1. Sadly,vested academic interests in one OR the other(yet a further binary!). I have noticed, generally, academics are very territorial of their patch of interest/research.
2. Often understandable human fears and insecurities in expanding beyond one’s safe sphere of refererence and identity; eg. in regard to sexual orientation identity. There are obvious politico-historical reasons for this(the need to still fight for FULL lgbt equality in law; never mind in social attitudes, which drag behind the law). However,in countries where we are lucky enough to have (near) equality,( legally anyway), I fail to see why we cannot look at lgbt(equality/reparative, in its TRUE sense of healing/reclaiming our obscured pre-decriminalization history)AND queer studies simultaneously; so we KEEP the hetero/homo binary(with bisexuality in a uncomfortable middle ground)for political and equality and anti-discriminatory purposes; but also pursue the “performativity”(ie role and game playing) of Queer Theory. Of course, this links to
3. the claim that Queer Theory is deliberately obscurantist and needlessly complex in its terminology. Richard Norton is particuarly vitriolic about this(on this sitehttp://rictornorton.co.uk/theoroea.htm andhttp://rictornorton.co.uk/identity.htm)
I think he has a very valid point on the continued need for fighting for lgbt rights, everywhere,but especially in countries where the death penalty or other restrictions on human rights for lgbt people exist. So, I admit I am speaking from a relatively privileged position(the UK).But as to the obscurantism/jargon charge,yes I struggle with Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick; but it gets easier and, contrary to what Norton claims, most of the words ARE in the dictionary; and , yes, I did need to keep a file to refer to individual words’ meanings to help explicate the dense text. But you read MOST philosophical texts(philosophical in its sense of searching after wisdom) and you will enounter a jargon/”jargon”, or, less perjoratively, a language(partly) of its own, which, also, BUILDS on and progresses from previous philosophies/theories;ANY philosophical writing is dense; you have to do your homework: eg Queer Theory is largely predicated on many ideas of deconstructionism,as I have already written about(and will do again), and that in turn requires knowlege of poststructuralism( of which it is part), which, in turn, dialectically challenged Structuralism; or hegelian dialecticalism was, to a degree, the precursor for marxian dialectical materialism; you cannot understand one without the other. But
4. I think also if you are propounding new concepts-citationality/differance/ the Derridean “trace”/nuance-you largely need new words; ok you could say for “citationality” “reference to entities (usually in aesthetics) that have gone before and are included or referenced in the new(eclectic) text.” Does that work?!
So, to return to Derrida, less division/binarisation; and where we have the luxury/scope for pursuance of BOTH types of study/theoretical exploration, let us do both and not be so frightened of others’ “poaching” our ideas(or syntheses of others’ ideas!); ie a dialogical model not a competitive one.