In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​achieve​ ​queer​ ​subjectivation,​ ​one​ ​must​ ​come​ ​out​ ​of​ ​the​ ​closet.​ ​The​ ​closet​ ​is both​ ​a​ ​place​ ​in​ ​the​ ​home​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​a​ ​metaphor​ ​that​ ​structures​ ​particular​ ​conceptions​ ​of queerness.​ ​In​ ​order​ ​for​ ​this​ ​metaphor​ ​to​ ​fulfill​ ​its​ ​premise,​ ​then​ ​it​ ​must​ ​produce​ ​narratives​ ​that are​ ​compatible​ ​with​ ​the​ ​configuration​ ​of​ ​reality​ ​that​ ​it​ ​suggests.​ ​However,​ ​the​ ​metaphor​ ​of​ ​the closet​ ​suggests​ ​a​ ​notion​ ​of​ ​queer​ ​identity​ ​that​ ​does​ ​not​ ​adequately​ ​account​ ​for​ ​queer​ ​people’s experience​ ​of​ ​that​ ​metaphorical​ ​place.​ ​It​ ​produces​ ​a​ ​narrative​ ​in​ ​which​ ​a​ ​subject​ ​moves​ ​from being​ ​“in​ ​the​ ​closet”​ ​to​ ​“out​ ​of​ ​the​ ​closet,”​ ​from​ ​one​ ​stable​ ​position​ ​on​ ​a​ ​binary​ ​to​ ​another.​ ​This binary​ ​ignores​ ​aspects​ ​of​ ​the​ ​queer​ ​experience,​ ​including​ ​the​ ​disorientation,​ ​fracturing,​ ​and erasure​ ​of​ ​queer​ ​narratives.​ ​The​ ​metaphor​ ​of​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​also​ ​produces​ ​the​ ​narrative​ ​that​ ​being​ ​in the​ ​closet​ ​equates​ ​to​ ​repression​ ​and​ ​coming​ ​out​ ​equates​ ​to​ ​liberation.​ ​Although​ ​leaving​ ​the​ ​closet suggests​ ​a​ ​narrative​ ​of​ ​liberation,​ ​the​ ​way​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​configures​ ​queer​ ​experience​ ​could​ ​mean​ ​the opposite​ ​is​ ​true.​ ​In​ ​this​ ​paper,​ ​I​ ​will​ ​argue​ ​that​ ​the​ ​metaphor​ ​of​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​fails​ ​to​ ​adequately explain​ ​the​ ​reality​ ​it​ ​imagines​ ​by​ ​suggesting​ ​a​ ​problematic​ ​and​ ​inaccurate​ ​binary​ ​of​ ​in/out​ ​and​ ​by precluding​ ​the​ ​possibility​ ​of​ ​liberation.​ ​In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​argue​ ​this,​ ​I​ ​will​ ​rely​ ​on​ ​Ahmed’s​ ​notion​ ​of​ ​a queer​ ​phenomenology,​ ​Foucault’s​ ​critique​ ​of​ ​the​ ​repressive​ ​hypothesis,​ ​and​ ​Butler’s​ ​theories​ ​of subjectivation. 

 

Although​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​is​ ​not​ ​a​ ​material​ ​object,​ ​its​ ​role​ ​in​ ​the​ ​configuration​ ​of​ ​queer experience​ ​establishes​ ​its​ ​potential​ ​as​ ​an​ object​ ​​of​ ​phenomenological​ ​investigation.​ ​In ​Queer Phenomenology​,​ ​Ahmed​ ​presents​ ​a​ ​phenomenology​ ​of​ ​Husserl’s​ ​table.​ ​She​ claims​​ ​that ​​Husserl choses​ ​to​ ​write​ ​about​ ​the table,​ ​not​ ​just​ ​because​ ​it​ ​physically​ ​held​ ​the​ ​paper​ ​on​ ​which​ ​he​ ​wrote, but​ ​also​ ​because​ ​of​ ​an​ organization​ ​of​ ​social​ ​reality​ ​that​ ​allowed​ ​white​ ​men​ ​access​ ​to philosophical​ ​discourse.​ ​Just​ ​as​ ​the​ ​table​ ​is​ ​one​ ​of​ ​“the​ ​‘materials’​ ​of​ ​philosophy,”​ ​the​ ​closet serves​ ​as​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​materials​ ​of​ ​queerness​ ​(Ahmed​ ​34).​ ​The​ ​closet​ ​is​ ​a​ ​place​ ​in​ ​the​ ​home,​ ​in one’s​ ​room,​ ​a​ ​place​ ​few​ ​people​ ​see.​ ​It​ ​exists​ ​both​ ​as​ ​a​ ​physical​ ​place​ ​and​ ​as​ ​a​ ​metaphorical object​ ​necessary​ ​in​ ​the​ ​construction​ ​of​ ​queer​ ​identity.​ ​By​ ​centering​ ​the​ ​metaphor​ ​of​ ​place,​ ​one might​ arrive​​ ​at​ ​queer​ ​identity​ ​through​ ​the​ ​threshold​ ​of​ ​a​ ​closet.​ ​Arriving​ ​at​ ​queer​ ​identity suggests​ ​the​ ​successful​ ​completion​ ​of​ ​a​ ​narrative,​ ​a​ ​sense​ ​of​ ​liberation​ ​from​ ​an​ ​imposed​ ​silence. 

​

However,​ ​we​ ​must​ ​problematize​ ​the​ ​notion​ ​that​ ​leaving​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​is​ ​an​ ​act​ ​of​ ​liberation. Instead​ ​of​ ​liberating​ ​subjects,​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​imagines​ ​a​ ​binary​ ​divide​ ​in​ ​queer​ ​people’s identity​ ​that​ ​has​ ​problematic​ ​and​ ​inaccurate​ ​implications​ ​on​ ​narratives​ ​of​ ​queerness.​ ​As​ ​a component​ ​of​ ​queerness,​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​metaphor​ ​structures​ ​a​ ​narrative​ ​for​ ​one’s​ ​identity​ ​that suggests​ ​a​ ​division​ ​between​ ​a​ ​period​ ​of​ ​being​ ​“in​ ​the​ ​closet”​ ​and​ ​“out​ ​of​ ​the​ ​closet,”​ ​a​ ​linear movement​ ​from​ ​one​ ​identity​ ​to​ ​another.​ ​However,​ ​no​ ​queer​ ​person​ ​experiences​ ​their​ ​life​ ​in​ ​this way.​ ​Coming​ ​out​ ​of​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​to​ ​one​ ​set​ ​of​ ​people​ ​or​ ​in​ ​a​ ​particular​ ​space​ ​does​ ​not​ ​necessarily affect​ ​the​ ​reception​ ​of​ ​that​ ​person’s​ ​identity​ ​as​ ​it​ ​exists​ ​in​ ​other​ ​spaces.​ ​In​ Queer Phenomenology,​ Ahmed​ ​argues​ ​that​ ​bodies​ ​are​ ​not​ ​exterior​ ​to​ ​the​ ​spaces​ ​that​ ​produce​ ​them.​ ​She claims,​ ​“bodies​ ​do​ ​not​ ​dwell​ ​in​ ​spaces​ ​that​ ​are​ ​exterior​ ​but​ ​rather​ ​are​ ​shaped​ ​by​ ​their​ ​dwellings and​ ​take​ ​shape​ ​by​ ​dwelling”​ ​(Ahmed​ ​9).​ ​Take​ ​for​ ​example​ ​a​ ​queer​ ​subject​ ​who​ ​is​ ​not​ ​out​ ​to everyone​ ​in​ ​their​ ​life.​ ​This​ ​subject​ ​may​ ​inhabit​ ​spaces​ ​with​ ​people​ ​to​ ​whom​ ​they​ ​are​ ​not​ ​out, such​ ​as​ ​a​ ​classroom​ ​or ​​a​ ​household.​ ​By​ ​existing​ ​in​ ​these​ ​spaces​ ​and​ ​being​ ​produced​ by​​ ​them, they​ ​lose​ ​their​ ​queer​ ​identity​ ​and​ ​must​ ​exist​ as​​ a​​ ​prismatic​ ​assemblage​ ​of​ ​their ​​assumed cis/hetero​ ​identity​ ​and​ ​their​ ​internal​ ​queer​ ​identity.​ ​An​ ​object​ ​that​ ​establishes​ ​a​ ​binary​ ​between​ ​in and​ ​out​ ​serves​ ​as​ ​an​ ​inadequate​ ​metaphor​ ​for​ ​queer​ ​experiences​ ​by​ ​forcing​ ​queer​ ​people​ ​to continually​ ​fracture​ ​and​ ​reconfigure​ ​their​ ​identity​ ​during​ ​processes​ ​of​ ​subjectivation. 

​

This​ ​forced​ ​binary​ ​of​ ​being​ ​in​ ​or​ ​out​ ​also​ ​means​ ​that​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​functions​ ​as​ ​an​ ​impossible object​ ​upon​ ​its​ ​arrival,​ ​thus​ ​establishing​ ​disorientation​ ​as​ ​a​ ​condition​ ​for​ ​queer​ ​subjectivation. When​ ​a​ ​subject​ ​comes​ ​out​ ​to​ ​someone,​ ​they​ ​metaphorically​ ​emerge​ ​from​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​that​ ​had​ ​been hiding​ ​their​ ​identity;​ ​however,​ ​in​ ​the​ ​context​ ​of​ ​this​ ​social​ ​relation,​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​had​ ​not​ ​existed​ ​as​ ​a component​ ​of​ ​the​ ​subject’s​ ​identity​ ​until​ ​they​ ​acknowledge​ ​leaving​ ​it​ ​to​ ​that​ ​particular​ ​listener. In​ ​other​ ​words,​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​arrives​ ​at​ ​the​ ​moment​ ​of​ ​the​ ​subject’s​ ​exit​ ​from​ ​it.​ ​This​ ​has disorienting​ ​effects​ ​on​ ​how​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​functions​ ​as​ ​a​ ​metaphorical​ ​object.​ ​While​ ​most​ ​objects​ ​are “an​ ​effect​ ​of​ ​towardness,”​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​becomes​ ​an​ ​effect​ ​of​ ​‘away-ness’​ ​or​ ​‘behind-ness’​ ​(27). This​ ​imagines​ ​queer​ ​people​ ​to​ ​be​ ​distant​ ​from​ ​the​ ​place​ ​that​ ​produced​ ​their​ ​identity​ ​and​ ​thus implies​ ​a​ ​constant​ ​looking​ ​back​ ​at​ ​what​ ​is​ ​not​ ​there​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​move​ ​forward​ ​along​ ​the​ ​process of​ ​subjectivation.​ ​When​ ​arguing​ ​for​ ​a​ ​notion​ ​of​ ​queerness​ ​as​ ​disorientation,​ ​Ahmed​ ​claims​ ​that “disorientation​ ​occurs​ ​when​ ​[the​ ​extension​ ​of​ ​bodies​ ​into​ ​space]​ ​fails”​ ​(11).​ ​By​ ​suggesting​ ​a​ ​look back​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​move​ ​forward,​ ​the​ ​metaphor​ ​of​ ​a​ ​closet​ ​presupposes​ ​a​ ​failure​ ​of​ ​queer​ ​bodies​ ​to properly​ ​orient​ ​themselves​ ​in​ ​relation​ ​to​ ​time​ ​and​ ​futurity.​ ​This​ ​looking​ ​back​ ​at​ ​what​ ​is​ ​now​ ​gone ruptures​ ​or​ ​confuses​ ​the​ ​present​ ​and​ ​future​ ​of​ ​the​ ​queer​ ​subject.​ ​Therefore​ ​a​ ​binary​ ​of​ ​outness cannot​ ​logically​ ​account​ ​for​ ​the​ ​construction​ ​of​ ​reality​ ​that​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​presupposes. 

​

The​ ​in/out​ ​binary​ ​also​ ​ignores​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​that​ ​although​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​disappears​ ​at​ ​the​ ​moment of​ ​its​ ​inception,​ ​a​ ​subject ​never​​ ​fully​ ​transcends​ ​its​ effect​​ on​​ ​their​ ​identity.​ ​This ​​is​ ​because ​​the closet​ ​is​ ​a​ ​metaphor​ ​that​ ​suggests​ ​conditions​ ​which ​​cannot ​​be​ ​fully​ ​transcended. ​​Speaking​ on​ backgrounded​ ​objects,​ ​Ahmed​ ​claims​ ​that​ ​“we​ ​remain​ ​reliant​ ​on​ ​what​ ​we​ ​put​ ​in​ ​brackets”​ ​(33). The​ ​closet​ ​disappears​ ​from​ ​an​ ​out​ ​subject’s​ ​immediate​ ​surroundings,​ ​but​ ​the​ ​traumas​ ​that​ ​the space​ ​may​ ​have​ ​produced​ ​do​ ​not.​ ​The​ ​image​ ​of​ ​a​ ​closet​ ​implies​ ​traumas​ ​associated​ ​with​ ​shame, secrecy,​ ​and​ ​silence.​ ​However,​ ​a​ ​binary​ ​construction​ ​of​ ​outness​ ​suggests​ ​that​ ​by​ ​coming​ ​out, queer​ ​people​ ​transcend​ ​the​ ​shame​ ​and​ ​silence​ ​of​ ​the​ ​place​ ​they​ ​have​ ​left.​ ​Such​ ​a​ ​narrative ignores​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​that​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​a​ ​subject​ ​builds​ ​for​ ​themselves​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​leave​ ​inevitably​ ​shapes their​ ​position​ ​and​ ​orientation​ ​in​ ​reality.​ ​This​ ​makes​ ​the​ ​binary​ ​construction​ ​that​ ​the​ ​closet metaphor​ ​implies​ ​inadequate​ ​for​ ​describing​ ​queer​ ​experiences​ ​of​ ​that​ ​place. 

​

The​ ​binary​ ​imperative​ ​of​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​metaphor​ ​also​ ​allows​ ​for​ ​the​ ​erasure​ ​of​ ​those​ ​who cannot​ ​access​ ​materials​ ​for​ ​the​ ​closet’s​ ​construction.​ ​The​ ​closet​ ​metaphor​ ​suggests​ ​that​ ​queer people​ ​only​ ​achieve​ ​queer​ ​subjectivation​ ​once​ ​they​ ​emerge​ ​from​ ​it.​ ​Before​ ​the​ ​subject​ ​comes​ ​out, the​ ​closet​ ​does​ ​not​ ​have​ ​ramifications​ ​on​ ​their​ ​external​ ​identity;​ ​it​ ​does​ ​not​ ​exist​ ​narratologically for​ ​those​ ​who​ ​cannot​ ​access​ ​it.​ ​This​ ​creates​ ​a​ ​metaphorical​ ​situation​ ​in​ ​which​ ​a​ ​body​ ​occupies​ ​a space​ ​that​ ​does​ ​not​ ​exist.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​then​ ​a​ ​metaphor​ ​that​ ​selectively​ ​erases​ ​the​ ​identities​ ​of​ ​those​ ​who cannot​ ​participate​ ​in​ ​its​ ​arrival,​ ​which​ ​has​ ​problematic​ ​implications​ ​in​ ​a​ ​physical​ ​reality​ ​that presents​ ​so​ ​many​ ​barriers​ ​to​ ​the​ ​closet’s​ ​arrival.​ ​In​ ​our​ ​reality,​ ​the​ ​construction​ ​of​ ​a​ ​closet requires​ ​physical​ ​and​ ​metaphorical​ ​resources​ ​that​ ​are​ ​distributed​ ​unequally​ ​across​ ​different subjectivities.​ ​In​ ​regards​ ​to​ ​Husserl’s​ ​table,​ ​Ahmed​ ​claims​ ​that​ ​“histories​ ​shape​ ​‘what’​ ​surfaces: they​ ​are​ ​behind​ ​the​ ​arrival​ ​of​ ‘the​ ​what’​ ​that​ ​surfaces.”​ ​Here​ ​she​ ​is​ ​explaining​ ​that​ ​the​ ​table arrives​ ​more​ ​easily​ ​for​ ​certain​ ​subjectivities​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​material​ ​labor​ ​of​ ​others:​ ​workers​ ​who built​ ​the​ ​table​ ​and​ ​women​ ​who​ ​provided​ ​the​ domestic​ ​​labor​ ​necessary​ ​for​ ​the ​​occupation​ ​of​ ​a philosopher​ ​to​ ​exist​ ​(44).​ ​Similarly,​ ​the​ ​materials ​​necessary ​​in​ ​the​ closet’s​​ ​metaphorical construction​ ​arrive​ ​more​ ​easily​ ​for​ ​white​ ​bourgeois​ ​men​ ​who​ ​have​ ​access​ ​to​ ​economic​ ​capital, social​ ​comfort,​ ​and​ ​material​ ​safety.​ ​These​ ​factors​ ​facilitate​ ​an​ ​effective​ ​construction​ ​and​ ​safe​ ​exit from​ ​the​ ​closet.​ ​A​ ​metaphor​ ​that​ ​acknowledges​ ​the​ ​ephemerality​ ​and​ ​instability​ ​of​ ​queer​ ​identity could​ ​avoid​ ​erasuring​ ​those​ ​who​ ​fail​ ​to​ ​complete​ ​the​ ​narrative​ ​it​ ​suggests.​ ​Meanwhile,​ ​instead​ ​of liberating​ ​subjects,​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​constructs​ ​narratives​ ​of​ ​queerness​ ​that​ ​allows​ ​for​ ​the​ ​erasure​ ​of certain​ ​subjects,​ ​the​ ​disorientation​ ​of​ ​perception,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​fracturing​ ​of​ ​queer​ ​identity. 

​

Furthermore,​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​metaphor​ ​fails​ ​to​ ​allow​ ​for​ ​the​ ​liberation​ ​it​ ​implies​ ​by​ ​producing 

the​ ​possibility​ ​for​ ​both​ ​the​ ​marginalization​ ​and​ ​the​ ​cooptation​ ​of​ ​queer​ ​subjects.​ ​In​ The​ ​History of​ ​Sexuality​ ​V.​ ​1​,​ ​Foucault​​ asks,​ ​“by​ ​what​ ​spiral​ ​did​ ​we​ ​come​ ​to​ ​affirm​ ​that​ ​sex​ ​is​ ​negated?” (Foucault,​ ​8-9).​ ​Here,​ ​he​ ​is​ ​critiquing​ ​the​ ​notion​ ​that​ ​society​ ​represses​ ​or​ ​silences​ ​discourses​ ​on sexuality.​ ​Instead,​ ​he​ ​argues​ ​that​ ​there​ ​is​ ​“a​ ​determination​ ​on​ ​the​ ​part​ ​of​ ​agencies​ ​of​ ​power​ ​to hear​ ​it​ ​spoken​ ​about​ ​it”​ ​(18).​ ​These​ ​agencies​ ​of​ ​power​ ​force​ ​sex​ ​into​ ​discourse​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​ensure “the​ ​solidification​ ​and​ ​implantation​ ​of​ ​an​ ​entire​ ​sexual​ ​mosaic”​ ​(53).​ ​In​ ​other​ ​words,​ ​the construction​ ​of​ ​a​ ​closet​ ​services​ ​these​ ​agencies​ ​of​ ​power​ ​most​ ​if​ ​the​ ​subject​ ​leaves​ ​their​ ​closet. Leaving​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​suggests​ ​a​ ​discovery​ ​of​ ​truth.​ ​If​ ​the​ ​truth​ ​of​ ​someone’s​ ​sexuality​ ​is incompatible​ ​with​ ​the​ ​goals​ ​of​ ​the​ ​state,​ ​then​ ​technologies​ ​exist​ ​for​ ​regulating​ ​that​ ​identity.​ ​On the​ ​other​ ​hand,​ ​if​ ​this​ ​truth​ ​is​ ​compatible​ ​with​ ​the​ ​goals​ ​of​ ​the​ ​state,​ ​then​ ​we​ ​could​ ​see​ ​it “inserted​ ​into​ ​systems​ ​of​ ​utility”​ ​(24).​  ​For​ ​example,​ ​homonationalism​ ​imagines​ ​queer​ ​liberation in​ ​America​ ​and​ ​Europe​ ​as​ ​a​ ​justification​ ​for​ ​imperialism,​ ​specifically​ ​the​ ​occupation​ ​of​ ​the Middle​ ​East​ ​(Lewis​ ​226).​ ​Similarly,​ ​the​ ​liberation​ ​of​ ​gay​ ​subjects​ ​from​ ​their​ ​closets​ ​allows​ ​for the​ ​creation​ ​of​ ​a​ ​gay​ ​demographic,​ ​“a​ mode​ ​​of​ ​specification​ ​of​ individuals,”​​ ​which ​​could facilitate​ ​the​ ​organization​ ​of​ ​capitalist​ ​markets​ (​Foucault​ ​47).​ ​Therefore,​ ​the ​​process​ ​of subjectivation​ ​that​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​imagines​ ​creates​ ​not​ ​only​ ​the​ ​possibility​ ​of​ ​oppression,​ ​but​ ​also​ ​the probability​ ​of​ ​cooptation​ ​and​ ​utilization.​ ​By​ ​imagining​ ​a​ ​narrative​ ​of​ ​coming​ ​out​ ​as​ ​liberation, the​ ​closet​ ​metaphor​ ​conceals​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​that​ ​power​ ​structures​ ​act​ ​on​ ​subjects​ ​both​ ​in​ ​and​ ​out​ ​of​ ​the closet. 

​

The​ ​closet​ ​metaphor​ ​further​ ​belies​ ​its​ ​narrative​ ​of​ ​liberation​ ​by​ ​failing​ ​to​ ​accurately 

account​ ​for​ ​the​ ​process​ ​of​ ​subjectivation.​ ​As​ ​stated​ ​earlier,​ ​coming​ ​out​ ​implies​ ​a​ ​shift​ ​between two​ ​stable​ ​identity​ ​positions;​ ​however,​ ​the​ ​process​ ​of​ ​subjectivation​ ​does​ ​not​ ​connote​ ​an​ ​active choice​ ​to​ ​move​ ​from​ ​one​ ​identity​ ​to​ ​the​ ​other,​ ​but​ ​rather​ ​the​ ​forced​ ​citation​ ​of​ ​certain​ ​norms​ ​over others.​ ​Butler​ ​claims,​ ​“this​ ​repetition​ ​is​ ​what​ ​enables​ ​a​ ​subject​ ​and​ ​constitutes​ ​the​ ​temporal condition​ ​for​ ​the​ ​subject”​ ​(60).​ ​A​ ​subject​ ​does​ ​not​ ​actually​ ​have​ ​control​ ​over​ ​their​ ​own subjectivation​ ​as​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​metaphor​ ​implies.​ ​Instead,​ ​various​ ​norms​ ​manifest​ ​in​ ​the​ ​subjects’ behaviors​ ​and​ ​thus​ ​determine​ ​that​ ​subject’s​ ​identity​ ​position.​ ​Furthermore,​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​binary ignores​ ​the​ ​role​ ​abjection​ ​plays​ ​in​ ​the​ ​process​ ​of​ ​subjectivation.​ ​Butler​ ​states​ ​that,​ ​“every​ ​being​ ​is constrained​ ​by​ ​not​ ​only​ ​what​ ​is​ ​difficult​ ​to​ ​imagine,​ ​but​ ​what​ ​remains​ ​radically​ ​unthinkable” (59).​ ​For​ ​example,​ ​to​ ​be​ ​gay​ ​and​ ​out​ ​of​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​involves​ ​an​ ​act​ ​of​ ​disavowing​ ​heterosexual identity;​ ​however,​ ​heterosexual​ ​identity​ ​will​ ​always​ ​function​ ​as​ ​a​ ​constitutive​ ​exclusion​ ​for​ ​the production​ ​of​ ​a​ ​gay​ ​subject.​ ​While​ ​exiting​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​implies​ ​an​ ​active​ ​rejection​ ​of cis/heterosexuality,​ ​queer​ ​identity​ ​does​ ​not​ ​actually​ ​liberate​ ​a​ ​subject​ ​from​ ​the​ ​norms​ ​they​ ​seek to​ ​oppose. 

 

In​ ​this​ ​way,​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​is​ ​an​ ​impossible​ ​metaphor​ ​for​ ​describing​ ​the​ ​experience​ ​of​ ​queer 

subjectivation.​ ​By​ ​providing​ ​an​ ​impossible​ ​metaphor​ ​for​ ​identity-formation,​ ​the​ ​language​ ​forces us​ ​to​ ​lose​ ​sight​ ​of ​​the​ ​operations​ ​that​ ​control ​our​​ ​identities.​ ​The​ ​closet​ ​as​ ​a​ ​metaphor​ ​then functions​ ​as​ ​a​ ​“more​ ​devious​ ​and​ ​discrete​ ​form​ ​of​ ​power”​ ​than​ ​the​ ​repression​ ​of​ ​its​ ​interior (Foucault​ ​11).​ ​To​ ​rely​ ​on​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​as​ ​the​ ​threshold​ ​to​ ​our​ ​liberation​ ​only​ ​reiterates​ ​its​ ​power over​ ​us.​ ​In​ Queer​ ​Phenomenology​,​ ​Ahmed​ ​concludes​ ​that​ ​the​ ​table​ ​is​ ​a​ ​queer​ ​object​ ​(Ahmed​ ​36). The​ ​closet​ ​is​ ​simply​ ​not​ ​queer​ ​enough​ ​to​ ​serve​ ​as​ ​the​ ​metaphor​ ​of​ ​queer​ ​subjectivation.​ ​But​ ​if​ ​a closet​ ​is​ ​not​ ​queer​ ​enough,​ ​then​ ​what​ ​is?​ ​Maybe​ ​instead​ ​of​ ​“come​ ​out​ ​of​ ​the​ ​closet,”​ ​we​ ​could “explore​ ​the​ ​carnival,”​ ​“enter​ ​the​ ​mirror​ ​maze,”​ ​or​ ​“have​ ​fun​ ​at​ ​the​ ​parade.”​ ​Regardless​ ​of​ ​its replacement,​ ​the​ ​closet​ ​is​ ​not​ ​what​ ​represses​ ​us,​ ​and​ ​leaving​ ​it​ ​does​ ​not​ ​equate​ ​to​ ​liberation.

Works Cited

 

Ahmed,​ ​Sarah.​ Queer​ ​Phenomenology​.​ ​Duke​ ​University​ ​Press,​ ​2006. 

 

Butler,​ ​Judith.​ Bodies​ ​That​ ​Matter:​ ​On​ ​the​ ​Discursive​ ​Limits​ ​of​ ​Sex​.​ ​Routledge,​ ​1993. 

 

Foucault,​ ​Michel.​ The​ ​History​ ​of​ ​Sexuality,​ ​Volume​ ​1:​ ​An​ ​Introduction​.​ ​Trans.​ ​Robert​ ​Hurley, Vintage-Random​ ​House,​ ​1978. 

 

Lewis,​ ​Holly.​ The​ ​Politics​ ​of​ ​Everybody:​ ​Feminism,​ ​Queer​ ​Theory,​ ​and​ ​Marxism​ ​at​ ​the Intersection​.​ ​Zed​ ​Books​ ​Ltd,​ ​2016.