Feminist and Queer Interventions in Literary and Visual Culture
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53032/tvcr/2026.v8n2.31Keywords:
Heteronormativity, Queer Theory, Oppositional Gaze, Feminist Aesthetics, Visual Culture, Gender PerformativityAbstract
Moving beyond simple visibility, this study explores how “disruptive aesthetics” in 21st-century literary and visual culture function as active political interventions rather than mere representation. The analysis first addresses literary interventions, specifically the subversion of the traditional “marriage plot” and the reclamation of domestic spaces. By utilizing non-linear temporalities what Jack Halberstam defines as “queer time” these texts reject heteropatriarchal milestones of birth, marriage, and reproduction. Instead, they offer narratologies that mirror the fluid, often fragmented lived experiences of queer subjects, forcing a re-evaluation of how stories are told and for whom. In the realm of visual culture, the study examines how the “oppositional gaze” is used to deconstruct the male-centric lens of historical art and digital media. Through the lens of “glitch feminism,” the paper argues that the intentional disruption of the image serves as a refusal to be “legible” or “consumable” within capitalist frameworks. The body is reimagined as a site of performance and resistance, rather than a fixed biological essence. Ultimately, these feminist and queer interventions do more than represent marginalized identities; they offer a fundamental critique of the “naturalization” of desire and power. By fostering a queer phenomenology, these works create a transformative space where gender and sexuality are perpetually negotiated. This paper concludes by suggesting that as digital and physical realities merge, the tools of disruption will increasingly rely on hybridity and the radical erasure of binary distinctions.
References
• Ahmed, S. (2006). Queer phenomenology: Orientations, objects, others. Duke University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822388074
• Akhtar, Z., Banerjee, D., Johar, K., & Kashyap, A. (Directors). (2013). Bombay Talkies [Film]. Viacom18 Motion Pictures.
• Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
• Dasgupta, K. (2017). Digital queer cultures in India: Politics, intimacies and belonging. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315207032
• Dattani, M. (1998). Seven steps around the fire. Penguin Books.
• Ganti, T. (2012). Bollywood: A guidebook to popular Hindi cinema. Routledge.
• Halberstam, J. (2005). In a queer time and place: Transgender bodies, subcultural lives. New York University Press.
• hooks, b. (1992). Black looks: Race and representation. South End Press.
• Kulkarni, H. (Director). (2022). Badhaai Do [Film]. Junglee Pictures.
• Mehta, H. (Director). (2015). Aligarh [Film]. Eros International.
• Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen, 16(3), 6–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/16.3.6
• Phadke, S., Khan, S., & Ranade, S. (2011). Why loiter? Women and risk on Mumbai streets. Penguin Books India.
• Roy, A. (2017). The ministry of utmost happiness. Hamish Hamilton.
• Russell, L. (2020). Glitch feminism: A manifesto. Verso.
• Selvadurai, S. (1994). Funny boy. McClelland & Stewart.
• Shohat, E., & Stam, R. (1994). Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the media. Routledge.
• Supreme Court of India. (2018). Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, 10 SCC 1.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The Voice of Creative Research

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.