Vol. 6 Special Issue 1 Graduate Journal of Social Science Index To
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Graduate Journal of Social Science Index to Volume 6, Special Issue 1 Editorial Robert Kulpa and Mia Liinason Queer Studies: Methodological Approaches. Follow-up pp. 1-2 Article Jonathan Kemp ’A Queer Age: Or, Discourse Has a History’ pp. 3-23 Article Terri Power ’For Queer Eyes Only?: Creating Queer Performance Art at University’ pp. 24-41 Article Bo Jensen Rude tools and material difference. Queer theory, ANT and materiality: an under-explored intersection? pp. 42-71 Article Eva-Mikaela Kinnari Between the Ordinary and the Deeply Religious – Re/Negotiating the Religious and the Secular in the Finnish Parliamentary Debate on Assisted Reproduction. pp. 72-94 © Graduate Journal of Social Science - 2009 - Vol. 6 Special Issue 1 Article Péter Balogh ’Queer Eye for the Private Eye: Homonationalism and the Regulation of Queer Difference in Anthony Bidulka’s Russell Quant Mystery Serie.’ pp. 95-114 Article Ellen Zitani Sibilla Aleramo, Lina Poletti and Giovanni Cena: Understanding Connections between Lesbian Desire, Feminism and Free Love in Early-Twentieth-Century Italy. pp. 115-140 Book Reviews 1. Munt, Sally R. (2008) Queer Attachments, The Cultural Politics of Shame. Review by Richard Maguire (pp. 141-144) 2. Jules Falquet (2006) De la cama a la calle: perspectivas teóricas lésbico-feministas [From the Bed to the Street: Lesbian-Feminist Theoretical Perspectives] . Review by Camila Esguerra Muelle. (pp. 145-148) 3. Lee Edelman (2004) No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive . Review by Robert Teixeira. (pp. 149-161) © Graduate Journal of Social Science - 2009 - Vol. 6 Special Issue 1 1 Robert Kulpa and Mia Liinason Special issue editors Queer Studies: Methodological Approaches. Follow-up In December 2008, the Graduate Journal of Social Science published a special issue on Queer Methodologies. During the production of that issue, we received a number of qualified and thought-provoking articles, focusing on the issue of queer methodologies from different angles. Indeed, the number and quality of submitted articles was so significant that we have decided to publish an additional, extracurricular, issue. This follow-up issue is a continuation of ideas we proposed in the first call for papers. It is thou an interesting “supplement” to the previous issue, enriching the already broad scope of interests presented. In this issue, the inquiries of the translation of queer are further problematised. While the December issue focused on the relationship between queer and geo- political contexts and academic cultures, the articles in current issue are focusing on the past, present and future of queer, further questioning the notion of “location’ and trans-historically located practises. We begin with the article of Jonathan Kemp “Queer Past, Queer Present, Queer Future”, which (although not directly) dialogues with Tiina Rosenberg’s article about genealogies of queer theory. Kemp however, recalls the past in order to jump into the future. By looking at recently published books in the field, he invites us to wonder what will be the future of queer (even if some queer theoreticians do not believe in any….). “Agency” is surely one of the problematic issues within queer theoretical and activist thinking/doing, and we are happy to present two articles that offer seemingly different, yet we would argue, complimenting perspectives. Terri Power writing about performance art and university education is a piece based on her own experiences of doing/practicing/performing PhD. Not only do we have here a queer blur of “disciplines” (education, art) but also modalities of doing (doing PhD, doing performances as part of PhD, doing an article about doing performances which are indeed doing PhD….). © Graduate Journal of Social Science - 2009 - Vol. 6 Special Issue 1 2 On the other hand, Bo Jensen argues for a materialist focus in queer studies through an analysis of “agency” as constructed at the crossroads of human beings and material culture. Seen as performed via materialisation through artefacts, as much as through a human being/doing, Jensen suggests a shift in ways of “ascribing and describing agency”. A critique of ideas of coherent identities is also in focus in the subsequent article of this issue. With the aim to destabilize an understanding of Finland as a secular and egalitarian country, Eva-Mikaela Kinnari in her article, analyzes the debate around the “Act on Assisted Fertility Treatments in Finland”. Here, Kinnari questions the division of ’values’ into categories such as ’religious’ or ’secular’, and argues that such a differentiation might obscure queer work to destabilise heteronormative ideas of kinship. Péter Balogh’s article about Anthony Bidulka’s gay detective stories not only focuses on literature, the relationship between gay and straight readership, but also works on Canadian nationalism. In his article, we can thus trace the issues of “homonationalism”, which gain a lot of attention recently. Finally, this April issue closes with the article of Ellen Zitani, who forges an understanding within the connections between female (same-sex) desire, feminism and free love in the early 20th century Italy. By looking at private correspondence and literary writing of Sibilla Aleramo, Zitani meanders with us through the maze of never easily categorised spheres of human emotions and needs. By looking at Aleramo’s relationship with man and women, Zitani shows how we should never stagnate in one “definite” category, especially, when what is at stake, is desire… The review section to this issue is constituted by two reviews and one review essay, engaged with methodological implications of queer politics. In this section, Richard Maguire writes a book review of Sally R. Munt’s “Queer Attachments, The Cultural Politics of Shame”, and Camila Esguerra Muelle writes a review of the book “De la cama a la calle: perspectivas teóricas lésbico-feministas” [From the Bed to the Street: Lesbian-Feminist Theoretical Perspectives]. The last contribution to this issue is a review essay by Robert Teixeira on queer shame, which also connects to discussions on the ’anti-social’ and ’no future’ in queer studies at large and more particularly investigated in Judith Halberstam’s contribution to the December 2008 issue of the Graduate Journal of Social Science. © Graduate Journal of Social Science - 2009 - Vol. 6 Special Issue 1 3 Jonathan Kemp Birkbeck College, London [email protected] Queer Past, Queer Present, Queer Future “Sometimes the very term that would annihilate us becomes the site of resistance, the possibility of an enabling social and political signification” – Judith Butler "Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue" – Oscar Wilde The term queer was first used in the sense we understand it today in 1991, by the North American academic Teresa de Lauretis, when she guest edited the feminist journal differences and titled it “Queer Theory: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities”. It had yet to take on the full cadence and colour of later theorizations, but this was its birthplace. In fact, de Lauretis would later abandon the term, claiming it had been mainstreamed by the very institutions it was meant to attack. As queer was emerging in the early 1990s, as a term pitched determinedly against the old guard of Lesbian & Gay, Judith Butler acknowledged that the assertion of ‘queer’ will be necessary as a term of affiliation, but it will not fully describe those it purports to represent. As a result, it will be necessary to affirm the contingency of the term: to let it be vanquished by those who are excluded by the term but who justifiably expect representation by it, to let it take on meanings that cannot now be anticipated by a younger generation whose political vocabulary may well carry a very different set of investments (Butler 1993, 230) So how has queer aged? How has it changed, or not? Does it still work? Who does it exclude? How is it currently understood, and how does that differ from the conditions of its emergence? In this essay I will offer a potted history of queer, providing the social, political and theoretical context in which queer theory emerged, and tracing its development up to the present, ending © Graduate Journal of Social Science - 2009 - Vol. 6 Special Issue 1 4 with an overview of where queer theory is today. One of the aims of the essay is to suggest that, in a very real sense, there is nothing new about queer; that, in fact, as long as there has been a ‘homosexual’ identity there have been contestations over what exactly, that means, and what might be the relationship between that identity and the discursive regime within which it claims its intelligibility. This essay traces a kind of genealogy of queer energy, a trajectory of critical force that has always, in profound ways, been engaged with a broader social critique. The Ultimate Question At the end of his 1994 book The Wilde Century, Alan Sinfield claims: The ultimate question is this: is homosexuality intolerable? One answer is that actually lesbians and gay men are pretty much like other people, in which case it just needs a few more of us to come out, so that the nervous among our compatriots can see we aren’t really so dreadful, and then everyone will live and let live; sexuality will become unimportant. The other answer is that homosexuality in fact constitutes a profound challenge to the prevailing values and structures in our kinds of society – in which case the bigots have a point of view and are not acting unreasonably. We cannot expect to settle this question, but the hypothesis we adopt will affect decisively our strategic options (Sinfield 1994, 177) In other words, is homosexuality to be understood as nothing more than a variant sexuality, affecting only those individuals or groups who label themselves as gay or lesbian, or is homosexuality to be understood as a phenomenon with effects across the entire range of human sexualities – and, beyond that, across the entire range of human culture? Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, in her 1993 book Epistemology of the Closet, calls these two views the minoritizing view, and the universalizing view.