COMMAND PERFORMANCE: Once I’ve actually finished Second Skins I’ll do a chapter-by-chapter. Like many academic works (e.g. Etienne Gilson’s deeply-felt Heloise and Abelard) this book opens with its toughest and most jargon-riddled chapter. I hesitate even to comment on the Judith Butler critique since I am a) unschooled and b) desperately anti-sympathetic to Butler’s project. I basically felt like Prosser was defending… you know… common sense–which isn’t really accurate, and certainly isn’t an especially useful interpretive lens, even though I agree with and appreciate Prosser’s writing.

But I was struck by how Prosser’s work sidled up to what I know or believe without ever engaging directly! I genuinely think Second Skins would be better if John Paul II’s “theology of the body” were engaged: He offers a theology of sexual difference, rather than solely a cultural history of sexual difference, and he does so while clearly separating sexual identity from gender expression. JPII lets Augustine cry. And so he challenges us to view sex as a real symbol, an enfleshed reality whose expression is deeply culturally-contingent. He takes the body seriously, and still proclaims iconic womanhood. In these two respects he is basically the opposite of (Prosser’s representation of) Butler, and I wish Prosser had gone mano-a-mano with him.

Moreover, I think the excision of conservatism from academic thought–or the conservative recoil from academia, I’m thinking it’s both–badly limited the metaphors available for Prosser. His basic project in the early chapters (it sort of changes later on, so hold on for my chapter-by-chapter review) is to reclaim the body against the Gnostic, moralizing, dissolvingly analytic tendency of queer theory. That’s totally right-on and well taken! But Prosser kind of can’t analyze gender in itself, because he lacks metaphors which allow for cultural constructions to be better or worse.

Wow, that was an obscure and abstracted paragraph! But the conclusion is really simple: Gender is like a lot of things. If Prosser were able to say that gender is like manners, or gender is like art, or gender is like tradition… he’d be able to, I think, maintain and even strengthen his anthropology while accepting that some gender is better than others. Manners are culturally-contingent, yet not optional! They imply a moral stance. Art is notoriously difficult to delimit, yet I can actually name some forms of self-expression as beautiful and others as ugly, or distinguish between sublime and banal. Tradition is precisely the kind of repetition Prosser loves (and I love it too!), repetition as redescription… repetition in a new context as a simultaneous acknowledgment of, response to, and reshaping of that context. This is pretty much the second-most awesome thing about tradition. An aesthetic conservative vocabulary would, therefore, seriously help Prosser both explain his gender theory and give examples. …I think.

And on a related note (I almost typed, “an elated note”!), I think Prosser is mounting an oblique and perhaps-unintentional challenge to the basic queer-theory stance where every constraint is abhorrent. Prosser actually echoes Maggie Gallagher’s Enemies of Eros in his hints that the flesh truly does constrain us. Maggie goes on to say that we fear the fleshly constraints of sex because we fear the ultimate fleshly constraint of death. Whether or not she’s right about that, she’s at least able to articulate an anthropology–and, crucially, an understanding of womanhood–in which the flesh constrains our choices and that’s good.

Every now and then I toy with the phrase, “I am a conservative because….” My favorite Mad Libs endings right now are, “…I believe suffering is a complex good, not a necessary evil,” and “…submission is the best form of leadership.”