"The Trope of the Closet": Why it's Still Relevant

Photo credit: https://www.etsy.com/listing/672404957/lgbt-gay-pride-welcome-to-my-closet

In his work “The Trope of the Closet”, David L. Wallace explores the importance of the trope of the closet within sexual rhetorics. He argues that the articulation of the trope and how it interacts not only with the LGBT groups but also those who do not identify as part of LGBT will help us understand and analyze how the to use the trope of the closet not only in rhetoric, but also in the LGBT community in helping understand themselves, since they consistently have to negotiate their closeted identities. It contributes to the community a new light on the trope of the closet, arguing that while its negative roots stemming from an oppressive binary do have negative effects on the LGBT community, it is important to learn about the trope to use it to further understand sexual rhetorics and that it also has its own slight positives as well. The trope of the closet brings to light aspects of identity - specifically in sexual identity - that are usually left out or ignored, often purposefully, and that must be consistently talked or brought up about in order to have presence in discourse.

Wallace pulls from existing frameworks of sexual rhetoric as well as anecdotes to support the importance of the trope, almost making a puzzle-like theory that, honestly, jumps around a bit. Some pieces don’t seem to fit within the puzzle while others fit, but not well, and there may be a better piece somewhere else. However, despite this flaw, I still find it an important read in understanding the trope of the closet; as a person who identifies being bisexual myself, I found some things that I never realized about my own closet.

Wallace in a sense creates his own theory, but by extending bits and pieces of others throughout his work. He uses Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s Epistemology of the Closet heavily in the beginning of explaining the trope of the closet in six principles. In these principles he gives parameters of the trope, who it affects, what it can be used for, what effects closets itself has, how coming out is never a complete act, that all closets aren’t the same, and lastly, that they don’t provide clarity for everyone in a closeted situation - whether they are in it or not. Within the last principle he draws on another type of trope, African American signifyin(g), and compares the closet to it to provide further clarification. Basically, signifyin(g) is a verbal strategy that often plays with words and their figurative and denotative meanings to create new ones that are only understood by those who use this vernacular. For example, one might insult someone to show affection.

Wallace uses these parameters of the closet to also show that we shouldn’t abandon the trope of the closet despite its negative implications because of how important it is in understanding the rhetoric and the self.

Wallace then goes into explaining how the closet is a “queer master trope”. He uses a scene from the show Glee as well as his own anecdote to show the transparency of the closet, and how it has affected those around him as well as himself. His transparent closet and his frustrations in trying to understand and explain it to others leads into two other frameworks: Junxi Qian’s exploration of the trope of abnormality and Gail Mason’s exploration of the trope of visibility, which I will explain later in the context of the reading. Both pave two different paths into showing the importance of the trope of the closet as well as help explain the complexity of the trope of the closet itself. He frequently speaks on how these tropes aid in the explaining of the negative epistemology of the closet as well. To end his work, he eases back into an anecdote that leads to the reiteration of his argument. However, in his conclusion, Wallace broadens the importance of the theoretical framework of the trope of the closet from sexual rhetorics to overall rhetoric, and how it can bring anything into light that has been marginalized or invisible into discourse in order to create more of an inclusive society.

Unpacking the Trope of the Closet

One of Wallace’s major points within the argument is the principles that explain the trope of the closet itself. They aid the relevance of it by unveiling parameters that have impacts on sexual and nonsexual rhetorics.

Principle #1: Closets Have Effects on All

Wallace uses Sedgwick to explain that the closet has effects even on those who aren’t closeted.

For example, by closeting the identities of homosexuals, any behaviors associated with them are also closeted and discouraged from the discourse. It creates a sort of gender policing, where for example “men who are discouraged from expressing emotion and having physical intimacy with their own gender and women who are schooled to be ladylike, not to be too aggressive, and to follow rather than lead” (98). What is associated with an unwanted thing that is kept invisible (homosexuality) is thus avoided by others (straight people). Almost everyone is affected in some way - especially negatively - in the way closets are maintained and created.

Principle #2: Not All Axes of Marginalization Are Closets

Here, using Sedgwick’s work, defines what constitutes as a closet. Readily visible aspects such as race, gender, age, size do not create a closet since they can be seen explicitly and cannot exactly hidden; thus, they cannot match the problems of the negative epistemology of the closet, but do have their own negatives in a different context. Thus Wallace concludes that “A key feature of the trope of the closet, then, is that something must be made visible or moved from the category of the unthinkable or unsayable into discourse” (98). However, a counterpoint I must point out is gender is different now; gender has become something that has to be made visible as well, as different gender identities have emerged since this has been written that cannot be judged based on physical appearance.

Principle #3: Closeting May Have a Variety of Rhetorical Effects

Wallace opens up this principle by saying that most effects of closet should be seen negatively since they “contribute to societal norms that strip those closeted of a critical aspect of identity and, in some cases, of basic civil rights” (99). He then concludes that “the main effect of coming out of the closet is to claim some aspect of identity and to challenge the underlying problematic epistemology—to make the marginalized visible and relevant in discourse” (99). However, he admits that closeting can serve other functions, such as protection in given situations where they omit their identity in interactions. He reemphasizes that this does not compensate for negative impacts of closeting overall, but is still central to trope.

Principle #4: Coming Out of the Closet Is Not a Once for All Act

You don’t come out of a closet once; they are “porous” and “recurring across contexts” according to Wallace. He supports his idea by showing that Sedgwick’s framework also emphasizes this, as she views that “coming out is never absolute, never final or complete” (99). He then goes on to explain Sedgwick’s idea that sexual identity is not only a significant identifying feature, but also an important feature of social life; the closet is always a shaping presence in the life of gay people in who they choose to come out to and who not. However, many criticize Sedgwick’s argument for being too binary on the hetero/homo divide and emphasize that it needs to focus more on the intersection of other identity features. So, some may propose that identity has multiple features and is constructed by discursive acts, thus wanting to get rid of the trope of the closet because it is connected to the binary of homosexual people coming out from the heterosexual norm. Then Wallace jumps to queer theory to support the trope of the closet; queer theory looks do deconstruct and expose the operations of heteronormativity, and destroy in a sense the hetero/homo divide. So, the trope of the closet allows for a practice in which theorists can challenge and deconstruct heteronormativity, and thus should not be brushed aside.

Principle #5: Not All Closets Are the Same

The trope of the closet can be used limitedly for other issues that fit within the definition of it.

However, Wallace says we then have to consider two things:

“(1) recognizing the fluidity and malleability of closets and

(2) not trivializing closeting that is both more systemic and that usually involves negotiating potentially detrimental identity issues on a regular, often daily, basis” (100).

He uses Anne Ruggles Gere’s example which she says coming out as a practicing member of Christian faith can be more difficult than coming out as lesbian in some academic contexts. While this can be a valid point, Wallace says that we have to consider the underlying epistemologies of each topic; practicing Christian faith is not something people generally have to come out as, and there are laws that protect freedom of religion. The LGBT closet doesn't have such open and supprotive epistemology. You have to consider underlying epistemology and the severity of what you’re coming out as in order for it to stay relevant to the trope of the closet.

Principle #6: Strategies for Negotiating Closets May Not Result in Clarity for All Involved

Here Wallace relates the trope of the closet to Henry Louis Gates’s description of the African American signifyin(g) tropes: “ ‘luxuriate in the chaos of ambiguity that repetition and difference (be that apparent difference centered in the signifier or in the signified, in the ‘sound-image’ or in the concept) yield in either an aural or a visual pun’ ” (101). As mentioned before, it is basically a form of speech which plays with the meanings of words, and is something taught to African American children, like teaching another language, that they can share with their people. He compares it to the trope of the closet by saying something is unspoken in each case; this “language” in unspoken directly while what is closeted is unspoken as well. He also explains how something may be unknown in at least one party; one person may not understand this use of language, while one person in a closet situation might not know. However, the difference is that in the trope of the closet, no one has to know of the closet at first, and in fact, the person in the closet can be the last person to know.

These principals further the relevance of the trope of the closet that Wallace is trying to express by showing its impacts are varied and spread out. The theory of this trope brings out ignored identities for both the LGBT community and straight people. Also, by putting the trope of the closet within certain parameters, it gives more meaning to the purpose of sexual identity within the closet, thus emphasizing its importance in sexual rhetorics. In a sense, by using some of Sedgwick’s epistemology of the trope, Wallace extends the meaning of the trope into a more complex relationship with everyone and everything involved, thus showing that the trope is something that cannot be forgotten, but a tool that can be used to further sexual rhetorics and understanding of the identities within the LGBT community. He highlights the negatives of the epistemology to further show the reason why we must delve into the trope so we can explore and eradicate these negative impacts.

The Closet as a Queer Master Trope

Wallace uses a scene from the TV show Glee to start off section, where a male character comes out to a father, but the father tells him he has always known that he was gay. This is an introduction to the description of the trope of the transparent or invisible closet, where people are simply waiting for one to come out of it. Wallace then goes into his own anecdote to support this kind of closet; Wallace came out to 3 siblings where two responded much like the Kurt’s dad and one did not, who couldn’t stand the idea, but came to the settlement to just not talk about it with him. However, he made the choice to not come out to his dad - which was criticized by all siblings - and who found out eventually by other means. He explains that he uses this anecdote because “I feel compelled to account for my own identity as I take positions about the trope of the closet because my lived experiences matter both in what motivates me to take these stances and in what I see as the relevant issues” (102). He then goes into how his closet was constructed by the rigid society around him by “the culture of evangelical Christianity and in a rural western Pennsylvania community in which LGBT people were visible only as aberrations or dismissible freaks”, which included his father (102). However, the spouses of his siblings were more quick to see that he was gay and without judgement, thus showing how epistemology of the closet affected all of his family, “delaying” the understanding of himself by keeping an explicit part of his identity. Despite his success, “the closet continues to be a presence for me—something that I must negotiate on a daily basis. In a very real sense, the trope of the closet remains the master trope of my life, even though it no longer causes me to deny a central part of who I am and even though I am practiced at dealing with most of its effects” (102). The effect of the trope of the closet on one person, especially the writer of this theory, demonstrates the importance of it since many others can most likely relate to his experiences. He then comes back to the purpose of the argument:

“Thus, one reason we need a clearer articulation of the trope of the closet and its many complexities is that this set of rhetorical practices has real transformational power in the lives of LBGT and other people who have had a critical part of their identities packed away in closets” (103).

The closet can help people understand their identity, especially sexual one, in people who are caught in frustration of why the closet has a continuous impact on their lives. By using an anecdote, Wallace also draws on ethos to pull the reader into his argument; we want to sympathize with the writer and say that yes, this point is valid because it has and continues to emotionally impact you. Overall, the anecdote shows just one complexity of the trope of the closet and makes the reader realize that there could be a lot more that needs to be explained through this framework of the trope.

Wallace then moves into other tropes that support this claim that continue to the “operation” of the closet, and thus give a further explanation of it and its meaning.

He first goes into Qian’s exploration of the trope of abnormality in gay public cruising.

I will not go into too many details, but for your sake, I would read this abstract of Qian’s work.

Qian composed a study of gay public cruising in the People's Park in in Guangzhou, China. Qian explains that

“Here, abnormality can be roughly understood as a generic signifier to describe the perceived deviation of cruising from normative sexual identities, social orders and ways of life. It is a powerful discursive marker which not only expresses the stigmatisation of homosexuality, but, more importantly, reifies an entrenched hetero-/homosexual binary. It is this rhetoric of abnormality which invokes the construction of heterosexual “normality”, which is in turn constitutive of gay cruisers’ identity and subjectivity.”

The trope of abnormality thus refers to how the gay men’s activity of walking in the park here have been viewed as abnormal in comparison to the activity of the “normal” sexual identities; in fact, they walked in a separate section within the park. Wallace also explains that it’s important to keep in mind the historical and cultural context that homosexuality remained largely closeted on a national level in China.

Qian interviewed 35 people who went to gay section of the park, and argues that identifying with this section of the park had positives and negative consequences. Some had a sense of community and friendships, while for others cruising here was an empowering subversive activity. However, Qian also emphasizes that engaging in this activity entailed performing a trope of abnormality: “ ‘gay cruisers still need to negotiate the association of homosexuality with shame and deviancy, undergirded by a powerful hetero-/ homosexual binary’ ” (157). The shame they have to negotiate with is not only from the culture, but the physical section of the park as well; their section is plagued with robbery and prostitution. They have to negotiate with the epistemology of the abnormality within their social context, and the trope of the closet overall, as the abnormality stems from it; even the positive effects mentioned above are somewhat ruined by the negative epistemology of the trope of abnormality as by doing this action they are reminded of the shame and deviance from normal society.

From this, Wallace realizes that although negative constructs of the LGBT identities aren’t always reiterated through other aspects or contributors of identity, “for other LGBT people the very acts that allow them access to sexual fulfillment and a positive associations with other queer people cannot be separated from those negative constructions,” such as simply cruising the park with other gay people (104).

Qian’s example of the trope of abnormality shows the complexity of the trope of the closet and how much stems from the epistemology of it. The epistemology of the trope has even gone as far as to effect the physical environment of those closeted in this instance. This highlights the fact that this trope needs to be explored more to deconstruct these negative effects and help the LGBT community further understand their identities and feelings within the closet.

From Qian, Wallace talks about Gail Mason’s discussion of the trope of visibility.

Here, Wallace says that

“Mason’s discussion of the trope of visibility further illustrates how closeting continues to be necessary because of problematic epistemologies but may mean many different things in the lives of those who must negotiate closets” (105).

In this instance, Wallace is speaking how closeting has become a necessary thing in the LGBT community as well because of negative epistemologies of the community; however, this act may be different to people based on how they negotiate, or interact and use, their closets. Mason talks about managing visibility, or choosing to make ones homosexuality visible throughout numerous social acts. She interviewed 75 gay, lesbian, and queer women on their experiences of managing their sexual identity in response to numerous types of potential violence that visibility entails. These women developed management strategies, engaging in “policing their own behavior” to protect themselves. Such choices are not all the same for people negotiating with their closets as gender and ethnicity also play a critical role in how much visibility they will engage in. Certain acts such as linking arms have different effects based on these things. Even socioeconomic status effects this as people with more money have more choice and mobility in life which further impacts their ability to be choosing to be visible. This reiterates the idea that closet works in daily lives of LGBT people, however, not in an “in and out” way; Mason argues that it can be a form of control or resistance to others, it depends on the situation.

Wallace supports this idea with another anecdote. During an LGBT ally training session with his colleagues, he explicitly told them of his sexual identity even though he wasn’t closeted to them. This directly open discussion with them about how his homosexuality played out in his role as a dean of a school. He described, basically, his management of visibility, saying that he specifically withheld his sexual identity from some people, like Christian donors, but not others; he almost felt like it was a privilege for other people to know. This shows that managing visibility doesn’t always return into an unwelcome closet, he argues.

Mason’s argument of the trope of visibility further emphasizes the importance of the trope of the closet and its effects of its epistemology. By tying it to the negative effects, this trope within a trope yet again shares the complexity of the closet and how it must be studied and articulated to help sexual rhetoric. It can bring into light these ignored aspects of the trope within the invisibility of the trope itself. His anecdote furthers this idea by showing that the trope of visibility is relevant in his life as he has experienced it before in managing his own visibility, thus making it a more tangible theory that can be associated with the closet.

I think Wallace’s work is very relevant within the queer and sexual theory discourses. The closet is something I have always thought about as bisexual, and I didn’t even realize I negotiated with it on a daily basis as well. I chose not to tell my parents and siblings that I am bisexual, but if they asked me, I would say yes; yet, with my friends and people here at Chapman, I am comfortable with telling almost anyone. Although I come from a loving home who wouldn’t care, some of the stigmas that come from the epistemology of being bisexual girl (oh, she’s just experimenting, choose who you like, you can’t have only dates boys and say you’re bisexual, etc.) I feel like are more prevalent at home.

Even in terms of abnormality, I went to a party where two girls were making out. To me, it was completely normal and I didn’t think twice about it. However, for some reason those around me were giving them weird looks or even laughing at them. The act of making out between heterosexual couples in a college party is quite normal, yet because of whatever negative epistemology being lesbian or bisexual had here, made the act abnormal for them.

To go back to the beginning, I also always thought to myself that coming out was never done. Having this idea articulated for me made me realize how important this idea was; I am constantly going to negotiate with my closet’s epistemology to decide when and where I am going to come out and I didn’t even realize it, it was completely subconscious.

I think another important area Wallace touched on is that the trope of the closet affects everyone. The idea that the epistemology of the closet discourages certain behaviors within genders is one that we have witnessed in school a lot, where guys say “Ew, that’s gay” or some crap like that. The underlying negatives scare the subconscious of these boys I have witnessed into thinking behaviors associated with gay men are bad, because well, being gay is bad or shameful to them. Although this is becoming less prevalent in my social world, I know it still dominates other social regions across the globe.

Although I have learned much from Wallace’s work, there are things I had problems with as well. For one, the mention of signifyin(g) in principle #6. I did not think that was needed at all; I completely understood the point that he was trying to make about the unspokenness of the closet, and he could’ve easily explained how no one needs to be in the “know” of the closet at first without the comparison. I thought it confused and therefore took away from the argument. It added nothing towards the framework that wasn’t already there.

Another problem I had was the random introduction of the trope of the transparent closet. It kind of came out of nowhere, and, although I understood its purpose of showing the complexity of the trope of the closet, but I believe it was placed awkwardly before Qian’s trope of abnormality. He kind of gave us this trope then never went back to it again. Since he said he was going to talk about the tropes of abnormality and visibility, he just should have said transparent too, since it took up nearly two pages.

Lastly, I personally think his argument lacked the cohesiveness it needed to be able to articulate this theory of the trope of the closet. While Sedgwick’s epistemology of the closet laid solid groundwork for Wallace, he didn’t use the other trope of abnormality to his advantage as much as he could have. The lack of explanation and context of it - although I understand this was written for the audience of those who probably regularly read sexual rhetoric and queer theory - lead to some confusion for me. He could have at least defined the trope since it is so complex to start out with. In addition, other points seemed to jump around within his argument, and at the very end, he broadened his theory out of sexual rhetoric - which seemed to undermine the purpose of the argument in my opinion.

Works Cited:

Wallace, David L. “The Trope of the Closet.” Sexual Rhetorics: Methods, Identities, Publics, edited by Jonathan Alexander and Jacqueline Rhodes, Routledge, 2016, pp. 95–107.