Sexuality is a condition of the human existence. Gender and sexuality is performative as it is de- fined by the performances associated with masculinity and femininity (Butler, 1990). It is also fluid as we move from performances. These performances are the way we construct ourselves in the world. The way we express, talk, dress, the objects that we accumulate, and other performances define us in different ways: racially, ethnically, economically and even sexually (Betsky, 1996).
In modern history, heterosexuality has been the norm, architecture has been designed around this illusion/constriction. The images of the male, the hunter that leaves the cave in order to bring provisions for the family and the female, the one that stays inside taking care of the offspring had been replaced for the representation of the man working in a high rise building and women enjoying her new appliances in the kitchen during the first half of 20th century. This relation/opposition between the outside and the inside (public-private) the male and female as if only those sides/ umbral/images are the end and beginning of gender and sexual expressions, also need aesthetic and programmatic artefacts in order to enhance the difference: a style, a space, objects, etc. (Betsky, 1996). It is important to look at these representations because these make us recognize, feel included or question our belonging. These were not only portraits of reality but were aspirational representations of the roles people should play.
Behind this reigning image of heterosexuality, there has been lying, waiting, repressed another way, a different, an alternative, one that nowadays could seem to be more accepted. One that has not conformed to the restrictions of heteronormativity. “Present inside the house and outside in the city” (Betsky, 1996), a Queer way. This way has waited to be out, unrepressed and open. It is only now that maybe queer people are more open than ever, this is a response of the time, a moment in the progression of society. To come out has being a conscious decision a political action as a need of representativity.
Queer people, we are individuals with something in common. Can this common aspect of ourselves be related to architecture? And can this aspect create a sense of community? Being queer is not a condition of a place, it is a condition of human existence. It is intersectional. How can sexuality, as a reflection, as a subversive act, as a political attitude and as a human condition and need, makes us create the sense of place and belonging? This research analyses three spheres: the affective, the politic and the XXXXX in relation to the sense of belonging and constructing a common space.
References
Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge
Betsky, A. (1997). Queer space : Architecture and same-sex desire. New York (N.Y.): Morrow.
