Douglas Crimp, Judith Butler Sedgwick, Audrey Lord discussed on Slate's Working

Slate's Working


Which is that attended teach it in sort of according to three critical genealogies, and the first one is women of color feminism from the nineteen eighties and nineties, where people like Lori on unto Moraga, Audrey Lord were I theorizing, what it meant to be a sexual dissident, you know, somebody who did not align themselves with either kind of normative heterosexuality, or normative whiteness, and who understood that how those two things inflicted one another. And so when I begin with my students with that genealogy they're often very surprised because they think criteria began with Judith Butler Sedgwick. And then my second strand that I, we've in is age theory, people like Douglas crimp, who were doing act up the aids coalition to unleash power. They were doing that kind of activism, trying to get drugs into bodies trying to fight the government's sort of neglect of the aids epidemic. And I have my students read those theoretical materials, but also that activist materials that came about during that, that part of the aids epidemic. And then the third is kind of high critical theory knows Derrida is understanding deconstruction and seeing how that kind of modulated and how important it was to quite soon. Activists, an N people like Fulco with another sort of European theorist. So when I teach it that way, you know, part of what I'm trying to get my students to understand, is that there was only one queer theory, and it's critical genealogies are sort of both, both high and low, you know, both that they involve art, an activist them and high European theory. And so in that way, I, you know, I feel like I wanna teach it in such a way that I'm not I'm not limiting their at the kinds of questions that they can ask for the kinds of materials that they can use. So it does feel very wide ranging, even as of course, they're always people who will who will dismiss almost any field of intellectual inquiry. It's easier than. Older standard. Yeah. Seems like part of what's complicated here is that queer itself is a complicated term. We're doing this series of the show around or calling LGBTQ jobs, and that Q there. Which we typically understand, to mean queer some people use questioning there or something like this. But, but if we understand that to mean queer it, it becomes just this sort of baggy catchall itself for any form of sexual dissidents or difference, or specificity. That's not caught up in those other more recognizable terms, however, complicated. They may be on closer inquiry when you think about doing a kind of work that we call queer theory do feel obliged to define queer itself, this term I do in that. I, I, I hear what you're saying about it, it can sort of mean anything dissident or anything constructive, and sort of stopped, meaning anything at all. And so, for instance, in my second book time, binds, you know, I, I hear pretty closely to an idea that queer ought to have something to do with sex, you know that we can expand our definition of sex. We can find things are kind of. Recognizable as sex in queer theory. But that there's there's has to be some has have something to do with, with bodies and their contact the imagination about what we can do with bodies. I think there's another version of queer that, that, you know, it means a kind of relentless questioning of hetero. Normativity the idea that Hutter sexuality is natural and inevitable that may not always mean sucks. And I'm kind of, you know, I, I'd like to hold that intellectual space open as well. But I think that's always been the trick is to have a definition of career. That's Kapatid's enough to do unpredictable kinds of work, but not so capitus that it can mean everything. So in not book, if we can talk about practicalities for a minute booking time, binds that you alluded to your second book, you're talking in part about notions of time notions of chronology to, to some extent your argument. There is a critique of what you call krono normativity. I think that's the term you're using this, this notion that the ways that we can construct the schedules, according to which we're supposed to live our lives from birth through maturation to marriage..

Coming up next