Neither/Nor: Mestiza, Transgender, and Bisexual Feminist Theories
Lisa Heldke, Gustavus Adolphus College
Theories of race, gender and sexual identity have frequently rested upon dichotomous constructions so presumed to be universal, necessary and foundational, that, for long stretches of time, they become all but invisible; when they surface, such dichotomies are taken to be
“natural,” or to be unquestionably given features of the ordinary world. Identities located on either side of the dichotomies are understood as the base categories from which all other identities are somehow to be derived—or at least to be understood. So, for instance, within the category of race, Black and white are the foundational identities, through which other racial identities and
(especially), all “mixed” race identities are conceptualized. Likewise, the “monosexual” categories of hetero and homo are conceived as the identities in terms of which we are to understand all sexual/affectional identities that are not grounded in attraction to a single gender.
Finally, and presumably most fundamentally, the distinction between man and woman (or, even more biologistically, between male and female) is often understood to be so fundamental that anyone who at present does not clearly and unambiguously fall into one or the other camp is surely believed to be heading rapidly in the direction of one of them.
Though addressing different aspects of identity, these dichotomies all share a certain fascination with purity, with division-without-remainder, with clarity and absence of ambiguity.
Theorists who presume the legitimacy of these dichotomies, even if they write from “opposite” sides of a given dichotomy, often end up sharing rather more theoretical turf than might be expected, given apparently very different starting points.
I am interested in tunneling beneath these dichotomies, to ask the question “how do our understandings of race, sex, and sexual identity change, if we begin from points somewhere in between the poles of these dichotomies, or—better—if we begin by challenging the very legitimacy of these dichotomies in the first place? How do our projects for social transformation—for challenging various forms of oppression—change, if we approach them from such ‘neither/nor’ identities as bisexual, mestiza, or trans?”
For several decades, feminist theorists (among others) have explored, challenged, and (in some cases) worked to dismantle these dichotomous constructions. The most longstanding of these endeavors is that undertaken by Latina feminists, who have been developing the concept of mestizaje, an identity that calls into question notions of racial purity and primacy that are (at least implicitly) contained embodied in many theories of race predicated on Black/white binarisms.
More recently, bisexual theorists have challenged the fundamentality of “monosexual” identities, as well as the lesbian separatist theory that sees no politically efficacious role for bisexual theory or activism. More recently still, transgender theorists have begun developing theories of liberation that begin from the proposal that we understand all genders from the location of transgender.
Finally, some feminists theorizing about the biological categories of male and female have called for us to attend to the ways in which these purportedly purely biological categories create purity and clarity where in fact it is not to be found.
At the Institute, I am interested in exploring these feminist projects of dichotomyexcavation with other pragmatist philosophers, precisely because I think we share an interest in unearthing and problematizing dichotomies of a certain sort. I am interested in thinking somewhat more generally about the ontological nature of dichotomy-challenging work, and also its sociopolitical efficacy; I believe that the pragmatist tradition—particularly as represented by Dewey— provides a valuable dialogue partner for this more general reflection.
The reading list:

I have suggested two background texts that explore and problematize the purity that lurks behind dichotomous identity categories. These could be helpful for “thinking into” the project of dichotomy challenging in a more general way.


I plan to spend the first day on the more familiar, more developed (and, likely, more immediately plausible) challenge to racial binarisms, by exploring the concept of mestizaje.
For this day, I chose often-cited articles by three Latina feminist theorists.
 The second day we’ll consider sexuality, gender, and sex; readings for this section come from a transgender activist, a biologist/feminist theorist, and a feminist philosopher (okay, it’s me).

I include a shortish list of additional relevant readings. Some of these are additional texts from the same theorists (e.g. additional sections from Kate Bornstein); some take the reader further afield on a topic (e.g. beyond mestizaje, to other “mixed” race theories); and some are specifically pragmatist explorations of dichotomy and purity as they relate (especially) to race
(e.g. Boisvert and Pappas).
Background texts
Douglas, Mary. “The System Shattered and Renewed.” Chapter 10 of
Purity and Danger: An
Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Praeger, 1966. 159-179.
Haraway, Donna. “A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the
1980s. In Feminism/Postmodernism. Ed. Linda J. Nicholson. New York: Routledge,
1989. 190-233.
Central texts to discuss: race/ethnicity
Alcoff, Linda. “Mestizo Identity.” In
American Mixed Race: The Culture of Microdiversity.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1995.
Anzaldua, Gloria. “How to Tame a Wild Tongue,” and “La Consciencia de la Mestiza/Towards a
New Consciousness.” In
Borderlands/La Frontera. San Francisco: Spinsters/Aunt Lute,
1987. 53-64 and 77-91. The latter chapter is reprinted in Making Face. Making
Soul/Haciendo Caras, ed. Anzaldua. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Foundation, 1990. 377-
389.
Lugones, Maria. “Purity, Impurity and Separation.”
Signs 19.2 (1994): 458-479.
Central texts to discuss: sex and sexuality
Bornstein, Kate. “This Quiet Revolution” and “Okay, Now What?” In
My Gender Workbook:
How to Become a Real Man, a Real Woman, the Real You, or Something Else Entirely.
New York: Routledge, 1998. 255-286.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. “Should There Be Only Two Sexes?” In Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. New York: Basic Books, 2000. 78-114.
Heldke, Lisa. “Dear Kate Bornstein.” Forthcoming in Radical Philosophy Association
Proceedings 3, ed. Greg Moses. 95-103. Available on the Institute website as a Word file.
-----. “Unnatural Selection.” Ethics and the Environment 3.1 (1998): 41-55.

Additional relevant texts
Boisvert, Raymond D. “Diversity as Fraternity Lite.”
Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 19.2
(2005): 120-128.
Boisvert, Raymond D. “Hungry Being: The Parasite.” Unpublished ms. Available on the Institute website as a Word file.
Bornstein, Kate. “Who’s on Top?” In
My Gender Workbook: How to Become a Real Man, a Real
Woman, the Real You, or Something Else Entirely. New York: Routledge, 1998. 35-72.
Eadie, Jo. “Activating Bisexuality: Towards a Bi/Sexual Politics.” In Activating Theory: Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual Politics, ed. Joseph Bristow and Angelia R. Wilson. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1993.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. “Gender Systems: Toward a Theory of Human Sexuality.” In Sexing the
Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. New York: Basic Books, 2000.
233-256.
Pappas, Gregory Fernando. “Dewey and Latina Lesbians on the Quest for Purity.” Journal of
Speculative Philosophy 15.2 (2001): 152-161.
Tessman, Lisa. “The Racial Politics of Mixed Race.” Journal of Social Philosophy 30.3 (1999):
276-294.
Trinh T. Minh-ha. “Not You/Like You” Post-Colonial Women and the Interlocking Questions of
Identity and Difference.” In Making Face. Making Soul/Haciendo Caras, ed. Gloria
Anzaldua. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Foundation, 1990. 371-375.