I figured I might need to elaborate a little more on what this whole thing is: what the term 'microqueerology' means, where it came from, and why I created this platform. So here's a little overview of my brain train leading up to this:
My Confusion in Biology Class: Humans are historically bad at explaining the non-human
My first biology classes confused the hell out of me. How could the complexity and diversity of all these crazy critters be reduced down to one pretty little story about males doing this and females doing that. Oh and don't dare question our neat categorisation of female and male.
What put my mind at ease was the realisation that scientific research is being conducted by us, humans, and so the outcome cannot possibly be objective. Using our (hu)man-made words to describe our (hu)man-made concepts and impose our (hu)man-made biases on to all of which is non-human, doesn't exactly set us up with an impartial view.
Early evolutionary biology, in particular, was heavily influenced by human social structures and reeks of the heteronormative, patriarchal, and reductionist systems of the time which ultimately shaped the way scientists approached and interpreted their findings:
1. Gender Roles and Bias: The prevailing societal norms of the 19th and early 20th centuries dictated rigid gender roles, with men typically occupying positions of authority and women often excluded from scientific pursuits. This gender bias extended to the field of evolutionary biology, where male scientists dominated the discourse. Women who made valuable contributions, such as Mary Anning and Beatrix Potter, were often overlooked or marginalized.
2. Male-Centric Theories: The theories of evolution proposed by early biologists, notably Charles Darwin, were framed within a male-centric perspective. Concepts like sexual selection, which focused on male competition for females and emphasized traits that enhanced male reproductive success, reflected the male-dominated worldview of the time. Female choice and female-centric aspects of evolution were often underemphasized or misunderstood.
3. Reinforcement of Gender Stereotypes: Early evolutionary thought sometimes reinforced existing gender stereotypes and hierarchies. Some scientists used evolutionary arguments to justify the subjugation of women and to support traditional gender roles. This biased perspective had a lasting impact on how society viewed gender and relationships. The narrative of the dominant male and subservient, passive female in a nuclear-style monogamous family seemed to be a best-seller.
These 3 factors led to our tragically limited understanding of diversity: Heteronormativity, the assumption that heterosexuality is the norm and ideal, influenced early evolutionary biology in limiting the understanding of diverse reproductive strategies and relationships in the non-human. Non-heteronormative behaviors and relationships were often positioned as "against nature" and very rare in non-human worlds, so cementing our mis-informed perception of queerness.
Modern evolutionary biology has made significant progress in recognizing and addressing these issues, as is evident in the works of (among others); Lucy Cooke in 'Bitch', Bruce Bagemihl in 'Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity' and Joan Roughgarden's writing in 'Evolutions Rainbow: Diversity, Gender and Sexuality in Nature and People'. Contemporary research is more inclusive, diverse, and sensitive to gender and sexual diversity, striving to provide a more accurate and equitable understanding of evolutionary processes.
"Queer": A word with an evolutionary biology of its own
The word "queer" has a complex and evolving history. Originally, it meant "strange" or "peculiar" and was used in this sense since the 16th century. Over time, it acquired negative connotations and was used as a derogatory term to insult or demean people who were perceived as unnatural - against the beloved Darwinian tales - in terms of their gender identity or sexual orientation.
Starting in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, "queer" began to be reclaimed by the LGBTQ+ community as a way to self-identify. It was used as a term of empowerment and resistance against the stigmatization and discrimination faced by non-heteronormative individuals. This process of reclaiming "queer" gained momentum during the LGBTQ+ rights movements of the late 20th century, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s.
Today, "queer" is often used as an umbrella term that encompasses a wide range of non-heteronormative sexual orientations and gender identities. It is considered more inclusive and fluid than some other labels and allows individuals to express their non-conformity to societal norms without having to fit into specific categories. Historically, "Queer" has also been exclusively reserved for use in the human world and rarely features in explanations of the non-human.
And so, Microqueerology was born
With the realisation of how heavily fucked up our understanding of the animal kingdom was, I wondered on the biases influencing microbiological research, what narratives we might be weaving on behalf of the even more complex world of micro-beings. How could we uphold this narrative on very obviously fluid and infinitely diverse organisms. The solution here is very simple, the world of microorganisms and even of plants has been established as so far from human, so disconnected, that they pose no threat to our enforced 'natural order'. This is where the idea of the individual, the 'self', cements the wall between us and the micro-world. However, we are not individuals, we are walking vessels of symbiosis and a thriving ecosystem of an incomprehensible number of microbeings, that without, we would simply not exist. Hence MICRO.
In an attempt to bring the micro to the human realm, establish our likeness, and break down the 'self', I introduce a human-only word to act as a bridge between worlds. A word that not only refers to an endless spectrum of sexuality and gender identities but also attempts to breakdown our very understanding of 'natural' versus 'unnatural'. Hence QUEER.
In reference to scientific research and the study of various fields we end with a big fat OLOGY to round things off.
So there you have it, the dissection of my brainchild, MICROQUEEROLOGY.
In reality, it was not so well thought-out. The story actually goes:
I was procrastinating before my molecular biology final, getting lost in thought about the above-mentioned thoughts, when a voice within aggressively shouted MICROBIOLOGY IS QUEER AND SO ARE WE. And I thought "Damn, someone should put that on a T-shirt" and quickly scribbled down "MICROQUEEROLOGY" with no thought to it at all and went about my day. The next week I was procrastinating before my bioprocess final and I found the scribbled note, thought "Damn, that's pretty catchy" and proceeded to procrastinate by creating an entire website dedicated to this catchy word. The End.
The platform will serve to encourage thought and discourse resisting heteronormative and reductionist narratives around scientific research. It will showcase research and writings from experts in the field. It will connect you to like-minded clubs or faculties around the world. It will exhibit and praise bioartistry as a research and communication tool. And Lastly, I hope for it to also encourage abstract and creative thought experiments to keep us curious.
Punk rock academia. I love it obviously. An idea that's more than catchy, it makes sense. 🖤
This is really inspiring.