intimacy and its relationship to sentimentality, and thence to an anti-sentimental backlash that characterises certain strands of modernism. Sedgwick then, in an idiosyncratic shift, introduces the phrase 'it takes one to know one', alongside a Willie Nelson song, and from there explores the interconnectedness of these polarised binaries (this last dynamic is at the heart of the book). Epistemology of the Closet is in the stratosphere, and this is only one example. There's plenty of humour too. Sedgwick is an intensely clever writer, sprinkling her prose with ironies, allusions, and — at times — unashamed gaieties. I think this is a work of slightly unhinged genius.
March 3, 2024
Life changing book for me, what a tour de force of gayness, intelligence, fun! And I stress, intelligence: Sedgwick is operating on another level here, making me interested enough in the obscure Melville novella Billy Budd to make me write fanfiction for it, pages dense and then a glimmer of light comes through and it’s a joke, a dust mite of accurate recognition -
The closet - homosexual panic as she calls it - is the unnamed other mode of knowledge and order in modern Western society. Women are not real humans so other men must be loved as equals, but this has a threat. So this book has a double political analysis as well as literary lens - the Closet also has structured how men: gay aligned or gay fucking or gay hating or not gay at all - have written about each other and about love. The absence has seeped in. And it reveals much more contradictory things about the homosexual identity, which doesn’t really exist, than we might expect.
Anyway loads of fun if you like classic literature and rude jokes and being gay, which I definitely do.
The closet - homosexual panic as she calls it - is the unnamed other mode of knowledge and order in modern Western society. Women are not real humans so other men must be loved as equals, but this has a threat. So this book has a double political analysis as well as literary lens - the Closet also has structured how men: gay aligned or gay fucking or gay hating or not gay at all - have written about each other and about love. The absence has seeped in. And it reveals much more contradictory things about the homosexual identity, which doesn’t really exist, than we might expect.
Anyway loads of fun if you like classic literature and rude jokes and being gay, which I definitely do.
July 16, 2020
very challenging, at times clarificatory in its brightness, but never accusatory in its shining of light on the homosexual in a historical and literary context, sedgwick reconsiders the very concept of sexuality, and opens up discussions towards a dismantling, or rethinking of sexual and gendered binaries. interrogates persistent phobias and prejudices we have, and pushes you/me to think beyond the binary! must revisit this in 5/10 years. builds on her "between men" project (perhaps u should start there), yet is a stark and personal, perhaps better? deviation from it. this work has helped me think anew/ground further/(without being stuck in) my research into the formation of modern gay identity and its fermentation within modernist lit. blends together theory, historical account, literary context, and personal anecdotes beautifully. keen to get into "touching feeling affect" soon...
February 22, 2010
For much of my adult life, I have felt a special burden for ministry to homosexuals. To better equip myself for ministry to this people group, I have committed myself to reading books in the field of “queer theory”, in the hopes of coming to a better understanding of a point of view that is foreign to my own. This book, published in 1990, has been considered a landmark book in this field of study, and so I purchased it for my own study.
Within the first few pages, I quickly realized two things: First, that the reading level for this book is higher than I’m used to. I read a lot of books, but it’s been a long time since I had to look up the meaning of so many words! This is a book written for Academia, and I’m not fluent in that language. Second, that much of this book presumes that the reader has already read several other books which are referenced frequently. Since I have not read those books, there was much that I failed to comprehend as fully as i would have liked.
Still, this was eye-opening in many ways. While Sedgwick’s conclusions (and presuppositional world view) are quite different from my own, there is surprisingly much on which we agree, and much that I have learned from her. For instance, Sedwick makes the case that there are two views that guide our views of sexuality and identity. A minoritizing view tends to portray those identifying as gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender as somehow “lesser” than those who are in the heterosexual majority. A universalizing view affirms that all persons are of equal worth, though they may differ in many ways, and that an understanding of homosexuality is important for people of all sexual persuasions. These two views can also be applied to divisions of people based on gender, skin color, ethnicity, nationality, religion, socio-economic status, and so forth.
As Christians, I believe this is important for us to understand. We must avoid “minoritizing” those who are different from us in these areas. All people are of equal worth, because all are created in the image of God. In God’s eyes, there have only ever been two categories of people on this Earth: Sinners, and Jesus Christ. With this understanding, we can hold a “universalizing” view of all people and people groups, because apart from grace, we all have equal standing.
While these are not the conclusions drawn by the author (who is not a Christian), I feel that they are a practical application of some of her thoughts that fit within both a Biblical framework and within the canon of queer theory. It is this sort of common ground from which, I hope, the Church can begin to make progress ministering to a people group we’ve avoided and excluded for far too long.
Within the first few pages, I quickly realized two things: First, that the reading level for this book is higher than I’m used to. I read a lot of books, but it’s been a long time since I had to look up the meaning of so many words! This is a book written for Academia, and I’m not fluent in that language. Second, that much of this book presumes that the reader has already read several other books which are referenced frequently. Since I have not read those books, there was much that I failed to comprehend as fully as i would have liked.
Still, this was eye-opening in many ways. While Sedgwick’s conclusions (and presuppositional world view) are quite different from my own, there is surprisingly much on which we agree, and much that I have learned from her. For instance, Sedwick makes the case that there are two views that guide our views of sexuality and identity. A minoritizing view tends to portray those identifying as gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender as somehow “lesser” than those who are in the heterosexual majority. A universalizing view affirms that all persons are of equal worth, though they may differ in many ways, and that an understanding of homosexuality is important for people of all sexual persuasions. These two views can also be applied to divisions of people based on gender, skin color, ethnicity, nationality, religion, socio-economic status, and so forth.
As Christians, I believe this is important for us to understand. We must avoid “minoritizing” those who are different from us in these areas. All people are of equal worth, because all are created in the image of God. In God’s eyes, there have only ever been two categories of people on this Earth: Sinners, and Jesus Christ. With this understanding, we can hold a “universalizing” view of all people and people groups, because apart from grace, we all have equal standing.
While these are not the conclusions drawn by the author (who is not a Christian), I feel that they are a practical application of some of her thoughts that fit within both a Biblical framework and within the canon of queer theory. It is this sort of common ground from which, I hope, the Church can begin to make progress ministering to a people group we’ve avoided and excluded for far too long.
August 2, 2017
I see a lot of people taking issue with this book because it's difficult to read, and so I want to dispel a misunderstanding right up front: Sedgwick is not writing a pop history book for anyone interested in LGBT studies. This is a book written by an academic, aimed at other professional academics. Epistemology is not a narrative, it's about how the field of academia has understood sexuality, gender, and the concept of "the closet." It's full of theory, it's written in academic jargon, it's really dense, and if you're not used to that kind of writing, this book will feel absolutely impenetrable. I know, because when I first tried to read it, I hadn't gone through graduate school yet, and I never managed to finish the introduction because I just didn't understand what I was reading.
That said--if you're familiar with with this style of writing, the questions Sedgwick is asking and the theories she's presenting in this book are really fascinating. It reads like a collection of five essays, and blends gender and sexuality studies with literary criticism by examining how novels written at the turn of the 20th century reflected the construction of "the closet" through their subtext but ultimate silence on a character's sexuality. She explores in particular works by Nietzsche, Oscar Wilde, Proust, and Herman Melville, contrasting their real lives with their written works. Her theory is based heavily in a post-Foucault structure with a post-Stonewall, post-AIDS crisis lens through which to view the pluralities of sexuality.
This book will demand your full attention. Even with a year of intense graduate studies in gender and sexuality and after a year-long seminar on Nietzsche (who I mention only because I find his writing is equally impenetrable), this book was a struggle at times. It will not be an easy read. It will be worth it.
That said--if you're familiar with with this style of writing, the questions Sedgwick is asking and the theories she's presenting in this book are really fascinating. It reads like a collection of five essays, and blends gender and sexuality studies with literary criticism by examining how novels written at the turn of the 20th century reflected the construction of "the closet" through their subtext but ultimate silence on a character's sexuality. She explores in particular works by Nietzsche, Oscar Wilde, Proust, and Herman Melville, contrasting their real lives with their written works. Her theory is based heavily in a post-Foucault structure with a post-Stonewall, post-AIDS crisis lens through which to view the pluralities of sexuality.
This book will demand your full attention. Even with a year of intense graduate studies in gender and sexuality and after a year-long seminar on Nietzsche (who I mention only because I find his writing is equally impenetrable), this book was a struggle at times. It will not be an easy read. It will be worth it.
October 28, 2015
An interesting book. One of those ones where trying to wrap your head around it gives you a headache (in a good way). I wish I had read the books she discussed in it! For me the connection between (unacknowledged) male homosexuality and women's experience, even queer women's experience was convincingly shown by the text (in addition many of the observations about being closetted/known are transferrable as are many of the fears.
Probably everyone should read it, or something like it to show how culture is constituted of open secrets and unacknowledged presences of various types of "others". Also how we all bear otherness in ourselves and xenophobia is fear of BEING the strange rather than a seperated out fear of the strange. Confusing to read about all the embodied denials and ignorances of privilege.
At times maybe she was a bit self-indulgent, there was enough traces of self-mockery to make this forgivable, even enjoyable.
But Oooooooh what a difficult read!
Probably everyone should read it, or something like it to show how culture is constituted of open secrets and unacknowledged presences of various types of "others". Also how we all bear otherness in ourselves and xenophobia is fear of BEING the strange rather than a seperated out fear of the strange. Confusing to read about all the embodied denials and ignorances of privilege.
At times maybe she was a bit self-indulgent, there was enough traces of self-mockery to make this forgivable, even enjoyable.
But Oooooooh what a difficult read!
November 4, 2010
Well, Eve Sedgwick is brilliant, as always, although her literary analysis is certainly a much lass breezier read than the amazing and much-assigned introduction and first chapter of this book. Part of the problem is that I haven't read a lot of the texts by dead white men that she analyzes, and that made some of the later chapters incredibly difficult to get though. (Chapter 2, on Billy Budd, was particularly torturous for me.) But, as in her other work, the insights that she eventually reaches here are dead-on.
I would recommend the introduction and first chapter to everyone (seriously, everyone), but the rest of the book only to those working academically on sexuality in literature. But the intro and first chapter are some of my favorite cultural criticism. Ever. And they get better every time I read them.
I would recommend the introduction and first chapter to everyone (seriously, everyone), but the rest of the book only to those working academically on sexuality in literature. But the intro and first chapter are some of my favorite cultural criticism. Ever. And they get better every time I read them.
Read
November 24, 2025Nope!
I've just started this and nearly expired of boredom trying to read the intro! Jeez Sedgwick, lighten up!
We can all swallow a dictionary you know!
I'm abandoning now while I still have my sanity! 😩😩😬😬🤪🤪😵💫😵💫🥴🥴🧐🧐
I'm leaving unrated in fairness.
I've just started this and nearly expired of boredom trying to read the intro! Jeez Sedgwick, lighten up!
We can all swallow a dictionary you know!
I'm abandoning now while I still have my sanity! 😩😩😬😬🤪🤪😵💫😵💫🥴🥴🧐🧐
I'm leaving unrated in fairness.
September 20, 2024
I’m not sure if Eve would have approved of me using my newly acquired knowledge to push men into homosexual awakenings. Jokes on her for being dead because I’ll do it anyway
Want to read
January 16, 2013My feelings toward this book are laced with resentment and I haven't even read it yet. However, I am becoming increasingly enraged with the way the metaphor of "the closet" is popularly employed: with the attendant utter lack of acknowledgement that oppression and homophobia exist, and the implication that therefore queer people are obvs. totes pathological/pathetic liars. And bad liars at that because all the smug straight people are laughing up their sleeves at the "poor" "pathetic" "closeted" "obviously" gay person. Fuck that shit.
So. This book feels relevant. I have my own issues with the way this book is namedropped in the subculture, but I'm hoping it will actually feel relevant to real life and not just like a bunch of inaccessible academic waffle*.
*N.B. I like theory and academicalness as much as they next girl (see "N.B."), but I think there's a real questionmark about how ethical it is to write revolutionary/foundational/empowering texts at such a theoretical level that the people you're trying to empower can no longer easily understand them.
So. This book feels relevant. I have my own issues with the way this book is namedropped in the subculture, but I'm hoping it will actually feel relevant to real life and not just like a bunch of inaccessible academic waffle*.
*N.B. I like theory and academicalness as much as they next girl (see "N.B."), but I think there's a real questionmark about how ethical it is to write revolutionary/foundational/empowering texts at such a theoretical level that the people you're trying to empower can no longer easily understand them.
September 4, 2013
This is definitely a good analysis of the function of the closet in homosexuality. The introductory chapters were especially well written and fleshed out an influential cultural and social criticism. The binarism chapters were the downside of Sedgwicks book. The binarisms she ascribes to a section oftentimes did not fully come out of her following analysis of them. Also it was especially hard to understand her chapter on 'Billy Budd' (which might be caused by my lack of having read the novel). The book pics up again with the last two chapters which come back to the brilliant analysis that appeared in the introductory chapters.
Overall a very good critical analysis of the idea of the closet at the time it was written and probably still today.
Overall a very good critical analysis of the idea of the closet at the time it was written and probably still today.
September 18, 2015
thoroughly exhausting and utterly an important text, it demands patience and complete focus!!!
on the flip side, i really did enjoy the digressive technique!!
on the flip side, i really did enjoy the digressive technique!!
Read
February 18, 2017I got about halfway through and I honestly don't care.
September 15, 2019
This book is a superb work of literary criticism. It was densely theoretical and so it definitely takes work to follow along, but the work felt necessary and not gratuitous. It felt like a minor miracle - I think for whatever reason I was expecting kind of narrow, but I'm leaving with a better idea of the distinction between theoretical lenses (which can have their basis in politics) and the methodologies which emerge from them. Specifically, I am coming away with a clearer picture of what deconstruction actually is and how to actually do it (which has terrified me since graduate school). And all through her deft navigation of ideas and art, she keeps the human at the center and remains human herself. So glad to have read this, and I'm sure I'll be returning in the future.
Read
May 7, 2024end of my queer theory module means saying a sad goodbye to sedgwick :(
i will return xoxo
i will return xoxo
January 13, 2016
I was very fascinated with the way the author expressed they way in which the closet was stablished her point of view and understanding of the closet as an epistemology. Her expression of the closet theory was based on the denomination and meaning of homosexuality and heterosexuality.
The term epistemology of the closet in its over all meaning was very overwhelming. To me the meaning of the closet was something referring to fear and exclusion of people whom didn't for the norm. The meaning of the closet in a broader way to was that it was the locking of our identity as a sexual being. And that the closet was rested to protect us from the harm of those whom didn't understand us, or wouldn't welcomes us. Yet, at the same time protect us from from ourselves in a matter that would keep us from being discriminated against or killed.
After reading this Article, I realized that a lot of my predefined meaning of the closet were/are indeed erroneous and too vague. I say this because in all reality the closet was created to prolong the believe that heterosexuality is the natural and normal way of being and to demonized anything that differs from it. In all reality the closet is a more intricate way of hegemonic suppression towards homosexuals.
Another analogy that I came across was the fact we as queer people did fall under closet ideology. This comes to show the why we stayed suppressed for so long as part of the community that we are. The closet created an illusion of protection for “us”. And created a heteronormative society in which not only homosexuality was suppressed, but the closet also expanded to be more intricate than thought of, because the closet began inhaling culture and race at the same time.
The reality of the matter is that the full on closet value and definition, in my personal point of view, is the hegemonic heteronormative cushion for society to exclude and excuse other forms of existence. This reading thought me be proud and not live in the closet of society or allow anyone whom I love, whether queer, straight, white or colored. Like Eve mentioned in the book, people keep trying to interpret homosexuality and heterosexuality in a tenuous way that it's loosing coherence, “between seeing homo/heterosexual definition on the one hand as an issue of active importance primarily for a small, distinct, relatively fixed homosexual minority”
The term epistemology of the closet in its over all meaning was very overwhelming. To me the meaning of the closet was something referring to fear and exclusion of people whom didn't for the norm. The meaning of the closet in a broader way to was that it was the locking of our identity as a sexual being. And that the closet was rested to protect us from the harm of those whom didn't understand us, or wouldn't welcomes us. Yet, at the same time protect us from from ourselves in a matter that would keep us from being discriminated against or killed.
After reading this Article, I realized that a lot of my predefined meaning of the closet were/are indeed erroneous and too vague. I say this because in all reality the closet was created to prolong the believe that heterosexuality is the natural and normal way of being and to demonized anything that differs from it. In all reality the closet is a more intricate way of hegemonic suppression towards homosexuals.
Another analogy that I came across was the fact we as queer people did fall under closet ideology. This comes to show the why we stayed suppressed for so long as part of the community that we are. The closet created an illusion of protection for “us”. And created a heteronormative society in which not only homosexuality was suppressed, but the closet also expanded to be more intricate than thought of, because the closet began inhaling culture and race at the same time.
The reality of the matter is that the full on closet value and definition, in my personal point of view, is the hegemonic heteronormative cushion for society to exclude and excuse other forms of existence. This reading thought me be proud and not live in the closet of society or allow anyone whom I love, whether queer, straight, white or colored. Like Eve mentioned in the book, people keep trying to interpret homosexuality and heterosexuality in a tenuous way that it's loosing coherence, “between seeing homo/heterosexual definition on the one hand as an issue of active importance primarily for a small, distinct, relatively fixed homosexual minority”
November 10, 2009
Much of Sedgwick’s work focused on the concept of binaries, particularly, how the concept of binaries deals with the contrast of hetero/homo sexuality. And while such binaries or oppositions are present in life, things are not always as clear cut. Sedgwick deals with such issues at great length in this work and provides a Foucaultian influenced analysis of the historical/social/personal factors that have shaped the manner in which sexuality has been shaped and identified throughout the ages. One of the reasons, in my opinion, for why Sedgwick’s work has become such a significant work in the realm of Queer theory is that it draws a connection with the past, that is, argues that the manner in which sexuality is perceived is a consequence of long standing issues, which shapes what many people want to conceive as a simple hetero/homo binary. In order to frame much of her discussion, Sedgwick looks towards historical and social examples, and of course, she looks at literary references. Works from the likes of James, Wilde, Proust, Melville, among other are looked at as means to examine how sexual issues have been addressed in literature, and how such works represent a greater context that speaks towards factors that shape the manner in which sexuality is defined.
I really enjoyed this book since it presents such an important and useful work of modern Queer theory, but also because it goes beyond the realm of such theory, and towards the idea that the concept of sexuality and its identification is an ever changing issue that is greatly affected by the social and political factors present within any era.
I really enjoyed this book since it presents such an important and useful work of modern Queer theory, but also because it goes beyond the realm of such theory, and towards the idea that the concept of sexuality and its identification is an ever changing issue that is greatly affected by the social and political factors present within any era.
November 15, 2013
This was an amazing and very readable work. It would get five stars from me if I was more conversant (and hence, engaged/interested/informed) in the literature she analyzes in the second half of the book. Sedwick's claim that the homo/heterosexual destabilization/phobia itself produces and is implicated in various social binaries (Art/Kitsch, knowledge/ignorance Same/Different, Health/illnnes) is a fascinating and thoroughly interesting reading. Even more impressive was here ability to enter into these discursive elements without thereby creating a new hegemonic discourse; she creates space for an "antihomophobic analysis" and she does so without privileging a "minoritizing/universalizing" dichomoty--all such hegemonic dichotomies are themselves implicated in the Homo/heterosexual creations of a homosocial identity politics. She's not fighting "for" "the homosexual" as much as attempting to deconstruct the social binaries that themselves invariably result in concrete binaries.
I don't know that I've ever read a book I liked as much as this one for the first 100 pages. Absolutely amazing analysis. Her introductory (67 page!) chapter setting forth the axioms of her study and spelling out the social implications of selecting some differences to exploit definitionally and others to gloss over (and how this then gets embodied in the epistemology and figure of "the closet") is a truly freeing analysis. This is, put simply, what theory should be about. Can't wait to read Touching Feeling.
I don't know that I've ever read a book I liked as much as this one for the first 100 pages. Absolutely amazing analysis. Her introductory (67 page!) chapter setting forth the axioms of her study and spelling out the social implications of selecting some differences to exploit definitionally and others to gloss over (and how this then gets embodied in the epistemology and figure of "the closet") is a truly freeing analysis. This is, put simply, what theory should be about. Can't wait to read Touching Feeling.
June 17, 2022
2.5
"the space for simply existing as a gay person who is a teacher is in fact bayonetted through and through, from both sides, by the vectors of a disclosure at once compulsory and forbidden."
19th-century shift in European thought from viewing same-sex sexuality as a matter of prohibited isolated genital acts that anyone may be liable to, to viewing is as a function of identity, a personality structure that marks one as homosexual, regardless of activity. From the Wilde trials (1895), a distinct, ideological homosexual role was established and the discourse of male homosexuality became visible
"the homosexual person - ap project so urgent that it spawned in its rage of distinction as even newer category, that of the heterosexual person."
Classical (Greek) vs. Christian view of the male body - statues of nude young men (Greece) "the body of whose surfaces, features and abilities might be the subject or object of unphobia enjoyment." vs. Christian tradition focus on the flesh of the female body, one's attractiveness to it is prohibited.
Homosexuality delineates 'sameness' between partners: "How does a man's love of other men become a love of the same?"
Gay men are considered 'women inside' yet lesbians are even more feminine for being attracted to a woman - the essence of female or the feminine part of homosexual desire
Bisexual men in AIDS crisis considered biggest danger because they were blamed for the spread of the virus amongst 'normal' populations through their interactions with women
"the space for simply existing as a gay person who is a teacher is in fact bayonetted through and through, from both sides, by the vectors of a disclosure at once compulsory and forbidden."
19th-century shift in European thought from viewing same-sex sexuality as a matter of prohibited isolated genital acts that anyone may be liable to, to viewing is as a function of identity, a personality structure that marks one as homosexual, regardless of activity. From the Wilde trials (1895), a distinct, ideological homosexual role was established and the discourse of male homosexuality became visible
"the homosexual person - ap project so urgent that it spawned in its rage of distinction as even newer category, that of the heterosexual person."
Classical (Greek) vs. Christian view of the male body - statues of nude young men (Greece) "the body of whose surfaces, features and abilities might be the subject or object of unphobia enjoyment." vs. Christian tradition focus on the flesh of the female body, one's attractiveness to it is prohibited.
Homosexuality delineates 'sameness' between partners: "How does a man's love of other men become a love of the same?"
Gay men are considered 'women inside' yet lesbians are even more feminine for being attracted to a woman - the essence of female or the feminine part of homosexual desire
Bisexual men in AIDS crisis considered biggest danger because they were blamed for the spread of the virus amongst 'normal' populations through their interactions with women
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 27, 2016
I concede that this opinion comes from an undergrad who has seldom encountered literary theory in a classroom setting (shame, shame, shame), but from what I gather--"affect" is intuitive. Abstract. Therefore, Sedgwick is, theoretically, not presenting anything new. The reality that gay women and men have been subject to the heteronormative social structures, producing a disheartening amount of pain, compulsive sexuality, and rigid identity boundaries-the equally unpleasant reality that straight people (whether they admit it or not) are subject to the same negative consequences of these social structures--these ideas were not necessarily new when Sedgwick's master work was published. /So/ it must be that Sedgwick's goal is not contingent on introducing ideas . This book is an early exploration in how to combine literature with contemporary dialogue on sexuality. In this way, Sedgwick's book serves as an example of how disciplines can be incorporated into discourse, a concept that makes this book, along with Sedgwick's other literary-academic experiments, well worth while.
February 5, 2013
Pequeno ensaio datado de 1990 sobre o armário tentando a autora desconstruir o nó cego do sua representação e categorizações: protecção vs. afirmação; privacidade vs. exposição; separatismo vs. integracionismo; minoritário vs. universalizante. No sistema judicial americano, e segundo várias sentenças do Supremo Tribunal dos Estados Unidos que eram recentes em 1990, a protecção de um direito colidia directamente com outra, (por exemplo: privacidade vs. responsabilidade) tornando o problema muito mais intrincado do que parece à primeira vista, procurando como que abrir o armário enquanto mantinha os sujeitos no seu interior. A título de exemplo de como o problema não é simples, a saída do armário de um filho 'atira' para o armário os seus pais que vivem numa comunidade manifestamente conservadora. E os armários transparentes, com as suas características intrínsecas de se manterem estanques mas permitirem visibilidade para o seu interior, não esquecidos neste ensaio.
February 10, 2019
It's a classic, from a wonderful woman.
April 9, 2022
this ain’t it chief
March 9, 2022
eve, babes, i love ya but i love the closet more xxx
November 2, 2023
In Epistemology of the Closet I encountered the same the issue I always have when reading old queer theory: it has been cited so many times that its interventions are no longer novel. Like, I've seen this book cited in virtually every work of queer theory/studies I've ever read. Pushing past binarism, as well as her treatment of the closet and minoritizing/universalizing views of homosexuality, was really quite brilliant in the early 90s, but 30 years later it's... kinda nothing special. I'll definitely be citing this book in my own scholarship, but I don't know how much I'll engage with it beyond that. (Famous last words, I'm sure...)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews